Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Notability on Conference players

I've noticed that a fair amount of Conference players are having articles created for them recently. I'm not talking about players who've played in the league and dropped to Conference level, but those who've never played league football at all. I know a lot of Conference clubs are professional these days, but it's a professional league that's the qualifier. A few people used the professional club justification in a recent afd of two Conference players and I just wanted to check whether we're keeping the same standard before I embark on a mass deletion of the lot of them. HornetMike 02:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd endorse deletion, though my opinions in such matters have been ruffling a few feathers lately. Oldelpaso 15:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Same here. It has to be a fully professional league. Punkmorten 16:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure here. I treat the Conference National as a full-time professional league at heart, with a couple of semi-pro teams doing their best to compete. Sort of similar to the Jupiler League or the Norwegian Premier League! - fchd 17:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Richard Rundle, the Conference is mainly professional, why not let the articles on players at professional clubs stay? If we accept a policy of eliminating articles on players that play in a league that contains one or more semi-pro/Amateur teams we would probably have to delete a load of players playing in top flight leagues across world football. Even if there is a deletion amnesty for top flight players, I still think that someone who plays for a notable former league club like Oxford Utd or York City is worth a mention... I do believe that if articles on lower league players are not maintained and kept up to date, the case for deletion would become a lot more justifiable. Regards, King of the North East 19:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I whole-heartedly disagree with the notion that top-flight footballers in all countries should be kept. National leagues come in different shapes when it comes to quality and of course verifiability. Punkmorten 15:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, for a number of reasons. Apart from the fact that keeping them contravenes guidelines, players who've only played at Conference level are considerably different to those who've only payed in League 2, say. For one thing, the Conference gets virtually no press coverage whatsoever - these players are completely non-notable. Secondly, these payers are unlikely to ever rise up from the Conference - they players that play there are generally youth team drop-outs or seasoned grizzlers. Very few players who've only played in the Conference will ever make it into the League, unless their team gets promoted. Not the case with League 2 players. I just don't see how they can be considered notable, or make any decent size of article. HornetMike 19:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Are players for Unia Janikowo in the Poland II Liga notable? Punkmorten 15:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tough one! Not sure... HornetMike 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
As the second highest division in a country of 38 million, and a national one rather than regional, it merits further investigation. I bumbling my way around the Polish RSSSF at the moment looking for more info. That team look to be one of the smaller ones in the division, of which they are second bottom at the winter break. Oldelpaso 21:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like they get crowds of about 1,000, and this is their first season at the second level since it became a national division in 2002. I think we need to ask a few Poles to get an idea of notability. Oldelpaso 21:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Some of their players have played for clubs like Partizan and Slavia Sofia which I expect makes them notable since those are notable clubs within UEFA. I can't speak to the notability of the II Liga, but it seems a little unfair to treat players in England's 5th level of football as more notable than ones in Poland's 2nd level. (Is the typical Boston United player considered noteworthy outside of England?) Best regards. Jogurney 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Move FC Barcelona V Real Madrid

I think this article should be moved to either El Derby Español or El Clasico as those are the two names given to it in Spain. Thoughts? Normy132 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact it could probably be merged in major football rivalries. There appears to be more information on the rivalry there than in the article. Normy132 02:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Major football rivalries and Local derby ought to be merged or reconsolidated, to some degree. I'd keep FC Barcelona V Real Madrid as a separate article; El Clasico is the ideal title - it's shorter and doesn't give any quibbles about which club comes first. Qwghlm 09:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I've moved it back. It was originally at El Clasico, but User:Djln aparently moved it just a week ago without giving any reason for the move. – Elisson • T • C • 15:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Football League Championship results August 2006

The articles Football League Championship results August 2006 and Football League Championship results September 2006 were recently proposed for deletion. I have moved the discussion to AfD instead. Partly because I disagree with the prod, partly because I believe a wider discussion is necessary to establish some kind of consensus and precedent on this. I would like to ask the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football to join this discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football League Championship results August 2006. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 01:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think all these month-by-month league stats articles should be deleted from WP - they just clutter the place up (we're looking at potentially thousands of such pages) and don't count as encyclopaedic material. Plus it is incredibly easy to get most sports results from other outlets (news agencies, Soccerbase, RSSSF, etc.) and to add them to WP is just duplicating their effort and wasting our time making sure they are not vandalised or falsely altered. Perhaps the answer is a creation of a WikiStats or some such so that people who want to spend their time endlessly adding this kind of thing in can do so. Qwghlm 14:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that statistics are an enormous timesink, and have dubious encyclopedic value in most cases. Regarding a specialised wiki, there is a Wikia-hosted sports wiki called ArmchairGM. Perhaps they would be interested in transwikiing such articles. Oldelpaso 15:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this discussion needs to be kept alive and open to discourse. There is considerable arguing on various AfD pages for month by month results pages, basically just data. Some want WP:Football to have as much detail as possible, others want some limit on the amount of detail is documented here IAW WP:NOT#IINFO. As this effects this entire Wikiproject, healthy consensus on this page would help enormously. At least ... until it reaches the Village Pump level (hopefully it wouldn't). TIA. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
As the issue potentially affects other sports as well, it could be time to reopen Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Sports results. Oldelpaso 20:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
A confounding factor seems to be the divergence between different AFDs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football League Championship results August 2006 resulted in two deletes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League fixtures and results resulted in two keeps and one delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fußball-Bundesliga - September 2006 resulted in one delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL Results October 2006 resulted in three deletes, and I'm sure there are more AFD's out there. This to me indicates that some kind of guideline is needed, to prevent this divergence in future cases. Reopening the centralized discussion, as Oldelpaso suggests, therefore seems to be a good idea. We probably should contact all those who have commented in the related AFD's, to point them to the discussion.
Perhaps the solution lies in a new wikimedia project, as suggested by Qwghlm. I have contacted Jimbo about this: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 15#Possible new Wikimedia project. The proper venue for new proposals for wikimedia projects is m:Proposals for new projects. Aecis Find the fish 22:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

AFC competitions

I'm found that AFC Youth Championship is already changed the name to AFC U-19 Championship, also AFC U-17 Championship already changed the name to AFC U-16 Championship, this is from official site, should all the name move? --Aleenf1 07:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Football Transfers

The below is a wikiproject I mistakenly started in regards to football transfers. I'm going to nominate the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Football Transfers for deletion. I just thought that I would transfer the text from editors so as to save it from deletion.

Just like to add, I've created the deletion page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiProject Football Transfers but am not sure what the next move is as this is deleting a WikiProject. Sorry about the trouble.

It's become clear to me and quite a few other wikipedians lately that the way football transfers are being dealt with lately is becoming completely unacceptable.

Some sort of definitive date of transfer needs to agreed upon and used for all player and team article.

One case to point was the Michael Carrick article. Numerous unregister users kept changing his team designation from Spurs to Man Utd days before the transfer ever went through. The same is now happening with Marcos Senna article. Personally I believe that a transfer should be register with a changing of the wikipedia article with either of the following 2 points in times.

1. When a player finally signs a professional contract with his new club.

2. When the national league and UEFA finally register the transfer.

I believe that at any point, changing a players article is completely incorrect.

Its clear that "militant" fans of different clubs are basically trying to up the standing of their own clubs by altering wikipedia articles.

The main way of doing this is through linking ever single player who has been mentioned in the media to their own club. This is becoming very annoying. Just about every player now has a transfer speculation paragraph added to his article linking them for the most part to either Manchester United or Chelsea FC

Again, I believe that Wikipedia needs to have a solid policy on adding transfer speculation instead of the current haphazard situation where unregistered users are coming in and linking every player under the moon with their club.

