Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

→

Eric Vernan / Vernon

This guy's name seems to be spelt both Vernan and Vernon; some sources say he is a striker, some a winger, and one even says he is a defender; some say he is born in 1987, others 1980; some say he was born on 24 March of both years, others on 4 July of both years. The only information that ISN'T in doubt is that he is a Jamaican international! Can anyone help me get to the bottom of this enigmatic character? Many thanks, Giant Snowman 19:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Played for Glenmuir High School as a schoolboy, was an under-20 player for Jamaica and has a Red Stripe Champions Cup winners medal it seems. Was described as a "dimunitive right-back" when at Glenmuir but appears to have moved to midfield after joining Portmore United. Had a trial for DC United in February 2009 as he sought a professional contract in Europe or North America and left Portmore in August to play in the Norwegian First Division with Nybergsund. Is that the one? :-) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye, that's the chap! You know an awful lot about him, fancy whipping the article into shape? Giant Snowman 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it, probably at the weekend. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

West Germany v Austria (1982)

Group 2 saw one of the great World Cup upsets on the first day with the 2-1 victory of Algeria over reigning European Champion West Germany. This memorable game resulted in the controversial match between West Germany and Austria, their third and final match. As Algeria had already played their third match the day before, West Germany and Austria knew that a West German win by 1 or 2 goals would qualify them both, while a larger German victory would qualify Algeria over Austria, and a draw or an Austrian win would eliminate the Germans. The fourth team in the group, Chile, were eliminated regardless of the outcome. After 10 minutes of furious attack, West Germany succeeded in scoring through a goal by Horst Hrubesch. After the goal was scored, the two German-speaking teams went into an unspoken agreement and just kicked the ball around aimlessly for the rest of the match. Chants of "Fuera, fuera" ("Out, out") were screamed by the appalled Spanish crowd, while angry Algerian supporters waved banknotes at the players. This sham performance was widely deplored, even by the German and Austrian fans who had hoped for a hot rematch of the 1978 FIFA World Cup match in which Austria had beaten West Germany. One German fan was so upset by his team's display that he burned his German flag in disgust.[1] Algeria protested to FIFA, who ruled that the result be allowed to stand, but events led to FIFA introducing a revised qualification system at subsequent World Cups in which the final two games in each group were played simultaneously.

You guys think we should create an article for this game? I think the German Wikipedia already has one.--EchetusXe 11:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say so, provided you can show it meets general notability guidelines. Giant Snowman 13:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, it's notorious as an example as there is of two teams not competing to "fix" a result. It also had the clear consequence of FIFA changing their rules so that groups finished at the same time. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah thats right.--EchetusXe 19:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the most bent games in history. Definitely worth an article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Here. Add to it if you can before it goes online.--EchetusXe 01:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Finished.--EchetusXe 15:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Elimination from MLS Cup Playoffs

Over at Template talk:2009 Major League Soccer season table, we're having a discussion about whether to use shading similar to what is found at 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification to indicate whether teams are eliminated from or qualified for the end-of-season 2009 MLS Cup Playoffs. Any input would be appreciated. – Football.Fútbol.Soccer 05:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Another blocked User:Grant.Alpaugh sock. Grsz¹¹ 17:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wilf Waller

This article is currently on the main page as a DYK, saying "Did You Know ... that in 1900, Wilf Waller was the first South African footballer to play in the English Football League?" This was based on the first two sources quouted in the References section. www.allfootballers.co. also gives his place of birth as "South Africa".

I've now had this posted to my talk page :

I realise that this is original research but I think this makes the claim for him to be South African a bit tenuous. Possibly a Londoner who emigrated as a boy?

1881 England Census

Name: Wilfred Hugh Waller Age: 3

Relation: Son Father's Name: Charles Bullen Mother's Name: Emma Gender: Male Where born: St Geo Han Sq, Middlesex, England

Civil parish: St George County/Island: London Country: England

Street Address: 4 Lyall Street Education:

Occupation: Builders Son

Registration district: Chelsea Sub-registration district: Belgrave

How best to proceed? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if he was born in England, if he was raised in South Africa then he could still be classed as South African. Explain the situation in the article; it shouldn't affect the DYK. Giant Snowman 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I know it's nothing to do with the DYK (I agree with Giant Snowman about the nationality, it shouldn't be a problem), but the article says he was the second foreign player to play in the FL, but the cited source (Independent) doesn't. In the list at the bottom, all it says is that he was the second earliest of players from those 11 countries listed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem with Googling for references - that came from this Forum[1] which actually led me to the Independent article. Re-reading that, all it actually says is that Waller was the first player from South Africa to play in the Football League. As Struway says, there could have been an earlier player from another country that's not in the top 11, or there could have been any number of Canadians between Walter Bowman in 1892 and Waller in 1900. I will change the article to reflect this (it doesn't affect the DYK), but should I also incorporate the above "facts" or put them on the talk page? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Update the article with all the new info, and also put as much background as possible on the talk page, so that if this issue arises again, the evidence is already there. Giant Snowman 18:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Wharton, who was born in the Gold Coast, played for Sheffield United in 1894–95, so Waller was definitely NOT the second foreign player to play in the FL. Wharton pre-dated Waller by about 5 years. Whoops! This just shows how important it is not to extrapolate from incomplete data. I'll be outside the headmaster's office first thing in the morning. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that Wharton was considered British; even though he was born in modern-day Ghana, both his parents were half-Scottish and he was raised in Britain. Also, that Independent source is wrong - it says Karl Hansen was the first Norwegian player to play in the Football League, even though he was Danish! Giant Snowman 16:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wharton is British, the clue is in the title of the Gold Coast (British colony) article. -- Big Dom 17:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Notable awards

Are the Four Four Two Australian Awards notable enough for an article? I don't know the notability criteria for such a thing. Spiderone 07:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned in recipients or the magazine's articles but I was not able to find significant coverage of the award itself in independent sources. Sources do not assert the noteworthiness required for a complete article.Cptnono (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I think there should be independent sources. I'll take this to AfD at some point today if there are no objections. Spiderone 08:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In squad lists on club articles

why is it that in the players loaned out subsection, some editors, myself included, add the date the loan is due to expire, but in the main current squad, we never add the end date for players loaned in? as per Birmingham City F.C.#Players. Is there any reason for the difference in treatment? and if not, is there any good reason why the loan end date shouldn't be included for those loaned in? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the loan end date shouldn't be put in. I've always mentioned it at Manchester United F.C.#First-team squad. – Pee Jay 19:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"..../.. in English football" templates

Hi guys, I have just created the template 1960-61 in English football based upon the template on the 2009-10 article. Can someone have a look at it and make any amendments. It would be useful if WP:Footy editors could carry on creating templates for English football seasons so that we have a complete set and can see which articles are still needed for each season. Thanks. 03 md 07:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Magne Hoseth name

A rough translation of the Norwegian article on Magne Hoseth seems to say that his real name is Magne Hoset (no 'H'), and that after one media outlet misspelt it, others copied and it stuck, in a similar situation to Blaise Kufo / N'Kufo. Even though Hoseth is arguably the common name, it is only so because of a typing error; so shouldn't the article be moved to Magne Hoset? Giant Snowman 19:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[2] is a Q&A with the player. About 2/3 of the way down, he's asked how to spell his name, because the media use both variations. He says on his birth certificate it's without the H, but he writes it with because his dad and his brothers do, he's used to doing it that way, and that's how he prefers it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, cheers Struway! Giant Snowman 08:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Korean PRODs

I've seen that several of the Korean footballer articles are about players that haven't made an appearance. I've done a few PRODs and I hope I haven't made any mistakes but just say if you disagree with one. Spiderone 10:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Good work. I only found two of those that had actually played in the K-League. There are still more than 200 unreferenced articles on Korean footballers, many of which haven't played professionally, but there were more than 500 so we're making progress. Jogurney (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done a sweep of the lower Korean divisions and PRODded about 50 or so players who haven't played in the league cup or the K-League. Spiderone 17:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Javier Flórez

I've only just read the story, but apparently this footballer was sent to jail in Colombia in July for shooting dead a fan who "annoyed" him after a defeat in a game! I am no expert at South American football, and so any details about his footballing career (as opposed to his criminal one!) would be much appreciated. Thanks, Giant Snowman 16:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No but you could use some of the Once Caldas info. I remember reading about this in FourFourTwo I think but it wasn't one of the detailed articles unfortunately. Some Spanish sources are better:[3][4][5][6][7] I think he's a free agent Spiderone 17:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those - they've enabled me to add more about the crime, but nothing about his career other than his position ("midfielder"). Giant Snowman 17:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Busby Babes pics

Can't any old pictures be used for Busby Babes like Liam Whelan? I mean they died ages ago so the copyright must have expired. Spiderone 17:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright on pictures first published in the UK is loosely 70 years after death of author (see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights), so you won't find any expired yetawhile, unless you're lucky enough to come across any that have been genuinely released to the public domain by the copyright-holder. For subjects for whom it is difficult to obtain a free image, and dead people would come into this category, we are allowed to use non-free images in compliance with the policy Wikipedia:Non-free content, which is quite strict. See the image description page for the infobox image used on Len Boyd for an example which no-one's complained about so far... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Need a hand with Beragh Swifts

I came across Beragh Swifts while working on WP:DEP pages; not being a football fan it's Greek to me. Is there is shred of a claim of importance here? Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are not sources verifying notability and other editors will certainly raise concerns over the league not being professional. Should be deleted.Cptnono (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

José Leandro Andrade

The article for the Uruguayan footballer José Leandro Andrade is currently at José Andrade. A number of sources give his name as José Leandro Andrade. Just wondering if someone could work out whether Leandro was a middle name or a first surname as per Spanish naming customs.The Hack 04:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Leandro is not a Spanish surname as far as I know. But according to this bio, it says his father was José Ignacio Andrade. So in keeping with naming traditions, Andrade is his first surname. In addition, since his mother is Argentine (and I'm guessing by his dad's age he didn't really know the guy), there is a chance he might go by Argentine Spanish naming customs, which has no second surname. Digirami (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

His father was a 98 year old Brazilian magician and former slave?!?! Giant Snowman 09:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually one of the Spanish sources suggests he was 97.Hack (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Would someone be able to assess this article since it's not really a stub anymore?Hack (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Triallists in the Scottish League

Tom Parratt is currently on trial at Airdrie United. He's played certainly 2 league games, against Dundee and against Ayr Utd. On the club site match report, he's called A Trialist in the team list, as they do, but still mentioned by name in the prose. What I was wondering, is should these appearances go in his infobox or not? I was assuming not, seeing as his official name seems to be A Trialist rather than T Parratt, but would appreciate someone who understands the Scottish system clarifying the matter. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

From footman.com, in Scotland trialists identities are kept secret in real life for two weeks to give the club in question first option on signing the player, hence the ‘A Trialist’. You can only trial players for a maximum of a month, however you can offer these again and again and again. I'm not sure if this helps you, but i think it is only A Trialist to keep it a 'secret'. This shows a match (East Fife (0) 0 East Stirling (3) 4) where in the squad there is an A.Trialist and B.Trialist. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that trialists couldn only ever play in unofficial, non-competitive games i.e. friendlies; are we sure that the games he played in were actualy League games? Giant Snowman 18:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The rules are slightly different in the Scottish Football League. This link and this link confirm the games were in the First Division. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case Struway, I would say that these games should go in the infobox. Maybe put (trial) next to the team name (as if he was on loan), and then explain the situation in the main body of the article. Giant Snowman 18:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Andrew McNeil played as a trialist in the league this season for both Clyde (second division) and Livingston (third division) before he signed for Montrose. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's lovely, thank you. As GiantSnowman said above, it's something that doesn't happen in England, so I had no idea what standard procedure was. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's about time we had an article for this to be honest; it's only the lack of good references which has held me back from starting one. That ref, short as it is, is a keeper. Seen any more? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Notable Peruvian football clubs

I noticed that a lot Category:Peruvian football clubs have been created. However, I don't know if all of them deserve to exist. A lot of them are clubs that participate in the Copa Peru but never have never obtained promotion or gained notability among people who are not of their region. Also, some clubs such as Jorge Chavez No. 1, are really old clubs that no longer exist. Creating an article for them is useless because they will never gain notability and because of the lack of internet sources, their article size will never increase. --MicroX (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends. Jorge Chavez No. 1 seems historically notable since they were the Primera Division champion once (albeit as an amateur team). I would guess, at the least, that any club that had a professional team would be notable (such as a club that may have played in the Descentralizado, but have been relegated over the year), in addition to any club that had a major national achievement, or any club that participated in the top-flight league as an amateur when there was no professionalism. I also believe there is a team notability page somewhere in Wiki-land, but I don't know where to find it. I'm sure there you will find better guidelines. Digirami (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are some teams that have my doubts:

There are some more that have my doubts but I'm not listing them because they could be more questionable than these. --MicroX (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Of those listed, I would say the following would be notable:

Club Hijos de Yurimaguas (having won the 2da, there must have played in the 1ra and therefore had a professional team in the top-flight)
Sportivo Huracán (if the promotion criteria is the same then as it is now, then as the winner of the Copa Peru, they played in the 1ra with a professional team; if it's not the same, then maybe not)
Unión Buenos Aires (runner-up once, albeit as an amatuer, at the national level. so, historically notable if anything)

The other ones are not notable by anything found on their page, at least to me, Digirami (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if they did gain promotion, gaining promotion isn't a big thing in Peru. Winning the second division isn't very notable, at least in my opinion and what I saw in Peru, and most of those teams were quickly relegated. I think the teams that the Peruvian football clubs that are notable are traditional clubs (such as clubs that have participated in the First Division for many years), clubs that have gained notability in recent years, say 1990.

Sportivo Huracan played only once in the first division. Union Buenos Aires was not a national champion, only a champion during the amateur era when the Primera Division only included teams from Lima and Callao. Hijos de Yurimaguas only played two years in the first division(1991-92); they lost the promotion/relegation playoff in 1998. Other teams that I find not notable: C.D. Hungaritos Agustinos, C.D. Unión Carolina, Circolo Sportivo Italiano (not even a football club anymore), Club Atlético Huracán de Moquegua, Deportivo Cañaña, Deportivo Curibamba, Deportivo Ingeniería, Deportivo UPAO, Guardia Republicana and Hijos de Acosvinchos.--MicroX (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the line for club notability is pretty low. It's important to not fall into the trap of relying solely on online sources, because you never know when some enterprising person will write a book or take the time to do the necessary archival newspaper research. matt91486 (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I like the website at [8] and noticed some sourcing was required for the Leicester City GAN (which I assume will fail without continued work from the original nominator) and was considering using it. The website is not something I could see asserting notability but might be OK for a line. The webpage accepts contributions but it is through email to the creators so it looks like there is a vetting process. It also measures up from the poking around I have done. Any thoughts or should I stick with newspaper articles and such when using inline citaitons for kits?Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the reviewer will be fine with it. They have their own copyright and there are dedicated people running the website so it shouldn't be a problem. Spiderone 07:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It was allowed at Luton Town F.C.'s relatively recent FAC. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've contributed to the site on a few occasions, and I can confirm there is a vetting process, while the editors check for reliability & authenticity etc. All of their kits are sourced, and I consider it 100% as a WP:RS. Giant Snowman 07:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Badass. Thanks for the input.Cptnono (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Application of WP:ATHLETE to football managers

Does anyone know whether a manager of a club in a semi-pro league would satisfy WP:ATHLETE? Thank you. Jogurney (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No I think managers should be treated like players in this case. Which manager are you referring to? Spiderone 07:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say it depends on more than just the level of the league they have managed at, so more to do with general notability. 8lgm (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at Park Mal-Bong. I can find a few articles on the N-League website that appear to mention him (I don't trust Babelfish very much), but he's only managed a team in a semi-pro league. Jogurney (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As with all athletes, managers need to meet WP:GNG OR WP:ATHLETE. If he doesn't meet either then he's a valid candidate for deletion. Giant Snowman 13:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we can find any information on his (presumed) playing career? matt91486 (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The K-League began in 1983 (albeit under a different name), when Park was 26, so there is a chance he played in it. Giant Snowman 17:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris Henderson's years in the wilderness

According to his article, Chris Henderson "played two years of college soccer at UCLA...upon graduating from college, Henderson played for German Second Division club FSV Frankfurt during the 1994-5 season." However, he appears to have graduated in 1990 - so what did he do for the four missing years?!? Giant Snowman 19:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What he didn't do was play professional football. He was representing the national side however.--EchetusXe 11:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

So he only played games for the US national side for four years...? Giant Snowman 12:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite probably. With no national professional league at the time, US Soccer tried to keep their national team players together in the run-up to the 1994 World Cup, see various Years in American Soccer: 1991 Men's National Team, 1992 Olympics and the following Men's NT section, both of which mention Henderson, and 1993 Men's NT, in which they played 34 matches. Then once the World Cup was over he could swan off to Europe. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Winners of All-Ireland medals by count (football)

This category seems to have just cropped up, but I can't help feeling that it's more than a little bit overkill. Opinions please? – Pee Jay 19:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

While this category refers to Gaelic as opposed to association football, it is still too much. Giant Snowman 19:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, I hadn't noticed it was to do with Gaelic. It was just added to Anthony Tohill, which flagged it on my watchlist. Never mind then :) – Pee Jay 20:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Other Final

I think that team squads should me mentioned on here, but the official webiste (which I presume has them) won't load for me. Can anyone take a look for me please? Much obliged, Giant Snowman 11:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the squads aren't listed on the website. – Pee Jay 12:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. OK, thanks for checking for me. Giant Snowman 12:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any squad lists, but this news report has some good background info on the game. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have the DVD somewhere. Will have a root around for it. --Jimbo^[online] 18:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The DVD doesn't list the players either! --Jimbo^[online] 11:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sam Black

I was updating some of the links for the featured lists and I came across Sam Black on the List of Manchester United F.C. players which just went to a disambiguation so I changed it to "Sam Black (footballer)". Does he already have a page under a different name? Spiderone 15:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The only 'Black' at Cat:Man Utd players is Dick Black, who is a different player. Giant Snowman 15:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've also found a "Jimmy Gibson" at the List of Aston Villa F.C. players which needs to be a red link. Spiderone 15:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, there's no Sam Black listed on this site of former players. Are we sure that's his name? Giant Snowman 16:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been there for a while so I assume so. Spiderone 17:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the List of Manchester United F.C. players he was a pre-league era club captain, so quite probably wouldn't appear on fansite lists. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

He was captain from 1883 to 1886/87 - and Newton Heath didn't play their first competitive match until October 1886. Is this guy even notable? Giant Snowman 18:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

He might have been notable for playing at the highest level of amateur sport or something but if there's no information then just leave the red link there Spiderone 08:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say blacklink him, as I've done at List of Gillingham F.C. players for those players who only played for the club in non-league football and never played league football for anyone else -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, Black became a referee after he retired from playing. In one particular incident, he disallowed a goal in a match between Woolwich Arsenal and Burnley as the bladder of the ball had burst through one of the outer panels. His reasoning was that the laws state that the game must be played with a ball, and since the match ball was no longer round, it was technically no longer a ball. Would that fact be worthy of an article? :-P – Pee Jay 19:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If the story has significant coverage, then yes. Either way, what an interesting story! Giant Snowman 20:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've only seen the story recounted in one source, but if it's true I'm sure it'll be in others. – Pee Jay 20:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think captaining Newton Heath is notable enough anyway Spiderone 08:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The case of the missing citizenship

Tam Nsaliwa, a Malawi-born Canadian international, officially relinquished his Canadadian citizenship in favour of German one, in order that he would count as a non-EU player for new club AEK Athens. Since he relinquished it, he has been unable to be selected for the Canadian national team as he isn't officially Canadian; for all intents and purposes he is German. How do we represent his nationality using flags in 'Current squad' lists - Canadian? German? Malawian? Giant Snowman 19:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

His soccer nationality is now German, so I would guess with that one. matt91486 (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly German, for both sporting and non-sporting reasons.--Latouffedisco (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Even though he has represented Canada at full international level? Giant Snowman 07:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

MOS:FLAGS clearly and unambiguously states: "Use the flag and name of the country (be it a state or a nation) that the person (or team of people) officially represented, regardless of citizenship". I would encourage anyone regularly engaged in discussions like this to take a few minutes to re-read MOS:FLAGS, as it's pretty obvious that half the folk commenting on such matters around here haven't done so in a while. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice question. I think in the clubs text should keep Canadian flag, since he represented Canada, with perhaps an * indicating that is EU citizen.

