Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 51

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 45 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 55


Rating of certain articles

I' ve made some work over the last few months on some articles, by expanding them and adding references. My question is this: how can the Stub-Class rating can be changed? Can I do it myself? Is it a work that only administrators have the authorisation to do? The articles are the following: Monsef Zerka, Pablo Lima, Robert Szczot, Anastasios Katsabis, Emmanouil Papasterianos, Karim Soltani. Hansi667 (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You can indeed do it yourself. All what is needed to be done is to go on the talk page of the resprective article and change the value for "class" in the respective project header. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 12:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I have provided an example for Monsef Zerka. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 12:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly, I see that you have rated the Monsef Zerka as "B" class - is there a set of criteria somewhere by which we can measure articles? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The general criteria are detailed here. Camw (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Importance scale question

I have one more question considering the importance scale. Does a football player has to gain a full international cap to be eleigible for Mid-importance status, or is it ok with an U-21 cap? What about an apperance in the Summer Olympics football tournament? Hansi667 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Does playing in a match when ineligible count as an app?

Charlie Taylor played one match for Croydon Athletic in August despite still being under contract with Sutton United. As a result, the club has been docked three points. This was his only game for Croydon. An IP added this into the infobox, but I wasn't so sure it should be included. What does everyone think? —Half Price 18:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Was the game's result allowed to stand? If so I would say count it - he still made an official first-team appearance, regardless of his contract status. GiantSnowman 18:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
From what I glean from this, yes. Although they had the three points they gained from the match removed. —Half Price 19:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The beauty of it is, we don't have to decide. Let the league's statisticians have the crises of conscience, and then report whatever they determine. Kevin McE (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't look to have been expunged from the record, so would probably count in official league statistics (as per Kevin McE), and should therefore be included. GiantSnowman 19:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
If the result stands, so does the appearance. Cases were "appearances" are nulled are games such as West Ham Utd vs Aston Villa, when Emannuel Omonyinmi made a late appearance and forced the replay of a cup tie. In that case the whole tie was re-played, and all records expunged. Abandoned games can be touch and go depending on the league rules (such as England vs N. Ireland a few years back).Koncorde (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for comments: Fancruft at 2010–11 Premier League (and other articles as well, by the way)

Just in case you have not noticed yet, there are two discussions on the excessive inclusion of intricate detail at Talk:2010–11 Premier League#bolding and linking (for the Premier League article in particular) and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Fancruft at 2010–11 Premier League (on the issue in general). Please participate so that a consensus on this issue, as well as a guideline to be included into the MoS for league seasons, can be formed.

The location for the second discussion, by the way, was chosen by its creator on grounds of being "more central". While there are other places which would have also been able to host such a discussion (for example WT:FSATF or the MoS for league seasons talkpage), it might actually make sense to get some views from outside of the project as well. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 00:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox loans

A user keeps removing the (loan) bit from the infobox of Fraser Forster stating "it's already been marked". I'm guessing consensus hasn't changed and it still goes beside the name of the club in the infobox? --Jimbo[online] 01:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, yes. It looks silly without it. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 01:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Put a note on his talk page, because you're right and he's wrong. Brad78 (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Clubs name in player infoboxes...

Greetings all,

While browsing Ronaldo's article, I sought to change the way the way his clubs names are displayed in his infobox as follows based on the fact that that is how the clubs' names are displayed in other player infoboxes across the board (among other uses):

  • Inter Milan → Internazionale
  • PSV Eindhoven → PSV
  • AC Milan → Milan

An editor decided to revert that since it was agreed upon in Ronaldo's talkpage, even though there is a case where clubs names are displayed across the project, especially for such well-known clubs. I was hoping someone else can resolve this. Thanks. Digirami (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


I see your point but I think it'll be better if it stays how it is now. For the more amatuer users, people aswell. How it is currently is good aswell because we all know Inter Milan Is Inter Milan and PSV Eindhoven is PSV Eindhoven. I think it's a good structure already and it dosen't need to be changed. Also, there may begin to be names that some people aren't familiar with, even though it's the same club. Some amatuer users could start calling Inter Milan Milan. So people will get confused if a situation like this happens. I don't think it should be changed.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Any football supporter worth his salt knows the difference between AC and Internazionale, in my opinion. Any time I see Inter Milan printed in the English press I cringe. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 08:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't like Inter Milan either, but it is commonly used, and sadly my personal tastes don't determine common usage... Thing is, the infobox is for a quick clear summary of his career. The well-informed follower of football will indeed know that Milan implies AC rather than Inter, but the general reader quite probably won't. In the prose, using Milan is fine once it's established it means AC, but the infobox has no context, so conventionally we display enough of the club name to be clear without having to click or hover, and Milan doesn't do that. Similarly, PSV Eindhoven is clearer than PSV, and is commonly used in the media. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "AC Milan" or "Milan" is acceptable i think. Why "Internazionale" (the club is hardly known that way, EVEN in Italy, much more known as "Inter Milan" in the media circles) when "Inter" suffices? As far as the Dutch club, how many "PSV" are there in the world? ONE (this one), why the full name in box? Just an opinion, respectable as the above (and the ones that will - hopefully - follow!), regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Within English media the clubs are most commonly known as "Inter Milan" and "AC Milan" and that's most likely how the average non-expert will think of these teams. I don't recall ever seeing or hearing Internazionale used in English. I think "Inter" might be fine as it's not ambiguous (and shorter, but see my point about PSV below) but "Milan" would definitely cause confusion given that for the average reader it could refer to either "Inter Milan" or "AC Milan". I believe WP:COMMONNAME deals with this pretty well. PSV is trickier in that the average person is likely to only know of PSV Eindhoven so just "PSV" should suffice. My feeling, and I'm not married to this, is that since the club is usually written out "PSV Eindhoven" in English media that's what we should use. It's not that it's ambiguous the same way that "Milan" would be but that there might not be enough information with just "PSV" for the average reader to make the connection to "PSV Eindhoven". Given all this, it would be nice to see a project-wide consensus on this naming issue and to have it written out in an obvious place (like this project page) for easy reference and so that we can bring some consistency to the articles. SQGibbon (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the important goals of this project of uniformity. Across the board in the infoboxes of footballers who have played for those clubs, it says "Internazionale", "PSV", or "Milan", in addition to those clubs' names in standings or results boxes. This applies to club names in infoboxes of famous people in the world of football that are very well-known outside of it. For example: David Beckham's infobox says "Milan"; José Mourinho's say "Internazionale". So why does Ronaldo's have to be different? There is no clear reason for it. WP:COMMONNAME only applies to the titles of articles, not their names in infoboxes. And to pick at one point in the above argument, if a reader confuses Milan and Internazionale in the same infobox, that's their problem. It's not hard to figure out that two different club names are two different clubs. Give your average user more credit to their intelligence. Digirami (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, consistency is important, but having a consistently ambiguous or non-standard term is not ideal. The fact remains that the clubs are most commonly referred to as "Inter Milan" and "AC Milan" in the English media. The idea that any confusion a reader might have is "their problem" is a rather odd position for what's supposed to be a general encyclopedia (we're not a football wiki). Text ideally should be clear enough that the average reader can figure out what's being said without having to look it up or puzzle it out. Take me, for instance, I'm not a big football fan but I do follow it some. When I first came across these instances of "Milan" in an article (just a couple of months ago) I did not know which club was being referred to and had to click through. This happened several times because it wasn't at all clear to me that "Milan" is the standard way by which expert fans refer to the team I had always heard called "AC Milan" (nor could I remember which "Milan" was the "Milan") . I give readers plenty of credit for being intelligent but being confused by ambiguous and non-standard terms is completely understandable and it's easily avoidable. So yes, the Ronaldo article should not be unique in naming -- all the rest of the articles should conform to the least confusing and least ambiguous names as is currently the case with the Ronaldo article. SQGibbon (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
If someone reads "Internazionale" as one name and "Milan" two or so lines as another below it, it wouldn't be difficult to know that they mean two different clubs. It's not rocket science. And you can't take your personal experience as if every other user will be the same. You may very well be the exception to the norm. The fact is that "Internazionale" and "Milan" work very well to signify which club is which in articles such as the UEFA Champions League or the Serie A. And if there is some question by a random user every once in a while, there is a link that'll help them (which is one of the big advantages of Wikipedia). Digirami (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
If "Internazionale" and "Milan" are near each other then yeah, maybe the reader will figure out what's going on (assuming the reader can match Internazionale to "Inter Milan" which I don't take as a given), but why in the world should we be making readers figure out anything at all? Especially when it's so easy to avoid that problem in the first place? Why make them click through links when it's totally unnecessary? Sometimes that sort of thing is unavoidable, especially in really technical articles, but using "AC Milan" instead of "Milan" is not only easy, everyone understands exactly what it means. Again, as a general encyclopedia for general readers we should be striving to make articles as easy to follow along with as possible and use the names that most people are most familiar with. As for my personal experience, just as I might be unique it's also possible that I underestimate the problem -- could go both ways. But if you read through the archives or even just through the posts above in this section, I'm definitely not the only one who anticipates that it is a potential source of confusion for readers. So let me ask you this, other than the fact that most other articles use the "Milan"/"Internazionale" convention, is there any other reason to keep doing so? SQGibbon (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I already discussed this issue with Vasco, and despite being good colaborators, I for exemple don´t agree with Vasco´s excessive (in my view) simplification of club names in infoboxes. For exemple, I am an editor that defends the inclusion in the infoboxes of the "PSV Eindhoven" in oposition to "PSV". FkpCascais (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
After some thought, this is a case where I think you're making a problem out of nothing. "Internazionale" and "Milan" are used project-wide in various players' infoboxes, leagues standings, international tournaments, etc. of high notability to the English speaking world to even the most non-football amongst us and it hasn't generated confusion on any significant level. Ronaldo's infobox shouldn't be any different. (As for PSV's case, Eindhoven isn't even part of the name and there isn't another PSV in the world of football. PSV Eindhoven is the article name to it is also used and it disambiguates it from other PSV in other subject areas.) Digirami (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Absence of the evidence of confusion that you've observed is not evidence of the absence of such confusion. There have been specific instances of confusion and it's reasonable to conclude that there have been others given that in the English media these clubs are most commonly referred to as "Inter Milan" and "AC Milan". Quite a few editors seem to agree with this assessment (both here and in the archives). You dismissing it as not being "significant" is pure speculation based on, what? So let me ask you this, why don't we change all the other articles to "Inter Milan"/"AC Milan"? That way there will be no confusion and we'll have project-wide consistency. Also, I don't quite understand your "PSV" argument since there are other football clubs whose names start with PSV. But even if this wasn't the case the argument remains that the name they are most commonly known as in the English media is "PSV Eindhoven". It's still not clear to me why you think any readers, no matter how few of them there are, should be forced to figure out which clubs we're referring to when it's so easy to avoid the ambiguity. What's wrong with making articles as easy as possible to understand even if that only benefits a few readers? SQGibbon (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Aboubacar Tambadou / Koffi Jacques Ngessan