Please feel free to discuss such in the talk page

Niall123 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, something needs to be done. While Michael Carrick was joining Manchester United, it was annoying when unregistered users stated he had joined, when for all we know the transfer could fall through. I think we need to state transfers have been completed when a website like http://premierleague.com or http://bbc.co.uk/sport announce them on their lists of completed transfers. --  MATTYTHEWHITE  yap  stalk  3/8/06

Matty, have to agree with you. Saying that the transfer of players on wikipedia can only be recognised when the official premier league website recognises the transfer would be the best solution, at least for transfers to English clubs anyways. Niall123 15:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
the official transfer list:
Spain
Italy
England
France
Germany
Wiki Policy: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable
I think the news from uefa, the club webpage were one of the best source, the official transfer list were good but not update very fast. bbc, skysports and goal.com were ok, they sometimes made mistakes. Matt86hk talk 16:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, have to agree with you guys. We really should only change pages when official source have stated transfers. We really don't want another Michael Carrick situation, that was terrbile. To stop the vandilism before it happens just locked to new and un-registered users, pages of players and clubs involved in big transfers, during the negotiation stage. Preventing any vandilism. Gran2 19:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Articles for deletion is for articles in the mainspace only. Project pages go to Miscellany for deletion; I have listed it there instead. Oldelpaso 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Niall123 21:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(I hope this is the right place to put this.)
It would be nice if at some point, someone could go through all the leagues linked to in this template and make sure all of them have an interwiki link to their French articles linked to here and vice versa. I've been doing this for a while now, but as I am doing it manually I am very slow, if anyone has a quicker way of doing it that would be very useful. - MTC 08:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Drugs, sex, alcohol and Bowyer!

I've just had to add plenty of references to Lee Bowyer, Jonathan Woodgate and Paul Merson, in accordance with WP:BLP. Given the UK tabloid press just loves printing stories about footballers, can people make sure to include a source if adding anything of this nature to an article please? One Night In Hackney 14:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Football manager article?

I was looking around and it seems that the only article about football management is Coach (sport). Is there really no article or am I just blind? JACOPLANE • 2007-01-1 16:50

There is Head coach. But i prefer someone write manager only a concept in England and different/simmarity from head coach. Matthew_hk tc 03:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Retired footballers

What do people feel about the idea of creating a set of subcategories to differentiate Active and Retired footballers?

For example Active players could be left in the Category:?????ian footballers, and the retired players could be moved into Category:Retired ?????ian footballers.

I would be prepared to do the work on the footballers from South American countries (around 2000 of them).

King of the North East 19:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother - the naming conventions say that 'Occupation categories should not be divided into "current" or "former" categories'. Qwghlm 20:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments requested on Template talk:International football#North America

Comments from further users on Template talk:International football#North America is requested. – Elisson • T • C • 18:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Final decision on league by month results and league goalscorers

Considering that all four major deletion discussions on the matter (1, 2, 3, 4) were closed during the last few days with a delete consensus, I believe it is time that we codify this so that we can end the constant fights and discussions and instead start concentrating on, IMHO, more important matters. We have many terrible articles, or no article at all, on some fairly important subjects. Just to mention two, we need a separate article on what a football manager is (as discussed above), and the various forms of youth football (soccer) that exist around the world.

I don't believe that the Wikipedia community as a whole will ever reach a consensus on the matter of results and match reports of all sports present on Wikipedia and thus it is up to us, the football community, to establish standards for ourselves. We have some extremely inclusionist sport communities, including but not limited to Cricket and American football, but I do not believe that is the way to go. Football is so extremely well covered on the internet today that there really is no need for Wikipedia to duplicate information (WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INFO) or to have match summaries (WP:NOT#PUBLISHER). A link to a statistics site (preferably the official) provides the reader with the depth and coverage that Wikipedia does not need, while contributors can concentrate on doing more important tasks.

The deletion discussions has served as good precedent. The world's most followed football league (the FA Premier League) was not considered important enough (along with other large leagues such as Serie A and La Liga) to have month by month result and goalscorer articles, and so I believe it is fair to say that no single national league in the world should have month by month result and goalscorer articles. This also includes not having extensive detail in the actual season article. On the other hand, I do not oppose having the same sort of result list used on UEFA Champions League 2006-07, which includes date, team and score. Such info can also be organised into two colums to not make the article overly long. I believe that the date is a pretty important piece of information, even though the very compact results table used on FA Premier League 2006-07 may be preferred by some.

In short, the codification would be something along the lines of:

  • Month by month articles on national leagues are unwanted
  • Detailed match reports or statistics from national leagues are unwanted
  • Only in special cases should detailed match reports be used in articles on national leagues (play-off matches may be one such case)
  • Simple result lists in main season articles are not unwanted
  • Complete goalscorer articles on national leagues are unwanted

I have not yet said a word about other types of competitions (international club competitions, international national team competitions, and so on), and I will not do so at this time, to allow us to concentrate on national leagues first. Comments on the proposal? – Elisson • T • C • 20:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify - in the fourth bullet you refer to "Simple result lists" - by this you mean the grid type of displaying such data in FA_Premier_League_2006-07#Results? Everything else you say I totally agree with. Qwghlm 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It depends on the opinion of you (the community). As said, I do not completely oppose the usage of the format seen for example here (below the table): UEFA Champions League 2006-07#Group A (but with two columns), but the ideal would be if we could incorporate the date the match was played (which I consider to be a fairly important piece of info) in the results table you link to (perhaps a mouseover or something?). – Elisson • T • C • 22:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
As a sidenote, the mouseover can be done like this: 5–1 which uses the code <span title="20 September 2006">5–1</span>. Then of course it should be explained above the table that a mouseover of each result will show the date the match was played (or is to be played). – Elisson • T • C • 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
An encyclopedia article gives a general reader the most relevant information on a topic in a manner the reader can understand. If this is done there is no problem i.e. leading goalscorers mentioned in the context of an article about a football competition, as in FA Premier League. To my mind, the WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information line is crossed when the context becomes insufficient for a reader to comprehend the contents of an article without background knowledge - which was the case for the detailed results and full goalscorers lists. They provided data, not knowledge. So my general principles would be "Does it make sense to someone who doesn't know the first thing about sports?", and "Does it make clear where it fits in a wider context? Whatever criteria may be created, these are the principles they need to emphasise. Oldelpaso 22:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. – Elisson • T • C • 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Any further comments on this? The DRV for the goalscorer articles ended in an endorsed deletion, so I guess we do not really have any choice except setting these standards? – Elisson • T • C • 16:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Belfast Celtic

There is currently a POV dispute on the Belfast Celtic article and I am appealing for an independent editor to intervene. It would be greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.83.157.195 (talk • contribs).

Request of meditation

Me and an Anon user are having a disagreement over at Talk:Belfast_Celtic since this falls inside the scope of this project and both me and the anon have agreed to mediation i was wondering if someone could please have a look (Gnevin 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

I will do it. Rakuten06 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I might ask the folks at WikiProject Buddhism for help on your meditation needs. --Balerion 18:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Untrue numbers

Hi, I thought I'd bring this up with you guys. In quite a few cases, new players are being given made up numbers for their teams. Some examples of this are Luís Boa Morte of West Ham United being given 22, when he is infact 13, Moses Ashikodi of Watford being given number 39 when he is actually 36 and Kristofer Hæstad of Wigan Athletic being given number 25 when he is actually 27. All of these have since been amended, but I see this as an arising problem. Thanks. -- Mattythewhite 15:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Where should FIFA Women's World Cup articles be located?