It hapend a similar situation to me a few days ago. Some guys made a website about this season Serbian Superliga. [9]. I contacted them and this nationalities issue came up. The case of Boban Maksimović, that is Serb, but represented Switzerland at U17 and U20 level, and is a choice for senior squad. But in the site was surprisengly showed as Serbian! When I pointed to them, they´ve answered me that it was because he wasn´t going to be considered "foreign" this season. So, because of that, the nationality is changed? I find it wrong. The Federation isn´t going to count the "foreigners" by that website. So it´s here on wikipedia. We should keep by the football nationality, and that "legal" issue should be showed differently. Maybe to put an * in all foregn players. So Nsaliwa would have a Canadian flag but will be missing the * ,indicating he´s comunitarian. FkpCascais (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Records and statistics articles – titles inconsistency

I noticed that articles about clubs' records and statistics are named in several different ways. Here's some examples:

As you can see, there's no consistency at all, whereas titles are supposed to be consistent per WP:NC.
So, does anyone agree that we should always use the same title? — Luxic (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

For sure, I like records and statistics, which is precise.--Latouffedisco (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:LISTNAME says "The name or title of the list should simply be List of _ _ (for example list of Xs)." If we are listing club records (e.g. top goalscorer, highest score etc) then List of Foobar United F.C. records would be my preference. "Statistics" seems too vague to me. What kind of statistics? And isn't Wikipedia WP:NOTSTATS? --Jameboy (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Statistics" in the Man Utd article include the top ten appearance-makers and goalscorers, as well as a progression of the club's record transfers (both in and out). I think it should be "List of Foobar United F.C. records and statistics". – Pee Jay 19:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then let's go for List of _____ records and statistics, which seems the best option to me too. If nobody has any objections, next step will be seeking articles with a wrong title (not difficult, as long as we have this category) and moving them to the right one. It shouldn't take long, if we help each other out. — Luxic (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable solution. I think there was a previous discussion on this but nothing happened with it. As it is, the inconsistency is a bit annoying. Woody (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Garth Crooks

I inadvertently got involved dealing with a disruptive IP at Garth Crooks last night who was removing the statement and reference to the player being the first black player to score a goal in an FA Cup Final, when he scored in the 1981 final. Eventually I got him to make his point on the GC's Talk Page and although his behaviour remained pretty uncivil the point he was trying to say has raised a query for which I would appreciate if an editor here can resolve. The IP provided references to blogs and fanzine sites which suggest Mike Trebilcock was the first player to achieve this in the 1966 FA Cup Final when he scored two goals for Everton who were 0-2 down at the time and eventually went on to win 3-2 against Sheffield Wednesday. The best example being the ToffeeWeb site here. Trebilcock's WP article also make the claim although this is uncited. Interestingly, although the Liverpool Echo, any number of Everton fanzine and blog sites make this claim, IPs sample here, meanwhile, the official Everton FC website does not seem to make such a claim here or here but just refers to him as the Cornishman. Has anyone got an authoritative reference re Trebilcock for which there would appear to be a case, so the two articles can be sorted, thanks Tmol42 (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike Trebilcock isn't black; if anything, he reminds me of Dixie Dean i.e. a white person with dark features. At a push, perhaps Trebilcock had a black grandparent or great-grandparent, and is therefore mixed-race. So Crooks was indeed the first black player to score in an FA Cup Final. Giant Snowman 11:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Trebilock is as Cornish as they come. Does anyone know if Stephen Kelly is black or just Black Irish? Spiderone 11:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Kelly's not black either; he's either Black Irish, or possibly mixed-race. Giant Snowman 11:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

However, we need to abide by sources. It's not our decision to judge how "black" someone is; we only report what reliable sources say, and a number do call Trebilcock that (see newspapers [10][11] and this book [12]). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The papers may be saying "black" when they mean "mixed-race"; I do the same when talking about a friend who is mixed-race. Giant Snowman 18:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. But this is putting personal interpretation on sources. "Newspaper says X; Wikipedia editor thinks it means Y, so puts Y in article" is pretty clear WP:NOR. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't get me wrong, I know that a reliable source will always outweigh the opinion of an individual editor. However, there is no way that Trebilcock (on the left) is "black." Giant Snowman 18:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

He looks like Mark Butcher, a mixed-race cricketer Spiderone 08:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there any sources that say Crookes was the first?--EchetusXe 23:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

... which is, of course, the solitary thing we should be concerning ourselves with. I'm embarrassed to read some of these threads. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, here is the source. If you notice, in the very first sentence of Tmol42's post he says "I inadvertently got involved dealing with a disruptive IP at Garth Crooks last night who was removing the statement and reference to the player being the first black player to score a goal in an FA Cup Final" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Other sources - [13] and [14] and [15]. Giant Snowman 08:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one very uncomfortable with reading this thread. Fair enough to find a source re Crooks, but the rest commenting on how people look is just plain wrong. 8lgm (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What is so "wrong" about it? Skin colour is the concern here. Giant Snowman 08:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

So are Tom Taiwo and Ryan Giggs black because of their ancestry? No because they don't look black Spiderone 08:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly; I have never once heard Giggs referred to as a black player! Giant Snowman 08:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a more base version of the usual nationalist nonsense which dominates this page. I would be unlikely to start a conversation in polite company with "excuse me Sir, are you black or just dark-skinned", and I would expect that others would be able to hold themselves to that as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no getting around the fact that Teribilcock is mixed-race, not black! This site lists the first black player in the history of every (then) Premiership team. Trebilcock is down for Everton, and Walter Tull is down for Spurs. Why is this significant? Because Tull was definitely mixed-race, not black. Therefore as I said on Crook's talk page, and on the ANI about the disruptive editor, the journalists who say Trebilock was the first black player are using "black" to mean "mixed-race." Oh, and be careful about using terms such as "nationalism" on this topic, I can see some rash editor in future accusing another taking it one step to far ans using the nasty 'R' word. Giant Snowman 16:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Please don't involve yourself in any discussions related to Barack Obama. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Giant Snowman 16:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions about some details from the infobox editing

Hi there. Some pages that I´ve started are being (maynly by some anonim) corrected in some details, namingly:

When I´m making a page about a player wich name is the same as his fullname, I´m not including the fullname section, should I put it anyway, despite being the same? (Of course I allways do it in cases like Mauro Carabajal , fullname = Mauro Ezequiel Carabajal-Lopez ; but not in cases like Antal Puhalak , fullname = Antal Puhalak , the same.
In the date of birth, I put the df=y after the date, but some guy is deleting it. It doesn´t really change anything. Should I keep using it, or can I also stop?
I´m allways following the same order ( name, image, fullname, date-place-country of birth, height, position, current club, number, past clubs... ). Some guy puts rather current club before position. Can I revert that change? It makes more sense to have the position first, then current club, followed by the past clubs, and so on...
Whenever certain, I´m adding to the position the side info. Exemple Central defender. Some guys prefer to have only Defender. Is there maybe some other way to do it? Or my way is simple and good?
In the years, clubs, caps(goals), or any sequencies I´m using, (br=x) simply,<x> but some guys add me </x> or <x /> . What´s the difference? I prefer to use the simpliest way. Am I wrong?
I tend to include all the football teams that a certain player signed or played. But some guys select only some. For exemple, I´m having a mini edit war with some anonim about Lamine Diarra. The thing is that many sources have in his career the Swiss clubs N.Xamax, Baden and Aarau, then one season in Jeane dArc before coming to Zrinjski with already 22 years old. This guy insistingly delete that part making Zrinjski his first club (he had 22 years, so it doesn´t make sense that he started playing so late). Can someone look to this case and see what is really going on here? Wy deleting his Swiss career? About my initial question to this, I try to include all clubs, and even digg to youth clubs, if possible. This is interesting, not only putting the obvious! And also, many smaller clubs have the list of notable former players, so if the name of certain player appears in that list, the name of that club shouls also be included in that player infobox (if thru, of course), otherwise, it will look like the editor of the club page is "lying" and wan´t make sence. Am I wright?
When some players are written in their language differently than in English, is it better: Exemple Saša Ilić:
Saša Ilić (Serbian Cyrillic: Caшa Илић )( born...) or Saša Ilić (Serbian Cyrillic: Caшa Илић ; born ...)
resumingly, one or two parentesis?
When finishing the first sentence about player currently playing, I use to include the league+club, but some guys like only club. Exemple: ... playing in Serbian Superliga club FK Javor or only ...playing in FK Javor. I prefer to mention the league, is it ok?

I would appreciate very much your opinion guys, if not in all, at least in some of your preferencies, that´s wy I put it with numbers.

And please somebody chek the Lamine Diarra case ( he was the Serbian Superliga top scorer last season, so it´s quite important...). FkpCascais (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Filip - just my opinions - which may differ from others.....First up, mostly people have switched to Template:infobox Football biography 2

I usually put the name twice, but mostly because I don't have full verification of full name.
df=y makes date show in DD MM YY format, standard for most parts of the world. North America differs. I use df=y for All except North American Articles. Same applies to height template whether they like to use m= or ft= formats.
Order of fields doesn't actually matter. They display in order set by Template code, not the order you put in the page. Put them in an order you find easy to deal with and let the Wkignomes have their fun.
I usually only stick to Goalkeeper, Defender, Midfielder and Striker as positions.
infobox Football biography 2 doesn't require line breaks (caps and goals are set under different parameters) so that issue will go away. If you are using them, <br>, <br />, and </br> all work. Again, pick one and let the wikignomes have their fun.
Some people leave out non-fully-professional clubs, which may be case here (I haven't looked into that particular player)
Two separate sets of parenthesis.
Including league is fine, and sometimes good when following through for notability.

Nothing you are doing is particularly wrong, generally there are just different opinions as to what is best. Personally tend to leave things as they are and concern myself more with content, references and MOS conformities (at output), and if someone is so anal they need to keep changing things, I just leave them to it. I have adjusted some things in new page set-up which I see as sensible, but you will find no matter what you do, someone will find something to change. That's Wikipedia.--ClubOranje^T 01:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Precisely my feelings and advice - so much time is wasted by some editors removing/adding the / in <br>, it's unbelievable. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My take:

If the full name is the same as the common name, it can be omitted.
Date should always be first outside of month-first locales. If an editor is removing it outwith month-first locales, tell him to stop doing it.
As it makes no difference to the output, there's no reason to revert it. I would point this out to the editor who keeps changing it.
Be as precise as is practical, remembering that the position should be the player's most common. If a player almost always plays in central defense, "central defender" or "centre half" is fine. If a player plays predominantly as a winger, "winger" is fine. If the player is frequently moved about, stick to "defender" or whatever.
Use {{infobox football biography 2}}, which avoids this. At some point a bot will be migrating all articles to use this template. (Disclaimer: I wrote that template.)
Use everything which can be referenced by a reliable source. It is the sourcing which matters.
One set of parentheses is fine.
Stylistic choice. As it helps to provide context, I use both.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

At first I want really to thank you guys for having the pacience and will to help me with this questions. Your opinions were exactly what I needed.

I do know I should use the infobox2, but as I do some pages as an "addiction" (I NEED to make missing players pages frfom time to time) I was very used to the previous infobox, and I do it quite quikly. I´ll start doung the infobox2, I promise...

About the points, I understand that:

1 - ClubOranje, I also use it the same as you, when I´m not 100% sure that it is his fullname, but in many cases I know it. For ex-Yugoslavia pages it´s easy because there, you officially have (the exeptions are very rare) only one name and one surname. But, as I lived in Mexico (Spanish speaking country) and I live in Portugal for some time now, in both, Portuguese and Spanish, people are used to bee known in one way (usually a part of the fullname) but have another "complete" fullname. So, for the majority of ex-Yu players it looks unnecessary to write the name twice. For Spanish or Portuguese (Brazilian too) it "obrigatory" section.

2 - Unfortunately, Chris, I must recognise my English is far from perfect, so I didn´t quite completely understood what you ment (I must sound stupid), but as I understood, for the European players it´s the same to write df=y or not. For US and other players I´ll chek how is done in some other pages.

3 - I understand there are no rules, but I´ll continue doing it "logically".

4 - I use the positions only when a player always throuout his career played it, and I´ll (as already doing) keep it simple. This are the possitions I use: Goalkeeper , Right, Central or Left Defender , Defensive, Right, Central, Left or Offensive Midfielder (point: I never use combinations like Left Offensive, that would bee too much. I keep by maximum two words), and Forward. Forward or Striker, what you guys use more? I know that in perfect English the Left or Right Defenders are called Full-backs, but as I wanted to stick with "Defender", and max.2 words, that was the solution I´ve finded. It´s not perfect English, but everybody everywhere will understand, Left Defender, I think. My wingers are also called Right or Left (depending on case) Midfielders because of same reasons.

5 - I´ll try to start using infobox2. But if in need, allways the simpliest.

6 - That was what I was already doing. Copying the teams from the sources, and adding a source if I find some team missing in the primary source. I do find necessary to write the clubs (even if not fully professional), specially if between some more important ones, so there want be "holes" in the time period that may lead to speculation about where that player was that season. After all, it´s not making a text about it, just a simple lign in the infobox, with the years and club name.

7 - Here I´m still with doubts. One says 2 parentheses, other say 1. So, both are OK?

8 - When not obvious I´ll keep writing the League+Club. Sounds nice, and that way is complete info.

About Lamine Diarra, it looks that I was wrong. It really seems that there are two players with samed name. But I was misslead by the vast number of websites that are wrong, and have the both players info together. But, still not 100% sure.

About better way of spending time here, I am already wasting enormous amount of time adding reliable sources to players pages that I think worth it, and were completely unsourced. I can´t understand how can people make pages without puting any source... It´s like sending a legless person to play. FkpCascais (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds nice. And I can confirm you that there are 2 Lamine Diarra, the one of Partizan, and the second one of Arras, who played in Switzerland. see that, in French, a biography of the Arras' Lamine Diarra.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Euopean Cup/Champions league matches

I noticed that most of European cup/champions league articles are poor, so I started to add match details at 1989–90 European Cup, using RSSSF. Good or not? I believe it is an important task. Any opinions?--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I wondered when someone would do that. I have recently started doing a similar thing fow World Cup qualification articles. We seem to neglect these sort of tasks, thinking the scorers for 1989 are less important than those for 2009. Keep up the good work. 03 md 10:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That´s great work! FkpCascais (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

2009-10 in english football

I have created a stub for Sunderland's 2009-10 season in order to complete the Premier League club season articles for this year. Can someone please expand it with the Premier League results. 03 md 22:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 Copa Sudamericana's next sub-article

The 2009 Copa Sudamericana has completed its First Stage, which accounts for exactly half of the games of the competition. The next thirty games will take place from the Round of 16 to the Finals. Of course, I would like create a sub-article for the last four rounds, but I have no idea what to call the article. 2009 Copa Sudamericana knockout stages seems very wrong since the entire competition is essentially a knockout competition (as one can see by the bracket). Any ideas what the new article should be titled? Digirami (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Higgins

Is the Sandy Higgins who was a player between 1905 and 1919 the same as the Sandy Higgens who managed BSC Young Boys between 1924 and 1928? Giant Snowman 18:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, but could not find anything. Ask Cattivi directly, I think.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have done, hopefully he'll pop along and sort it out! Giant Snowman 15:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Major tournament qualification articles

I noticed a while ago that User:Doma-w had been creating articles for World Cup and European Championship qualification such as this. I think it should definitely be one of our goals to have standalone pages for each group of qualification and the main tournaments of all the major championships worldwide. However, I wanted to get some views on the style that the user has presented the page. Should they be left as they are with the addition of footyboxes, or should the team stats be removed in favour of the format used for 2010 qualification? Thanks. 03 md 08:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That's crazy. Could you imagine having to do that for every group? Or every zone? Imagine how big South America's article might be. Or any other region for that fact. I think this crosses the line of too much statistics. I think the format we have going for the 2010 qualification is enough as it contain the important stats: who played, the standings, the scores, and who scored the goals. Digirami (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh!! I had to put my sunglasses on to look at that page - too much colour, too much information. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the complex table in this article and replaced it with footy boxes. I would appreciate the assistance of footy editors to work through the other articles for this and other qualification tournaments. Each of the articles needs a group table and results box, as with the 2010 World Cup articles. 03 md 19:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Eek! Couldn't even begin to read it. Your edit to group 9 (above) at least is far clearer.—MDCollins (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Group 9 results are now done and just need a check-through. Can I get some collaboration going to get the other articles up to scratch. 03 md 15:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone help me with this. User:Doma-w keeps reverting my attempts to apply uniformity to the articles. 03 md 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

James O'Shea page move

This RM started over a month ago, consensus looks to be to move it to Jay O'Shea (due to media useage), can an admin please do the deed? Thanks, Giant Snowman 13:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Done – Toon 17:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! Giant Snowman 17:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Derby United F.C. - Hoax, nominate for deletion