Currently Koffi Jacques Ngessan redirects to Aboubacar Tambadou, but the target article contains no mention of the former name. It looks like it was done on purpose, but neither article explains the link between these two names. Can an expect check please? - TB (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The redirect was created by User:Zombie433, a highly problematic user who was indefinitely blocked. There was an article at Ngessan, created by a Zombie433 sockpuppet, but it was deleted at AfD. The redirect was the result of a weird pagemove, one of the disruptive editing patterns that got the user blocked. This is by no means the first bit of debris from Zombie433's actions that has been uncovered, and no doubt it won't be the last. I've speedied it as an implausible redirect. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Ta - TB (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile, we seem to have lost our article on Koffi Jacques Ngessan: wiki mirrors like this preserve what it once contained: the player is still active, now at Djoliba AC. Was he properly deleted, and deleteable, or was this a procedural result of attempting to undo Zombie433's damage? Kevin McE (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
It was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koffi Jacques Ngessan. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Özbiliz again

Despite the previous discussion about Aras Özbiliz and a hidden comment on AFC Ajax, the edit war about his nationality appears to continue. Could someone help keep an eye on the article(s) and/or semi-protect it/them? (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If by "keep an eye" you mean to back up your position of leaving his nationality blank, claiming consensus to do so from a discussion in which that was not even proposed, I think you will struggle to find support. While I dislike the simplistic attribution of one nationality on squad lists, no suggestion that we should abandon it has ever gained consensus. So we have a long standing, simplistic solution to how to determine the nationality that is shown (even if the squad header does summarise it rather poorly) which is to display the country most recently represented, or, where the player has never appeared for a national team, place of birth.
So in this case, normal process would suggest that we stick a Turkish flag next to his name. To do otherwise would require a clear consensus that the place of birth was temporary displacement of the family (eg Terry Butcher if he had not played internationally, Cruz Beckham if he ever reaches notability), or that his Turkishness has been thoroughly disowned. The quote on his talk page, assuming that contributor is to be trusted, would not suggest any such extraordinary circumstance. His club will wish to record his Dutchness because of the need to register as few as possible non-EU nationalities: that is not a neutral motivation. The Armenian claim is a non-starter: no evidence put forward, and whatever the grounds of Turkish-Armenian historical disputes, the western suburbs of Istanbul in 1990 were not disputed territory. Kevin McE (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Can I remind people that place of birth is not to be used for flags. The Manual of Style is extremely clear on this saying, "Never use a flag for birth or death place" and "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense". If you want to change the manual of style, then it will have to be done on the talk pages of that guideline. Camw (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Errr, this is a sporting sense. This has been the default of the squad templates for the 4 years+ that I have been active of footy articles. The alternative is that we delete nationality for everyone who has not appeared internationally, unless their passport is in the public forum (and that won't help much in the case of UK passport holders). I have long suggested that we shouldn't be including such simplification of sensitive BLP info, but that is continually shouted down. Kevin McE (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Birthplace can in no way be considered nationality in a sporting sense, I do not see how the two could be linked to satisfy the manual of style at all. The guideline is not talking about the context of the use of the flag (a sports related table), it is linked to the next part of the guideline that continues to say "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality" - if they do not have verifiable representative nationality then yes the guidelines suggest that it should not be included, especially not based off birth place. Even a passport does not indicate sporting nationality according to our project guidelines. That something has been done against the guidelines for 4+ years is a sign that either the guideline needs to be amended or the incorrect use needs to stop, but it does not indicate that the practice should continue just because it has in the past. Camw (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Camw's points. We should not be assuming the 'nationality' of a player based on birthplace, but instead this should only be happening as and when he has played representative football for a country, at which point he will have gained a footballing nationality. There will also be a few cases where a player has made a statement on his footballing nationality prior to any call-up. Eldumpo (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you, but I think that the long standing manner of determining nationality has the (at least tacit) consensus of stability, and the wholesale removal of flags from squadlists for all non-internationals will meet enormous opposition. I've tried reverting flags on the squadlists of non-league teams, where the club's site doesn't give player's birth details, and that has been almost impossible to get people on board with. We might have verifiable info that John Bull was born on England, educated in England, learned his trade on a youth team in England, gives interviews in an English accent, had a father who played for England, has now retired to the English countryside, and has a daughter who plays hockey for England: it will be tricky to argue that we can't put an English flag next to his name. 90%+ of players outside the top divisions will not have played representative football: is it the intention that the flags column should be 10% populated? Kevin McE (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, just for the record. I don't have an opinion either way. I really couldn't care less whether he's listed as Turkish, Dutch, Armenian or none of the above. What I care about is preventing another ethnic edit war. Leaving the nationality out was proposed by User:WFCforLife in the discussion here and was implemented by both Pretty Green and WFCforLife. Feel free to disagree, but please don't turn me into just another troll. (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've opened a thread about Özbiliz on the Ajax talk page. It probably won't end the (slow-moving) edit war, but it's worth a try. (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Image issues

Hi guys, I'm not admitttedly not great with images, but I'm pretty sure that File:CHRISSSSFEI.JPG and File:Rp primary 2010MSWilsonTylerWalking01mr420.jpg need looking at by an admin...GiantSnowman 11:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Nominated all 7 uploads at commons for speedy deletion and it looks like they are gone. If images are hosted there then it has to be taken up on their site to action, not here. Camw (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for that, will know for the future! GiantSnowman 13:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem, in the commons preferences-gadgets tab there is a useful tool called Quick Delete that adds links to the sidebar that makes it quick and easy to nominate files for speedy (or other) deletions, or you can just post a message on one of their admin noticeboards. Camw (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Mauricio Pinilla

What is wrong with some "users" for the love of God?!? This player, following the altercation with another teammate (see INT.CAREER), declared himself ineligible for international play - there is a reference there which i added (see #18, also in same section) in which he clearly states that.

Over and OVER again, people have: 1 - removed said reference; 2 - inserted "2003-" instead of the correct "2003-2006" in box. As i said in one of the summaries, he is young (27 next month) so he can still reconsider and return to the national team, but for now he's out! Or is the link wrong and he has already done so? Thank you in advance - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems he already has reconsidered: [1] Presumably he just hasn't received any caps since his comeback yet. J Mo 101 (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 Milk Cup

The 2010 Milk Cup article has been nominated for deletion, any help offered to keep the article active on Wikipedia would be appreciated. TheBigJagielka (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just remove the prod if you disagree. It may then be taken to AfD where you can make an argument regarding notability. Camw (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessment of football articles - Quality scale

I suggest a change of wording at [2], whereby the Start class entry should change from "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources." to "An article that is developing, but which is incomplete and, may require further reliable sources." I believe the current wording could be read as a Start class article is OK without sources which should not be the case. Any change would require follow-on changes to the 'editing suggestions' column, and indeed I've just seen a similar issue for Category C which would also I believe warrant text changes. Any views on this? Eldumpo (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • On the same subject, is there any formal assessment for A-class articles, or could anyone just change the rating of any GA themselves? I'm only asking because I'm wondering if Andover F.C. would meet the criteria? Bettia (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A few queries

What is our policy on player nicknames? I have reverted one individual who has been adding a nickname for Réda Johnson four times in the last week. If its published in many reliable sources and doesn't sound stupid then fair enough, but that isn't the case here. I just want to check because the way it has been going I'll have to revert more in the future. Also, is this page move warranted? If the two red links are in any way notable then wouldn't a separate disambiguation page be more appropriate, with a hotnote placed at the top of the notable persons page? Like this one for example. Maybe I'm being picky, but the last couple of years supporting my club would be enough to make anyone feel cheesed off with football. Cheers. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding nicknames - if reliable sources can be found to verify a player's nickname - i.e. not just from fan forums - then it should be mentioned.
Regarding Nuno Mendes - no need for a disambiguation page if there is only one article about somebody by that name. Move back, and we can hatnote as/when the other articles are created. Regards, GiantSnowman 20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Taken care of: some "users" gotta stop doing that - page moved without a word in summary - in my opinion. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oops, i tried to move it back, no can do. Looks like an admin has got to "step up"... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Heh, no worries, thank you for trying. I hesitate when it comes to this sort of thing because I have no experience with it and would no doubt screw up. Regarding Johnson's nickname, the only place I've seen "the Rediator" is on Wikipedia courtesy of a couple of IP's. He was on our books for 18 months and was never called something so silly. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 21:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Jimmy McDonald (footballer) is a similar situation to Nuno Mendes - no need to disambiguate - can admins please have a look please? GiantSnowman 13:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C. alleged article issues

I've been asked off-wiki to take a look at the Arsenal F.C. article. I don't have time to do it now, and know little about the subject and nothing about the page (I've not even read the article) so I make no judgement about the veracity of the claims. The relevant part of the message sent to me is below:

[T]he Arsenal page is littered with inaccuracies, though on the bright side, at least that god awful "Arsenal Mania" has been removed from the external links.

Some of the better fanzines have also been removed, so presumably someone with major interest at the sites mentioned has an interest. We can't even get GoonersWorld on there despite the blog and forum being bang up to date with all the gossip, and the page is changed that often to suit whichever particular site the editor wishes to promote on any given day.

Anyhow, as you are admin there, I thought I'd lob that into your list of to do's!

The first and most inaccurate one is Arsenal fans calling themselves "Gooners" Nope! That's a "firm" thing (The Herd)

Second is the rivalry with Chelsea... Nope! Ours is with T*tt*nh*m and Wet Spam first and foremost, everything else is well down the line.

I could go on....