Should specific-year FIFA Women's World Cup articles have the year before or after the name of the tournament? My thought is that the date should precede the tournament name, similar to the FIFA World Cup naming and other FIFA tournament article names. Thoughts? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 14:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. While we're at it, I would like to move the FA Cup Final articles to having the date preceding the name as well. Thoughts? Qwghlm 15:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree on both. – Elisson • T • C • 15:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd do these myself, but I'm too lazy right now. :P If I remember, I could do these later. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 15:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Reorganisation of Football in England

The History section of Football in England is getting quite big, while Football in regions of England is a not very well-written and in my mind unnecessary article (football being played nationally in England, not regionally), though nearly entirely history-based. So I have suggested splitting off the former into a new History of English football article, and merging what is salvageable from the latter into it. Anyone interested should join the discussion at Talk:Football in England. Qwghlm 00:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sport teams by championships

I recently became aware of the article Sport teams by championships, (which includes a section on football). I am unsure what to think of this article- my initial response was to put it up for afd, because I felt it was so broad in its scope (i.e. what championships?) that I didn't know if it was a reasonable article to try and compile. But then I thought maybe I could just show it to you guys and you might have some ideas for how it could be improved (in the football section at least). Robotforaday 11:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The page, as it is at the moment, doesn't help anyone, so it should either be deleted quickly, or developed into something worthwhile. I'm not really sure what the page is for - is it for winniers of the World Club Competition (namely the FIFA Club World Championship, for football), or is it the winner of the North American competition, as with the other sports displayed? To be honest, if it's about the FIFA Club World Championship, there's not a lot to write, so it wouldn't be hard to bring our section up to a good standard, but the rest of the article is fairly shoddy, and it doesn't seem to fulfil any purpose, so I'd suggest that deletion is the way forward. Chris Larkin 17:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

David Beckham Los Angeles Galaxy contract

Could some of you guys please help expand this. There is plenty of information out there, this could become a featured article.--HamedogTalk|@ 09:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest it looks a bit crufty and recentist to me. Why can't this information be included in David Beckham? Qwghlm 10:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree - no need for a separate article WikiGull 11:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well it's big news for now but give it a month and I'll propose merging it back in. The Beckham article is quite big as it is, though, it has to be said. Qwghlm 11:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
There is need for a separate article, it would make Beckham's article to big.--HamedogTalk|@ 11:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That article should have been on Wikinews. Wikipedia does not need that much info. – Elisson • T • C • 12:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually planning to ad details after he starts playing to it on the number of crowds before and after, media coverage differences, as well as other statistics which I will think of between now and then. Please leave it there. Think of it like the Early life of George W. Bush article.--HamedogTalk|@ 12:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that would benefit Wikipedia. Either way, it would be original research to do so, unless any media does it, and in that case a simple link there does just fine. This is way too much of a news report to be in Wikipedia. In 50 years, would people really go here to find such information? The section in the main David Beckham article can be expanded slightly, and most of the other info can be merged into Designated Player Rule, Los Angeles Galaxy, Major League Soccer and Major League Soccer 2007 season. – Elisson • T • C • 12:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not original research to compare the crowds of 2006 to 2007, which will be done by the media, if a ref is provided. Anyway, can we move this to Talk:David Beckham Los Angeles Galaxy contract?--HamedogTalk|@ 12:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I imagine this would make a rather good WikiNews article, and would be better if it were transwikied over there? Don't really see the significance on Wikipedia.
Sorry, but I've put the article up for afd. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy Robotforaday 14:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Was speedily kept - in any case I think some of the information in there is useful and should be merged & redirected into the main article on Beckham (which while we're at it, needs some trimming of various minutiae). Qwghlm 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Note that it was speedily kept only because it currently is linked from the main page, and that as soon as the link dissapears, nominating it again would be okay, in case anyone wants to do it. – Elisson • T • C • 17:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the page has been moved to David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy. My personal opinion is that there is (far) too much information to be merged into the David Beckham article. Also, while I'm not certain that the article is encyclopedic, I do not see a good reason to delete it. aLii 17:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Long term, this could go one of two ways, merge into David Beckham, or a broadening of the contract article dealing with his whole post-Real Madrid career - David Beckham in Major League Soccer, David Beckham in the United States or something. Oldelpaso 12:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I hope it's the second.--HamedogTalk|@ 12:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability query

I'm thinking of starting an article for an ex-Liverpool player, Chris Pile. Now Chris Pile never made a professional appearance, in fact he only made the bench in one game. What makes this different, though, is that this game was the 1985 European Cup final, the biggest game in club football. Given that this match has its own article, and the squad lists are linked, people are likely to want some backround on who Pile is. Also, I think his story is fairly interesting. But would it get deleted? ArtVandelay13 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't delete it if you use sources Kingjamie 20:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I reckon he is just about notable - he says here he was the youngest person to ever feature in a European Cup final squad, which is a notable claim in itself, and the unusualness of his career probably makes him of note. Qwghlm 20:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the unusual twists and turns of his career makes him notable, even if he fails the WP:BIO criteria for athletes. – Elisson • T • C • 20:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cup Stats in Infoboxes

Whilst doing some updating of cricket players infoboxes, I discovered that Template:Infobox Cricketer has an easy typable option (just writing "balls = true" in the particular player's profile) to change whether the infoboxes shows balls bowled or over bowled. This reminded me that this - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive7#League Cup stats in infoboxes - discussion was never resolved. It strikes me that there being such a simple code in the cricket infobox that it would be easy enough to implement a bit of code that stated whether the infobox had just league appearances or league AND cup appearances (the solution that came up in that discussion but was not implemented). Thoughts? I think the only other thing I can think of is that it might be best to increase the size of the statement saying league or league&cup as it's not that visible. HornetMike 21:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What worries me about cup stats is the lack of reliable sources. Punkmorten 22:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
And consistency, most list of career stats only list league appearances, and if you provide additional data for some players and not others, the stats will be skewed. ArtVandelay13 22:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
While it's by no means ideal, until such time as there are reliable and consistent sources for cup appearances (and such sources would have to be into the past, as well as covering many countries (certainly not just England) for the sake of consistency), I think that we must keep the infoboxes as giving just League appearances, with no other option. Robotforaday 14:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Football Yearbook's etc mainly contain League stats Kingjamie 19:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

fc

Just a heads-up to keep an eye on your {{fc:club}} edits. I occasionally check the "what links here" page of the FC disambiguation page, and there's usually a few {{fc}}s that have mistakenly been given square brackets showing up. Not a biggie, just an FYI. - Dudesleeper 23:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Will look out for them. All instances of {{fc}} should be subst'ed anyway. Qwghlm 00:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this true for {{nft}} as well? Best regards. Jogurney 17:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Yes, Yes! Occasionally, I have gone through {{nft}} and cleaned up everything except for talk and user pages. I also modified the example text on the template page to encourage the subst: usage. Neier 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I've stopped using these templates now. Jogurney 15:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Year in Football

I've noticed some people include more than just national champions under that subheading, such as second division champions (cf 1975 in football (soccer). This rather waters down the article IMHO. Additionally, what do you think of introducing a section Winners national cups there? Madcynic 13:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Photographs in player aticles

The template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players includes a photograph of Tim Template and the infobox has a space to include an image. Except for current players, where users can upload their own photographs, how can photographs be incorporated in articles for retired/deceased players? Photos available on the web are generally copywrite and consequently any attempt to upload them into Wikipedia to use in a player article will generally be deleted within a few days (see the photo on the page for Grzegorz Rasiak for example). Does anyone have any bright ideas? Daemonic Kangaroo 16:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is that there is no easy way to obtain a free image for these players, unless the photo is sufficiently old to be out of copyright, or is otherwise suitable for one of the public domain tags. Fair use images, while they should be avoided where possible, are permitted providing they comply with the fair use policy. The image on Denis Law is a good example of this. The important points to remember when uploading a fair use image are to provide details of the source, use a low resolution version of the image, and to provide a specific rationale for its usage. In the case of the Rasiak image, no source was provided and it is feasible to create a free image, so it will be deleted. Oldelpaso 20:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martyn Woolford

The afd discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martyn Woolford appears to have degenerated somewhat. I think it could use more members of the wikiproject- either to uphold the current deletion policy of WP:BIO, or to initiate a discussion on whether or not we want to establish a new consensus (as some people seem keen to draw the line a step or fifteen lower). Regardless, the afd can reach no satisfactory conclusion with the current back-and-forth. Robotforaday 14:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop this deletion-rage!