The article on Derby United is a hoax page. Would someone be able to nominate this page for speedy deletion? Animaly2k2 (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have done so, and it has subsequently been deleted. Giant Snowman 17:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, thank you. Animaly2k2 (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"The club is notable as being one of five founder members of the Football League in 1890 and is, therefore, one of only eleven clubs to have compete in every season of the English football league." Putting aside the fact that the Football League was founded in 1888 and had twelve founder members, can anyone else see the contradiction inherent in that sentence? Hoaxers could at least take the time to make their articles make sense....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Vlad9's moves

I've just gone through the move log of Vlad9 (talk · contribs), and there appear to be some dubious and undiscussed page moves in there. A few examples:

Willem II (football club) to Willem II Tilburg (contrary to consensus, has since been moved back)
Luis Suárez (Uruguayan footballer) to Luis Alberto Suárez Diaz (has since been mvoed back)
Victoria Cluj-Napoca to Victoria Cluj (even though the article still calls the club Victoria Cluj-Napoca)
Ferar Cluj-Napoca to Ferar Cluj (same thing)

There are hundreds of moves out there, and a great deal appear to be legitimate. I can't go through them on my own, and as an IP I can't move them. What should happen? 83.80.18.68 (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Just go to WP:RM. Some of them, as you say, aren't that dubious Spiderone 07:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Or you could register an account, wait three days, and then you'll be able to move them yourself. – Pee Jay 08:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

USA yearly results

I don't know if else anyone has seen United States men's national soccer team 2008 results and United States men's national soccer team 2009 results. I brought this issue up somewhere (here?) once before, but I couldn't find it. What should we do with these? Necessary cleanup aside...Would it be correct if the information were to be moved onto a 2008 in American soccer and 2009 in American soccer article, respectively, similar to the national team results at 2008–09 in English football or 2008–09 in Italian football? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Additionally, you would have to do two things: 1) it would be better if you just had the {{footballbox}} information when it comes to the national team results. Anything else is excessive, pointless information/statistics and should be erased; 2) at the minimum, add a table with the results of all domestic competitions. Digirami (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I figured as much, but honestly, I just don't feel like doing it right now. I will, though. Just not today. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ya I know what you mean. I had to do pretty much the same thing with Ecuador's national team, except I had to change 15+ years of results. Took me the better part of the week. Talk about a tedious pain in the ass. Digirami (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with GA nom required

I listed Leicester City F.C. for GA nom a while back and its currently "on hold" while improvements are made, I don't have the knowledge or time to make them all myself so I'm appealing for help.

a full list can be found here but some of are as follows: -

Citations - Cite the following
- Third paragraph of History Leicester reached the FA Cup semi-final in 1974.
- Fourth paragraph of History. Jock Wallace resumed the tradition of successful Scottish managers (after Peter Hodge and Matt Gillies) by steering Leicester to the Division Two championship in 1980.
- Fifth paragraph of History. McGhee left the club unexpectedly in December 1995 whilst Leicester were top of Division One to take charge of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
- Sixth paragraph of History. O'Neill was the first manager to win silverware for 26 years, winning the League Cup twice, in 1997 and 2000, and Leicester were runners-up in 1999.
- Final paragraph of History. On 22 November, Ian Holloway was appointed manager. Holloway made history when he became the first Leicester manager in over 50 years to win his first league game in charge, beating Bristol City 2–0.
- Final paragraph of History. Leicester were voted as 'The Best Club In The East Midlands '09' in a national poll, following on from two consecutive awards in '07 and '08.
- First paragraph of Colours. The first commercial logo to appear on a Leicester kit was that of Admiral Sportsware, the kit designers, in 1976.
- First paragraph of Colours. Cite all these facts. The first sponsorship logo to appear on a Leicester shirt was that of Ind Coope in 1983. British snack food manufacturer Walkers Crisps held a long association with the club, sponsoring them from 1987 to 2001. On 24 April 2009 the club officially unveiled their new 2009–10 home shirt during the last League One home game against Scunthorpe United. The new shirt will be without a sponsor in honour of the club's 125-year anniversary. The shirt is manufactured by Joma. The new kit features a central crest with "125" below.
- Second paragraph of Colours. Another new character who is now seen every week at home games is TOPPS, the (Topps Tiles Tile) becoming a brand new mascot.
- Stadia. Just about the whole section...
- Club Honors. The 1942 and 1941 championships need referencing.
- Records and statistics. All facts that aren't referenced.
NPOV - The following are NPOV unless cited
- Fourth paragraph of History. Due to City's relegation in at the end of the 1977–78 season and McClintock's subsequent resignation, he is regarded as one of Leicester's worst managers.
- Fourth paragraph of History. Why was it unsucessful? Plus citation needed Milne left in 1986 and was replaced by in 1987 David Pleat, who oversaw one of the club's most unsuccessful periods in its history.
- First paragraph of Colours. Why was it unpopular? Citation needed This change was unpopular, and dropped at the end of the season.

Cheers, Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 00:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I just added a ref for the '74 semi. Do a google news search with key words and than drill down by date (type in the year in the other dates field on the left). Takes a few minutes each if you do the full cite format. I'll grab a few more. There are so many that this will take some time from you if you want to see it reach GA but it shouldn't be too bad.Cptnono (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have the time and references to make the fixes, why nominate it? Or am I being harsh? --Jameboy (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I was thinking the same thing about the editor. However, if everyone who skipped by this would have added a reference the article would be fixed there would be another article on the main project page's "showcase". I don't really care either way but since it is almost done it felt like a shame to ignore it completely.Cptnono (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that is realyl tripping me up that is important is the mention of winning the War League South in 1942 and the Midland War Cup in 1941. I can't find a source for this. Any assistance with those two would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a reference for the War League South. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Good topic question

Would something like "Spain at Euro 2008" ever be a good topic without a "Spain at Euro 2008" article? I say this because 4 of the players in that team are good articles now. Spiderone 19:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that such an article would definitely be necessary. The good/featured topic criteria state that the topic must have "an introductory and summary lead article or list", and I don't think that either UEFA Euro 2008 or UEFA Euro 2008 squads quite cover that criterion. Also, I would think that all 23 squad members and the manager would need to be at GA status or better for such a topic to be promoted to GT status. Probably not a worthwhile objective, IMO. Also, I'm not sure that this project wants to be heading in the same direction as the category about cricket's Invincibles, especially when there was nothing particularly remarkable about Spain's Euro 2008 win. – Pee Jay 20:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Would there be any particular football tournaments that are analogous to the 1948 Invincibles tour?Hack (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Preston North End's unbeaten League and Cup wins in 1888-89 would be a similar situation, but like I said, I don't think we should be heading in that direction with any set of articles. – Pee Jay 10:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

International caps and the Olympics

I've just been adding to the profile of the Grendanian international Kitson Bain, now at English league 1 club Tranmere Rovers. (which should be Khitson Bain I think).

One of the interesting things that has come up is that the external link provided to his national caps/ goals 25(9), seems at odds with various news reports I have found (and referenced). I can't find a full list of his his appearances and goals (unless anyone else can point me in the direction).

I've found 8 international goals and then an additional 4 in qualifying for the 2004 Olympics. Can anyone clarify if qualifiers for and/ or finals appearances at the Olympics constitute full international caps, or if (as I currently have a hunch) they are Under-23's?

Any help gratefully appreciated

Steve-Ho (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I may have been able to answer my own question by searching the archive of the project Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_10#Olympic_goals_don.27t_count_in_international_stats.3F. Any advice on how to find the missing international goal still welcome though Steve-Ho (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Since only U23 teams can qualify for the Games, I assume that Olympic qualification matches count as U23 caps and goals. 83.80.18.68 (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, what about the 3 over-age players allowed? Do they get given U-23 caps?--ClubOranje^T 12:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes - 'overage' players who qualify for the under-21 team receive under-21 caps, so all players on the under-23 team (regardless of age), reveive under-23 caps. Giant Snowman 12:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the Hauzen Cup enough?

Would playing in the Hauzen Cup be enough to pass WP:ATHLETE? For example this player hasn't played in the league or the Korean FA Cup but has played in the Hauzen Cup. Spiderone 11:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would think so, it is contested by the 15 current professional K-League teams and it has a 17 year history so it isn't a one off novelty event. Camw (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Goans in football

Is this article allowed? It has a dubious section called "Some with potential Goan connection" and doesn't cite any sources at all. Spiderone 18:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles on regional football already exist - such as Football in Yorkshire. I think the article could do with a tidying up and some sources, rather than deletion. Giant Snowman 18:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and renaming as well - something like Association football in Goa. Giant Snowman 18:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

But it isn't about Football in Goa: it is about people from that state who have played football. Its putative English equivalent might be Cornish Footballers, with a section on players for whom there is no evidence that they have ever had anything to do with Cornwall apart from having a name beginning Pen- or Tre-. It might be more suited to a category, except that only three of the players seem to have wiki-articles. Kevin McE (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

True, but the point is that if the article remains, it should deal with the history of the sport in that region, as opposed to just a list of quasi-notable sportspeople. Giant Snowman 19:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is, at the moment, it could easily be replaced by a category. Although I'm assuming people in the "India schools" section aren't that notable and the people with a "potential Goan connection" should be removed if unsourced. Spiderone 19:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

English Season Articles

Is there anyway to get a wiki # link so as you can have a link going straight to (say) the 4th division table e.g. at both 1990–91 in English football and 1990–91 Football League you can't go direct to the 4th div league table because the sub-headings for the league tables are the same as for the Overview section above. Is there a solution to this, other than adding 'Tables' to all the League Table sub-headings (or is that quite easy for a bot?) Eldumpo (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, by using the {{Anchor}} template you can put anchors wherever you like. e.g. you can put {{anchor|4th div table}} in the article and then use [[1990-91 in English football#4th div table]] as a link. Nanonic (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Or you could link to 1990–91 Football League#Fourth Division 2. It works in pretty much the same way, except without all the unnecessary code. – Pee Jay 23:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sol Campbell

Its been reported by the Daily Mail that he's walked from Notts County but its still unconfirmed remove him as has been done, or wait until the club announce it? Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 07:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say wait until it's official. Wikipedia is not a news service. The club have not said he has gone, so in that respect he's a Notts County player. --Jimbo^[online] 08:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

then may I suggest that an admin adds him back on the Notts County page and protects it as people will just keep removing him. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 08:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Or you can start googling. Sky has confirmed. I get the principle though, not news and all that stuff.Cptnono (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Summer/Winter/Undisclosed

User:Digirami keeps making edits to those templates to change the images of transfers to text. Template:Fb si player, Template:Fb out2 player, Template:Fb in2 player. Is there an official WikiProject Football opinion on this? He lists his reason for editing as MOS:IMAGES#Avoid entering textual information as images. Ceriy (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Abdurrahman Roza Haxhiu

Not sure why this was deleted but:

I think Abdurrahman Roza Haxhiu is notable because he has a stadium named after him but I can't find any sources to prove this since everything is about the stadium and not him. Spiderone 12:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would having a stadium named after you make you notable? - it is only a local sports stadium, and he was probably the most famous local player, or donated money for its construction etc. Giant Snowman 13:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure but I thought he might have been another Selman Stërmasi or Loro Boriçi. I might take it to AfD since I can't find sources. Spiderone 13:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Imho, there was no need to bring it to AfD; you could just turn it into a redirect to the stadium's article (I think a top league stadium is definitely notable, isn't it?). --Angelo (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You can suggest the redirect at the AfD if you want. I'll try to remember to redirect it afterwards if not. Spiderone 16:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Brazil international caps

I would like another opinion regarding the Brazil international caps from the 2009 CONCACAF Gold Cup. Here's the summary: Brazil was invited to the Gold Cup, but because their senior team had just played in the 2003 FIFA Confederations Cup, they chose to send their Olympic team to the Gold Cup. The Gold Cup is an official senior team tournament, therefore the international appearances and goals are fully recognized by FIFA. However, recently User:Paulozin keep excluding the Gold Cup appearances for Carlos Alberto de Jesus and Nilmar Honorato da Silva articles. I would like another opinion regarding this issue, because my research shows that FIFA and RSSSF includes the appearances from Gold Cup:

Nilmar's profile on 2009 FIFA Confederation Cup website mentions that his first cap came in the July 13, 2003 match against Mexico which is the opening match of the Gold Cup.
Robinho, Maicon and Heurelho Gomes also had their FIFA profile page mention the first cap in the Mexico match.
RSSSF's total number of appearances and goals for the players involved in the Gold Cup (Robinho, Maicon, Gomes, Kaká, Júlio Baptista, Alex and Diego) are consistent with their wiki articles and international statistics table which includes the Gold Cup appearances and goals.

I would like an opinion on this issue, and I'll probably need some help to keep the correct information in the articles. I also have left a message on User:Paulozin's talk page and still waiting for a response. — Martin tamb (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Those sound like full internationals and should be treated as such. An abnormal selection is not enough, in fact that would be a POV edit on our behalf to say that those weren't full internationals. There are loads of examples where a shadow side is selected, usually in the case of European sides when they go on a end of season tour (eg England tour of Australia in the mid 1980s, or Scotland in the Kirin Cup). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Any caps won in a senior competition are senior caps, regardless of the status of the team. It may have been played by Brazul under-23s, but they were representing the full senior team. Giant Snowman 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If FIFA considers those matches to be senior internationals, which I understand to be the case, then WP ought to treat them as such. Jogurney (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance, I have reverted the edits to include those caps. — Martin tamb (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

CONMEBOL's website

CONMEBOL changed their website design recently and now all links to match reports have gone bad. I don't know if they will ever come back, or if these bad links are temporary because of the design change. But I felt that this should be brought up just in case. Digirami (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. It appears that all of the match reports were moved from: "http://www.conmebol.com/" to: "http://old.conmebol.com/conmeboltest/". I am not sure if this is a temporary move (the "conmeboltest" parameter suggests it may be) or if it is permanent. Once we know that the move is permanent, it is possible to migrate the urls using AWB. Let's monitor the website for a few days to see if it moves again. Jogurney (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User:DroopyDoggy

Could you guys have a look at the contributions of this new user here and have a look at the articles he created/contributed to. I believe he made a number of texts and images copyright infrigements. Can someone please confirm this feeling? Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you were right - several cut-and-paste jobs from external websites despite having already been warned. I've blocked him for a few days - if you notice suspicious things like that in the future, you can drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup where someone'll have a closer look, or at the admins' noticeboard if you're pretty sure. Anyway, cheers for bringing it up. – Toon 00:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand, thanks.--Latouffedisco (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Positional transition

Out of interest, when is the transition in positions from full-back/half-back/forward to defender/midfielder/striker considered to have happened in England? Obviously it's difficult to pin down an exact date, but a general time-frame would be helpful. – Pee Jay 20:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere in the middle 60s I would say. Commentaries of games in the early 60s refer to half backs (eg Dave Mackay, Jim Baxter). I guess the first famous 4-4-2 team would have been the England 1966 team, although that was more of a diamond shape (Bobby Charlton at the point) than a flat midfield. Funny how the diamond was oft criticised when Sven used it given England's previous success with it. I think from that point onwards the back four concept becomes standard. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. I ask because I'm trying to note down the playing positions of Manchester United's players in the stats sections of the club's season articles, but I'm not sure when to stop using FB/HB/FW and start using DF/MF/FW. It's confusing because some people give the team's formation in the 1968 European Cup Final as an old-fashioned 3-2-2-3 (2-3-5 with the centre-half withdrawn from half-back line into defence and inside forwards dropped into attacking midfield role), but the DVD of the match shows a 4-3-3 formation. I'm fairly certain that DF/MF/FW was in use by the 1970s, but if I could work out which season to make the transition at, I would be a whole lot happier. – Pee Jay 23:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

England's '66 cup winning team was referred to as the wingless wonders, so I've always presumed they were 4-4-2 at the time just without wingers. 91.106.110.11 (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it was a diamond shape, the two "wide" midfielders (Martin Peters and Alan Ball, Jr.) would play a bit narrow, hence wingless wonders. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

4-3-3 is probably the best way to describe that United team. It's clearly not an old fashioned system because there are only four old style "forwards" (Charlton and the three up front). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My only comment about that would be that David Sadler would often play as a forward, supported by the fact that he wore #10 in the 1968 final. A reorganisation of the team, with Brennan, Foulkes and Dunne at the back, Stiles and Crerand in midfield, and Best, Kidd, Charlton, Sadler and Aston up front (with Sadler and Kidd playing slightly more withdrawn) would not have been unlikely. – Pee Jay 12:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

DFB Cup notability

Quick question - would a team that participated in the DFB-Pokal be considered notable? (Not players, but the team itself). I was considering creating TSV Stelingen, just wasn't sure if it would pass or not. matt91486 (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. It's like the FA Cup isn't it? Spiderone 07:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. Madcynic (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - hopefully I'll have time to create the article soon. matt91486 (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

FAO Administrators

Can someone please speedy delete Paul Evans (footballer born 1973) under WP:CSD G6, and then move Paul Evans (South African soccer) there. Thanks, --Jimbo^[online] 10:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to do the move yourself (I think) as the (born 1973) page is just the redirect left from when the move was done in the other direction and has no other history. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The page (born 1973) needs deleting first though. --Jimbo^[online] 10:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Could have just moved it over the redirect, while the (born 1973) page had no history other than the previous move. Now it's been changed, it will need deleting first. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Done. Camw (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Gerry Daly

I'm having trouble with an anonymous editor who keeps reverting my completely reasonable edits to Gerry Daly, calling them "childish vandalism". I've tried posting a message on the user's talk page, but they don't seem to be able to see why their reverts are unconstructive. Could someone please whack User:82.198.140.206 with a wet trout for me? – Pee Jay 20:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Record defeats

Out of two scorelines, 0–8 and 2–10, which would statisticians count as a heavier defeat? 0–8 as it would leave a team lower in a league table, or 2–10 as more goals were conceded? Oldelpaso (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Both are equal, and both deserve mention. Giant Snowman 13:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I would go with 2-10 as worse simply because they had let in 10 goals! Doesn't matter how much you score if you still loose!! Govvy (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

0-8 is worse than 2-10 as per the league table issue mentioned by the OP. Madcynic (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

They are both defeats by an eight goal margin, and any attempt to judge between them would be OR. Kevin McE (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Georgios Fotakis international caps

Georgios Fotakis has has one call up earlier in the year to the Green senior squad, but never made his debut. IP users insist on adding his international 'career' to the infobox, even though it shows 0 (0) - and I'm pretty sure consensus has been that we don't display calls ups in the infobox. Anyways, I have started a discussion here, any input appreciated. Giant Snowman 08:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be removed. He could still theoretically play for another national team. Spiderone 12:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I did find many players having in the infobox the nt(country): 0 (0); or nt(country U21): 0 (0). It´s not such a bad idea... And it does inform that a certain player does´t have caps, so other people (that don´t know it, but know that he was in the nt) wan´t say otherway. FkpCascais (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The only time I tend to do that is when they were listed in the squad at an official tournament (such as World Cup, Confed cup, Olympics etc.) and didn't make the field. If they were just called to the squad for a friendly and didn't play, they are just another spectator as far as I'm concerned. Like all things, there are exceptions to that....--ClubOranje^T 08:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Player categories for merged clubs