The person who asked me is a passionate Arsenal supporter, so his viewpoint will inevitably not be NPOV, but part of what he is complaining about are factual errors. I would appreciate it if someone not involved could take a look and see if any action needs taking - I'll take a look to when I get time, but this wont be for a couple of days most likely. Thryduulf (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the remaining fanzines, I don't think these should be linked at all per WP:ELNO. I believe "Gooners" is a fairly common way to refer to Arsenal supporters generally in various reliable sources, but others more familiar with the club may be able to improve the wording/sourcing of that line. Tottenham is mentioned first among the rivalries and given some detail in that section, and Chelsea is only mentioned as a single link as a fellow London based club - it seems alright to me, but I have no objection if someone wants to clean it up and clarify it with some good sources. Camw (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The Tottenham rivalry is clearly stated to be the most important rivalry, and also has its on article. I find it odd that he says 'We can't even get GoonersWorld on...' and a few lines down he writes '...most inaccurate one is Arsenal fans calling themselves "Gooners"'. All fanzines and blogs and unofficial websites should be removed because teams like Arsenal have hundreds.--EchetusXe 10:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The best known Arsenal fanzine is called 'The Gooner', so to say that Arsenal fans don't refer to themselves as Gooners seems laughable. Indeed, a quick google search for "fellow gooners" throws up quite a few results from GoonersWorld. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Do the fans call themselves gooners? Or do they call their players "gooners"? Koncorde (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ronaldo Sousa Andrades

Is there a good site for verifying appearances for Brazilian clubs? I've been looking for sources about the above player, but I suspect he is usually known simply as Ronaldo, which makes searching difficult. The article states that he plays for Internacional, but looking through the history of our article on the club, it appears he has only ever been listed as part of their B team. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Globo's Futpedia is good for verifying Brasileiro Serie A or Copa do Brasil appearances (this player has none). Beyond that, some of the state competitions keep statistics from the most recent seasons and sites like ESPN Soccernet have some state competitions statistics from recent years, but they are not user-friendly. Soccerway usually tracks the current season and maybe the last season. I've tried to verify any appearances for that player and found nothing. Jogurney (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fb ground Stade Félix Bollaert

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Fb ground Stade Félix Bollaert has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Help with Bill Kenny

I'm trying to expand the article about an English footballer who played for the Cleveland Cobras during the 1977 season, and was hoping someone has a resource that could confirm its the same person who played for Everton and Tranmere Rovers from 1970-1977. Thank you in advance. Jogurney (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the Everton trainee also played for Ashton United during 1977. Jogurney (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The Everton player looks to have been known as Billy Kenny, and shouldn't be confused with another Everton player by that name - maybe his son? Sorry - it doesn't answer your question, but does at least provide a bit more info about the player in question. GiantSnowman 19:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep, they are father and son according to this forum. The arguably more reliable Toffeeweb also refers to them as 'Snr.' and 'Jnr.' GiantSnowman 19:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. That's very helpful. I wish I had something that would indicate whether Snr. played in America. It seems likely, but I don't want to go on the assumption that he was the only English pro footballer named Bill(y) Kenny playing in England in 1977. I've done more digging in US sources with no luck. Jogurney (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I've exhausted all the sources I normally use for American soccer and can't find anything confirming they are the same player. Sorry. GiantSnowman 19:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
They seem to be the same person. I searched here for Bill Kenny and Tranmere in 1977 [3] Cattivi (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please could an admin have a look at

the prodded page Joe Day (footballer). I just removed most of the content as copyvio, but when I went to drop an explanatory note to the creator, discovered they'd moved the article to mainspace from their talk page, leaving their talk page as a redirect to the article and all the talk page history moved to mainspace with the article. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

2009–10 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round

I clicked on a few of the match reports from this page and they all defaulted to [4], which seems to be the current front page of the Europa League, i.e. covering this season's event. Are the original match reports still on the site and if so is there a way for the links to be fixed. Is it the case that UEFA refreshes its links at the end of each season? Eldumpo (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing the to often works. Wonder how long that 227kb of templates, flagicons and fancy formatting takes to load on a less than top-of-the-range connection. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done in about 37 seconds. Jared Preston (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

European Young Player of the Year

I've never heard of this award until today. Hugo Viana is credited with winning it in 2002[5][6][7] but I can see no other record of another player ever winning it. Is it a real award or is it a mistake that has been replicated throughout the media? TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have found these two lists, both awarded by Italian newspapers: the Premio Golden Boy Award (given out to the top under 21 year old playing in Europe) and Trofeo Bravo (awarded to the top under 21 who plies his trade in Europe). Viana is not listed as winning either. I note that Rafael van der Vaart won the Golden Boy Award in 2003 and on his personal website he lists the "European Young Player of the Year" in 2003, but this is not mentioned in his Wikipedia article. I don't know if that helps at all! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
There is an article on the Trofeo Bravo at Bravo Award. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
It is a real award. Viana apparently won the Golden Boy award in 2002. It is given out by Tuttosport. Only listings I have seen seem to start the award in 2003 though, including the official website. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Says clear enough here on Tuttosport that 2010 was the 8th edition, and lists the previous 7 winners, starting at 2003. Perhaps it followed on from an earlier award with a different sponsor? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
According to this link it was a vote by Serie A coaches TheBigJagielka (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Steven Pienaar transfer to Spurs

I don't want to get into an edit war at Steven Pienaar, but I'm not sure that his transfer to Spurs is technically complete, despite editors jumping to change his article. While the headline of this PA article suggests that it is, the article itself states that a work permit is yet to be granted and that: "Once all the paperwork is complete, Pienaar will officially become the north Londoners' second January signing". The input of WikiProject Football members would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Where both clubs have confirmed the transfer, and where the work permit should be a formality, as in Mr Pienaar's case, I think it's reasonable to move him, with a "subject to work permit" in the prose. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, although making judgements about the ease with which given players will be granted work permits is a bit dodgy, isn't it? Some players are refused work permits, so where do you draw the line? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
What permit is required? He already has one doesn't he? My understanding was another was not required, unless it's because of the changing circumstances of the contract length. I'd be interested to know more - just for personal reasons. Koncorde (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that he needs a new one as he's changing employer, so to speak. Several sources mention that Spurs are hoping to get him a work permit before the match against Newcastle at the weekend. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I know it's from the Welsh FA, not the English FA, but this document confirms that a new work permit must be issued if a player transfers clubs within the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sorry, got called away. Reading the rules and regs, which are HERE. Mr Pienaar has played in 75%+ of his country's competitive internationals, but his country needs to be ranked in the top 70 in the world averaged over the last two years, which they aren't, quite, in the latest list I can find. However, it then says "If the criteria are not satisfied, the FA will consult with the relevant football bodies by email, providing any details put forward by the club in favour of the player, such as his appearance record for that club and details of how far he meets the criteria. If it is their unanimous recommendation that the application does not need to be considered by a panel, then the case can be processed without.", and I'd be genuinely surprised if a player with Pienaar's record in English football with Everton would have to go to the appeals panel. The remit of the appeals panel is "To consider whether the player is of the highest calibre; and To consider whether the player is able to contribute significantly to the development of the game at the top level in England.", and again, I couldn't see Pienaar being turned down on that remit. Not as clearcut as I'd thought, technically, but I'd assume Spurs will have been in touch with the relevant governing bodies to check there'd be no problem before getting this far. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that a yes? :-p The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I think, in all seriousness, that these things (like Paul Jewell becoming ITFC manager, but not until after a couple of matches) mean you just can't change the article until it's "in the can". Simple as that, it's a pain, many editors will assume it's done and dusted, we have to our best to explain why it isn't quite there yet, and keep Wikipedia safely accurate. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it's highly unlikely that his work permit will be refused but the point is that it's not always so clear-cut in other cases. Other players' transfers have fallen through because of a work permit not being issued, such as here. It might be helpful to have some guidelines on this issue for future reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Aren't the guidelines the same as ever? Verifiability? If the transfer is done and dusted and multiple RS have said so, go ahead and include it in his article. What other guidance is required? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that that's all that should be required, but others seem to think differently. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, in my tired opinion, that's all there is to say about it. As I said, Paul Jewell "became" Ipswich manager five or so days before he really did. RS told us that, that meant we had to be clear he wasn't manager until he actually was. Same with Pienaar. Wait for the multiple RS to back it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
So, should I dare revert the changes to the Pienaar article? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've boldly done so. I'm sure that someone will change his club to Spurs again very quickly, but I've tried my best. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Zombie's back! (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - 99% sure it's him. GiantSnowman 20:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It certainly looks that way. Most of his edits are fairly generic, but the grammar errors made by this IP are consistent with the type of errors Zombie used make. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes it's him!! In a previous discussion, i pointed out he has a vast array of anon IPs, so the only solution is REVERT and IGNORE pretty much...Pityful. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Now at (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 15:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive9#IP hopper, please feel free to join in. GiantSnowman 19:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable players for (any given) clubs

Since i have seen some sections in clubs' articles which consist of FORMER or NOTABLE or FAMOUS PLAYERS (the title is not consistent for a start), i wonder what criteria is taken into consideration for a player (or manager)'s inclusion?

For instance, Royston Drenthe, probably will not play more than one season at Hércules CF, i have removed him (it later can be reinstated if he signs with the team for more seasons i reckon): is a guy notable because he played several years with a club, with a very important number of games and/or goals, or is a player notable because, even if he only played one season with X club - or less - he should make the list because he played quite notably with his national team and/or played 300/400/500 with another club (if Ryan Giggs joined Atlético Madrid for 2011/12, should he make this club's list of NOTABLE PLAYERS?)?

An anonymous user has a more concise approach (i stupidly reverted him one or two times, but have since stopped doing it), he named that section INTERNATIONAL PLAYERS in at least three Spanish clubs, can't be more concise that way. Inputs please, regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the Gillingham F.C. article is a good example of how to handle the issue. Create a list of players who has participated in a minimum number of matches (e.g., 50 or 100) and perhaps list players who have made international appearances at the club or list players inducted into a club's official hall of fame. Jogurney (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The Gillingham approach works well for that club whereby there is a link to a List of notable players, although for the larger clubs and clubs in top-level leagues it could get a bit unwieldy to list all internationals in the main club article. Eldumpo (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, obviously I wouldn't recommend that approach for a club like Manchester United. I only did it that way in the Gillingham article because it is so unusual for us to have an international player that I figures it was worth noting in the main club article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jogurney in the case of setting an appearance benchmark, which I have done with several French football clubs' articles, for example FC Sochaux-Montbéliard. If it is a smaller club with few notable appearance-maker players like say a, Stade Brestois 29, then I set an appearance benchmark and also include players who represented their country's national team either while playing for the club or after departing. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's please not be too strict about this guideline. Diego Maradona played only 70 matches for Boca Juniors and 36 for Barcelona. But if anyone were to remove him from the list of notable players of these clubs, we would probably be screaming vandalism, because Maradona is arguably one of the best players these clubs have ever had. (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This issue was extensively debated here some 6 months ago, remember? The discussion was not concluded, however, a more precise definition was agreed by all to be needed. Since then, I have seen many "Notable players" lists being removed and replaced by several alternatives: "International players" (meaning players with NT caps), "Players with more that X appereances", "Players with Championships won with the club" (or something like that...), an alternative I´ve been using has been: "For a list of current and former players with Wikipedia article, please see Category:FC Templetone players". Resumingly, wide range POV lists such as simple "Notable players" (POV because, "notable" why and to who?) lists, MUST give room to a more precise ones. Now, it is us that need to see the best solutions for that. In the meanwhile, here we are. FkpCascais (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What gives?

Hi there teammates,

according to reference #5 in his article, Borja Valero is on loan to Villarreal CF, thus still belonging to WBA. According to this other source i found in ES.WIKI (see here, he moved permanently, for five seasons.