The jurist User:Sandstein is nominating a wide variety of Football (soccer)-articles for deletion. Now he is even deleting NF-Board! Please help to stop this rage! --Rheinländer 22:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the nomination was in good faith. You may wish to note that canvassing for support in an AfD discussion in a partisan manner is discouraged. Besides, its already on the project's deletion noticeboard, and with a number of reasoned Keep comments, the outcome is pretty much certain already. Oldelpaso 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Football peer review

Has this project ever considered setting up a peer review system? I was involved with setting up the video game peer review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Peer review, which lists normal Wikipedia peer reviews as well as CVG peer reviews. The {{cvgproj}} template could easily be copied to produce something like this for the football template: {{WPBannerMeta |PROJECT = Video games |BANNER_NAME = Template:WikiProject Video games |small= |category=¬ |listas= |IMAGE_LEFT = Gamepad.svg |QUALITY_SCALE = yes |class= |FULL_QUALITY_SCALE = yes |HOOK_ASSESS = {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/priorityscale |importance = |class = |BANNER_NAME=Template:WP VG |category=¬ |SHOW = yes |ASSESSMENT_CAT = video game articles |ASSESSMENT_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment |IMPORTANCE_SCALE_NAME = priority }} |ASSESSMENT_CAT = video game articles |attention= |ATTENTION_CAT = Video game articles needing attention |infobox= |INFOBOX_CAT = Video game articles needing infoboxes |tf 1= |TF_1_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Arcade |TF_1_NAME = the '''Arcade''' task force |TF_1_NESTED = |TF_1_TEXT = |TF_1_IMAGE = Arcade video game buttons.jpg |TF_1_MAIN_CAT = |tf 2= |TF_2_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Atari |TF_2_NAME = the '''Atari''' task force |TF_2_NESTED = |TF_2_TEXT = |TF_2_IMAGE = Atari_joystick_icon.gif |TF_2_MAIN_CAT = |tf 3= |TF_3_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Castlevania |TF_3_NAME = the '''Castlevania''' task force |TF_3_NESTED = |TF_3_TEXT = |TF_3_IMAGE = Castlevania Logo Wiki.png |TF_3_MAIN_CAT = |tf 4= |TF_4_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Command & Conquer |TF_4_NAME = the '''Command & Conquer''' task force |TF_4_NESTED = |TF_4_TEXT = |TF_4_IMAGE = Commandandconquer.PNG |TF_4_MAIN_CAT = |tf 5= |TF_5_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Destroy All Humans! |TF_5_NAME = the '''Destroy All Humans!''' task force |TF_5_NESTED = |TF_5_TEXT = |TF_5_IMAGE = |TF_5_MAIN_CAT = |HOOK_NESTED = |HOOK_TF = {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces |category=¬ |BANNER_NAME = Template:WP VG |FULL_QUALITY_SCALE = |class= |tf 1= |TF_1_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Devil May Cry |TF_1_NAME = the '''Devil May Cry''' task force |TF_1_IMAGE = |TF_1_TEXT = |TF_1_MAIN_CAT = |tf 2= |TF_2_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Gears of War |TF_2_NAME = the '''Gears of War''' task force |TF_2_IMAGE = Gow.PNG |TF_2_TEXT = |TF_2_MAIN_CAT = |tf 3= |TF_3_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Grand Theft Auto |TF_3_NAME = the '''Grand Theft Auto''' task force |TF_3_IMAGE = Gtataskforce.PNG |TF_3_TEXT = |TF_3_MAIN_CAT = |tf 4= |TF_4_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Mega Man |TF_4_NAME = the '''Mega Man''' task force |TF_4_IMAGE = |TF_4_TEXT = |TF_4_MAIN_CAT = |tf 5= |TF_5_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Mortal Kombat |TF_5_NAME = the '''Mortal Kombat''' task force |TF_5_IMAGE = WPMK Logo.png |TF_5_TEXT = |TF_5_MAIN_CAT = |tf 6= |TF_6_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/MU* |TF_6_NAME = the '''MU*''' task force |TF_6_IMAGE = |TF_6_TEXT = |TF_6_MAIN_CAT = |tf 7= |TF_7_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo |TF_7_NAME = the '''Nintendo''' task force |TF_7_IMAGE = Wikitendo2.svg |TF_7_TEXT = |TF_7_MAIN_CAT = |tf 8= |TF_8_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Pro gaming |TF_8_NAME = the '''Pro gaming''' task force |TF_8_IMAGE = |TF_8_TEXT = |TF_8_MAIN_CAT = |tf 9= |TF_9_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sega |TF_9_NAME = the '''Sega''' task force |TF_9_IMAGE = TSPGaogierNonTransparentLogo.svg |TF_9_TEXT = |TF_9_MAIN_CAT = |tf 10= |TF_10_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Silent Hill |TF_10_NAME = the '''Silent Hill''' task force |TF_10_IMAGE = |TF_10_TEXT = |TF_10_MAIN_CAT = }}{{WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces |category=¬ |BANNER_NAME = Template:WP VG |FULL_QUALITY_SCALE = |class= |tf 1= |TF_1_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/The Sims |TF_1_NAME = '''The Sims''' task force |TF_1_IMAGE = WPSims.svg |TF_1_TEXT = |TF_1_MAIN_CAT = |tf 2= |TF_2_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/StarCraft |TF_2_NAME = the '''StarCraft''' task force |TF_2_IMAGE = Starcraft free.png |TF_2_TEXT = |TF_2_MAIN_CAT = |tf 3= |TF_3_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Suikoden |TF_3_NAME = the '''Suikoden''' task force |TF_3_IMAGE = |TF_3_TEXT = |TF_3_MAIN_CAT = |tf 4= |TF_4_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Super Smash Bros. |TF_4_NAME = the '''Super Smash Brothers''' task force |TF_4_IMAGE = SmashBall.png |TF_4_TEXT = |TF_4_MAIN_CAT = |tf 5= |TF_5_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Valve |TF_5_NAME = the '''Valve''' task force |TF_5_IMAGE = Orange-box.png |TF_5_TEXT = |TF_5_MAIN_CAT = |tf 6= |TF_6_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Visual novels |TF_6_NAME = the '''Visual novels''' task force |TF_6_IMAGE = |TF_6_TEXT = |TF_6_MAIN_CAT = |tf 7= |TF_7_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Warcraft |TF_7_NAME = the '''Warcraft''' task force |TF_7_IMAGE = WLG2.png |TF_7_TEXT = |TF_7_MAIN_CAT = }}{{WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces |category=¬ |BANNER_NAME = Template:WP VG |FULL_QUALITY_SCALE = |class= |tf 1= |TF_1_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines |TF_1_NAME = magazines |TF_1_IMAGE = Newspaper Cover.svg |TF_1_TEXT = This magazine is supported by the '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines|Wikiproject VG Magazine Archive]]'''. |TF_1_MAIN_CAT = |tf 2=yes |TF_2_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review |TF_2_NAME = peer |TF_2_IMAGE = Cvg peerreview icon.png |TF_2_TEXT = A '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/{{PAGENAME}}|request has been made]]''' for this article to be [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review|peer reviewed]] by WikiProject Video games. |TF_2_MAIN_CAT = |tf 3= |TF_3_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Archive |TF_3_NAME = old-peer |TF_3_IMAGE = Cvg peerreview icon.png |TF_3_TEXT = This article has an '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Archive|archived]]''' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review|VG peer review]] that may contain ideas for improvement. |TF_3_MAIN_CAT = Old requests for CVG peer review |tf 4= |TF_4_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup#Requests for cleanup |TF_4_NAME = cleanreq |TF_4_IMAGE = Video Game Cleanup.svg |TF_4_TEXT = A '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup#Requests for cleanup|request has been made]]''' for this article to be [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup|cleaned up]] by WikiProject Video games. |TF_4_MAIN_CAT = |tf 5= |TF_5_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup |TF_5_NAME = cleanup |TF_5_IMAGE = Crystal Clear app clock.svg |TF_5_TEXT = This article is currently being '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup|cleaned up]]''' by WikiProject Video games to meet the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines|article gudelines]]. Feel free to join in! |TF_5_MAIN_CAT = |tf 6= |TF_6_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video Game Images |TF_6_NAME = cover |TF_6_IMAGE = Image-request.svg |TF_6_TEXT = A request for [[box art]] or an [[icon (computing)|application icon]] has been made to help better illustrate the article. <small>([[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video Game Images|VG images department]])</small> |TF_6_MAIN_CAT = Video game articles requesting identifying art |tf 7= |TF_7_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video Game Images |TF_7_NAME = screenshot |TF_7_IMAGE = Image-request.svg |TF_7_TEXT = A request for a [[screenshot]] has been made to help better illustrate the article. <small>([[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video Game Images|VG images department]])</small> |TF_7_MAIN_CAT = Video game articles requesting screenshots |tf 8= |TF_8_LINK = Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week |TF_8_NAME = GCOTW |TF_8_IMAGE = COTWnew.png |TF_8_TEXT = This article is a candidate for '''[[Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week|Gaming Collaboration of the week]]'''. |TF_8_MAIN_CAT = |tf 9= |TF_9_LINK = Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week/History |TF_9_NAME = old GCOTW |TF_9_IMAGE = COTWnew.png |TF_9_TEXT = This article was [[Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week/History|previously]] selected for '''[[Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week|Gaming Collaboration of the week]]'''. |TF_9_MAIN_CAT = }} |PORTAL = Video game |PORTAL_IMG = Crystal Clear app package games.png |MAIN_ARTICLE = [[Video game|video games]] |MAIN_CAT = WikiProject Video games |HOOK_BOTTOM = {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/todolist |TODO_TITLE = Things you can help with |TODO_LINK = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/to do |TODO_EDITLINKS = yes }} }}{{#if:|[[Category:WikiProject Video games banners using deprecated parameters|{{NAMESPACE}} {{PAGENAME}}]]}} It would seem to me that having one place where all football related peer reviews are listed is easy to set up and would benefit the community greatly. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-17 23:42