Should players who competed for a club who have since been merged (and where both clubs have individual articles) appear in the category of the current club or the one they played in at the time. Specific example - should footballers who only played for Dagenham F.C. appear in the Category:Dagenham & Redbridge F.C. players Eldumpo (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If the category exists, put the player in the category for the club he played for. If not, the merged club category should be fine, as long as it is made clear in the category text that players who played for the prior clubs are also included. – Pee Jay 21:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven´t been doing it. In Serbian case there were 2 major mergies ( in 2006, FK Proleter Zrenjanin + FK Budućnost Banatski Dvor = FK Banat ; and FK Železnik merged in 2005 into a allready existing FK Voždovac). The two cases are different. In the first, the two clubs cessed to exist forming a new one. In the second case, the "bigger" club merged into a "smaller" one keeping, the resulting club, the name of the smaller. The existing categories are: FK Banat players ( including only the players that have played since FK Banat exists, 2006) and F.K. Voždovac players ( that include only the players that have played in FK Voždovac, not including the FK Železnik ones. I have noteced that in Romanian clubs categories, there is a different category for FC Politehnica Timişoara and FC Timişoara, the last one claiming the succession right. I also wanted to ask to some admin if it is possible to make the F.K. Voždovac category into FK Voždovac category, since it´s that logic that all other country categories follow: FK Partizan players, FK Vojvodina players, FK Napredak players, etc. FkpCascais (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How about clubs that merged and have split?Hack (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the easiest thing to do would be to create cats for the pre-merge clubs. Potentially Category:Dagenham & Redbridge F.C. players could wind up including players who played for Dagenham, Redbridge Forest, Walthamstow Avenue, Leytonstone/Ilford, Leytonstone and the original Ilford, none of whom truly belong in there...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I concur - see Category:Beitar Tel Aviv F.C. players, Category:Shimshon Tel Aviv F.C. players and Category:Beitar/Shimshon Tel Aviv F.C. players. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced pages

I´m fed up of some anonim guys making all kind of unuseless corrections and small changes in, mostly, ex-Yugoslavia players pages. The problem is that those are, in it´s majority, fans of certain clubs (I see it from it´s edit history) that like to have all the club players in same way. I have nothing agains it, but for me it´s not understandable to have people who care and spend time editing pages, and doesn´t see that half of these pages are or were(because I had to do it) unsourced, with the proper BLP´s indicating it. Since I think they follow this page too, I hope they are going to read my advice to them: " If you care that much, please, start adding sources to the pages!" And then lose time with small edits. FkpCascais (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not everyone knows how to or has the time to add references despite making millions of minor edits. It's a bit annoying as it sometimes looks like a player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG when in fact they don't have to. Spiderone 08:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope they learn it then. Because they are obviously not new around here. It´s the sort of editors that correct <br,> to </ br>, change the clubs naming in the infoboxes, add or remove the df=y in the birth dates, and that sort of edits, and they usually do it sequencially, in a entire list of players!. Sometimes there appears a guy (anonim) that removes all youth clubs and non-important ( well, in his consideration) clubs from the infoboxes, leaving only the ones , he consideres, important. About what you were saying, players that appear failing WP:ATHLETE, but in fact thay don´t, simply the page lacks info, I did finded many cases of those. Regards. FkpCascais (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Football League Trophy notability

I was about to create an article on Lee Kendall who made one appearance for Cardiff in the the Football League Trophy against League Two side Rushden & Diamonds in 2001. However, according to the article on the Football League Trophy, the season in which he played the match was during a period when a handful of Conference sides competed in an attempt to even out the numbers. Does the fact that possibly non-professional Conference sides took part in the same year mean his notability could be in question? Kosack (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If all the Conference sides who entered that year were fully-pro then yes. If there was one part-time team then it wouldn't be a fully-pro level of sport as per WP:ATH. --Jimbo^[online] 15:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Does playing for Kosovo mean you pass WP:ATHLETE?

There are some players whose claim to fame is playing internationally for Kosovo such as Arsim Abazi, Fitim Haliti and Enis Zabërxha. Does this mean they pass WP:ATH? Spiderone 08:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so, as Kosovo isn't playing FIFA recognised international games. There would be an equivalence with the articles that were deleted for players on the Tibet national football team, which caused a right stink. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Jmorrison is right. Just as playing for Tibet means you can still play for Nepal (as in the case of Tashi Tsering), players who represent Kosovo are still eligible for Albania, as Kosovo isn't an official national team. Giant Snowman 09:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, all matches are unofficial and as pointed out, they can still play for other nations cha ndl er 09:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If I´m not wrong, some did get to play for another nations, specially u21 of Sweden, Switzerland and other countries where is a lot of kosovar emigration. But many only play locally in Kosovo. It has to be done case by case, but simply because they play for Kosovo (they only played friendlies and non-FIFA tournaments), should lead directly to deletion. FkpCascais (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

William Murphy - father & son?

Does anyone know if Billy Murphy (born 1895) and Bill Murphy (born 1920s) were father and son? The dates are right, both played on the wing, and both were from Liverpool...Giant Snowman 11:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've now expanded the infobox on the younger William Murphy. According to www.allfootballers.com, he was born in Birstall, West Yorkshire in November 1921 at the time when the older one was with Manchester City. It's unlikely that there's any connection; my Southampton reference books are normally pretty good at giving details of relatives who played professionally, and there's nothing in the bio of the elder one about a son of the same name, so I think not. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking for me, much appreciated. Giant Snowman 15:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Honduras U-17 national football team

Can an admin please move Honduras U-17 national football team over the redirect at Honduras national under-17 football team; it's an uncontroversial move as the latter is standard naming convention for national teams. Cheers, Giant Snowman 14:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Chris, much appreciated! Giant Snowman 15:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Rob Keith

Since one of the choices at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Rob Keith is footballer, your comments are invited. Uncle G (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Would Bruma pass WP:GNG?

I know that Jeffrey Bruma's page, if it is deleted, is likely to be recreated in the future but surely being an unused substitute isn't enough. The argument raised in the AfD is that he has a full biography and all that stuff but from what I see most of the sources aren't independent. If you've got a minute, can you vote or comment? Spiderone 08:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No - everything fails WP:NTEMP as it is just player profiles and junior match reports, the ususal run of the mill stuff. Giant Snowman 10:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sylvan Ebanks-Blake's height

I'm having a bit of a problem with some editors over at Sylvan Ebanks-Blake. Both the PFA Footballers' Who's Who 2009-10 and the Sky Sports Football Yearbook 2009-2010 say that Ebanks-Blake is 5'10" tall, while the Wolves website claims that he is only 5'8". I had noted both print references when I added Ebanks-Blake's height to his article, and yet, when reverting his height to 5'8", two editors retained those references and called my edits vandalism. So which source should we trust? The sources that corroborate each other by saying he is 5'10", or the one official Wolverhampton Wanderers source that says 5'8"? – Pee Jay 16:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with SkySports, those premiumTV profiles are done by owners of the company that provides the website rather than the club. All the club do is update the news stories. --Jimbo^[online] 16:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE should be made clearer

On a lot of AfDs people are mistaking players being professional with clubs/leagues being professional. For example Jonni Heikkinen is apparently a professional player but he is playing in a semi-pro league for a semi-pro club. There seems to be a grey area here and a lot of people aren't sure. My interpretation is that anyone can be professional. You could be a professional player in the Conference South, for example, but that doesn't make you notable. Could WP:ATH be made clearer to avoid confusion? Spiderone 13:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair it does say "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.", so clearly the level Conference South wouldn't qualify. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This is why citation is important to establish who they are and what level they play at. But WP:ATHLETE also covers players who play at the top of their game in other countries. If there is enough citation coverage for Jonni Heikkinen and it shows he is playing in the top league then he will pass both Athlete and notability. If there is no citation then by consensus then the article is more likely to be removed. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes but for some reason there is a lot of confusion between "fully professional level" and the "highest level". On the AfD I mentioned previously, the player in question is a professional but the league isn't. Even the proof given for the league's professional status said that players were studying for degrees while playing. [16] Spiderone 14:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Normally when the league is fully pro it's easier to implement who's who. But if it is the top league in the country and the league isn't fully pro, then you need citation otherwise the player will fail on WP:Notability before WP:Athlete takes its affect. Govvy (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No but that's the problem. The players in question have profiles which don't add anything to what is already stated on Soccerway or Playerhistory or whatever. It is just basic info like birth dates, age and current club. Even the "... is a professional footballer" needs a source if the league isn't professional in my opinion. Spiderone 14:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"But WP:ATHLETE also covers players who play at the top of their game in other countries." - where does it say that.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't. Again we're confusing WP:ATH with WP:GNG Spiderone 08:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Bert Trautmann

Sorry to make another post here but if anyone's interested in seeing a football-related article on the main page then you can take a look here. We missed Duncan Edwards again unfortunately but we may be able to get Steve Bruce in December. Spiderone 15:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has a free picture or one where the copyright has expired it would be helpful too. Spiderone 18:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried several paths of enquiry before and during the FAC, without success. So I went to the club museum once more, specifically to take the picture of the sculpture that is currently the lead image. There might be someone somewhere with a picture of the octogenarian Trautmann they are willing to release (something I tried and failed to get hold of), but the chances of getting a free picture of him from the 50s are minimal. Copyright throughout Europe is life + 70 years, so any picture of him as an adult is still under copyright. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Arsenal F.C. players FLRC

I have nominated List of Arsenal F.C. players for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (17–14) 14:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Record defeats again

Further to earlier discussion about record defeats, which is worse - 2–9 or 0–8? One's a bigger margin of defeat but the other involves conceding more goals...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I always thought record defeats go by the wider margin. Is there not a record for "most goals in a match" that 9–2 defeat would come under? --Jimbo^[online] 19:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The one with the bigger margin of defeat, I would say, so the 8-0 drubbing! Giant Snowman 19:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Widest margin seems appropriate to me.Cptnono (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Dean Bouzanis - did he play for the Australian under 23 team?

The wiki article for Dean Bouzanis shows he appeared once for the under-23's in the article but in the text says he was called up. Did he actually play for the under 23s for Australia? A quick look around the web didn't identify that he did play for the under-23s Steve-Ho (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

He did, though it's an interesting one. Their opponents went down to 6 men, so the match was abandoned, but Australia were 4-0 up and it appears the result stood. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice Bouzanis played against the Czech Under 20 team in the Under 20's WC Finals in Egypt. So that makes one cap. His wikipedia profile already said three appearances but it was changed to 2 yesterday. He certainly appeared against the USA in a warm up match on the 17 September, so that makes two. Any one know any more? Steve-Ho (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Football Australia lists fixtures and results, don't know if they give team sheets for them all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It doesn't answer the question but is a very useful resource for the future Steve-Ho (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Dangerous precedent: removal of squad numbers and current teams on sports infoboxes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_20 There is movement to remove squad numbers and current teams from sports infoboxes and to have this information only in the body text. Any support is welcomed. Lando09 (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong WikiProject, try Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league instead. Personally, I doubt that this will effect football infoboxes. Giant Snowman 17:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Football is strong, but any support for the sports in its shadow would be heartily welcomed. Lando09 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The main comlaint looks to be that your infobox is league-specific, as opposed to sport-specific. It would be the equivalent of someone creating a {{Premier League player infobox}}. Giant Snowman 17:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Londo06, oops, I mean User:Lando09 is just trying to circumvent consensus already established at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league once again (this time without the use of sockpuppets apparently). Feel free to ignore his comments.--Jeff79 (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem for the slip up, dyslexia is a very common learning disorder and in no way linked to intellect. Just attempting to inform others of issues regarding squad numbers, a common prevalence in the Northern Hemisphere. Lando09 (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Now now children, let's remain WP:CIVIL shall we? Giant Snowman 19:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"We looked like a woman who had a big fur coat on but underneath she’s got no knickers on."

errrrr, what do I do? Being transfer listed by the manager is worth including in a player's page. But with the whole squad going on at the same time then should I even bother? The six who are already transfer listed have "he was transfer listed by new manager Micky Adams in August 2009, along with five other youngsters, having failed to impress in the pre-season" in their articles.

This situation is a bit... unusual?--EchetusXe 18:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely unusual. Maybe wait until a player is sold; once they have left, put in details about the fact that they were transfer listed with the entire squad?...maybe. Giant Snowman 08:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary list?

This seems a bit unnecessary, not to mention poorly written. It's just a list. Norfolk Football Clubs in the 2009-10 FA Cup JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed, I have PRODded it. Giant Snowman 11:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yup, far too granular. If this approach was taken historically and across all counties of the UK, we'd end up with about 5000 articles on "clubs from county X in the FA Cup in season y", which is just a trivial intersection really. List of Scottish football clubs in the FA Cup is noteworthy, but not lists for every county of England for individual seasons..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Tom Williams and his infinite spells at Peterborough

Input welcome from this project at Talk:Tom Williams (footballer)#Number of spells at Peterborough. Merci, Giant Snowman 13:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Jason Euell

Last week Euell was subjected to racist abuse at a game, which received national media coverage. Today Harry Redknapp is being reported as saying that racist fans should be jailed in the wake of the incident. Is this incident notable enough to be added on Euell's article? And if so, should it go in the 'Club career' or 'Personal life' sections? Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, and I'd put it in the 'Club career' section. Also maybe add something at Racism in association football while you're at it. Giant Snowman 16:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Being abused is no more relevant to Jason Euell's career than it was to every black player in the 70s and early 80s, and I bet it's not mentioned in all their articles. Why give the idiots in the crowd the reward of immortalising their small minded ideas and lack of restraint? Kevin McE (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

But racism was much, much more widespread in the 70s and 80s than it is today, and as Tangerines says, Euell's case has wide national coverage. Giant Snowman 17:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I've held back from adding it as I wasn't sure what to do. Partly because of what Kevin McE says above, but there again as Giant Snowman says, this sort of thing is less common now and so receives way more media attention. The fan concerned, a 47 year old, has been banned for life by Stoke City, who have issued an apology to Euell. And although the player himself says he wants to "put it behind him", I'm still not totally sure what to do as I can see both POV. argh♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I decided to add it (in the club career section as advised) and also added it to the Racism in association football article.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

History of Port Vale F.C.

Finished the 85kb article now. Reviews welcome.--EchetusXe 16:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"BBC Sport" in the references is italicised sometimes but not at other times Spiderone 16:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thnx.--EchetusXe 17:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not just list it at WP:PR? BTW, the picture of Stanley Matthews has no Fair Use Rationale for this article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Dundee United F.C.

Dundee United F.C. has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain Olympic squads

I have created squad templates for every Great Britain squad to play in the Olympics (they can all be found in Category:Great Britain national football team templates) using the traditional colours of blue, white & red. However, I have just discovered this picture of the 1912 squad, which shows they wore white shirts. Does anyone know if this was a change kit or the 'home kit'? And does anyone know what colours the other teams wore? Giant Snowman 14:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Rhodesian soccer players

There is only one player in Category:Rhodesian soccer players (and subcat Category:Rhodesian expatriate soccer players) - who else but Brucey? - and this has surely been replaced by Category:Zimbabwean footballers anyway? Giant Snowman 14:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes and Rhodesia's team doesn't even have an article Spiderone 14:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the article on the Zimbabwe national team, "They were known as the Southern Rhodesia national football team from 1939-1964, then the Rhodesia national football team until 1980, when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe." Giant Snowman 15:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the two categories from Grobbelaar's page and redirected both categories; can an admin please check everything I've done is above board. Cheers, Giant Snowman 15:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy against fan lists?

What is the policy page which is against putting fan lists into articles? Govvy (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The only problem is a lack of direct sources saying "Person X is a fan of Team Y". Giant Snowman 19:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It may also come under WP:TRIVIA - there is no real encyclopaedic knowledge to be gained from including lists, as Snowman says, they are often unsourced, and unless the fan has some direct influence on the article, it isn't really worth collating.—MDCollins (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Leagues

I was thinking of proposing amendments to the guidelines restricting boys who play in the top flight of ball in countries with top leagues that are not professional. I know this is a big concern with all the stubs being created but those shouldn't pass per the general notability guidelines due to the lack of coverage anyways. Just to break it down here are some bullets:

Football is at a weird place in some leagues where one club in a country has guys who make a living while another has part timers.
- This is compounded by clubs that have professional players and non professionals.
The lack of a precedent is a pain. A kid can make the less money (even with the exchange rate and cost of living calculations) in the states playing in front of 500 people than someone in Finland playing in front of 4000 people
If the stubs are a problem they should be deleted for lack of coverage not because they aren't professional.
Even the professionals in certain leagues do not have significant coverage so if anything the general notability guideline should be focused on for a reason to delete.
The primary focus of this project should not be to limit the amount of articles but to improve upon viable articles.
Basically, if a two line article is allowed for a third tier footballer in Ludlow, Massachusetts it should be allowed for a top tier player in Helsinki or not allowed at all (that is also a possibility).
Is playing at the top level in a country actually not notable?Cptnono (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- As I've commented before, if we used the GNG exclusively, we'd end up with loads of articles on all manner of two-bob no-marks right down to small-time amateur level from the last ten years or so and pretty much nothing from before the wars, and that's not fair. I'd be surprised if Pedro Cea passed the GNG, yet he scored in the World Cup final..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my intent is to extend noteworthiness to anyone playing in a top flight. That seems "fair" but it is just something that seemed appropriate to bring up here before proposing to the general community (they deal with alot less footy stubs and could care less about the extra 10 minutes a day if it is assumed that saying "no WP:ATHLETE" saves that much time) so I don't mind waiting to see if I started a shitstorm and leeaving it at that.Cptnono (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Be warned, we spent weeks defining WP:FOOTYN only for it to be immediately shot down in flames by the general community, who said that individual wikiprojects did not have the right to cook up their own notability guidelines. You could of course try to turn it into a more general "the subject has played sport at the highest level in their country" type thing, but then we'd be opening ourselves up to articles on people who've played top-level ice hockey in Mali, or top-level cricket in Iceland..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I like it as it is. If an article is worth keeping it will be kept. Abdennour Cherif El Ouazzani and Abdelkrim Mammeri both fail WP:ATHLETE but pass WP:GNG. If they didn't they should be deleted. Simple. I had this argument when I was proposing articles from footballers in places like Thailand and Libya for deletion. Spiderone 15:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

- I think of WP:ATHLETE as simply a shortcut that helps indicate whether an article would pass the general notability guideline. I don't think an article should be deleted purely based on failure to meet it. While the general notability guideline is poor because it supports inclusion of athletes who haven't achieved anything of significance other than getting a few articles in local papers, I don't see a big problem with well-sourced articles about such people. Our problem is the many poorly sourced (or entirely unsourced) articles about athletes - most of which haven't achieved much of significance. Jogurney (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I just loved the Chris´s words "...playing top-level ice hockey in Mali...". He said "top-level". So there must be then a second ice-hockey league in Mali. Imagine it! It´s just beautiful! FkpCascais (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The Mauritanian and Western Sahara ice hockey top leagues must be jelous... FkpCascais (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I stayed away for a day or so fearing what horrible things that awaited for bringing it up. Thanks for going easy on me, guys. In all reality, I'm looking at it backwards. WP:GNG is there so if the sources are available there shouldn't be any problem. I think I am boo hooing over the principle. I still think individual teams need to be looked at instead of leagues in certain cases and that USL-2 level being OK seems silly but overall everything looks just fine.