I'll be more than happy to help and translate it, but maybe it won't be necessary, if any additional input is..well, input at the forum about his contractual status. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

West Brom's official site still lists him in their squad as "on loan", so I assume the deal was re-negotiated for some reason. J Mo 101 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • After some more browsing (, found out deal is PERMANENT, will make all pertinent arrangements in article, thank you for the input JM! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Curious to say the least: found several references that say that the deal is permanent, added one to storyline, all i checked have the date 8/7/10. However, if you look closely, the ref that speaks about the loan deal is from the 19th! Isn't it a bit illogical - illogical if we take for granted the player has signed a five-year contract? Some inputs are definitely needed, although i again thank JM 101 for his :) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Annoying user

When some user is being disruptive exclusively on footy articles is it better to make a report here or at ANI? Because I have been using ANI exclusively for serious stuff but, for exemple, User:Kosovantroop (talk|contribs) has been vandalising footy articles by introducing phalse information and after receving a worning he has donne it again. Any sugestions? FkpCascais (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well so far he has only received one warning, so its rather premature to try to escalate anything yet. Keep an eye on his contributions, see whether he responds to additional warnings. His contributions make it look as though he is not a very confident user of English, and he is very new to Wiki, so some clear explanation of what is unacceptable in those politically motivated edits may help him to contribute more consttructively. If he gats to level 4 warnings and still has not reconsidered his attitude, then WP:ARV is appropriate. When there is only one comment on his talk page, and no editnotes on the article on which most of his edits are found, it's hard to see that he has been given a fair introduction. FkpCascais, you are more likely that most of us here to be able to direct him to discussions where consensus on how to treat birthplaces in Kosovo and those who claim that as their nationality: direct him to them. Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

International players in current squad

Noticed that an anonymous user ([Contributions]) was bolding the names of international players under the Current Squad section of clubs. I reverted one of his edits but I thought maybe this was some sort of standard I missed .. ?!? Any clarification would be appreciated. TonyStarks (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the standard is not to bold names. Camw (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Something that was often done in the past, but by consensus no longer desired. Various things in the archives, enough to rate a special mention in the wikiproject MOS guidelines--ClubOranjeT 06:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Emirates Stadium GA nom

Just to let Wikiproject Footy know, Emirates Stadium is currently under Good article nomination so any onw who wants to help with the issues brought up outstanding is welcome to help. The review page is here. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Atlante UTN and Venados de Yucatán

A little while back I moved the Potros Neza club article to Atlante UTN in line with sources. However it now appears that the team has relocated to Yucatan as Venados de Yucatan [8], although they are still a filial club of Atlante F.C.. A user has changed the intro to Atlante UTN to show them as a former club and later on put a link to Venados de Yucatan, but at present this page is for the former club of the 1980s and 1990s who may not be connected to the latest franchise. Matters are complicated further by Merida FC who apparently played in the Mexican 2nd level (Liga de Ascenso) until December and who may not be carrying on, but who are listed (along with Atlante II i.e. UTN!) in Soccerway's early results for Clausura 2011 [9]. Can anyone shed any more light on what's happened and suggest whether teams are franchise moves or new teams, and how article names should be dealt with. Thanks! Eldumpo (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Andrejs Siņicins

Can an admin please salt this page? It's been AfD'd twice and G4'd four times, and still does not meet notability criteria. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Association football defenders by nationality

Is this a new direction? Someone has been replacing Category:Association football defenders and Category:Dutch footballers with Category:Dutch football defenders.--EchetusXe 09:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree if people are moving players out of the 'position-only' categories and placing them in a 'nationality/position cross' because to me the positional categories are a good way of listing basic information on players, without getting into player nationality complications, as these will often be listed separately. I can understand the thinking behind creating Category:Dutch football defenders as a straight sub-cat of Category:Dutch footballers due to the length of the latter, although I'm not convinced it needs doing, and it prevents users being able to see a complete alphabetical list of 'Dutch footballers' articles e.g. if they did not know the position of the player they were after. Eldumpo (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Eldumpo. FkpCascais (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The move described above is a bad idea. Jogurney (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I've reverted all the affected pages on my watchlist and have informed the editor in question that he should revert his edits. GiantSnowman 14:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I have also directed said editor to this discussion. GiantSnowman 11:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. It might be worth having the players in the aforementioned sub-categories, but they really shouldn't be taken out of the main nationality category along with it. Jared Preston (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
So should I procede on the basis of having them categorized both in the main national category and in the intersection category of nation and position? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
It may be worth seeking wider consensus on your particular point above, as most of the previous discussion was directed at not moving them out of the master categories, rather than whether addiitonal sub-cats should be created. The difficultly with creating sub-cats of nationality by position is that this can often be subjective/ a player may fit in various categories. Eldumpo (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Where would one seek such a consensus? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Player Achievements

  • If a player was named in the squad for a tournament, but hasn't played in any matches, and his team wins that tournament, can this win be put in that player's Achievements section?
  • Does a player need to have an international cap at full level, so his article will be considered a mid-importance one, or is it ok to play at junior level? Hansi667 (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If you're not sure about a player's achievement, don't add it. Without a reliable source, it's original research. Brad78 (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure he was named in the squad for the tournament, i'm sure that he didn't play any matches in the tournament and i'm also sure that his team won the tournament (all the former are properly based on reliable sources,as given in the WikiProject Football links collection). Is it "legitimate" to put his team's win in the player's achievements, since he hasn't featured in any of his team's games, or not? Hansi667 (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It depends on whether he was awarded a medal for that particular tournament, which will depend on the rules of the event, although most recent tournaments tend to award medals to all squad members. What player/tournament is it? Eldumpo (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It's 2002 African Cup of Nations and several players. I'll set an example: Idriss Carlos Kameni was named in Cameroon's squad byt he didn't play a single minute in the tournament. Should this be in his Honours list?Hansi667 (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The regulations for the 2010 event [10] state that 30 medals are available for each of the top 3 finishers (Chapter 3) and that squads comprise 22 players (Chapter 22). Therefore, the assumption is that all squad members now would get a medal, but I couldn't find any info for the 2002 event, and I believe in the past international tournaments were more likely to only give medals to players who competed in the final? In the absence of further information it may be best to include the honour but to state it is an 'assumed' honour and that he did not play etc - though I realise this is not ideal. Eldumpo (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
International tournaments have given medals to every squad member for a very long time, certainly long before 2002. (the WC since 1978, and previous tournaments have been done retrospectively). It's an extremely safe bet to list every member of Cameroon's squad as a winner of that tournament. The exception to all this is the Olympics, where players have to have played at some point in the tournament to receive a medal - but the Olympics is different in a lot of ways. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
@Eldumpo. I'm fairly sure that it's unreliable to "assume" anything. Brad78 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I have found 2 pictures of the Cameroon squad celebrating their 2002 ACN success ((picure1-very smallpicture2). In this pictures Joel Epalle can be seen having a medal around his neck (he is the one sitting to the left of the cup). Epalle, just like Kameni, didn't participate in any of Cameroon's matches in the tournament and nevertheless he wears a medal. After this is brought up, I think that giving medals to the whole squad (for the specific tournament - ACN2002), regardless of whether they have played or not, can be considered a fact, and thus this win can be added to the respective players' Achievements section. Hansi667 (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Pre-war British players in France

I have been refurbishing a lot of French football club articles in the past weeks and have encountered a lot of British players who played in France before World War II and later went on the manage several French clubs. Some like William Berry, Sid Kimpton, Victor Gibson, etc., have all been created, but I have encountered others like Stanley Hillier, George Scoones, John Mentha, among many others. I want to create their pages and researched a few days ago on a couple and was only about to find info on their careers in France. I was hoping you guys can assist me with links and other info about their careers in Great Britain. Thanks. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

According to this this blog (reliability unknown), Hogan was also active in Austria. Also Georges Scoones should actually be named George Scoones if he is British...GiantSnowman 20:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Jimmy Hogan does have a page. Writing on the fly, so sorry for the misspellings. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I found some info on Hillier. He apparently played for Erith & Belvedere before going to France. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Curtis Booth already exists as well...GiantSnowman 20:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Stan Hillier played in the FL for Bradford City & Gillingham between Erith&Belvedere and France. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought I recognised Hillier as a former Bradford player, I've created a stub article on him. GiantSnowman 21:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
This book suggests Hillier made 36 appearances with Bradford when the club was playing in the second division. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Re-read that sentence - it says he made 36 appearances for Bradford and Gillingham i.e. in total -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
And in actual fact he appears to have made 37 appearances for both teams. GiantSnowman 21:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
According to my book about professional foreign footballers in France, Stanley "Stan" Hillier played for Cannes (1928-34), but not for Sète where there is Joseph Hillier (Sochaux 32-33, Sète 33-36, Dunkerque 36-39.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
By the way, in this book I have some players former clubs, which can help to build their British career.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I've created John Donoghue (footballer). I'm not sur he was Scottish.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Lampards and Balls