TBH I see nothing wrong with shoving it into standard Wikipedia Peer Review. We all get alerted to the fact by it being added to the main project page - many of us here do comment on them - and it allows non-football editors a chance to add their views. Adding another PR just adds extra overhead with no immediate benefits, at least in IMO... Qwghlm 00:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
True, I didn't realize the PR's were already listed on the project page. Still, setting up a dedicated page for peer review takes little effort and the extra overhead you mention has not been a problem at all on WP:CVG. Another advantage of the way things are done on hte CVG PR page is that all the PR entries are directly transcluded on the page, so one can read through all the entries without having to click on all the links.. I agree that more process doesn't really benefit anyone, but we've seen many CVG featured articles go through a CVG peer review, then a general WP peer review, then GA-nomination, then FA, and it seems to work well. The peer review requires little maintenance other than transcluding the entries and making sure the talk page templates are correctly applied. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-18 00:53

Notability enquiry

Not fishing for positive answers here, but would Harry Evans be classed as notable in the footballing world? His article has just been moved to AfD (see here) from having a speedy-deletion tag. - Dudesleeper 20:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't say no to some help fixing/restraining the efforts of FireWeed (contributions), who is trying to exact revenge due to the apparent failure of his above nomination to AfD by removing external links (to player profiles at Soccerbase, etc.) in articles, claiming they're personal/commercial websites, indeed. Hmm, where've I heard that before? - Dudesleeper 00:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is extraordinarily petty. It - the AfD included - seems to be revenge for you removing his external links a few days ago. Could it be worth reporting? ArtVandelay13 02:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, editors (including many members of this Wikiproject) work hard to improve the coverage of football in wikipedia, only to have it apparently undermined by someone with some kind of personal grudge. Robotforaday 09:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam in Premier League club articles

A variety of IPs and usernames, including (but not necessarily limited to) the following:

have been adding to spam links in Premier League club articles, usually under misleading titles (e.g. "Arsenal FC site" [1]). They fail WP:EL's guidelines on excessive advertising, as well as being so thin on content that they "[do] not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article", as the links policy demands. As they're using multiple IPs and usernames merely blocking won't suffice, so could people keep an eye out for them, and add appropriate warning notices to the talk page of any users/IPs adding links so that any requests for blocks and bans are more likely to be fulfilled? Thanks. Qwghlm 21:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You've just been beating me to the warnings each time. The filter (?:cup|league|football|wayne|premiership|steven|united|athletic).*years\.com is already on the spam blacklist, looks like a long term repeat offender. I find its often helpful to watchlist the first two or three teams in the alphabet from a given league to catch systematic linkspam addition. Oldelpaso 21:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

League of Wales players - notable?

E.g. Rhys Griffiths. What's everyone's thoughts on this? HornetMike 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The LoW is not fully professional, is it? I thought Barry Town were the only pro side in the league. In which case WP:BIO is failed, unless the player has previously played in a fully professional league or some other claim to notability (e.g. capped at international level). Qwghlm 09:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
My feeling is that they are notable because they're playing at the highest level in that country. Gasheadsteve 09:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That view is unsupported by WP:BIO. Punkmorten 09:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
And it's not even correct - the highest level in Wales is the Football League, which is where the three biggest Welsh clubs participate. Qwghlm 09:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That was my interpretation of "or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports" from WP:BIO, given that football in Wales is mainly amateur. I seem to be the only one interpreting it that way, so I guess I'm probably wrong. Gasheadsteve 10:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
In my interpretation, the sport in question is not "football in Wales", it is football. The clause in WP:BIO is for sports like amateur boxing, athletics in the past etc, where for instance the best high jumpers from 1950 are given a possibility to bypass the professionalism criterion. Punkmorten 10:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A player like Björgólfur Hideaki Takefusa also falls under this discussion. Punkmorten 10:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Takefusa appears to be an Icelandic international,[2] so that is a shout for notability in his case, while Griffiths and most other FAW players are not internationals. Qwghlm 18:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that, if the articles are well-written and sourced, then - as the highest league overseen the FAW - the players are notable. Though this kind of thing could easily be avoided by the addition of squad pages for smaller clubs at all levels, giving brief bio details for players Superlinus 18:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Need help on a French football club

Toulouse FC is in a top French professional league (Ligue 1) but there's a problem: This article is a stub so I already nominated this for AID (Article Improvement Drive) so I need French football members to help me with this club, so what should I do for this stub?? Rakuten06 15:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Soccer in the United States- more Beckham fuss

It appears someone has moved the David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy article (which now looks likely to be deleted) wholesale to Soccer in the United States. So now more than half of the history of soccer in the US consists of Beckham signing a contract! I felt like deleting on sight, but thought the best thing to do was to alert people here to see if there's any consensus on how to respond. Robotforaday 17:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh my... The Beckham move should probably not be covered more than by a sentence or two in that article, IMO. – Elisson • T • C • 17:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically Beckham hasnt joined LA Galaxy yet so.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charruss2491 (talk • contribs) 12:47, January 22, 2007

Little help...

Hey. Sorry to bring this up again but on the El Clasico article there is a massive list of the results between the two clubs. This, obviously, is listcruft. I'm terrible at counting these things up even with an excel spreadsheet in hand so could someone do me the favour of counting the results up and putting them into a box similar to that on the Manchester derby article? Thanks in advance. Normy132 02:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I put the results up I got in the article including goals scored sorted by competition. I'll leave the individual matches up for now in case anyone wants to check my results. Scottmsg 03:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Uriah Rennie

Uriah Rennie really needs protection for a while, it's getting absolutely slaughtered. Anybody able to do this? HornetMike 10:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've listed it on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Gasheadsteve 10:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Out of interest, as a non-admin who occasionally needs extra help, who here has admin rights? It might be a good idea to highlight those on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Participants who are admins (a different background colour, say) so we know who to ask for help e.g. when we need urgent action on vandalism. Qwghlm 10:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Admins on the active participants list include Elisson, Bobo192, Sjorford, Jacoplane, Sebastiankessel, Mariano, Punkmorten and Guinnog, there may be more. Oldelpaso 18:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
When I read this, I thought "Qwghlm is not an admin?". Apparently, someone decided to do something about it. Punkmorten 19:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for advertising the fact (I was too modest to do so), but please make your judgement on my suitability as an admin based on my abilities as Wikipedian as a whole, and not just my contributions to this WikiProject. Thanks. Qwghlm 23:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It might be handy to know that Daniel.Bryant, whilst not on the list of participants, is an active football editor and is also currently on Rfa here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daniel.Bryant 2. HornetMike 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
While not on the "active" list, I'd be more than happy to help out any admin actions that need to be carried out. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering where I could propose this task/project, because I don't feel this would fall under the AID.