I can't believe it. Deleted from Wikipedia shows 0 but Wikigrain shows: [17] :) Cptnono (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The USL-2 is not fully-pro in the sense that players are not full-time, but I can't seem to convince anyone that the USL website source (which simply says the league is professional) is not good enough. Jogurney (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The USL-2 is definitely not "fully professional". I'm from Pittsburgh, and the guys on the Riverhounds get second jobs. For example, see this article, which includes a blurb about Ryan Caugherty during his time here. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Then again, some guys in MLS get second jobs. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think any of them (MLS players) were part-time during the season, but I agree that some of the lower-paid players do have second jobs during the off-season. I don't think that's enough to consider them "part-time" players. Jogurney (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Relegation in Chile in 2008

Greetings. I am having trouble determining how relegation was dealt in the 2008 Chilean Primera División season, in particular the second relegation table. The formula currently on the page is from the Spanish Wiki, but I ran the numbers through a spreadsheet and the figures don't match. To add some confusion, RSSSF has a different formula altogether, but their numbers do add up correctly. Good thing they both have the right teams to be relegated, but the order of some other teams is different and the correct formula of either is questionable in my eyes. Does anyone know a different source I can find/use to determine which is correct? Or even if they are correct? (Warning: this form of regulation is unique to the 2008 season, so the 2009 season's regulations won't help.) Thanks in advance. Digirami (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid my Spanish is next to non-existent, but is there anything on the Chilean FA's website that would help? Bettia (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Everything there is about this season (so far as I can tell). Digirami (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Anybody speak Finnish?

This article apparently claims that the Veikkausliiga is fully pro (see the AfD on Jonni Heikkinen), and as it is obviously an important factor in many player's notability, I'm not prepared to trust Google Translate. Cheers, Giant Snowman 11:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

All I could work out was that a significant number of senior players have other jobs or do studying around their football career which surely means that they're only part-time. Spiderone 11:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There's an English language ref on the Fully Professional Leagues page that specifically states that most players are part-time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That reference dates from 2005, things may have changed since then. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I put that acrobat text into one of the on-line translators the other day, and although there were some untranslated words in there, it came back with "largely" professional, which seems to me to run counter to any claim of "fully professional". Kevin McE (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Google Translator is not enough reliable source. Here is the salary query from year 2008: [18] you can read it without knowing the language. The wages are not as high as in English Premiership for example, but still it is professional league. --SM (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what a spreadsheet with Finnish labelling is intended to add to the understanding of a non-Finnophone is unclear. However, do you deny that eli Veikkausliiga on pitkälti ammattilaisliiga can be accurately translated as in other words Veikkausliiga is largely a professional league? (as per http://www.sunda.fi/eng, not Google translator). And do you acknowledge that the qualifier "largely" undermines the claim that the league is fully professional? Kevin McE (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you staring that one single word when you can see the numbers on the document which is linked in my last comment. Here you can see how much the players earned money last year etc. The numbers are same in English and in Finnish. --SM (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see a lot of numbers: I have no way of knowing what they refer to without a knowledge of Finnish. I can only note your inability to deny that that "single word" undermines the claim that it is a fully pro league. It is as ridiculous to say that focussing on that word is undue emphasis, as it would be to say that the third word of the sentence "I do not speak Finnish" does not deserve attention. It is the qualifier that makes the relevant point. Kevin McE (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

More anecdotes & food for thought: What should one conclude from Veikkausliiga being a founding member of European Professional Football Leagues? I'm not seeing any decidedly non-pro leagues in their members, but am seeing just about every known pro-league there is (in Europe) as their members (members & associate members - latter include e.g. The Football League). --Makkon (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Strike that, seems to have been discussed thoroughly here. --Makkon (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

FC Team

I don't think this team has played at a high enough level, but I'm no expert on club notability...can any kind sage enlighten me? Giant Snowman 17:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, by the looks of it the highest level they have played at is the one they are currently in (Middlesex County Football League Division One (Central & East)) which sits at level 12 of the League System. As i understand, the teams in the top 10 levels are notable as they can play in the FA Cup. As FC Team have never played at that level, i would think they weren't notable. Likewise Ifield Edwards F.C.. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted it as a recreation of an article that was deleted at AfD. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Persepolis F.C.

Is this sub-project of ours still in use at all? It seems like it only covers 37 articles, and there doesn't seem to be any activity on the project talk page. – Pee Jay 14:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A one-club WikiProject?!?! When did that get approved? Giant Snowman 14:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to find it anywhere, but I swear that I can remember them applying to become a task force for WP:FOOTY within weeks of the creation of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran football last November but were shot down instantly because the Iran project hadn't done much yet. Am I crazy for remembering this happening? The Persepolis Project page states it was started on August 04, 2008, so maybe the Iran project was a compromise and this one continued along. Also, 37 articles? Really? It seems like they need to be dissolved into the Iran project. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, we also have one-club projects for Sheffield United and Sheffield Wednesday, and task forces for Arsenal, Bayern Munich, Liverpool, Man Utd and Real Madrid. – Pee Jay 15:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I can imagine ones for those big clubs you mentioned PeeJay (the Sheffields are a bit odd though!); either way, as both yourself and Johnny have suggested, I see little point on the Persepolis WP continuing as an independent Project. Giant Snowman 15:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I did suggest to the Sheffield sub-projects that they be converted to task forces of this project, but they seemed pretty much against it (no surprises there!). By the way, what do we actually do about closing down a Project? I don't believe there's any need to actually delete the pages, but there must be some way of marking which Projects are no longer in use? – Pee Jay 15:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just add this: {{inactive}} Spiderone 17:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How is it that any footy club-specific projects even exist outside the umbrella of WP:FOOTY? Why should any project not be under that umbrella? Do they want their own rules? The purpose of this project is to get all assoc football articles organized, improved, etc. A club from Sheffield, London, or Antarctica: does it matter? Manchester United and Liverpool have club-specific projects here. Why should anyone else be different? Everyone should have a common meeting place for issues of any kind so that we don't have derivations from footy consensus on [[insert topic]]. Am I wrong? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

They must have been created when the rules were more lenient. Spiderone 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And also it's not worth the possibility of losing good editors if they refuse to be merged into WP:FOOTY. I do completely agree that all of the club-specific projects should be converted into task forces, but is it really worth the hassle? – Pee Jay 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes but I don't think an 'inactive' tag would do any harm. If anything it would encourage them to be active again. Spiderone 18:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about the Sheffield clubs... – Pee Jay 21:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Football League: Just English or English and Welsh?

Has there ever been a consensus on this? The Football League Championship lists both England and Wales in the infobox. Comments on the talk page from a while back seem to be in favour of it featuring the England flag only, due to there being only one Welsh team playing in an English league, though both flags are still there. This seems to me like a case of undue weight, and perhaps a small note would be more appropriate, but I don't want to go changing anything without consensus, as I know people can get a little upset about this sort of thing, and I have no idea about the "official" status of the league's nationality anyway. Miremare 02:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, there are actually two (Cardiff City F.C. and Swansea City F.C.) in the Championship. Interestingly, those two clubs are actually governed by the FAW in terms of disciplinary matters. Since the formation of the Welsh Premier League there's a stronger case for calling the Football League Championship an English league (it just happens to have a couple of Welsh teams playing in it). That said, Ligue 1 page also has the flag of Monaco, which is presumably contingent on having Monaco not relegated. Perhaps the solution is to copy that page and have "(two teams)" after the Welsh flag, emphasising that it's a predominantly English league.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

UEFA templates

I have changed most of the templates in Category:UEFA European Football Championship navigational boxes into navboxes and added some additional links. Can someone please check the accuracy of the links on the templates. Thanks. 03 md 00:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I also wondered which things related to the World Cup/Euros/ACON etc. should have their own pages. For example:

in this template, we have individual pages for schedule, officials and stats, whereas some of the older tournaments have them as part of the main article, or they need to be added. 03 md 11:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Football Greats

There is a dispute going on here regarding the reliability of the "Northern Ireland Football Greats" website at [19]. Some further input would be helpful. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What a joke. I see the vandalism to Felix Healy is not an isolated case.--EchetusXe 07:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever lack of co-operative spirit an editor has shown, there is a problem with NIFG as an RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

NIFG clearly meets the requirement of a self-published source: When produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see this got settled in good fashion in my absence.--EchetusXe 14:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nikon Jevtić

I think he's a notable player but I can't find evidence that he's played any matches. Should I do an AfD? Spiderone 15:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I must also add that his German page has been deleted twice. Spiderone 15:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

He fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG, so AfD him. He's only 16...Giant Snowman 16:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thames Ironworks/West Ham United

What is the actual relationship between these two clubs? Is West Ham United basically Thames Ironworks with a different name, or are they separate clubs linked by a certain set of circumstances? The reason I ask is that I found both List of Thames Ironworks F.C. records and statistics and List of West Ham United F.C. records and statistics, but surely those two lists should be merged, right? – Pee Jay 19:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thames changed name to West Ham, so I think they should be combined. Eldumpo (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"In June 1900, the club (Thames Ironworks) was formally wound up and reformed as West Ham United with professional players" - make of that what you will. Giant Snowman 22:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like it's one club with one history. After all, Newton Heath F.C. was declared bankrupt before the club became Manchester United F.C. and no one considers Newton Heath to be a separate club. – Pee Jay 23:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Minimum threshold for club season summary articles

Do we have a minimum level that a club must have reached in order to entitle them to a season-by-season summary article? We currently have such articles for Shefford Town, Walton & Hersham, Dover Athletic, Eastbourne Borough, Hinckley United and Harrow Borough, none of whom have played in the Football League (although some may have appeared in the Conference or the Southern League). Personally, I think it's ridiculous that Shefford Town has an article like this, while several Football League clubs do not (currently, the highest-ranked team without a seasons article is Bristol City). Opinions please? – Pee Jay 20:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they're fine as long as they are sourced. Some of the oldest clubs in England have never made it to a particulary high level due to financial issues/logistics etc. The Margate seasons article is a featured list and they have never played in the Football League, and only a few seasons in the Conference National. I think this is more of an issue in getting all FL clubs to a particular standard. --Jimbo^[online] 22:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Jeux de la Francophonie

There's a minor football tournament at the Francophone Games under way if any one fancies creating a Games sub-article here. Sources for dates/venue details can be found on the main article, and recent results can be found on the official website here. Some basic knowledge of French will help you out here. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 08:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that some editors have created articles for participants at this tournament. Does anyone know if the matches are considered full internationals such that it creates notability for the participants? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they are under-20 teams participating - Augustin de Medina, who scored a goal for Canada in the tournament, has his matches categorised as under-20s by the Canadian Soccer Association. Giant Snowman 20:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It might have been awkward if Quebec and New Brunswick had entered football teams (they have separate teams to the Canadian national team)...Hack (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No consensus

Even if you're neutral on this is it possible that you can participate in this AfD. I know that, realistically, we will never all agree on this but it's quite important and I think we have to admit it is a weakness of Wikipedia. The argument is basically about an article that appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE but it's turned into a debate about whether Finnish articles should be excused for various reasons despite not being fully professional. My argument is that Wikipedia shouldn't have unsourced stubs that violate WP:GNG but obviously if they do happen to pass WP:ATH then this is all irrelevant. Spiderone 09:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I read in the AfD, the majority of players and officials in this league are considered professional but some have other jobs (students or otherwise) - is this correct? There are people playing in the MLS under developmental contracts that earn $1,075 a month for 10 months before tax[20], not nearly enough to live on or be considered professional in my opinion - but the MLS would certainly be considered a professional league (for the purposes of WP:Athlete anyway) would it not? What exactly is the criteria we are arguing that makes a league professional? Camw (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is more down to, do you consider the Finnish league fully-pro? Spurs youth players goto school, so why can't Finnish youth players? ect. Maybe the league needs to be re-analysed. Govvy (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure some of the seniors are on part-time contracts too otherwise it would be considered fully-pro. Spiderone 12:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

SM, who was trying to argue it was fully-pro, provided a source that showed at least 13% of footballers in the Finnish top league weren't professional. Giant Snowman 12:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and this isn't talking about the youths. Spiderone 12:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about youth teams with MLS developmental contracts, players play in the senior team - so is the MLS a fully professional league if it has a percentage of players that aren't professional? In a squad of 23 players, 3 would be part-time at 13% - at this squad size 20 players would be professional, which to me seems like a fair few. Camw (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would senior players be on developmental contracts? There's an age limit isn't there? The Finnish league isn't professional because there are players above the age who are still not pro. Spiderone 12:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The age limit I believe is 25[21], these aren't 16 or 17 year olds we are talking about - is 25 "above the age" where every single player has to be professional in order for the league to be? Camw (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the why they have these players on the senior team, it seems the players become exempt from the salary cap (and the minimum wage rules that apply to the salary cap) - I assume the intent is to encourage developing players while not taking up the salary cap space, if they were under the cap then the clubs may only sign players that are "developed". The rules I linked above allow for 4 players to be on this contract out of a maximum of 24, more than the Finnish league would have on non-professional contracts if that quoted 13% figure is right. Camw (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe WP:ATHLETE is a bit unfair in this case but if the players truly pass WP:GNG as SM and others keep saying then this needs to be proved. Simple. Spiderone 15:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. As a matter of interest, do you think that players in the MLS do not meet WP:ATHLETE? Camw (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a strange one. According to the article the referees are professional but if there are as many semi-pros in the teams then I guess not. It'd be interesting if this were a French-speaking Wikipedia. I think, perhaps, the fact that many of these players pass WP:GNG (such as Freddy Adu before he was pro) means that WP:ATHLETE can be excused. It'd be interesting if someone did an AfD on a semi-pro player in the MLS. Spiderone 15:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What semi-pro players exactly?!? - the MLS is 100% professional. Yes, they may have a low wage, but they still have a professional contract! Giant Snowman 15:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case they pass WP:ATHLETE Spiderone 15:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no-one has ever seriously suggested they failed it. They'd have been laughed out of an AfD. Giant Snowman 16:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

From the link above "They are signed to non-guaranteed contracts, and thus can be waived at any time." - that's doesn't sound like much of a contract. So you are saying that being consisdered professional doesn't mean you have to earn the majority of your income from the sport? Isn't that what the argument in the AfD was, that if you are a job as well as playing you aren't professional? If you are earning 10k a year, you'd need to have another job because it's unlikely you'd be able to live off that. Camw (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

They may be signed to "non-guaranteed" contracts, but it's still a contract. $1,075 a month may not seem much, but as you've said it's only for ten months - and that'll just be the basic wage, if it's like English football they'll also get a one-off signing-on fee, plus appearance & form bonuses. It may not be lots by your standards but it's surely WP:POV to say they can't live off that much money...I remember Angelo telling us once about wages in the lowest professional league in Italy, which were low by footballing standards but still enough to live. Giant Snowman 16:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Most players in the NSW Premier League are a long way from what most would consider professional, but they each sign a contract with the club and can't play for another club without being released or the clubs agreeing to a transfer fee - some players receive a wage that would be well in excess of $10,000 - if having a contract and a wage of any description is all that is required then it must be a Fully Professional League? Camw (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be my POV that it's below a wage that you could live on, but it's actually below the US Federal Poverty Guidelines[22] - at a level "lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.". These players would need jobs or a source of income over and above what they receive from playing. Camw (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:NSWPL - is that their only job? If so, then they are professional. If they train/play part-time and work part-time, then they are not. Re:MLS, as I said, they will receive more money than just their basic wage, all modern footballers get appearance and form related bonuses. Giant Snowman 16:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: NSWPL - some players yes, some players no. Re: MLS - this article has quotes from a player saying he would need another job if he accepted a development contract, there are some players on this contract that don't make first team appearances and would not receive bonuses. You are claiming that no person on this type of contract would have a job other than football? Camw (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Reindent Re:NSWPL - it's not a fully-pro league in that case. Re:MLS - do you have any evidence that any players DO have a second job? We simply don't know the ins and outs of every players contracts - if they're not in the first team then they may have get appearance bonuses for reserve matches; they may have income from sporting companies such as Nike or Adidas; they may get a second wage from the MLS parent company or the US soccer federation. We can't assume that just because a player has a low(ish) wage, they therefore can't be professional. Giant Snowman 16:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This player isn't even on a developmental contract (but when he was he had been "working part time at a sporting goods store" showing the point anyway) at the time of the article "He arrives at RFK Stadium around 9 a.m. and leaves at 1:30 or 2, packing his lunch and heading to the office. He stays until 5:30 or 6". Camw (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good find, although he chooses to work a second job as opposed to being forced to through money. Plus, that source is from July 2006, can you find a more recent example? Giant Snowman 16:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