Can someone explain to me why the article on the World Cup winning footballer is at Alan Ball, Jr. with his father at Alan Ball, Sr., while the present England player is shown as Frank Lampard with his father at Frank Lampard, Sr.? Why the inconsistency? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The difference is probably that Alan Ball already existed before the article on the footballer was created (it's been around since 2003!) and someone thought that sticking "....Jr." on was the best way to disambiguate the footballer#s article. Whereas when Frank Lampard was created, the title was free so nobody needed to come up with a disambiguator....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Can't explain why but for Frank Lampard the 'jnr' is used by West Hams fans as a pejorative for the current Chelsea player. 'Frank Lampard' to most of a certain generation means his father. Given the jnr and snr for the Balls suppose the same should be applied to the Lampards?--Egghead06 (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
A case could probably be made for the 1966 WC winner being regarded as the most noteable AB, and therefore the occupier of the Alan Ball slot with others dealt an Alan Ball (disambiguation) page. I think the case for Lampard Jnr being the sole occupier of namespace is considerably weaker.
But leaving that aside, should they not be, as with our usual practice, at Alan Ball (footballer born 1945), Alan Ball (footballer born 1924), Frank Lampard (footballer born 1978), and Frank Lampard (footballer born 1948)? Kevin McE (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I was just about to propose the same thing! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a similar situation in Scotland with Jackie McNamara and his father, who was a slightly less notable player (didn't play for Scotland, but did play for Celtic and Hibs a long time). Comparable to the Lampards IMO. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I think they're OK how they are. Traffic stats tell us that accesses to Frank Lampard junior's page exceed those to his dad's by a ratio of about 15:1. WP:PRECISE suggests we use parenthetical disambiguation, but "If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, use that instead"; I'd have thought the usage Frank Lampard Sr., like Alan Ball Sr., would qualify as natural dab in standard English. As to Balls, traffic stats tell us that the Academy Award-winning screenwriter and prominent gay man is accessed rather more than our World Cup winner, so again, I don't see a problem with using the "natural mode of disambiguation" of Sr and Jr for the footballers. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough if my call over Alan Ball's heightened notability was erroneous.
Our naming is meant to be long term: in a couple of years' time, when the Chelsea player is retired and his dad is still active in coaching, that ratio will be very different. Naming of articles should not be prone to recentism. Kevin McE (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nor prone to WP:CRYSTAL: junior won't disappear without trace in a couple of years, and senior isn't getting any younger, it works both ways. Articles are named to make it easy for their readers to find them, and to make it harder for our current readers to access what they're after, because we're guessing that the balance of interest will change in the future, would be doing those current readers a disservice. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems to have been handled differently on a case by case basis. For example there is no Alan Kelly, but there is an Alan Kelly, Sr. and an Alan Kelly, Jr.. Ronnie Whelan is handled in the same way as the Lampards. The father and son.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we should come up with a consensus about this; another example is Sergei Pavlovich Baltacha and Sergei Baltacha, Jr., and it just looks messy having numerous different ways to disambiguate. GiantSnowman 13:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
At present it seems to be agreed that if there are two or more players with the same name, we disambiguate them by their year of birth, except if they are father and son, when anything goes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly - and there's no reason why. Who cares if they are father and son? That's not their primary claim to notability; being a footballer is, and so they should be disambiguated by year of birth, as ALL other players with the same name are. GiantSnowman 14:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree: I separated Stanley Aborah pere et fils on this basis at the beginning of the season rather than their earlier Sr/Jr disambiguators. Kevin McE (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME suggests that common usage trumps the convention we use for people that happen to have common names. Frank Lampard (footballer born 1978) might be consistent with the majority of disambiguated names on WikiProject Football. But if Frank Lampard is insufficient, Frank Lampard, Jr. is unquestionably the most commonly used way of distinguishing son from father. —WFC— 14:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
But Egghead above suggests that the Jr suffix is used to belittle the [born 1978) player: article names should be free from POv. Kevin McE (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
For the record I think the son is notable enough to be at Frank Lampard. But that might have quite a lot to do with my age. If he isn't, I don't doubt that some West Ham fans use it in a derogatory way, but the majority of neutral sources also use it when mentioning both men in the same piece. —WFC— 16:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree we should use common names (i.e. Jr. and Sr.) when available. The Jr suffix being used to belittle the player is of no consequence in this respect. (Btw wouldn't we need a WP:RS for that claim, anyway?) Madcynic (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Advice please

There's a Spanish-based anon editor, unfortunately not the same IP each time, who every matchday "updates" a selection of footballer infoboxes by adding 1 to their appearances, whether that leaves the current total correct or not, without updating the as-of date parameter. Occasionally, as today, someone notices them at work, and advises and then warns them. Today I got them to a final warning, at which point they stopped, but they'll probably start again later on. Is there anything can be done, or (as I suspect) should I just let them get on with it and then clear up afterwards? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the official Wikipedia policy is on warnings and process for IP addresses, but I'd say it's reasonable to take it to the next step if they're constantly being asked to add the update parameter and not complying. Eldumpo (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
We have a similar problem in the form of Zombie433 (who is blocked indefinitely) re-appearing and hopping from IP to IP. I took the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive9#IP hopper and they rangeblocked him. Try there, maybe? GiantSnowman 19:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Germán Burgos updated on

it's the new assistant coach for Serie A club Catania, if you want annd something to voice.. (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Advice re including articles in the Project

Hello WikiProject Football team

I have substantially completed a WP article History of association football (soccer) in Brisbane, Queensland [Australia], but am not sure whether it is too specialised (or appropriate) to include in any categories (eg history?) in this project.

Advice appreciated Regards Peter Peter Eedy (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nedbank Cup

The Nedbank Cup is South Africa's equivalent to the FA Cup. It has been known by quite a few names over the years (Life Challenge Cup, Benson and Hedges Trophy, Mainstay Cup, Bob Save Super Bowl, ABSA Cup and Nedbank Cup) due to the usual sponsorship rubbish. Is there a better, more stable name that could be used? This would save confusion on the articles for SA teams, where it can appear that the different names are different competitions entirely. Ta. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible suggestions - SAFA Cup or FA Cup (South Africa) - based on its origins and organisation. GiantSnowman 16:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Whilst the principle of giving it a non-sponsored name for stability is a sound one, it should be based on sources. The RSSSF page gives a generic name for the competition (in its list of winners) as "NSL/PSL Main Cup Competition" so not sure if this helps matters. Eldumpo (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Another possible title would be South African FA Cup. By the way, Telkom Knockout (possibly to South African League Cup?) and MTN 8 should definitely be renamed as well; probably even Telkom Charity Cup and Vodacom Challenge. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm unsure about this to be honest, to us they look like the same competition with new sponsors but South Africans seem to want to treat them as separate competitions. Also, I'm under the impression that PSL organise the competition, not SAFA. The Vodacom Challenge is organised by a private company called Sail Marketing. TheBigJagielka (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If there is no well-established generic name, use the current one. Our duty as regards titles is to readers looking for the article, not to "correctness" so long as the title is not misleading. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

FA Cup Rounds

Is it necessarry to have "proper" suffixed to the rounds after the qualifying rounds. I think it is not necessarry and it is confusing because it implies that all of the qualifying rounds were in some way not "proper" and were in some way inferior or not legitimate rounds. --Lucy-marie (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That is how the FA describe them. Number 57 13:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It may be how the FA describes them, but that does not make it "correct". It should be what is the least confusing and most informative not what is or is not most "correct" according to the FA. Adding the phrase "proper" is confusing because the meaning is not clear and does not make clear if the other rounds are also "proper" or not, implying they are somehow inferior or not "real".--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The term 'proper' is used to differentiate between the qualifying rounds contested by non-league clubs, and the rounds where the league clubs enter. It isn't just the FA that uses it, nor is it just used for the FA Cup, as a quick Gsearch for "first round proper" shows. Bettia (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The word qualifying differentiates between qualifying and non-qualifying rounds, surely adding "proper" is just superfluous and potentially confusing.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The word proper is also not used in other FA organised trophies such as the FA trophy on Wikipeidia.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
So what? If that's what the organization which runs the competition calls them, we don't have the authority to change it arbitrarily to something else. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
We do though have a duty to be as clear and unambiguous as possible. Just because the people who run the competiton use it dosen't mean we blindly follow what they use, as it may ambiguous and confusing.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No, it's neither ambiguous nor confusing. Prior to the "proper" rounds it's "qualifying". We need this to differentiate between third round of qualifying and third round proper. It's clearly a WP:COMMONNAME issue, and I'm not surprised to see you here, but if the FA refer to their own competition in this way, and it's commonly used elsewhere BBC, Daily Telegraph, ITV, even Southend Utd... job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The word qualifying does the diferentiating for you. I would also like you to explain what you mean when you say "I'm not surprised to see you here". Any where else you have had a discussion with me is not relevant to this discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You are right in that the FA could have decided never to use the qualifier proper, but they did, and most sources that need to consider the whole tournament and the record of non-league teams in it follow their lead. It would be inappropriate of us not to, where the distinction is relevant. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should talk about Man Utd being eliminated in the 4th round proper, but we are providingclear, verifiable information if we say that Dover Athletic reached the third round proper this year, but only got to the third qualifying round last year (try reading that with the word proper deleted). (I'm not claiming accuracy in those club comments) Kevin McE (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Here are examples of the BBC [11] and RSSSF [12] not using the 'proper' suffix. Eldumpo (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
On your "clear and unambiguous" point, "first round proper" is the common British-English term for the first round of a main competition, after preliminary rounds or qualifying competition. As shown by this search for "first round proper" on the Sky Sports site, which produces results for tennis, snooker, darts and rugby league as well as the FA Cup. Similar results obtain searching the BBC site.
Specifically on the FA Cup, the term "rounds proper" has been in common usage for many years to distinguish between main and qualifying competition. It's actually quite nice when the "official" name for something sporting coincides with its WP:COMMONNAME. We'd be making a mistake if we moved away from it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that "proper" is it's common name. It's certainly used by the FA, and it is used by other sites, but those same sites do not use 'proper' at times, and other sites not at all. As for the general search reference above, in terms of clarifying common name usage that should be compared against 'round only' text, although that is difficult as usages with 'proper' in the name also include round only, if that makes sense! Eldumpo (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
My search just showed that the words "rounds proper" had a clear and consistent meaning in general English usage, it wasn't trying to add up numbers of mentions on the internet. As I understand it, Lucy-marie's question arose from the use of "proper" in section headings in FA Cup articles. In prose, presumably we'd use "proper" if necessary to clarify or establish context, but not if it was clear what we were on about (what Kevin said above). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, when this is the predominant use on reliable sources (which it certainly is) we are absolutely obligated to use it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


Should players on trial at a club be listed in the 'current squad' section of the club article or not? Aberdeen F.C., for example, have had a few players on trial recently and people keep adding them to the squad list, but I keep taking them off, but should they be on? Swaddon1903 (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Are they listed as part of the squad on the club's website? Eldumpo (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Trialists are rarely listed on a squad's official website, and certainly shouldn't be included on Wikipedia's 'Current squad' listing. GiantSnowman 17:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought I was right to remove them, but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks very much. Swaddon1903 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It's worth bearing in mind that triallists can play in competitive matches in Scottish football. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I know they can in the Scottish Football League, but I don't think they can in the SPL. Swaddon1903 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If they can't play in competitive matches they shouldn't be listed. Adam4267 (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also suggest that adding a trial period to a player's article is excessively recentist: would others agree? Kevin McE (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it makes an article more complete. Brad78 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Think it depends how and when it's written. "He is currently on trial at..." is NOTNEWS, "He had a trial with..." is OK, "After leaving [previous club], he had trials with club A and club B before joining club C" is definitely encyclopedic (assuming reliable sources in all cases, obviously). In Mr Brandy's case, I might just tweak it to say "he had a trial with...". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep. Definitely agree with that. I particularly hate "currently". One, it's unnecessary with the perfect tense; and secondly, it becomes wrong over time and very often those who add it, don't change it later on. Brad78 (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Trail periods can be notable and receive significant secondary sourcing (particularly in the SFL). However, without significant secondary sourcing they are trivial. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Urby Emanuelson

Urby Emanuelson is apparently moving from AFC Ajax to AC Milan. However, the two clubs haven't announced anything yet, and the media disagree about the move as well. Some report that he will be moving during the summer transfer window, other reports indicate that the move will be immediate. The three articles involved get a lot of edits, but because of the uncertainty most of the edits contradict edits to the other articles. What to do? Wait for the official announcement? (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep - ignore media & forum speculation, and wait for a reliable source (i.e. an official announcement from one or both clubs) before changing anything. GiantSnowman 15:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Also the statistics need fixing in that article - two conflicting sources are used and it isn't clear why there are differences or which should be used. Peter E. James (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


Just a suggestion, but why don't we mention it and say it was just speculation. A transfer Rumour. Anyone agree?