Anyways, if you look at what links to FIFA World Cup and begin to click on some of the articles mention, you'll notice that some inappropriate link to FIFA World Cup because of datelinking. For example:

In the 2006 FIFA World Cup...

instead of:

In the 2006 FIFA World Cup

or perhaps:

In the 2006 FIFA World Cup

The question (1) is whether or not this is a logical change, and then (2) how to go about correcting links and (3) where to organize the project. Hopefully that made sense. Thoughts? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Andy/Andrew Ritchie

There are two players commonly named Andy Ritchie, of roughly equal fame. Yet, if you search for "Andy Ritchie", you get the article about the Scottish player - whereas the article about the English player (and manager) is named Andrew Ritchie, which may be his correct name, but he is always known as Andy Ritchie in the media. (Btw, I'm pretty sure the Scottish player is also named Andrew.) I propose the following changes:

  • Andy Ritchie becomes the disamb page, pointing to both articles.
  • The article about the Scottish player is renamed Andy Ritchie (Scottish footballer).
  • The Article about the English player is renamed Andy Ritchie (English footballer).
  • Andrew Ritchie becomes a redirect to the disamb page, or is deleted.

I'm implementing the changes right now. If the consensus opposes this move, feel free to undo the changes. --Badmotorfinger 11:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. HornetMike 12:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Standardisation of league tables

There's a magnificent array of football league tables on Wikipedia. I was thinking we should decide on a standard one, so that when future ones are created they're all in one style - re-doing them takes some time, obviously. So, what options do we have? Well there's this lineless one here 2005–06 in English football#league tables, which has been used on English season articles for the past couple of years. Then there's FA Premier League 2006-07 which has a more spaced out, conventional table feel. There's also an ugly one here 2001-02 in English football#tables and there's this rather garish one on The Football League 2006-07. So, what does everybody like? HornetMike 12:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The premier league 2006/07 is the best of that bad bunch, but it could definitely be improved upon. aLii 17:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
What about the tables used on the 2006 FIFA World Cup article? I think these are better than all those linked above. As far as I can tell these tables are used for all international competitions, why not use them for others? - MTC 18:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't especially like the practice of putting points first. It looks wrong to me. I agree with Alii, none of them are that great. I think I perhaps err towards the Premier League 2006/07 one, with perhaps slightly less shading and a colour code. HornetMike 11:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've used a slightly different scheme for the Swedish league tables, for example 2006 in Swedish football. The colour code is then explained in the main Seasons in Swedish football article. I agree that the table for points should be last. Regarding colour coding or a comments column, I prefer colour as it gives the table a better overall look, but I do realise that it also forces the reader to actually look up what the colour means (even though it is obvious most of the time for someone with a little knowledge of league tables). – Elisson • T • C • 17:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Found another version here: 1981-82 in English football. It's a basic table. This discussion seems to have stalled a bit. Any creative types have any ideas? I don't really have the nous to create something, I'm afraid. HornetMike 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Club articles section headings

I've noticed in quite a few articles of English clubs that the section titles seem somewhat tabloid-ish. Not sure whether this has been discussed before, but should they not be changed to something more encyclopedic? Archibald99 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, section titles should avoid editorialising. I suspect that the articles in question will have been edited by User:AlexWilkes at some point... Oldelpaso 20:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Feyenoord Rotterdam

After all dicussions about goalscorers, stats etc. I've been working on improving the Feyenoord article lately. I widely expanded it and in my opinion it's ready to become a featured article. However I don't speak fluently English and copy-editing needs to be done by someone who does and who knows what he/she is reading about. Also the article is becoming too large and probably needs to be split up in one or more sections. Please help improving this article to a feature status by copy-editing and please give your opinion on how to split up the article properly at the article's talk page. Cheers, SportsAddicted | discuss 15:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, well that's a lot of citations! But it needs a fair amount of editing before it'll be ready for FAC. Firstly, it's huge! 134 kb, it needs trimming and various sections need to be in a variety of sub-articles - history, players, etc. The images are great but there's far too many of them, there's too many ilustrating the same thing. Still you msut be commended for the huge amount of work this must have taken. HornetMike 20:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Blimey, there won't be any objections in terms of citations or comprehensiveness, that's for sure. You might want to open a peer review before going to FAC. A couple of quick points: subheadings are overused, lots of subsections are one paragraph long. There are too many fair-use images, and the list of notable former players is over large and gives no criteria for inclusion; you might want to create List of Feyenoord Rotterdam players. I'll give it a copyedit at some point, though I'd class prose I've edited as "adequate" rather than "compelling, even brilliant". Oldelpaso 21:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I agree it's still far from perfect, but although it took me lots of time to get it to this point I admit that it's just a start. Wikipedia is not mine, it's ours and we need to get it right all together. When I said "and in my opinion it's ready to become a featured article" I meant the potential to become FA status is there, but there's still lots of work to do. SportsAddicted | discuss 23:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I have started a peer review here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Feyenoord Rotterdam/archive1 HornetMike 12:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Just had to add my own "wow" in here! I've never seen so many citations in my life! I think it'd be sad to prune the article too much, but the Peer Review seems to be going in the right direction. aLii 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists of former Players

Is there a WPF policy on the inclusion of Lists of Players? I ask because I intend to hive the List of Notable Players out of the Swindon Town F.C. article and give it it's own page, but in doing so have come across lists from various sources listing all 1093 known former players of the club from 1880-current (see User:Foxhill/content to add/Swindon Town players).

Is it worthwhile adding this information to Wikipedia or should I trim it to only those notable players? or arbitrarily pick an inclusion criteria such as an appearance threshold or those who have played in notable games? (it's not a small list but it is quite comprehensive)

Since there are only 200 players in Category:Swindon Town F.C. players, I feel the addition of this list would be of some use - but am loathe to introduce something which may be subject to AFD's as soon as I put it up (thinking Listcruft and all the rest of reasons people submit lists to the bin).