From last month, A player has a "paid internship at Wells Fargo in Seattle, where he works after team practices three or four times a week. He wouldn't have to earn extra money on weekends with a moving company, setting up for private functions for $15 an hour." - and it sounds like he is still studying as well. Camw (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that is only one player - I don't think we can say a league is semi-pro if one, or a small handful, of players have a weekend job. Also, that source contradicts your earlier source about Developmental wages - "as a young player on the developmental squad, he earns a little over $20,000 annually" - the wages appear to have doubles! And the Finnish league, if we return to the point at hand, has at least 13% non-professionals. Giant Snowman 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, 13% is 3 players in a squad of 23, you could have your starting eleven and 9 players in line behind that with professional contracts if that 13% is right. Also considering that the MLS allows 4 players at that lowest wage point in a team of 22-24. Maybe it is a handful of players, maybe it is more - the article seems to suggest that there are plenty of players in a similar situation and I'm sure more articles could be found talking about players with second jobs - I found an opinion piece published at the Chicago Tribune site that says 75 players in the league are on either $13k or $17k (the two lowest contract levels). Why would someone get laughed out of an AfD if someone suggested MLS players don't meet WP:Athlete but it's a totally different story for another league that seems like it may be at a similar percentage? Camw (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Because once again we know that 13% of players in the Finnish league are semi-pro; but we don't know how many are in the MLS, you are just guessing and assuming. Giant Snowman 17:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen where this 13% had come from (only the document with 8% mentioned in the AfD) but do you know how many of those 13% are working or studying because they choose to, like the player in the first article rather than guessing or assuming it's because they don't have a full time contract? Camw (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I don't. I have previously suggested that nearly-professional semi-pro leagues (i.e. Finland & Ireland) be considered fully-pro for WP:ATHLETE purposes, but my suggestions have been shot down on both occasions. Giant Snowman 17:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(reindent - reply to GS) - so why not vote that way at AfD's then. It seems most of the regular voters at football AfD's are close to Wiki football. Eldumpo (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it is against WP:ATHLETE guidelines, and, despite what WP:IGNOREALLRULES says, going against long-established guidelines isn't going to get us anywhere. Giant Snowman 22:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it's obviously your choice, but I find it a bit strange that you vote against them when you actually think they should be kept! As you say Athlete is a guideline so can provide a steer for inclusion. Do you follow every guideline on WP the same way - some of them would be mutually exclusive? As for 'not getting us anywhere' I would suggest that applying matters more reasonably at AfD would be a benefit all-round. Eldumpo (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm not guessing or assuming about the MLS, I've been happy to provide articles as requested showing that "not just young guys have to find second jobs. Veterans often turn to coaching or training local club teams", coaching or training is still football obviously, but you aren't making all your money through playing in the league where you have your professional contract, it's still a part time job even if it's in the same field. This article says "Salinas' experience typifies the double life of American players who often need side jobs to survive." or this that talks about a different player having "to get a second job ... willing to tell his story about how little money he makes" - I'm not the one saying that players in this league often have second jobs, it's the above reliable sources. Camw (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Coaching isn't the same as a second job, it's more than likely voluntary. But if you're so concerned about the professionalism of the MLS, then take some articles to AfD and let the wider community decide. Giant Snowman 17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That isn't at all what the articles say "side jobs to survive" and "have to find second jobs" do not equal voluntary at all, you are assuming which you told me not to do. You already said anyone suggesting it would be laughed out of AfD, so no thanks - but it's pretty clear "the community" has different standards for some leagues compared to others when it comes to the guidelines. Camw (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'd suggest putting one of the people you mentioned earlier on AfD and we can decide if they should go. I think the number of sources available on the internet has something to do with the bias and also the fact that they're in English. Spiderone 18:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As well as the fact that MLS is an American league...Giant Snowman 18:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're thinking of taking down either Shea Salinas or Alan Gordon (soccer) as you have evidence that says they're not professional? Spiderone 18:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking to me, I'm not thinking of taking down anyone, it would be only to prove a point which I have no interest in doing. My argument is not that we should delete MLS articles, it is that it should not be considered impossible that a league is professional if it has a few players (2 in 25 at 8%) in each squad that have other jobs if we apply consistent standards. It's good to be able to see that bias exists, but more difficult to do something about it. Camw (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get the point of this conversation. Why it has an effect, and how much effect, to the fully-pro players if a small minority of the league players (in Finland 13 %) are not fully-pro. And that does not mean they could not have same kind of professional contract than those who have this magical fully-pro status! Where is the common sense? In my opinion there is couple of better indicators for the notability of a player than money. Some main numbers from the Finnish player's association salary query from 2008 (xls-file): the average yearly salary is 19,970 euro, and with housing etc. benefits it was 22,150 €. Median annual salary was 20,000 and average annual salary was 22,150 €. 87 % were full-time football players, 41 % got point bonuses, 8 % had benefit from the use of a company car and 29 % had housing benefit. --SM (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving towards concensus

This needs to be properly flagged up and located as a discussion about the working definition of what we mean by a fully professional league, and in particular what proportion of players being anything other than exclusively professional can be tolerated without removing the claim to that description, and whether such tolerance is only allowed for studying or for players below a certain age. I move that the discussion is moved to PFL's talk page, as it is swamping this page, and that it start trying to discuss what tolerances are to be allowed, rather than individuals and leagues. The rules should be set without being written to accomodate any group in particular, and those who play in leagues that might fall outside the definition will, of course, still be able to have articles if they can be held to meet GNG. Kevin McE (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Medal images

Should images of medals be added in national team articles? For example there ar medals in the Mexico national football team article in the Competitive record section. User:Catpooptv states here: These images are correct and approved for wikimedia and wikipedia. Thanks. The user is right, but should they be added to the articles. I removed them but the user kept adding them back until it got blocked, but now a different user named User:Catpoptv, obviously the same person, added them back. Should I remove them again? Black 'n Red 17:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The images are pretty ugly and add nothing to the text, so you should just get rid. Dancarney (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed a load of this but the same edit undid everything. I'm hoping they'll engage with the message I left on their talk page. Dancarney (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed them again lets see what happens. I think we should ask for page protection against new users (if possible) because both users that are disturbing the article are new users. Black 'n Red 01:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

After encountering a few seemingly random display issues, I've found, by looking at a few different articles on the "What links here" tab, that when this template is transcluded in an article that it causes the navboxes at the bottom of the page to display improperly, similar to the issue of when an article applies <div> without the corresponding </div>. The spacing is awkward, the Navbox can't hide when there are multiples, etc. Has anyone else noticed this, and would anyone care to try fixing it? I've never used {{Fb match2}} before and am unfamiliar with it. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I know this isn't the biggest deal for some users, but there are a lot of articles out there that use this template. It causes all Navboxes within an article to expand and display improperly. I'm not a template expert, and I'm having difficult time figuing out the problem. Any help would be appreciated. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Gary Fitzpatrick

The few that have participated in the AfD discussion might want to go back and review the AfD. Govvy (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

FAO Administrator

Can an admin restore Jonathan Dos Santos as he has now played internationally for Mexico. Thanks, --Jimbo^[online] 16:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That source says it was a B-match, not a full international...Giant Snowman 16:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My bad, didn't read the article properly :-s --Jimbo^[online] 16:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Arsenal vice-captain

Arsenal has no confirmed vice-captain; since Toure left Wenger has said he will rotate the position. However, van Persie has worn the armband twice and thus User:ArsenalWiki feels this is somehow proof that he is vice-captain. He's been continually changing the Arsenal for about the past month. Could someone else please bring it up on his talk page because it's clear he refuses to listen to me. The guy had some trouble when he was new here understanding that things had to be sourced but I thought he figured that out. Eightball (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If Arsenal have confirmed that there will be no VC, then wouldn't it be helpful to provide a source which states so? Giant Snowman 21:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, snap! JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it'd be that helpful because he'd probably dismiss at as being too old. Regardless, you don't need sources to prove something isn't so. Eightball (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland / Northern Irish

The standard denonym of someone from Northern Ireland is 'Northern Irish'; it quite clearly says so on that country's article. However, Vintagekits (talk · contribs) insists on reverting my edits on Shea Campbell to say 'from Northern Ireland' as opposed to the correct 'Northern Irish.' I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Northern Ireland / Northern Irish, any input welcome. Giant Snowman 11:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Emirates Champions League

Emirates Champions League - is this a serious competition? (I think it's football, but it doesn't have a WikiProject Football tag) DeMoN2009 15:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoax, if you ask me... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would bet my non existing hat on that it's a hoax. cha ndl er 15:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Definite hoax, I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Giant Snowman 15:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't been on here in ages and forgot about that step! DeMoN2009 16:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How did that article go unnoticed for 1.5 years? Apparently the user who created this article was up to no good. He's been inactive since creating David Beckham Football about 1.5 years ago, a licensed game rumored "for release in November 2008". While writing this comment, Chanlder beat me to the speedy delete. Good job! JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Pow! Kapow! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Barry Scott. Giant Snowman 17:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

non-footy-related events during a season

There recently was a young Everton player, Jose Baxter, arrested for drug possession and intent to distribute as well as possession of counterfeit money.[23] Idiot. This seems notable to me – not in the context of the Everton F.C. article, but definitely in the context of Everton F.C. season 2009–10 – but I'm not sure how to integrate it into the article. Create a new section for non-football happenings? One specifically for this event? Ideas? Thanks. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There should be text and not just statistics. Start a section a the top called 'Season review' or similar.--EchetusXe 22:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Merge Association football around the world List of FIFA country codes List of FIFA Member Associations.

See Talk:Association football around the world#Merge FIFA lists. jnestorius^(talk) 18:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable/Famous players lists

A discussion is going on at Talk:Rushden & Diamonds F.C. about the removal of the {{famous players}}. The user doesn't seem to understand that players who he thinks are "cult hereos"/"fans favs" is a clear enough inclusion criteria. --Jimbo^[online] 08:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't like these sections no matter what the criteria is. Fan favorite is good enough for me if the source says it but I think the sections shouldn't exist due to this exact concern. I also don't see a point in it. If it is good enough for the list it should be worked into the prose.Cptnono (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, your link is invalid. Is there a guideline for this? I assume there is since the list is pretty common.Cptnono (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed Jimbo's link. I think that such sections are worthwhile - they provide a good overview of notable players in a club's history, but there has to be some kind of official guideline - official poll, book etc. which says "these players are the top 50 in the club's history" or similar. 10:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There should be a List of Rushden & Diamonds F.C. players for stuff like that. Rather than just players who have been popular in the past few years.--EchetusXe 11:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the players I've mentioned so far in the discussion as examples are mentioned on the club's official website as fan's favourites and players of note in their records, who have had a more than just a few year at the club, but made their mark on it in a big way(I have provided relevent links, see the discussion). You need to remember the club is only 17 years old and has advanced far in that time; in that context 3 to 5 years if fruitful is a big thing in the context of the club's length of time in existance. It is also relevent to include players who have gone on the greater things whom the club helped to produce. The list is not perfect and I'm intending to sort through it when I get time. These names aren't ones I've added recently myself but I do object to the removal of the entire list. They are common as another person said on an above comment. If there are issues as to who is on the list then lets go through it on the discussion. So far, Jimbo has been very sweeping about the list and has not sat down and discussed who is on the list, although I have already indicated with reliable, official sources certain names already on it that justify their inclusion. --MadDogRDFC (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to miss the whole point of an specific inclusion criteria, POV and OR. --Jimbo^[online] 15:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. My sources are the Official website maintained by the football club, not a fansite or forum. It is also maintained by a proffessional company that is contracted by all the football league's (amd former if in the league as of 2002m but have since left) websites and also obliged to conduct its own impartial research on the matter in collaboration with the club. One of the players as mentioned on the official site was voted as an all time cult figure (in the manner of Eric Cantona for Manchester United) by a BBC poll. Unless you can back up who on the list should not be on it with legitimate sources and not your opinion, it needs to be left alone since you are the one who is impliment POV, especially when at the beginning of the disputed section a criteria is clearly laid out. On another note, what constitute a reliable source on this particular subject?--MadDogRDFC (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Can I say I appreciate the two people who have come to join the discussion and offer valid comments about the matter and are trying to engage in an edit war unlike Jimbo Online. The list certainly needs a consensus about it, but simply resorting to edit warring without discussion is not helpful--MadDogRDFC (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So what is the criteria? The website says "fan favorite" which seems noteworthy to me if the list is going to be included (still don't like it). What are the requirments? This came up on another article I was working on and I just deleted all of them. If there is a set standard I would like to reinclude them.Cptnono (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is the following:

1. Has been recognised as a fan's favourite or Legend by an official source (citation in their entry on the club site along these lines). The official club website would be the most reliable source for this since it would definitive on this matter.

2. Has done something of note for the club. Ideally this would be something cited by the club website.

3. Key part of a very important event in the club's history. By this they would need to have been a regular that season or have done something without which that event would not happened.

4. For lower level clubs, players who have gone on to greater and better things. By this I would mean they have gone to a higher level, including former youth team products who have/does play regularly at a higher level. Eg. Cambridge United being the club from which Dave Kitson began his career, although they don't need to have made it to the Premier League. Ideally they would have become a regular at a more reputable club or a club at least one division above the club whom they left currently plays at.

That's my suggestion. I recommend ideally official club sources when determining whether a player qualifies, although point 4 may require other sources in addition.--MadDogRDFC (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Point 4 has already been rumbled as players like Tyrone Berry and Dean Howell have go onto "greater things" yet you discredit. 1 & 3 are totally bias/POV/subjective of the authors who write - being labelled a "fans favourite"/"legend" is never factual. --Jimbo^[online] 07:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem unable or unwilling to accept that inclusion criteria must be clear cut, objective, and indisputable. What is the definition of a favourite, an acheivement of note, or a very important event? Is the match that clinches promotion a very important event? What about any other match that season in which equally valuable points were gained? Scoring a goal in the team's most notable cup match? Saving a penalty in that game? Playing a steady but unspectacular role as left back in that game? Coming on as a late sub? What is the definition of playing regularly in a higher division: 15 games? 50 games? 200 games? Many clubs would have a "notable players" section of scores of players if this were accepted as grounds. Club sources are not independent sources: they will inevitably take a partisan point of view.

Statistical criteria are verifiable and objective: players with most appearances (league appearances may be relevant in R&D's case), top ten goal scorers, players who have become internationals, players who have made at least 50 appearances in the nation's top division (though I wouldn't particularly like that one) are grounds for inclusion that could be considered objective and verifiable, "a profound affect on contributing towards a key part in the club's history" and "had an impact on the club" are not.

On the talk page, your objection is to "sticking the tag on the list without proper debate as to why X player is on the list": the whole point of having clear criteria (which is what the tag asks for) is that there should be no need for debate about whether X player is on the list or not. Kevin McE (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, however I object to being attack consistantly in this manner. The suggestion I made is by no means perfect, it's not set in stone. It seems some are unwilling or unable to engage in proper debate without responding aggressively. Unless a solution can be reached, this is going to happen again and again and is a reason why wikipedia is going down hill. So far no one else has put forth anything concrete as a definitive proposal. It needs fleshing out. A bit of common sense needs exercising--MadDogRDFC (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My concerns with the proposed criteria are:

3 means a guy scoring a goal or maybe just playing in an FA Cup winning side would get him on the list.
4 I've always thought that a notable player could be mentioned if they have been or went on to be awesome (caps, records, fame, all that shit) so a being a lower league club may be too limiting. For example, Owen did nothing for Newcastle but he is a notable player and should meet the requirements to be on the l"hey look at the special players who have been here" list. If the intent is for the list to be "look what they did here" than he wouldn't be included.

I really can't believe we are the first to discuss this. Was there previous consensus or has this flown under the radar that long?

Also, the source says "fan favorite" in this instance so it isn't just some editor's opinion.Cptnono (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a brief discussion on this matter at Talk:Brentford F.C. that took place between myself and another user. However, a consensus was never reached so the conversation died a death. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just going by your points:

3. That's an excellent point. I was thinking more along the lines with this one of say title winning/cup winning or staving off relegation. So for strikers be scoring a high number of goals. In case of a relegation battle, having a high goals to games ratio in the last 10 - 15 games of a season that when examing the results if you took away would the change the outcome. In the case of cup winning and title winning, in the club's top goalscoring or League's top goalscoring charts for that season/cup competition with them in appearing in 50% + games in relevent competition. In case of clubs who regularly win trophies this isn't a big deal, but the rest, ie the majority of clubs who rarely win trophies, a player would gain note.

4.Good point about Michael Owen. My thinking is primarily aimed at Dion Dublin or Dave Kitson example with Cambridge, Youth products or players who spent at least part of their career (under the age of 24) at a club before going and playing regularly at higher level (50%+ of games since moving to a higher level at least two seasons in length or fufilling point 3 in the manner I describe above). In that case it would be a big deal if a player was bought from say a league 2 side and went on to play regularly for a championship side. You're right about Owen and in those cases using common sense would be a better approach because he fails the criteria at Newcastle by doing anything but succeeds at Liverpool and possibly England. He also made went down a level club wise although Real Madrid did nothing for him. He also achieved at Madrid so would not fit the criteria there. Hope that helps. For certain cases, reviewing them on an individual basis in discussion I think would help as well if a conclusion cannot be reached, but that's just a view rather than anything concrete.

I can see what you mean about fame and that, although that would be biased towards the larger clubs. In the context of lower league football, it is a big deal is a youth product eventually played at a high level. I hope this helps, as I said its something we should come to a conclusion about and I'm putting ideas forward to help us come up with some criteria which should be our goal at the end of this. --MadDogRDFC (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually like the "player went on to be awesome" idea. I think a list of awesome players would be fantastic. As would a list of super smashing great players. By the way kids, never edit Wikipedia under the influence, you may regret it later. --Jameboy (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So What are everyone's thoughts? Is what I've suggested ok then?--MadDogRDFC (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I was probably smashy when typing going on to awesome.