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

We need verified information, not unreferenced transfer speculation - we're an encyclopedia, not a forum. GiantSnowman 16:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


Yes, I know that but I thought we could put it in as speculation.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this "speculation" referenced? GiantSnowman 19:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
AC Milan have confirmed it, and the article has already been updated. Peter E. James (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

List of players to have won all international club competitions

If we consider Stefano Tacconi "winner" of the Uefa Super Cup 1984 (where he didn't play), we must do the same also with Arnold Mühren, who "won" the Uefa Super Cup 1973 (although he didn't play) and with Luciano Bodini, who "won" the Uefa Cup 1990-91 (he was Inter goalkeeper, but he never participated in the competition. Do you agree? --VAN ZANT (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What reliable source do you have that confirms Tacconi as winning that honour? GiantSnowman 20:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
According to the articles Tacconi was in the matchday squad whereas Bodini wasn't, which was the defining factor until the mid-to-late 1990s. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Did Taconi get a winner's medal? Call me old-fashioned, but I thought that was how we defined winners. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Unused subs have always got winners' medals - that's the point I was making (squad players didn't until the mid-90s, so Bodini will have missed out). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever about the qualification for the list, the list certainly doesn't qualify for its title. No-one has won all of those listed at Template:International_club_football, or anywhere close. Kevin McE (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Gabriel Milito did not train (let alone play) ONE SECOND in 2008/09, yet all titles in the renowned treble are listed in his HONOURS section... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Arnold Mühren didn't participate in the victory of the Uefa Super Cup 1973, but at that time he was surely an Ajax player. So, why is Tacconi "winner" of the Super Cup 1984 while Mühren not??? The only way to solve this dispute is to consider as "winners" only the players who actively played a competition. Otherwise we risk making a muddle. --VAN ZANT (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Because we know that Tacconi was in the matchday squad, which is how UEFA used to define winners (in terms of who got a medal). We don't actually know all the subs for the 1973 ESC, so with Muhren we can't be sure. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, now it's clear. Thanks for your attention. --VAN ZANT (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I believe that if a player is an active part of a squad that wins a competition (for example playing in a(ny) given round(s) prior to the final), he should be awarded the honour, so if both Tacconi and Mühren - wow, than pin-point cross to Marco van Basten at age 37 sure was something!! - were picked for the final's list of 18 (in that age surely 16), they surely must have played in the entire competition. Not Milito's case though... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Fake image used?

I've raised this issue before on the WikiProject, but I didn't get any response to it, so I'm raising it again. The image File:Maldhome2011.png, which is used in the article Maldives national football team, appears to be fake. It looks like someone made it in MS Paint. The shade of green with no colour nuances at all, the way the green hoop ends, the Nike logo, just about everything makes it look like a hoax. (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I agree - especially as the correct kit looks like this. I'll tag it for CSD G3, as a blatant hoax. GiantSnowman 23:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope, it's hosted at Commons, and they do things differently over there I believe. We need an admin...GiantSnowman 23:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion at Commons. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The home kit in the infobox appears to have been based on the hoax image. The real kit is all red, according to GiantSnowman's picture. I tried to change it, but I can't fix it. (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reinstated the kit in the infobox to what it was in November. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Rationalisation of possible future competitors

Wanting to make this change, I was challenged, and referred to these pages for a competition later this year and one next year, as examples of the desirability of lists of potential participants. I applied the same deletion to each of them, but one has been reverted. So to centralise the discussion, I bring it here: are such ever shrinking lists helpful or encyclopaedic. I think not, but invite your observations. Kevin McE (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Kevin; having a list of "possible" competitors violates a number of guidelines. GiantSnowman 00:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
It does not seem sensible to list all these possible qualifiers. As long as there's the link to the regional tournaments so people can see the status of the event that should be sufficient. Eldumpo (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Especially the 2012 one is a big joke. It is just blowing up the article. I think just the competions should be linked. We don't list every possible 2014 World Cup participant on the World Cup article or every possible 2011/12 premier league participant. -Koppapa (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Bits and pieces

The nomination for the "Footballers Whose Life Would Make a Great Movie" award has begun, ladies and gentlemen! Here's my candidate.........Carlos Roa!! Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Remarkable, but given that the penalty was by David Batty, that save was less of an acheivement ;@) Kevin McE (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Didn't he retire in 1999 briefly because he felt the apocalypse was upon us? TheBigJagielka (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Cesc Fàbregas

Would anyone mind help keeping an eye on Cesc Fàbregas? A user is convinced that Fàbregas didn't start with Arsenal in the youth team, while the reliable source used (Barry J. Hugman, The PFA Premier & Football League Players' Records 1946–2005) explicitly states he joined their youth team, rather than signing on immediately as a pro (which he only did in September 2004). Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


Yeah, I'll see what I can do. Who does he reckon he started with? Barcelona??

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Phillips (footballer)

Worth keeping an eye on. I generally take a laissez-faire attitude to deals that are clearly done but may or may not have gone through at the precise moment of the edit, but I haven't even seen that much chatter about him joining Huddersfield (or anyone else for that matter). —WFC— 20:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comes up every transfer window, e.g. Jan 2009, Jan 2010, June 2010. Haven't seen it anywhere apart from here this time round, though. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

1. FC Köln

Can an admin please semi-protect the article on 1. FC Köln. It's been subject to considerable vandalism over the past few days. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You probably have a better chance over at WP:RPP. Regards, GiantSnowman 13:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move - Tommy Oar

Resolved: Page has been moved. GiantSnowman 13:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Thomas Oar#Requested move. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've replied to the effect that sources heavily suggest that WP:COMMONNAME points to "Tommy" for this character, but for future reference, listing it in the nominations section of the project page would be the more appropriate way of drawing it to the project's attention. Kevin McE (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It will probably get more chance of comment if it is posted here, as more will see it. Eldumpo (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyone with this on their watchlist will also get notification of updates to the project page: do we want every AfD/Cfd/Tfd/PROD/Review of any of the above listed here, implicitly inviting duplicated or forked discussions? Kevin McE (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

D.C. United results by opponent

While patrolling the backlog of new pages (yes, I am bored these days xD), I stumbled across D.C. United results by opponent. Do we have similar articles, and if not, what is the general opinion on these type of articles/lists? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 22:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Violates WP:NOT#STATS, definitely get rid of it. GiantSnowman 22:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
We do have similar articles. Even a featured one, which survived a deletion discussion for good measure. —WFC— 22:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
That was a poor close on accounts of a wad of atrocious keep comments (unsurprisingly drawn from WP:FOOTY members). This is textbook (literally) almanac content, and both articles (this and the Luton one) are easy deletes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. results by opponent as well. GiantSnowman 23:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd assume the user who created the DC United article saw the one I created for Seattle Sounders. The last one was also created by myself, off the back of Cliftonian's excellent work. I was going to work on getting them both featured when I felt better so I guess I'm glad that I haven't yet if they're going to be binned. 99% of club season articles are sprawling lists of statistics with no prose and they're kept so whatever. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 00:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I disagree with Thumperward Chirs Cunningham and GiantSnowman on this one. Lists like this do not reperesent an "indiscriminate collection of information," rather I think it's a very organized way to present a club's historical results in a summarized format based on opponent. The fact that one of them has made it through the featured list review process is further evidence of their value. Therefore Argyle, I encourage you to proceed with your nominations and I expect that they will provide further proof of the type of organized data and value these lists provide in an encyclopedia. --SkotyWATC 04:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that these articles are encyclopedic and are not just indiscriminate lists, and should be kept. The fact that they did survive a deletion discussion should not be dismissed lightly. Eldumpo (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Opinion: They look like a statistician's fantasy to me. What a waste of electrons. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Fact: The last AfD on the matter concluded otherwise. As did the FLC process. But if we're going for a second round of opinions, mine is that the lists are of more encyclopaedic value than an article on someone who once played in the League Cup. —WFC— 20:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
LOL I get the argument against but I personally enjoy such lists. My reading of the criteria for lists and how it works/does not work with notability seems to allow but I was thinking I might be off and understand why some editors would see it as a problem with indiscriminate. That appears to be overridden by consensus with some precedent. I would hate to see FLs deleted but probably the best step for those disagreeing would be to come up with a project wide consensus disallowing them and maybe even a community wide consensus to assure it. I would not be in favor of such action but I think important stats and summarizing a club's history are very interesting.Cptnono (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I could understand if a list were to be deleted having not been updated for two seasons, but Argyle 4 Life has put in an awful lot of hard work and I really appreciate his lists. I'm quite a list-person myself, and his are a really good template to work on for statistics. If you don't like stats, then you're not going to enjoy the lists quite as much as we do. It would be a real shame if they went. Jared Preston (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It is testament to how easy Wikipedia is to use that people invest so much time in stuff like this, but we can't simply include everything that people took time to do. Furthermore, surviving an XfD is not necessarily a positive for an article: that it was nominated at all suggests that someone doesn't believe it to be encyclopedic content, and articles which have survived 5 AfDs (elsewhere of course, not these ones) are not normally the sort of articles that people expect in encyclopedias. FWIW I don't put much stock in the featured lists system, which has always lagged quality-wise compared to FA (especially in older candidates).

The compilation of detailed stats tables is typically left to outsiders because it typically requires a level of work which requires the reader to trust the compiler. Ideally Wikipedia readers should not need to trust our authors because they can trivially look up the material we compile articles from using the provided references: that is made considerably more difficult when the material in question has been painstakingly woven together from multiple different sources. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the discourse. How much stock one puts into the featured list system is not relevant for this thread. If you think that process can be improved, I encourage you to start helping with the reviews. WP:FL clearly reads "The featured lists are what we believe to be the best lists in Wikipedia."
I agree that Wikipedia readers should not need to trust our authors, that's why we have policies on verifiability and the use of reliable sources. The two articles being discussed here (Seattle Sounders FC results by opponent and D.C. United results by opponent) make use of reliable sources and do not require anything to be taken on faith. Despite the "woven together" comment, I don't think there's any synthesis going on here, it's just a presentation of the data in a simpler, more useful format than is provided in the resources referenced. This phenomenon happens all over Wikipedia, and in fact is a significant reason why people find the site so valuable. There's no marketing or information spinning going on here, just verifiable facts and data being presented in the most effecient, readable manner possible. --SkotyWATC 07:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, don't get me wrong: I certainly wasn't suggesting that the result was WP:SYN content. Synthesis requires an original conclusion to be deduced from sources which don't contain it, and that's not what's being done here. The Seattle Sounders article is somewhat atypical because they've only actually played two seasons, so merging the results of those games is (while certainly not trivial) considerably less of a task than the Plymouth Argyle one (which stretches back 114 years). Given that the Argyle article uses as its references books which appear to be almanacs themselves, it's difficult to see what encyclopedic content is being added to what is available in the references. If it is a case of transforming a set of league results into a completely different table format then there certainly is a huge degree of skill involved which cannot be readily verified by the reader (at least not with the referencing format used), and rather too much for my liking. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: standardize template. Association football game sheet.