Your thoughts please.. - Foxhill 17:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unofficial policy is notable player lists include all those with more than 100 appearances for a club. Any less and you get too many. Lists of all players are pointless, it's just repeating a category. HornetMike 17:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I was probably the first person to create a list of players (for Arsenal) and I set it to 100 appearances (with very few exceptions), which is admittedly arbitrary but means a player has had to play at least two full seasons' worth of games for a club, which seemed to me to be a reasonable threshold for notability, and for passing the unofficial "will this person be remembered in 50/100 years time?" in WP:BIO. Qwghlm 18:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that for lower-league teams a list of players is not repeating a category, as most former players that have spent their careers in the lower divisions will not have an article, and therefore won't be in a category. My preference is for the most notable players to be listed on the team's main article, with a link to the article containing a full list of players to have played for the club. I'm in the middle of working on List of Bristol Rovers F.C. players, so I'll hold off making any further additions to it pending the result of this discussion. Gasheadsteve 18:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I do agree with HornetMike's and Qwghlm comments (even to the fact of usually using Qwghlm's Arsenal pages as templates, they're kinda nifty) I feel that the list does meet WP:BIO.
The players do meet the requirements of WP:BIO specifically "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league" and also have played for a notable team as per WP:CORP#Criteria for clubs, societies, and organizations "It is an English men's football club competing in Levels 1-10 of the English football league system".
With WP:BIO#Lists of people "the list should be limited to notable people: those that already have a Wikipedia article or could plausibly have one, per this guideline", it could be argued that any list of Players for a team that plays or has played in any league from the Premiership to the Midland Football Combination Premier Division would qualify (admittedly this would probably be fired to an AfD quicker than a quick thing being quick in the "being quick" world championships).
In response to Mike's comment about potentially copying a category, I feel this would only be true if articles for all of these players existed. There is a potential for each player to eventually get it's own article, but as this would most probably just be a table of their playing record as published in Football League almanacs and other football club history books, individual articles for all wouldn't be feasible (especially for those from the late 1800s-early 1900s). A list of all former players would provide the extra information missing from such a category.
But I would imagine such a list would have limited appeal outside of the narrow field of football and club history.
Anyway..
I think at the moment I'll add the 100+ appearances players as List of Swindon Town F.C. players but polish off the complete list for possible inclusion at a later date. I'd like to see the main article get to FA one day (Swindon fans.. ever the optimists..) so will for the moment, try to keep it all as polished and un-killable as possible whilst bringing the rest up to spec. - Foxhill 08:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dundee United FC former players, then, seems like a problematic article. Punkmorten 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the inclusion of < 100 players breaks WP:BIO, at least not the letter, but probably the spirit - who remembers a player who may have turned out for two Third Division games in the 70s? I won't complain if people include every player - but it does clutter the lists somewhat and will harm their chances of making featured status. Qwghlm 09:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
At the very least, the lists should include notable players who played a handful of games at a lower league club before moving on to bigger things - such as David Beckham on loan at Preston, Frank Lampard at Swansea, David Seaman at Peterborough etc. --Badmotorfinger 12:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thing is, if you create a list with all the players who have ever played for a club, you are faced with a number of problems. Firstly, if you don't create an article for each and every player, then you've just got a red-linked name which is no use to anyone. You could create an article for each and every player, which is within the WP:BIO rules, but not especially nice. However, then you'd be replicating a category. However, if you make the limit 100 then you're creating a list that has a set intent that it can fufil, and has potential to be featured status.
Two other specific responses - I disagree with the idea that people like Beckham at Preston etc. should be included in notable lists. Firstly, who's to say what player is notable enough for such an inclusion and who isn't? And secondly are those players really notable in the history of the club. Watford have had a number of loanees in the past who have gone on to bigger and better things, but their actual impact on the club was minimal.
Also, I don't think a set of notable players on the main page and then a full list would work. Once again, you face the question of who to include and who not to. HornetMike 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Football (soccer) ---> Football

Surely football should be referred to simply as football? I'm sure the debate for a name change has raged before and it should be brought up again. Wwwhhh 07:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well soccer isn't the only form of football in the world. Normy132 08:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Total waste of time, you'll never convince everyone on Wikipedia it is the correct term. Qwghlm 09:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

loan --> permanent transfer

When a player spends time on loan at a club, which is then immediately followed by a permanent transfer (examples: Sebastian Larsson and Marcos Painter), is it really necessary to regard those as separate spells in the infobox? Imo, it would be better to simply remove the words (on loan), and think of the move as one continuous period. --Badmotorfinger 12:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got a similar problem with Stuart Nicholson, who has had two separate loan spells with the same club in the same season. My instinct is to list them separately, seeing as they are two distinct spells, with appearances for the team that 'owns' him in between the two loan periods. Any thoughts? Gasheadsteve 12:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
For situations lile Larsson, I'd just treat it as one spell so long as there was no time in between. For Nicholson, I would have the two spells listed separately, without the appearances for his 'owner' in between (we don't break appearances like that if just one spell for example). If it's then clear in the text about the two spells, I don't see a problem. WikiGull 12:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with this. If the player has signed permanently while on loan, then all the loan appearances are counted towards the permanent spell. Particularly with the Football League's transfer window rules, where players are signed on loan "with a view to a permanent" move, then miraculously signed up permanently on January 1st. ArtVandelay13 15:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion tracking

I suggest you deprecate the nice-looking deletion tracking section on the project page there and just use Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football. That's easier to watch, and could and should be used by non-members (read, me) who are unaware of this project's proprietary mechanism. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"our" version also allows for other XfD's, as well as deletion reviews. Punkmorten 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
As well as actually being on the project page, which is the page that most football interrested users visit daily (I hope...). The two do not really duplicate any info so I don't see a reason to deprecate "our" table. They complement each other just fine, IMHO. – Elisson • T • C • 19:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 1

Apologies for putting this here, but I couldn't figure out how to add it on the main page.. Anyway I've proposed the category Non-League Footballers for deletion. I don't see how we can have such a broad category, particularly when so poorly defined as it is at the moment. Would appreciate others' views on this. WikiGull 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added this to the Nominations for deletion and page moves section on the front page. Scottmsg 20:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention (2006 vs 2007)

I'm thinking to move the page 2007 ASEAN Football Championship to 2006 ASEAN Football Championship according to the official website, but according to FIFA page they use 2007 (not 2006). What should I do? --Manop - TH 23:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see the source of the confusion, but to be honest it seems quite perverse that anybody would refer to it as a 2006 tournament if the most important matches are in 2007. Robotforaday 16:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed - World Cup qualifying matches take up to two years before the main event, yet we always use the year of the finals tournament itself, not the qualifying competition. I'd keep it at 2007 - that is where the majority of people looking for it will search for. Qwghlm 17:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a note explaining the fact that different places refer to it differently (some as 2006, some as 2007) would be useful (while keeping the title of the article as 2007)- or perhaps that would just complicate the matter even more... Robotforaday 19:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

English Premier League Results - September 2001

This article was deleted, can somebody please re-delete it Kingjamie 19:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see a possibility to speedy it, but I did prod it, using the rather convincing reason:

If similar articles show up, you can prod it using the same reason, just copy and paste the above quote. Punkmorten 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Player statistics

It seems a lot of people are putting player stats, "apps and goals" incorrectly on player profiles. This should be League and cups. The statistics counted are, all top tear leagues "professional playing career" the player has played in. All top tear cups and all european leagues and cups. You don't add testimonials, friendly or pre-season matches. Also can we add this to the "project page" so everyone understands because alot of people are currently entering incorrect statistics for players. Govvy 15:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If you mean in the infobox, then I don't think you're right. It says "Professional club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only " at the bottom of Template:Infobox Football biography. Gasheadsteve 16:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't notice that before, but that needs fixing. The FA Statistical Archive does cups also. Wiki should be the same. Govvy 16:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's something that was discussed here, but no consensus was reached. Personally, I'm in favour of keeping it as it is, seeing as the Sky Sports Football Yearbook (previously Rothmans Football Yearbook), which is the most popular source for this sort of information and is sometimes referred to as the statistician's bible, gives league details only. Also, club records are always given as 'most league appearances' and 'highest league goalscorer'. Gasheadsteve 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think something is wrong, because the League has League top score, league top apps. There is split data and combined data. The clubs combine the two, league and cups, they do combine data, so does the FA, so does EUFA. Clearly Wiki hasn't been defined enough.