I think there are too many variables with the set timing and goals in your proposal. Needs to be more generalized. I also disagree with staving off relegation (they shouldn't be there in the first place). With Rushden & Diamonds F.C. in particular, a couple of the players are documented as "fan favorites" (I don't see a primary source being a problem there per the guidelines) and there is good reason for the fans to hold them in a particularly high regard. However, it looks like the contention on the talk page started over: Is the list the noteworthiness of the player in general or noteworthiness for the club? I'll copy and paste that on to that discussion so it isn't going on twice. I can't even tell if that has been addressed or not for the list in general.Cptnono (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you've more of less nailed the problem that caused all this, whether we are talking about players who noted by the club itself or the wider world in general. This hasn't been addressed at all. I think both points of views are legitimate which is the problem, especially at lower league level where a player could be of note at a club itself, but not in general. It's interesting you mention my proposals are too specific since I've been accused of not being specific enough. That is not a criticism, but helps to highlight that we need a committed debate on this issue and shows the clash I had was due to POV, rather than a proper criteria.--MadDogRDFC (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of using the vatriables (x seasons, y goals etc). Common sense is good but it can be argued, though. First step is to hope that other editors will chime in with the first basic question that needs answering. (notable career or for the club or both required to be included).Cptnono (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's probably the best way to go about it. If everyone else is happy with a criteria of first basic question and common sense on a case by case basis, then I suggest that this become the clear criteria across the board.--MadDogRDFC (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "common sense" just another term for original research.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL... point taken. So what is your idea?Cptnono (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an essential difference between prose descriptions, and making up a list. No sensible editor would object to George Best getting a mention in the article on Tobermore United F.C., nor to Kevin Keegan being mentioned in the 1960s element of the history section of the article on Scunthorpe United (if the article were developed enough to have such). But once there is a list, then the reason for omitting someone from it must be as clear cut as the reason for including someone; on Scunthorpe again, there is no apparent reason why Billy Sharp is listed as a notable former player, but Neil Cox is not: the editor who did that may have had a reason, but they should be apparent. A club website is not an independent source; it is likely to be heavily slanted towards recent players and those that have left on good terms with the club, and is eventually only reporting the opinion of an observer, probably anonymous and not highly qualified in analysis of players' strengths and weaknesses. A hall of fame might merit recognition, but I would argue that it does not necessarily do so. Kevin McE (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought this primary source saying someone was a fan favorite was OK (if being a fan favorite is OK for the list) as I mentioned above. If it doesn't mention another player then attempt to find another source. The guidelines are pretty clear on it so if we use some caution and don't rely solely on it for the complete article it should be fine. That is assuming that it is a trustworthy source, of course (are they lying when they assert so and so is a fan favorite?). What are your thoughts on the basic point of the list? Is it to list players who have noteworthy careers, noteworthy careers while at the club, or both? That really is the first thing that needs to be addressed before even getting into too much detail.Cptnono (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, its all very well putting forward objections, but you also need to be clearer when making your points, as well as making a suggestion. On this if the primary source is the Official club website, why would they try to claim a player was a fan's favourite if they were not? I dispute the POV that it would be heavily slanted towards recent players in particular. Just looking at Neil Cox, I could see reason to include to include him since he went on to greater things, winning the League Cup in 1994. Billy Sharp broke a club record for Scunthorpe for scoring the most goals in a season (and still holds), so the distinction on that is obvious.--MadDogRDFC (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect, the distinction is not obvious unless the title of the section is Club record holders. The whole problem with Notable players sections is the difficulty of defining notable in this context, so that the decision as to whether a particular player should be added in not a matter of opinion, but one of fact. Cptnono seems to be suggesting that if the first source doesn't support inclusion of an individual, that we should look for other sources until one is found that permits a preferred candidate to be elevated. This is a generalnono as far as I can see (apologies for the pun): we choose criteria (unarguable, verifiable, factual, objective criteria), and admit the players that meet them, not fitting our definition of notable around the players we would like to include. Kevin McE (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the most basic question here is whether such lists should only include players who were notable at that club or whether it should include players who went on to be notable elsewhere. For example, David Beckham's stint at Preston is pretty much just a trivia footnote, so should he be included on a list of "notable Preston players"? And if we restrict it to players who were notable for the club in question, is being described as a "fan favourite" by itself sufficient grounds for inclusion? For example, one of my books says that Mike "Spider" Burgess was a fan favourite during his time at Gillingham, but as far as I can tell he didn't do anything especially remarkable during his time there, so for all we know it might just be because the fans thought he had funny hair or something - would that be sufficient grounds for inclusion on such a list.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you arguing just to argue, Kevin? I'm suggesting that sources need to be found. If RS (primary or secondary) says something then inclusion is OK.

So what do you think Chris? I still don't even like these lists but they aren't going away so which one do you suggest? I've tried thinking about it at every angle and I still don't know. Would either one (noteworthiness at the club or at a career level) be OK? I would like to think this wouldn't cause any more bloat then what we have since there curreently is no set practice but could be wrong.Cptnono (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd favour notability at the club in question, but that's just my opinion. The problem with the other option is how do you define "notability at a career level"? For smaller clubs some might argue that it would be players who went on to play in the top flight, but if that was the case then it would need to be every player who went on to play in the top flight otherwise the selection would be POV. And I bet even the most die-hard fan of a League Two club wouldn't know which players left the club to play in the top flight in the 1920s. And what about clubs who are already in the top flight? How would we define "notable Man United players"? I guess what this all boils down to is that, whichever approach is chosen, there must be clearly defined inclusion criteria set out and preferably stated within the article itself, otherwise it's just an invitation to POV edits and people randomly including their favourite player....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Or we simply conclude that "notable players" lists are inherently POV, and should not be present. Kevin McE (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't hurt my feelings. The great "notable players list blowout of '09" will result in hours upon hours of bickering and 1000s of malicious edits to the undertakers' user pages. Mmmm... maybe we should come up with an alternate solution. :)

Starting with "notable while at the club" works for me.Cptnono (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Leinster Senior League

An editor has decided to Prod the Leinster Senior League (association football) and all the clubs therein. I have deprodded the league, those clubs that have played in the League of Ireland and one other that recently survived an AfD. However, several prods are still outstanding at Category:Proposed deletion as of 6 October 2009. I think we need to decide whether playing in this league confers notability and whether to deprod the others. TerriersFan (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to create an article called something like Irish football league system, based on English football league system, with an established pyramid of notability. Giant Snowman 18:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you GiantSnowman, that seems like a good idea. There is an article on non-league football in Ireland (level 4 and below) here. Above that it is the Newstalk A Championship and then the First and Premier divisions of the League of Ireland. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. However, in the short term we need to decide what to do with the prodded teams before they disappear. My view is that Newstalk A Championship clubs are notable (all have pages as it happens) and I should like to see Level 4 notable as the feeder level to the national leagues. If that is agreeable then we should deprod the Leinester Senior League, Senior division clubs. TerriersFan (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Compare it to English football. From what I can gather, the Leinster Senior League is the highest level of totally amateur football in Ireland. Are teams in the equivalent league in England notable? Yes. Therefore I would say deprod away! Giant Snowman 19:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Level 4 seems a sensible cut-off point to me as well. Eddie6705 (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(to Terriersfan) what is there to decide in the short term? deprod them, get consensus then AfD them - or not - as consensus dictates. --ClubOranje^T 19:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A number of teams from the league's four senior divisions have played in this year's Intermediate Cup, so IMO all teams from those divisions would be notable according to WP:FOOTYN. Bettia (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bob Bootland DYK

I am nominating a DYK for Bob Bootland; any input appreciated! Cheers, Giant Snowman 16:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to expand it a bit, DYK check says it only has 1198 characters of prose, and it needs to have 1500. -- Big Dom 16:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added some more prose, how's it looking now? Giant Snowman 17:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine now, well over 2000 characters. -- Big Dom 18:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Super, thanks for checking! Giant Snowman 18:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) -- Big Dom 20:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ben Kudjodji AfD

This AfD I have just opened could be an interesting/controversial one, especially with all the recent hubabaloo over WP:ATHLETE, and so as much input as possible would be much appreciated. Regards, Giant Snowman 20:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

2010 UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship qualification

I don't understand, why is the title Under-17 and then the article is about Under-19s tournament? Govvy (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Me neither. Have moved to 2010 UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship qualification. Eddie6705 (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

k, I don't think we need the previous title now, delete? Govvy (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that would probably be best. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sam Cox (footballer)

He finally made his debut so can an Admin restore the article thanks. Govvy (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

A Michael Thomas has made a couple of appearances for Macclesfield Town thus making his notable. I cannot find any source as to his date of birth. As there is already a Michael Thomas (footballer), what should the protocol be for the article name until his d.o.b is revealed. I was thinking Michael Thomas (midfielder), but the older player was also a midfielder? Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 22:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I used the feedback form there to point out some issues on their website including the information for Thomas. Have to wait and see what happens, if the feedback form even works. But I would go with what you said as using Michael Thomas (midfielder) and change if we get DOB. As for Liverpool's Thomas, I think that should be changed from (footballer) to his (DOB). Govvy (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Denial of Romani ancestry

Siniša Mihajlović stated in a reliable source: "I am proud of being a gypsy".[24] Why do people keep removing this? I have other sources that also state the same.[25][26] Spiderone 19:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ask them. --Jimbo^[online] 21:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

He is Serbian ( he was well known as a nationalist in the past), not Gypsy. There may be some missinterpretation because he is a Red Star Belgrade fan, where he spent many years playing and won the European Cup in 1991. The Red Star fans are often called "Cigani" meaning "Gypsies". It has nothing to do with Gypsy (race). FkpCascais (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

After watching the case closer, I agree having the text the way it is, including the citation about gypsy origins. But, in the sources there isn´t a clear statement from him saying that. He was insulted as "Gypsy", but that, unfortunatelly, happens often when you want to insult someone and have some racist feelings towards gypsies, as I think Vieira had in this case. Maybe Mihajlovic, as he was called "Gypsy", responded that way just to say he has nothing against Gypsies, as lesson to Vieira... Maybe it would be better to find some source from Mihajlovic himself saying something about his gypsy origin that has nothing to do with this racist incident.

The text unfortunately misses something much more important that is that he was part (pillar of the defense) of the Yugoslavia team that, after qualifiying, was not alowed to play in the EURO 1992 that Denmark played instead, and won!!! That was a brilliant generation that he was part and was denied to play until 1998... FkpCascais (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there is a bit of a misunderstanding. Gypsy blood isn't particularly rare in Eastern Europe though. Spiderone 07:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Marcotti interview cited in the article quotes Mihajlovic as saying "My mother is Croat, my father is Serb, ... Their families, their people were killing each other right under my nose. To make things worse, we were also ethnic Gypsies and nobody likes Gypsies." and "Arkan was responsible for the deaths of many of my countrymen, Croats and Gypsies. I am half-Croat and 100 percent Gypsy. How could I endorse the killing of my own people?" I'm not sure how much more explicit one could get. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Newcastle United

Several months ago the stats site at www.khscott.org.uk went down; this has now been re-activated as www.toon1892.co.uk. Is there a Bot that can fix all the broken links in references and external link sections? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that even reliable? Looks like someone's own personal page and it looks stupid. Govvy (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the link to the English language version, rather than the Geordie one. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A Geordie language! I went and skimmed through that Geordie article here on Wiki and it made laugh, it's a bit hard to take it seriously for me. I still think that website is a bit of a joke. And I would of thought there would of been enough information to use from Newcastle own website. Govvy (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's rather like all websites giving statistical details for an individual club - the club itself may give details of present-day players, but they won't give anything for players from the past. How do you assess the reliability of any of the sites listed on the sources page? I have enough information, although not the time, to create something similar for Southampton, but how would I demonstrate its reliability and accuracy? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Stadia or Stadiums?

Looking for some policy here. When referring to more than one stadium, should I try to use the plural in its Latin form, stadia, since "stadium" is a Latin word, or should I use it like an English noun, and add the "s" to make "stadiums". Both seem to be in use, and perhaps "stadia" is somewhat more common on British articles, but is there a policy I might follow here?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 05:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Both are correct grammatically correct. I personally prefer "stadiums" since it is probably the most common way to refer to stadium in the plural. I had never seen/heard the use of the word "stadia" until this website (particularly in this project). Digirami (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure but wouldn't it be more correct to use Stadium's instead of Stadiums? Seems a question of Old English (Stadia) vs New English (Stadium's). I would go with New English. Govvy (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Govvy, Stadium's?! "Stadium's" means belonging to a stadium, ""stadiums" and "stadia" are both a plural of stadium. I suppose it doesn't matter which is used as long as the chosen one is used consistently throughout an article. Thanks, -- Big Dom 15:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that either "stadia" or stadiums" is correct, providing you keep using the same term within each article. "Stadium's" is all kinds of wrong. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I thought it sounded cooler, I am also dyslexic! :) Govvy (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OED and Chambers both say either plural is acceptable. Guardian style guide prefers stadiums (so do I, but I don't suppose that has much bearing on the argument :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

When I went to school, over 40 years ago, I was taught that if the singular of a noun ended in "um", the plural should end in "a"; thus "referendum/referenda", "stadium/stadia" (but not "plum/pla"!) but with the passage of time, this rule has been abandoned and modern English uses the normal plural forms. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I once looked into this issue in some detail but can't find it, it is probably on some article talk page or peer review. From what I recall, most dictionaries say either is acceptable, though in some cases a distinction is made between -ia for the classical unit of length, and -ms to modern usage such as sport venues. Personally I tend to defer to the Grauniad style guide when I'm unsure about such things. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Demonic K, I think you may be referring to second declension neuter nouns such as bellum (recite: bellum bellum bellum, belli bella bella, bella bella bella, bellorum bellis bellis)? I was doing this a bit less than 40 years ago, but yeah, you and Oldelpaso hit it on the head. Rules of grammar = binned so Stadiums it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think one can arbitrarily be "binned" over the other. Both are grammatically correct. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It was an attempt to be light-hearted, at which I'm failing recently. Maybe this place has forgotten how to discuss intellectually but with a bit of fun. Stadia and stadiums are both fine but modern English seems to prefer stadiums. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer and use stadiums. Aaroncrick (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, both plurals are entirely acceptable, but I'm a bit of a traditionalist, so I prefer to use "stadia". – Pee Jay 21:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer stadia, but I did find myself seriously considering the use of the word suffices (as a plural of suffix) while teaching 8 year olds week! Kevin McE (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Rooney

I've got a problem with User:Tomsega, who seems intent on adding a quote from Alex Ferguson describing Wayne Rooney as "the best young player I've seen in my time" to the lead section of Rooney's article. To me, this doesn't seem appropriate, but the quote is referenced and User:Tomsega has resorted to calling my removal of the quote "vandalism". Anyone else got an opinion on this? – Pee Jay 22:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree its far to specific/narrow point to include in the lead. Its not mentioned in the part about his Man Utd career which is where it belongs and if there it would not be valid to repeat it in the lead. Not that it will be necessarily heeded but as he is persisting perhaps refer to the guidance in Wikipedia:Lead section which supports your argument in edit summary and on Talk Page. BTW, is the source reliable, I'm not familiar with the site.Tmol42 (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Chamois Niortais F.C. season 2009–10

I thought following a couple of recent AfDs that consensus decreed that clubs that were worthy of having a season article in the past (by playing in a fully-pro league), but have since lost that status, are still worthy of having a season article. Case in point, Chamois Niortais F.C. season 2009–10 - they have recently been relegated to an amateur league for the first time in 25 years - and the article is currently PRODded. Cheers, Giant Snowman 11:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the prod. If it were deleted we'd have to review the policy of allowing English 5th tier clubs to have season articles. For that reason alone if this is going to be deleted it needs to go to AfD. WFCforLife (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Monterrey La Raza

It is my view that Monterrey La Raza (current) and Monterrey La Raza (1992–2001) should be merged into a single article at Monterrey La Raza. This is what I think the proposed merged article could look like. However another editor has reverted my attempts to merge the articles. In my opinion there is a clear link between the teams and the second is just a revival of the first. I can understand the logic in separate articles for franchises with the same name when there is plenty to write about, however I think it is ridiculous to have two separate articles especially when both are barely stub level. I also don’t think splitting articles like this is very user friendly. When I look up a subject on Wiki, I really don't want to have to trawl thru numerous articles to find what I’m looking for. I think it makes more sense to have them on the same page. Also when creating or editing articles it is extremely painful trying to make sure other articles are linked correctly. You will notice that very few articles are linked to either Monterrey La Raza (current) or Monterrey La Raza (1992–2001). The majority are linked to Monterrey La Raza. Sorry for ranting ! Am I alone in this view ? I would be interested in hearing any views here. Djln --Djln (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Brown (footballer born 1965)

There is a requested article for a Gordon Brown (footballer born 1965); there is also a player by this name who began his League career in 1996 with St Johnstsone. Are these players one and the same? Starting a professional career at 31 is certainly unusual but not unheard of...Giant Snowman 19:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The name doesn't help. Going by soccerbase though, if the most notable team he has actually played for is East Fife, is he eligible for an article? If his East Fife appearances have been recorded its reasonable to assume that the St. Johnstone appearances are also correct, i.e. there were none. WFCforLife (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

According to www.allfootballers.com, there is a Gordon Alexander Brown (a central defender, Shirt No.6) born 07/12/1965 in East Kilbride, whose only Football League appearance was for Rotherham United in 1983–84. There is no mention of any other clubs before or after. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Brown made one league appearance for St Johnstone. Giant Snowman 22:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The St Johnstone Gordon Brown was born 21-10-1979 in Broxburn he was a used sub in the match against Falkirk played on 26-4-1997 (Source Scottish League Review 1997-98) Cattivi (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Brown (7-12-1965) was registered with Glasgow Rangers in 1980-81 No league appearances of course! (Source the Litster CD Rom on Scottish Postwar players) Cattivi (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the research guys - as ever! - it has enabled me to create articles on the players born in 1965 and 1979; they are one of five footballers by this name! Giant Snowman 00:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There a difference..?