Hi, I have a proposal for standardize soccer match details in Template:Association football game sheet. Please check it, and write your oppinion. Thanks in advance. --Juliancames (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the template needs renaming immediately; the sport is called Association football, not 'soccer'. GiantSnowman 16:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks GiantSnowman, template was renamed to Template:Association football game sheet.--Juliancames (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is there a blue background?--EchetusXe 19:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Moreover (and totally neutrally asked), what were the reasons to create yet another match template when we already have three of them ({{Footballbox}}, {{Footballbox collapsible}} and {{Fb match}})?
This is just a version of existing templates except that it looks more like a computer game. Why are GK, DF, etc images? What is the benefit of including possesion stats for an encyclopaedia? Line-up image is unreadable. No need for this template as it is not an improvement on what already exists. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I changed the colors of the template using colors allowed as {{Fb match}} template.
Currently there is no template that includes all this information and uniforms. If it exists, please can you tell me the name?
Why are GK, DF, etc images? This are just icons, using the same management that has the enclopedia for other icons as Template:Yel, Template:Goal, Template:Captain, etc.
What is the benefit of including possesion stats for an encyclopaedia? Currently in the articles that include 'match details', statistics are used, so I thought it relevant to be included within the template. Eg. 2010_FIFA_World_Cup_Final#Details, 2006_FIFA_World_Cup_Final#Match_details.
Line-up image is unreadable. I increased the size of the image within the template. Thanks in advance. --Juliancames (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This does not need to be implemented from scratch. If you want to create a template which merges the functionality of the various match templates then please do so by calling those existing templates from the new super-template code. Ideally, it could then be made backwards compatible, which would make updating the likes of Bayern Munich v Norwich City to use it rather than the sub-templates trivial. Personally I also prefer the format used in Bayern Munich v Norwich City to the excessively busy layout in the World Cup articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the implementation of this new template. I find the design to be quite ugly, personally. – PeeJay 23:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I also disagree, but not on terms of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The idea to display player positions or captaincy by icons violates WP:MOSICON. Further, a 50-plus parameter template is not exactly very user-friendly and definitely not suitable for unexperienced editors. Wasn't it stated somewhere in the MoS or a similar page that a template should faciliate editing? It is very difficult to see a faciliation here...
I would prefer if we could just keep the existing ones and tweak these, if necessary. There is no need to re-invent the wheel. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 00:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
My proposal was that this new template should call the existing ones: this allows us a little more consistency than at present without creating an entirely new look, and if done properly should be possible to drop in to existing articles with little modification to the existing text. I think that addresses the concerns above. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Channel Islands players

Yes, the dreaded 'Nationality' question again - what should we list players from Jersey etc. as in the 'current squad' lists on team pages? Jersey is not FIFA-affiliated and therefore shouldn't really be used (as the template disclaimer states "Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules") but I can't think of an alternative. This would affect Peter Vincenti at Aldershot and Brett Pitman at Bristol City, among others no doubt...GiantSnowman 23:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends whether you consider representing said country at the Island Games is enough to warrant a mention. The competition has been around long enough for it to be considered a valid event, and Pittman has represented Jersey several times at the Games (as have several players in the Welsh leagues for Ynys Mon for example), and other VERY lower-league Scots for Orkney, Shetland etc. I'm not aversed to it, to be honest. Pittman is unlikely to ever play for England, and it does reflect his international affiliation, even if it is to a non-FIFA team... --JonBroxton (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Brentford's goalie, Simon Moore, has played for the Isle of Wight too. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
In FIFA terms, the Channel Islands are under the jurisdiction of England: the Jersey FA is considered alongside the county FAs at FA headquarters. The Island games are no more defining of sporting nationality than the VIVA cup or Europeada. Kevin McE (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I have changed the Jersey flag to England in the past but thought I'd come here to get consensus seeing as IPs keep changing it back...GiantSnowman 13:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
If a player hasn't needed to state his FIFA nationality (which only happens for FIFA competitions) he shouldn't have a flag. It was my impression that we'd all mostly agreed that flags in these lists are strictly an indication of FIFA nationality at this point, which leaves no room for non-FIFA affiliations. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not a case of him not having a FIFA-nationality - his FIFA nationality is unquestionably English. That's undisputed. The question is whether the fact that, as he regularly plays for Jersey's "national team" in established (but non-FIFA affiliated) international tournaments, and will clearly never get near the English national team, whether it would be right to have Jersey's flag rather than England's flag next to his name. Consensus seems to be to say that having the Jersey flag is NOT the way to go as Jersey is not formally affiliated to FIFA, and I'm fine with that. But had the consensus been the other way, I would have been fine with that too. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a bit of an assumption to say that a Channel Islander is unquestionably English in sport. I don't recall any examples of the football home nations other than England taking advantage of Channel Islander eligibility, but the Scotland rugby team picked Budge Pountney purely on the grounds of having a grandparent from one of the islands. Of course the two prominent football players from the islands in recent years (Graeme Le Saux and Matt Le Tissier) both played for England. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You are quite correct, I should have made myself clearer. This *particular* Channel Island-born footballer's FIFA nationality is unquestionably english, since that's what his club[13] and various online sources state. Clearly, this might not be the case for *all* Channel Island-born footballers --JonBroxton (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
What if a channel island born player has mixed nationality parents? Adam4267 (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Same as a player from anywhere else: place of birth until there is international representation, with FIFA recognised nationalities (so England rather than UK or Jersey). Kevin McE (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
But the Channel Islands aren't part of England they're part of the Crown Dependencies. Adam4267 (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is what this thread has been about. For the purposes of football administration, Jersey is treated as though it were part of England, although we all know that that is not politically the case. By the same principal (sportspeople's nationality follows the unit of nationality recognised by the sport's administrators), rugby players are from the Island of Ireland, without specifying which part, and gymnasts or athletes are British, not English/Scottish/Welsh/N.Irish. Kevin McE (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Is the Jersey FA treated as if it were part of England, according to this the Jersey FA is a 'region without membership'. Adam4267 (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The same document also makes no less than 12 direct references to FA involvement on the island, the FA site lists Jersey and Guernsey FAs as among their 43 county associations, and the Jersey FA's site describes it as a County Association and lists many FA initiatives that it is part of. Kevin McE (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd dispute that "his FIFA nationality is unquestionably English" (in the general case if not here). One's FIFA nationality is, AFAICS, determined only at the point where one needs to fill out a form to be eligible for a FIFA competition. That's where all the trouble comes from when people go around sticking Grenadian flags on people in the seventh tier of the English pyramid simply because they're eligible. Insomuch as we have agreed that the flag is solely representative of a player's FIFA-established nationality, and that a player who hasn't played from a side where that matters will not have set his FIFA nationality in writing, we shouldn't deduce it from where he lives or what non-FIFA team he's represented. (on a complete tangent, there was historically a distinction between Northern Ireland and ROI in rugby on the grounds that Northern Irish players could feature for the Great Britain national rugby league team, and of course all British athletes are also eligible under their respective Home Nations for the Commonwealth Games). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I should have specified that I meant rugby union: the Commonwealth Games are not the main administrators of international athletics. But that's not the main point here.
The current header on the squad template has never been supported when it has been challenged here, but conversation has dwindled out without any agreement on a replacement text on the several times that it has been raised (mainly by me ;@) ). But I get the impression no-one is trying to apply that phrase literally. A recent discussion here (the Aras Özbiliz thread) came close to an agreement that flags should only be applied to those with FIFA recognised international representative history, but that tentative consensus has never been tested in the field. Meanwhile, we are dealing not with "FIFA nationality", but with Wiki's notion of "sporting nationality" (Chris's dislike of this is well known, and has my sympathy, but its all we have for now). Playing for Jersey, in football, is no more international than playing for the Isle of Wight or Anglessey. So without a representative history, we are left with place of birth, and in this case, the footballing jurisdiction within which he was born is England. Kevin McE (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The most important part of MOS:FLAG as far as BLPs is concerned is "don't be misleading". An English flag for a player who has played for a non-FIFA team but never England would be misleading. The recommendation, as always, should be that if there's any doubt, leave the flag out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Copa Americas

I found this article while I was reading the 2015 Copa América. This article about the proposed tournament is in a really bad shape without any references. Does this article violate WP:CRYSTALBALL and should be deleted? Or can anyone expand this article with proper references? There is no official press release from CONCACAF, CONMEBOL or FIFA about the proposal being officially made. The only source that I can found is from I also found these two articles about why this tournament should be held, one from Sports Illustrated and one from Major League Soccer. Other than this these articles, I can't find any other reliable source. — MT (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I say prod it. It's too speculative despite some words from certain officials. I feel it may not happen and by 2015 we will still have the same 12-team Copa América. --MicroX (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


I am working on getting List of Fulham F.C. players featured but have found several discrepancies between the appearance figures on Soccerbase and those in another book. I was hoping someone with an subscription could help me out but the site doesn't seem to be working. Does anyone know what the situation is with the website and, if it is no longer running, any alternative sources where I can cross reference the data. The figures are only different by a game or two so nothing major. 03md 03:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The allfootballers site has been down for some time now and I understand it is not likely to be up and running any time soon. If your query is about Football League games I have the pre WW2 records book, but other than Soccerbase or any Fulham-specific sites (e.g. [14]), I am not aware of anywhere else on the web that collates information of appearances in all competitions (i.e. not just league). Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The only issue I have is with several players listed on Soccerbase which show more games in "Other competitions" than my book. Do you know what is included in the other column on the site. Does your book list nationalities as that is another problem I have for pre-WW2 players. 03md 13:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The "other" column on Soccerbase, as far as I can tell, lists games in Europe, the Football League Trophy and League play-offs. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
And the Charity Shield. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Further to above comments on stats included in Soccerbase, I am not sure exactly what info is included in the "other" category, and indeed I don't think stats are necessarily consistent for a given competition. See Talk:Racing Post for more information. The pre-WW2 Football Lge book does not list nationalities at such, but indicates place of birth where known, and notes if the player competed at an international level (including wartime games) for the home countries and Ireland. Send me a message if you want me to check what it says about any particular players. Eldumpo (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • There are 29 pre-war players on the Fulham page which are missing nationalities. I also need a nationality for Billy Hood, Will Davidson and Jack Peters for Man U if you can help with those. Can you help out with any of those. 03md 00:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, Peters is listed here as English. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Cheers DK. 03md 05:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have gone through the players on your list without a nationality and checked them against the pre WW2 (Joyce) book. Three of the players had played representative football and so I have added their nationality to the list. Eldumpo (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The approach to nationality here may be worth considering. While I'm here, although I think that 22% redlinks are "minimal", a significant minority at FLC appear to disagree, so be prepared to create a few articles if prompted. Regards, —WFC— 11:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • How does it look now? I'm going to add symbols and colour as you have done and notes to indicate under-21 apps if they have not appeared for the senior international team. 03md 00:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Demba Ba


As a West Ham fan I looked up our new signing, Demba Ba. I was quite amazed at the the lack of infomation on him. Please may you help if you have any good infomation on this player.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I translated the French article onto the English article.--EchetusXe 16:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit premature to show him as a West Ham player - the news I hear (and this is all wp:or of course), is that West Ham can't get insurance for him. You will however note his signing has NOT been announced on their own website as yet.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


Yes, yes, I know but many website's have said he has signed. We have got his shirt number as TBA because we do not know that yet. 99% sure deal will go through-Medical Passed. Just to point out I never said we had signed him in the first place!! I will look on other languages. Spanish, German.......Wikipedia to try to get as much USEFUL infomation as possible.