Let me put it this way, you are doing a biography of each player. Well the data in biographies should include all professional football. This should be both league and cups, the football teams in the infobox has a representation of apps and goals. At the moment the footnote is to say you are only calculating league data. Well this should be fixed to combine league and cup data otherwise you have no record for cup data for that players biography. This is why two should be combined. Now I suggest that another consensus be done and the statistics in the infobox be fixed. Govvy 18:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You could of course just fill the infobox out as per convention and add the other information into the article body or statistics section as at Harold Fleming, Thierry Henry or Cristiano Ronaldo to name some at random. If the infoboxes were updated, I for one would not envy the task of updating the 10,000+ player profiles that link to it, if the infomation exists - Foxhill 18:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the rationale when the infobox was originally created is that League appearances are a uniform measure from country to country, but the importance of cup competitions (and the definition of a competitive match) varies. The issue could be solved by creating an additional infobox parameter to state whether cup competitions are included, but I don't think I know enough about template syntax to create such a parameter. More generally, statistics wise its a good idea to keep things as simple as possible - we're writing for the general reader, not hardcore football fans. Oldelpaso 19:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I like the KISS principle. Full player statistics can be included in a career table in the article body if an editor feels it is needed. – Elisson • T • C • 19:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's simple to me, just add in the cup games, shouldn't be hard to calculate if done correctly. Also for the national stats below the club one, that is including all cups and friendlies. So I can't see why you can't add cups in this area. I might as well change the template myself. Add that it does include cups. Govvy 19:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

When you've gone ahead and changed the statistics to include cup matches for the around ten thousand or so player articles that use the infobox, then you might change the template. And I believe you do not want to do that. – Elisson • T • C • 19:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure there is an army of editors that should be able to work it out. Govvy 19:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure there is not (10 000 articles, you could probably get ten editors or so to help you if you ask really nice, thats 1 000 articles per editor, with a lot of players that the editor probably never has heard of. Just as a test, find the number of cup appearances that Bengt Andersson has done over the years.). And I don't see the point of it either. Many sources only list league appearances, and since people are free to add a more extensive career table, there really is no need for the cup apps in the infobox. – Elisson • T • C • 19:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Please, do not change the template unless there is consensus to do so. – Elisson • T • C • 19:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Manager statistics

Anyone know of any good sources for P/W/L/D stats for club managers for adding to articles? Otherwise I'm going to be searching through 134 years of results... Archibald99 17:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Soccerbase has some general info such as Alex Ferguson management career statistics at Soccerbase - Foxhill 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, forgot to say I've already used that for the more recent ones. Doesn't seem to include all games before a certain point. Archibald99 17:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Soccerbase lists the stats of all managers of British league clubs. To get there you have to go to the page for a particular team, click on "Manager History" under club details, and a list of all that club's managers from 1900 appears. Just click on a particular manager's name and his managerial history then shows. Alternatively, just put the manager's name in the search box and search under Managers. I hope this makes sense. Daemonic Kangaroo 20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It might be different for English clubs but it appears that not all matches are included in the database, e.g. here, 34 years and only 200ish games counted. Archibald99 17:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That's why there is the line on that very page "NB: Only games with a date in the database counted here" - fchd 18:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Any sources with all games included then? Archibald99 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Manchester United F.C. players

Considering that this is a Featured List, there are several anomalies. I have listed on the List's talk page, players who are shown as having made substitute appearances long before substitutes were allowed. There is also one player who has only made 4 appearances so I'm not sure why he's on the list at all.

Can some-one more knowleadgable about M.U.'s history check and amend the list?Daemonic Kangaroo 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Stubborn vandal

Please, guys, check FIFA Club World Cup page. And check 212.116.219.92 (talk · contribs), 212.116.219.152 (talk · contribs) and 212.116.219.151 (talk · contribs). All, obviously, the same anon. Thanks :) —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs [3] [4] [5] it seems to be an ongoing edit war over the colour scheme - not a case of vandalism in my book. Have warned both parties about 3RR - any further reversion from either side will result in a block for the offending party. Qwghlm 16:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. There's probably just as much merit in the scheme of the Anon as that of user Lesfer. - fchd 16:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then, I'll leave it. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Indian football spamming

A heads-up about a thread I saw on Wikiproject Spam: recently there has been persistent spamming for the sites soccernetindia.com and indianfootball.com. One to keep an eye out for. Oldelpaso 19:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe worth mentioning on meta:Talk:Spam blacklist? Qwghlm 09:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If it continues, but not yet. The Indianfootball one looks like it might be a worthwhile resource, and someone raised a concern about it being a joe job. Oldelpaso 18:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Importance levels

This is regarding assessment of articles, not sure whether this should be on the talk page there... Anyway, I just wondered how people went about deciding levels of importance. I noticed Nemanja Vidić was rated as high importance, which contrasted a bit with how I'd been rating things. My general way of working is this:

  • Top: The football article itself, rules, formation etc.
  • High: The bigger international teams, the biggest clubs, the competitions, some really higly rated players.
  • Mid: Most clubs, international players, players who have played at the top level for some time.
  • Low: Any other player, lists of managers, players, clubs stats etc.

Am I way out? Or not? HornetMike 11:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't assessed any articles yet, mainly because it seems to be a pretty subjective thing, without any hard and fast rules. I think that this list is a very sensible set of guidelines, and I suggest that it is added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment to make things a bit clearer. Gasheadsteve 11:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I never know what importance level to put, so I often leave that bit out ;-) That list looks about right. Oldelpaso 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Football (soccer) or Association football

A more serious discussion than is usual has been started at Talk:Football (soccer). Input from more editors than the 2-3 editors there (of which I am one) would be appreciated. – Elisson • T • C • 16:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I had a look, but it just looks like a couple of people arguing for the sake of arguing. The thread meanders from topic to topic with the same points being repeated ad infinitum. I don't think any move will come from it, they seem mildly irritating but harmless. Gasheadsteve 08:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Umaru Bangura

There has been long standing rumours on Watford messageboards that there is a player called Umaru Bangura, who is a club player and is loaned to Hoeness in Norway. Despite this, Watford have never made any comment about Bangura, and neither has the Watford Observer, the press closest to the club, ever mentioned anything. However, his profile on the Hoeness website does have the word Watford on it, and I presume it might say "on loan from". Today Bangura's name was added to Watford's squad list and squad template, and I saw there was a mention of his Watford links on his profile. I've removed them all because Watford have never mentioned him. Right thing to do? HornetMike 23:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes the Hønefoss website actually says that he is on loan from Watford, but if he has never been mentioned in any other reliable source as being a Watford player, I believe we should leave him out from the squad list. – Elisson • T • C • 23:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
He signed [6] (sky sports) and [7] (Guardian news in brief), but no report of actually setting foot on the pitch. - Foxhill 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Ah yeah, I remember those reports being leaped upon with some excitement. Then the club didn't say anything, and still haven't. It sort of makes me think that it's his agent, putting it about. HornetMike 15:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

English football champions

{{English football champions}}

English football champions
18 titles: Liverpool 15 titles: Manchester United

13 titles: Arsenal 9 titles: Everton

7 titles: Aston Villa 6 titles: Sunderland

4 titles: Newcastle United, Sheffield Wednesday

3 titles: Blackburn Rovers, Chelsea, Huddersfield Town, Leeds United, Wolverhampton Wanderers

2 titles: Burnley, Derby County, Manchester City, Preston North End, Portsmouth, Tottenham Hostpur

1 title: Ipswich Town, Nottingham Forest, Sheffield United, West Bromwich Albion

I just notice that this appeared on a load of articles. I don't think we really need it. What does eveyone else think? Govvy 18:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems fairly pointless. HornetMike 18:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Very pointless indeed. – Elisson • T • C • 18:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. All info is alredy available at English football champions. It should be nominated for deletion. King of the North East 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
k, I am not sure how to nominate those boxes for deletion know. Govvy 00:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and nominated it for deletion. Here is the TfD discussion. Scottmsg 00:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
cheers, I voted my opinion on it. :) Govvy 21:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Contributions by User:Gizmo10

This user created a long list of articles about footballers and clubs from Ireland. And they all seems to be fake. He went on putting some of "his" footballers into the A.C. Milan squad article (I already reverted them). I think an admin should intervene. --Angelo 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems like most of these could be speedy deleted to me. They're so obviously fake that he might as well just have called them Fakey McFake. One of the 'bios' says that the player 'bears a resemblance to the FA Cup'. I'm tempted to just stick CSD tags on them all. --Stevefarrell 21:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


Edit warring on FC Barcelona

Could probably do with some intervention. Archibald99  00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_8&oldid=1144665993"