Is there a difference between the Bolivian Football Regional Leagues and the Copa Simón Bolívar? I think, but additionally, which should be the main on? Digirami (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders FC peer review

Wanted to post here and invite members of the project to give peer review feedback on the article here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Seattle_Sounders_FC/archive1. Depending on the outcome of the peer review, I hope to nominate it for WP:FA review soon. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability of a league

Seems that the football project considers player's wages the only indicator to a league's notability. In my opinion that is not the best way, media coverage and succesfullness are more important. For example: in Finnish top tier 87 % players are fully professional - and 13 % study or some may have even other jobs too. To be frank, judging all league players non-notable because of that is unreasonable. The league has national media coverage: matches are shown on television, national newspapers write everyday about the league etc. which I think is enuogh "significant coverage" for being notable in Wikipedia standards. --SM (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't the football project's view that only players having played at a fully-professional level are notable. It's the wording of the notability guideline applicable to players of team sports, WP:ATHLETE, which once written down, quite possibly without any discussion at all, now appears set in stone. Obviously if enough reliable sources can be gathered for any specific player their notability can be asserted via the general notability guideline, but it takes some doing. The football project once tried to set out its ideas on notability after several weeks of discussion, which can be found at WP:FOOTYN, but was told that projects couldn't just go inventing their own rules... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, projects can't invent their own rules. That means football player biography articles can't be deleted just because they are playing in a league that is 87 % full professional, if he is notable in general. --SM (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of the articles in question look to pass WP:GNG either. Spiderone 15:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers to have played at the national level of league football are considered notable (no other level of amateur football confers notability). So alla top level players are notbale? Some countries just are still on pre-pro era? --SM (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No because we aren't in the amateur era any more. There's nothing stopping clubs from fully-pro leagues from buying these players. Spiderone 15:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So what is the exact year when "we" worldwide shifted to professional era? And yes there are still many restrictions for buying players. --SM (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

1974 was the year when the English - and subsequently world game - first became fully-professional. Giant Snowman 15:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Source? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Bingo! Giant Snowman 15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] that link doesn't work for me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Try this archived version then - for some reason it's black text on a dark blue background, but it says "in 1974 the FA Council abolished the official distinction between 'amateur' and 'professional' footballers in England." Cheers, Giant Snowman 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

try the black on white version :-) Just your using the term "fully-professional" in that context confused me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's only England. There was no single year when the football shifted from amateur to professional universally. And you can't blame that all full amateur league players in decades ago were more notable than players today in almost-fully-professional leagues. Come on, use common sense. --SM (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's just England - but the majority of Europe (and the world!) followed suit. You can't possibly argue that in the year 2009, world football isn't a professional game! Giant Snowman 16:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Snowman, I think you have too narrow a view on this subject. England is not the end-all, be-all of the footballing universe. It didn't become consistently professional in the United States until the first MLS season in 1996. (There was the short-lived NASL and several others in the 1970s & 80s.) Apparently it hasn't reached the fully-pro level in Finland. What about all of Africa, Asia, Oceania, and the Caribbean? Even in Europe, countries such as Estonia and San Marino aren't fully professional, and several of the other smaller European footballing nations' articles don't state whether or not their top league are fully professional. Just by glossing over the topic I would counter your statement with "the majority of the world isn't professional and hasn't followed suit", but I don't have all of the facts in front of me. How many countries have a fully professional league? How many don't? I don't know the answer to those questions, but you can't make a sweeping statement without facts. I happen to concur with what seems to be SM's point of view on this subject. Why should the professional status of an entire league determine the notability of a otherwise seemingly notable, professional athlete? It seems to me like the view currently taken by WP:ATHLETE discriminates against less-developed sporting nations. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And let's not forget that the entire commmunist bloc was amateur - officially - right until the end, thus conferring notability on hundreds, if not thousands of amateur players. Madcynic (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

US soccer was professional back in the 70s with the NASL. What I was trying to say is that we are no longer in the amateur era of football, and as such WP:ATHLETE, flawed as it is (and I do see its many flaws!), is the guideline we have for sporting notability if no general notability can be found. Giant Snowman 19:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if we ignore WP:ATH, Johannes Nordström et al would still fail using WP:GNG Spiderone 20:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how can you say anything about the amount of coverage he has got if you don't understand Finnish (or Swedish in this case)? World is not 100% anglophone. Nordström is one example of the 13% players in Veikkausliiga that is not full-pro: he is a talented junior player (16 years old), who was got to the men's team from youth to gain experiense and practise with them. That is normal and does not affect to the notability of those regular pro players. --SM (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If the rest 13 % of Finnish league players who are not "full pro" become "full pro", it does not make the already full professional players more or less notable. Like said in the article, the league is pro league in every aspect - the training does not differ. Young players just are studying too. Spanish primera is not pro because Teemu Pukki of Sevilla is studying matriculation degree while being a player? --SM (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Studying doesn't affect the professionalism of a league. Semi-pro leagues, such as the Finnish leagues, have players who have TWO jobs. Studying isn't a job as it doesn't pay the bills; in fact, in my experience, the opposite! Giant Snowman 20:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In that query research were 13 % of players told they are not full time footballers it does. It affects just as much as a second job. Every player is a pro player even if they have another job. Veikkausliiga is not the best league in Europe, but you still can't play there if you do not practise professionally! --SM (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My view is that the Veikkausliiga has been well covered (even in English sources) by various media over the past 5-10 years, and while it is not strictly a fully-pro league (similar to the top league in the ROI), perhaps players on pro clubs within the league ought to get a pass on WP:ATHLETE (since it shouldn't be terribly difficult to find sources). However, I understand that WP:FOOTYN attempted to do this and was dismissed at WP:BIO. Also, I'm concerned that articles which pass WP:ATHLETE don't get appropriate sourcing to pass WP:GNG as often as they should (I'm guilty of this), and there's no good reason to create hundreds of sub-stub quality articles about Veikkausliiga players which have no references (or very poor ones). Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have previously suggested that semi-pro top-level leagues of some nations - notably Finland and Ireland - be deemed notable in an ATHLETE sense, and I have been shot down for suggesting it. Therefore, until the guideline changes, we have to stick to ATHLETE as the guideline for notability for players in these leagues who fails GNG - simple as. Giant Snowman 08:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that people should not create hundreds of unsourced low quality short subs. But I either don't know if anybody is keen to create good quality, extensive, sourced articles of Finnish football if there is a threat them to be deleted... --SM (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Veikkausliiga is a founding member of European Professional Football Leagues [27] --SM (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's nice - but it doesn't prove anything, seeing as both Finland and Ireland are semi-pro leagues! Other leagues that are, according to the article, about to join, include Wales, which is definitely semi-pro! Giant Snowman 11:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So what? I did not say anything about Republic of Ireland or Wales. It is just wrong to say Finland is "semi-pro" because it is more close to full-pro than semi. And it does not affect to general notability in any way. For example: in UEFA ranking Finnish league is in higher place than these "fully-professsional leagues" (according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues) of Slovenia, Macedonia, Belarus. Using players wages as the only indicator to notability is unreasonable. The sports culture is different in different countries. My view is that common sense should be used. Sticking to rules must not be an intrinsic value.--SM (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out above, the simple truth is that WP:ATHLETE is not something dreamed up by the football project, it is applied to all sports, and we here at the football project don't have the power to change it all by ourselves -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

SM - the point is, you suggested that Finland was fully-pro as it was a member of the EPFL, even though I have shown that semi-pro leagues are also members - so you have yet to prove that the Finnish league is fully-pro! And having a UEFA ranking doesn't affect the professionalism of a league. If I was a mult-billionaire (one day!) I could form my own professional sports league and pay my mates to be professional players. They would still pass ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 13:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not depend on my suggestion that it truly is a professional league in all fields. Wikipedia:Notability (people) still gives a freedom to use common sense! "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included--". If a player does not meet strictly those criteria because of 13 % non-fully professional players in the league - I don't think that is conclusive. Frankly, I wonder about that passion of few users whose only goal seem to be deleting Finnish league players' articles by interpreting these cursory rules so strictly and in one-sided way. --SM (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You've got it all wrong; athletes have to pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Any player, regardless of what standard of league he plays in, can be notable if he meets general notability guidelines. And I must say that I resent your comment about "[the] few users whose only goal seem to be deleting Finnish league players' articles" - I for one have actually worked in the past to save the articles of Finnish players from deletion, such as Lauri Dalla Valle, who I completely rewrote to show notability - so please don't accuse editors of one thing without knowing all the facts! Giant Snowman 14:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just here to point out that of the six Finnish player articles currently at AfD, four still have no references at all, not even to prove that the person actually plays for their club, or even that they exist, and a fifth had none until it went to AfD. If people generally put as much effort into adding reliable sources to biographical articles as they put into arguing the toss (from whatever side of the argument, and I'm at least as guilty as the next person :-) then Wikipedia would be much improved. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Very good point Struway. I've had a quick look and most of the references are in Finnish, so it's up to any linguists out there to help out, as I'm not sure what help, if any, they are! Giant Snowman 14:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But from the other point of view: why would anybody improve or create good quality articles if they are going to be deleted anyway? The notability is about notability, not about the quality of Wikipedia article. --SM (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:GNG tends to reward good quality articles Spiderone 15:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO allowing players who have featured in Veikkausliiga would be the least time consuming option, because just about everyone will meet WP:BIO#Basic criteria through having multiple independent reliable sources - no matter whether the league is full pro or not. The players get enough coverage to meet what other person-articles deemed notable through WP:BIO get. I understand that "Additional criteria" would also be needed to get definite proof of notability, but I contend that they should be allowed since we have two different, long-standing opinions and in deadlocked situations keep should always be favoured instead of delete. Or are you contending that "in case of doubt, delete" would be a beneficial definition of policy to Wikipedia? --Makkon (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This compromise would also reflect the fact that there is no definite criteria on what is a professional football league. Applying that magical status, which seems to come from interpreting anecdotal evidence, would not change much - it already ranks higher than some pro leagues etc. There would still be some environmental factors, like the length of off-season which is several months longer than in some leagues, which would enable some players having a second job or studying. It's something along the lines of "they are pro, but can't all be paid enough to survive with". --Makkon (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We can make it more confusing and get into the particular city's mean income, poverty level, and what sort of apartments the boys have. :) I really do think the "professional" definition is a little vague and would like to see a little bit more leeway. Means more stubs, though.Cptnono (talk)

If anyone really felt like a ~~bloodbath~~ good argument, they could always try the BRD approach: reword WP:ATHLETE to reflect their concerns, wait for the change to be reverted, and then discuss the matter at the notability talkpage.... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

After seeing it brought up in so many different ways that really would be the way to do it. It all goes back to GNG though so I'm trying not to hurt my head on it!Cptnono (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that would be a slightly too full-on approach... But maybe someone who cared enough could raise the matter at that talkpage, to ask what the definition was of "at a fully-professional level", or a pointer to the discussion where it was defined, because of their concerns as to the way certain projects were perhaps taking the meaning too literally.

If I could be bothered to look for one, I'd add an image of a large stirring spoon... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, do read this one from that WP:N (people) page. john k is reflecting something which very much applies to our situation. This problem seems to affect others as well. --Makkon (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How about Russian Premier League? It is not fully professional. FC Khimki player Boris Rotenberg has other job so the league is not fully professional. He runs hotel business. [28] Should we start to put Russian top league players in AfD vote? BTW, in Soviet times all players were amateur? --SM (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't read Finnish. Does the article claim that Rotenberg runs a hotel in Russia during the league season? Does it state that he needs to do this to make ends meet, or does he just do it to help his family while he is not playing with the club? I would be very surprised if he is doing it because he cannot live on his football wages. Jogurney (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

He runs it in Finland with his family. I don't know the reasons and I don't think it is our business as Wikipedia contributors to try to guess that. Human's wants never end, they just increase togeter with possibilities and money brings more possibilities. There is also no minimum wage for being notable I think. That is just one example to bring out how unreasonable the rule to strictly divide leagues between fully-professional and non-professional is.--SM (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is a family business in Finland, then he's not doing the work during the RPFL season (do you think he flies back and forth every day?). I'm trying to assume good faith, but I don't think this example is at all relevant to the discussion. It's unfortunate that the "fully-pro league" standard is not a "bright-line" standard, but it's as close as we'll get to one. Jogurney (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What i was trying to bring out is that this strict dividing policy between full-pro and non-pro is fundamentally inconsistent. The problem is just that it is strict but totally non "bright-line". There will never be consensus. Why can't a pro player be a pro player? It is not Wikipedia's business to track down if a player has other sources or income - it really does not have any effect for the person's notability. --SM (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:ATHLETE is to provide a notability shortcut for biographies of athletes; and it makes some sense that leagues with part-time players are less likely to have players regularly meeting WP:GNG. Leagues that are fully-pro are more likely to have all of their players able to meet WP:GNG (because those leagues simply get more media coverage). I know when I search for sources on players in the Albanian league, it is much more difficult to find coverage than it is for La Liga players (and I don't speak either language). WP:ATHLETE is imperfect, but since it allows the creation of stubs that don't initially pass WP:GNG, I think it should be fairly limited in scope. Those Albanian league (or any other semi-pro league) players can have articles as well, they just require more work (initially) to pass WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That is quite unconsistent argument. Spanish top league is one of the top leagues of the World and the coverage is global. Have you made additional "research" comparing for example fully professional Slovenian an Belarusian leagues compared to Albania? They get significantly more coverage or what? Or Finland? All of the UEFA top level leagues get significant coverage at least in national media. --SM (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo is the new Armani underwear model, so he has another job -> Spanish league is not fully-pro. --SM (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No, he is only doing this because of greed and because of his ego. A Finnish semi-pro player would probably get a much duller job but it would be to support their life and their dependants. Spiderone 14:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but it is not Wikipedia's duty try to guess the motives of either. --SM (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

SM, the point is that Ronaldo could support himself on his football income alone. He doesn't need the many endorsement deals that he has, but they are merely supplementary to the wages he is paid by Real Madrid. 13% of players in the Veikkausliiga, however, require other jobs in order to maintain a basic standard of living, meaning that the league is semi-professional and therefore the players are not notable according to WP:ATHLETE. – Pee Jay 14:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely if we ignored WP:ATHLETE the unsourced Finnish stubs would still get deleted for failing WP:GNG. I don't understand the argument. Spiderone 14:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't see WP:ATHLETE saying anything about player's standard of living or even mention any minimum wage. As well I don't know where did you get that 13% of Veikkausliiga players have got other jobs to maintain any standard of living, because the Finnish player's association salary query from 2008 (xls-file) does not tell anything about that, it just says 87% of players are full-time - not what the rest 13% do and why. No one of the Finnish league players have troubles to pass the general notability guideline. My criticism is for the essential incoherence of that WP:ATHLETE policy. --SM (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FC Barcelona or Barcelona?

There seems to be a dispute going on on Lionel Messi and Zlatan Ibrahimovic and I was wondering which one is correct? Spiderone 16:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In an English article you would use [[Liverpool F.C.|Liverpool]] not [[Liverpool F.C.]]; so apply the same rule for other articles. Giant Snowman 16:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct as per GiantSnowman. Digirami (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see many of you agree about removing the FC´s, FK´s, RCD´s, and so on, but in cases of one word names, specially if the name of the club is the same as the city, I would like the use of FC´s. I do hate the points, but I prefer to see FC Barcelona, rather than just Barcelona (It´s not me the one mentioned in the edit war, I do aply the removing FC´s role). There are some cases, like FC Moscow, where I do find ugly to see just Moscow... But I´m always in favour of Beitar Jerusalem over Beitar Jerusalem F.C.. I also hate to see Milan, and rather see AC Milan. My theory may sound a bit stupid, but I allways (out of wikipedia) use minimum 2 words for a club: AC Milan, FC Barcelona, RCD Espanyol, Real Madrid, Rapid Vienna, etc. The exceptions are Panathinaikos, Olympiakos. I even like to write Galatasaray SK. There are cases where it´s usefull for diffenciating from other clubs, like Sporting CP (unnofficial:Sporting Lisbon) for making it different from other Sporting´s. Is there any place excusive for this debate? FkpCascais (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In the Barcelona case, it´s probable that the guy insisting in the FC is a club fan. For them FC in FC Barcelona is like United for Manchester United. They alloways use FC Barcelona, even in a situation where there isn´t much space. As this is an encyclopedia I do find strange that the usual is to use the simpliest way. We could be more precise... FkpCascais (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with keeping FC is that it is very generic and it doesn't help to differentiate that club from another (especially with one that well known). It isn't the same with other clubs that have initials kept in the short name like CSKA Moscow or LDU Quito, for example, because the city name alone in those cases isn't enough to differentiate them from another club. Digirami (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, I´m not saying using it allways, far from that, just using it in cases like only city name (FC Bassel, FC Barcelona, FC Copenhagen, AS Roma, FC Seoul, FC Porto, FK Sarajevo, NK Zagreb, FC Zürich, etc.) or one word name (FK Teplice, FK Železnik, Brondby BK, NK Mura, Sporting CP, SL Benfica, FC Sion, etc.). And not using it when FK Austria Wien → Austria Wien , Maccabi Haifa F.C. → Maccabi Haifa , etc. I also find useful that usually those letters are characteristic for a region or a country: FC (Anglo-saxon and Latin world), FK (Central and southeastern Europe), CF (Spain and Latin America), FF/IF (Scandinavia)... You really have to use it in some cases like for Dundee F.C. → Dundee FC for making it different of Dundee United F.C. → Dundee United. Writing only Dundee for Dundee FC would be confusing. FkpCascais (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say no, because when used in text it clear that it is referring to the club. If you have a list of clubs and it says "Barcelona", "Zurich", "Porto", it clear that those are the names of clubs, and not referring to the city. It even clearer when you have a sentence that says "he played for Spanish club Barcelona".Digirami (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I know, it´s a case of personal taste. Thanx God we have different opinions and we are not all equal :) And also, my theory is not really easy to make roles. I can´t really explain why do I prefer better FC Porto over Porto, but I do prefer Panathinaikos over Panathinaikos AO. It´s just the way I´m used to write those club names and it´s purely my preference. We couldn´t make a role like "it should be like FkpCascais/or X likes it". Cheers FkpCascais (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

True, but the overall goal is consistency. If it says "Barcelona" in league tables, brackets, etc, infoboxes and text shouldn't be any different. At least that's the logic. Digirami (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeap... But, if in the future there is going to be a debate about it, I will be in favour of using a more "complete" names, specially in this "short names" cases, in all those places. In the meanwile, it´s Barcelona, Porto, Bassel, Malaga, Santos, Napoli, Dundee... Dundee?(See my previous exemple). FkpCascais (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There has been this debate about it this. It was decided that the short names would be used (God help me if I could find it in the vast archives of the talk page). Digirami (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the case with piping A.F.C./AFC's? I'm unsure how to present clubs like A.F.C. Bournemouth, A.F.C. Telford United and A.F.C. Hornchurch. Usually I use Bournemouth, but AFC Telford United and AFC Hornchurch as there are defunct clubs named Telford United and Hornchurch. --Jimbo^[online] 12:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also an existing Bournemouth F.C., which should be a(nother) reason not to drop the AFC from AFC Bournemouth. MTC (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank god i finally found this discussion, here are my inputs: I think a good compromise would be full name in storyline (intro included) and name compressed in infobox, and some coherence please: i have seen some reversions which, on purpose, pipe FC BARCELONA to BARCELONA, then leave REAL BETIS, when this latter club is only known as BETIS - the ONLY club that bears this "prefix" almost all the time is, how you would know, REAL MADRID, period! So, i do not come to terms on why is one club (BARCELONA) singled out, amongst so many.

Which leads me to my first suggestion (full name in story, compressed name in box): i don't see what's the problem in writing, in storyline, LIVERPOOL FC. I think it adds somewhat to the piece's overall display. Furthermore, if it is a Wiki-rule, it can be "composed" i believe. All in all, whatever my "teammates" choose to do, some coherence is "warranted" i think.

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a question of what's natural in English. In normal written English we just don't write Liverpool FC, or Arsenal FC, or FC Barcelona, it looks and sounds wrong. The only time we'd write Liverpool FC or FC Barcelona in general prose would be to distinguish from Liverpool or Barcelona the city, if the context meant there might be confusion. Likewise, if the FC/AFC is needed to distinguish between two clubs of similar name, like AFC Hornchurch and Hornchurch FC, then it should be used.

Barcelona isn't singled out, it's just a high-profile example because one or two editors seem determined that the name should not be piped. For what it's worth, the Spanish-language article on FC Barcelona refers to the club as "el Barcelona" often enough to show that it clearly isn't a problem for Spanish editors, as does the Spanish article on Lionel Messi. And with respect, if Real Betis Balompié S.A.D. is commonly known in English as Real Betis, then that's how it should be written, because we're writing in English. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

v t e UEFA Euro 2008
Stages	Qualification Group stage Group A Group B Group C Group D Knockout stage Final
General information	Bids Scotland–Ireland Broadcasting Squads Statistics
Official symbols	Europass (ball) Trix and Flix (mascot) UEFA Euro 2008 (video game) "Can You Hear Me" (song)