Thanks for all the contrbutions, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

99% certain counts for little. 100% completed is whats needed. Time will tell--Egghead06 (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


Yes, yes I know. I knew you'd say that. OK. PLEASE TAKE THIS OVER TO BA'S NEW TALKPAGE.

Thanks, pbl1998 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbl1998 (talkcontribs) 19:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Valentine Atem

Valentine Atem has previously been named in the Cameroon squad for the African Nations Championship (CHAN) qualifying campaign. According to his article, he has played for the Ghanian national team which would mean he wouldn't be eligible for the Cameroon CHAN squad. Does anyone know when and if he played for Ghana? TheBigJagielka (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If he was eligible, he could play for Cameroon but it would depend on the status of the game/s he played for Ghana (see Jermaine Jones for an example of the current application of the eligibility rules). Hack (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The page was frequently edited by Zombie who was known for either misidentifying statistics or just blatantly falsifying them. According to this, Atem wanted to play for Ghana before the 2006 World Cup, but never played for the national team. The site doesn't have a page on him. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
No source? No info. Also, out of interest, how can a player playing club football in Azerbaijan be eligible for CHAN, which is domestic-player only? GiantSnowman 19:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
He now plays for Tiko United in Cameroon. TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The article needs updating then. GiantSnowman 19:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Futsal notability

Quick opinions... does appearing for England national futsal team qualify one for notability under NSPORTS in this projects opinion? Alex Rodman has been re-created after being expired PROD 18 months ago because he has just transferred to Aldershot Town F.C.. Given he is likely to play a league 2 match sometime soon, I'd rather avoid the CRYSTAL arguments and such on an AfD if his Futsal experience would likely save him anyway. --ClubOranjeT 11:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Futsal is (as far as I'm aware) an entirely amateur sport, in that (as far as I'm aware) any professionals that play futsal are making their money from football. Furthermore, it's no bigger than a lot of Olympic Sports. It could be the case that any game for the futsal team confers notability. It could well depend on how big the England games were (friendlies/qualifiers/continental finals/world championships?). It could well be that he is not notable today, but that a 91st minute appearance for Aldershot in two days will change everything. Or it could be that he isn't notable at all, and is unlikely to demonstrate that he is an enduring part of history for some time. With the guidelines as they are, a policy-based argument could probably be made for all of those positions. —WFC— 12:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, and that's where common sense comes in. He's likely to get a game in a pro league in a reasonable amount of time and he's got another reasonable shout at notability for national-level representation in a team sport. Deleting this would probably be a waste of time. We can always look at it again at the end of the season if his move to Aldershot doesn't seem to be working out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Rodman has now played (and scored) against my lot, so his notability is sorted anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
In the same vein, do appearances for national beach soccer teams confer notability? I was recently presented with a list of Estonian footballers who fail NSPORT on my talk page, which included Andrus Mitt, Andreas Aniko, and Antti Arst who have all apparently played for Estonia's beach soccer team. What do other people think, does this make them notable? Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd encourage whatever enthusiastic soul who thinks so to work on expanding Estonia national beach soccer team beyond stub-class before dumping yet another dozen un- or barely-referenced BLPs on the 'pedia to be honest. While notability is not inherited, if the sole notability claim rests on something that barely passes itself you'd think the inverse applied. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Chris (re:Rodman), that was pretty much where I got to with my own internal dialogue.--ClubOranjeT 10:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Fan-owned English football clubs

This is a recently created category which has been newly populated. It has two issues as far as I can see. 1/ 'Fan-owned' is vague. Many owners of football clubs could be described as fans. E.g. Roman Abramovich. 2/ There seems to be little or no verification for some of the clubs that they are fan-owned (in as much as a group of fans have clubbed together to buy the club). E.g Dagenham. Any thoughts? --Egghead06 (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The category states that the main article relating to it is List of fan-owned sports teams. However this article has no references under 'England' and there is little text as to exactly what is meant by 'fan owned', per the point you raise above. At present there is little sourced justification for the category, although any changes/deletions made to the category ought to be followed through to the relevant section of the list. I can see some rationale for such a list existing in theory, but it would be problematic to source and define. Eldumpo (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Dag & Red are a member-owned Company limited by guarantee. See page 6 of [15]. I see no problem with the existence of the category, to me it seems obvious that it refers to collective ownership. If there are concerns, a simple explanatory note on the category page ought to do the trick. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Loans in Current Squad

In the current squad section of a club, do we specify that a player is on loan? I usually add that the player is on loan from Team X under the "other=" option. However, I noticed that someone removed that from one of the clubs I did that for (Kayserispor) so just wanted to know if I was doing right or wrong. Thanks. TonyStarks (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it's standard practice to include loan information. I always do. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep, players loaned in should be in the 'current squad' list, players loaned out should be in a second list ideally. GiantSnowman 14:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Help from austrians desperately wanted

I created it:Fritz Kreutzer, the first Calcio Napoli coach but I have zero news about his life before emigrating in Italy and after, his date of birth and death: do you have news? (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Player Statistics:

Was just glancing around the web trying to find some info for Jason Wilcox and came across . [[16]] I'm not sure from where they draw their information, but comparing it to a few of my old Premier League source books it appears to tally up. Has anyone ever come across this site before, and vetted its reliability? Koncorde (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any information about where they get their stats from in order to meet WP:RS. Why not just use your books to source the stats? Brad78 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to source any stats actually. It was just something that I spotted whilst googling and wondered if it had previously been seen / noticed / reviewed for the purpose of drawing out statistics.Koncorde (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I had a quick look at the website and it looks a clear, useful reference, although I did not try and check any of its stats against other sources. Surely if this site does prove to be reliable it is preferable to use it for sources rather than books-only in order that all Wikipedia users will have access to the source. Eldumpo (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The caveat I would have is that it states "unofficial statistics". So things such as when, where or how they scored (which half of the game etc) are going to be contentious. From what I can tell, they have pulled the info from Fantasy Football journals released back in the day. Koncorde (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Raising the bar?

Similar to this discussion (please see here, two users are now creating the "Twin people from Spain" category (hence, i suppose they are doing it for other countries as well). Does the general category "Twin people" not suffice?

Also, as habitual in the "all against Vasco Amaral policy", i have again been accused of doing something i did not in edit summaries. Please, teammates add some precious inputs before this stuff escalates. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization advises "Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features", so interpret that as you want. As for this "all against Vasco Amaral policy" (utter nonsense by the way, trust me!), who has been accusing you of doing wrong? Have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for more advice. GiantSnowman 22:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • From what i can see, "Twin people" is more than sufficient, if i have interpreted it rightfully. Second part: in Jorge García (footballer), i inserted an exclamation point, and perhaps my choice of words was not all it could be, really. Immediately, i was accused of threatening the other user. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that 'twin people' is enough, no need for subcategories based on nationality. As for the García article, your edit summary certainly wasn't a "threat" as the other user described it; however, looking at your contributions, I believe you could perhaps be a bit more civil in your use of summaries. Regards, GiantSnowman 22:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
There are 32 subcategories in Category:Twin people by nationality; if you consider it to be overcategorisation, you really need to adress it at CfD rather than in one article. You should also be aware before you make such aggressively presented editnotes that DEFAULTSORT is used to list people alphabetically by their surnames in categories. Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Defaultsort, as in "sort" - at least i believed it should be that way - should be presented as the person in question was known, for example: Wayne Rooney "Rooney, Wayne", but if João Paulo Pinto Ribeiro is known as João Paulo (and i know, i am Portuguese), why should he not be sorted as "Joao Paulo Pinto Ribeiro"? He is not known as Pinto or Ribeiro...
Wayne Rooney should be displayed in categories as "Wayne Rooney", indexed under R for Rooney. This is acheived by having "Rooney, Wayne" as the defaultsort. Are you really suggesting that the García twins should not be indexed under G in categories? What has João Paulo got to do with this? Kevin McE (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking about the matter at hand, both users have been notified about this discussion. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The sub-categorisation is almost entirely the work of user:HandsomeFella, who has been creating these at will (apparently based on the precedent of user:RHDIA's creation of Category:Twin people from the United States, which seems to be that account's sole purpose). This is plainly OTT. For the sake of a clean resolution I'd suggest taking it to CfD anyway. FWIW I didn't see much wrong with the edit summary, and the reply from HandomeFella was combative. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 00:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry KEVIN, i only now noticed your comment...Yes i think the (mentioned) twins should be listed with their names instead of surnames, because they are not known as "García". As for João Paulo, it was just an example i thought of to illustrate my M.O. (tipically, he would be listed as "Pinto Ribeiro, Joao Paulo", but he is known as JOÃO PAULO, and some users don't even know a given player's full name, that is why they should look for them under the familiar letter - in this case "J", not "P" or "R"). - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I think there is an enormous difference between the name that they might use on their shirt and a name by which they can generally be known and identified. The circle of people within which the name "Jorge" clearly and immediately identifies Sr García is very small. It might have worked for Pele or, at a push even Nani, but not to a player with a low profile and a common name. Kevin McE (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

John Wark on mainpage on 15 February

Well, news to me, but (at the moment) big John Wark has been selected to appear on the mainpage on 15 February. It's already been protected in the lead up, but if you folks could help me keep an eye out for anything that derails the clearly "outstanding" quality (!) of the article, that'd be splendid. Cheers y'all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sebastián Saja

Teammates, we have (i have :) ?) a situation:

This player, according to (most reliable source indeed), has four caps with his country. However, ES.WIKI has five games, listed in detail. Can anyone tell me which of those matches is the "intruder" (assuming NFT is right, which it must) so it can be duly rephrased (also note that an anon "user" has vandalized his stat box, but let's not pay attention to that)?

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for those man! Will insert them in player's article now, "leaving it" at FOUR caps. I know that won't stop the idiot vandals from doing their "stuff", but at least we the well-intended users know "which is which". Cheers! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Players who have played for semi-pro clubs.

Should players who have played for semi-pro clubs in a nations top flight be included? For example the Scottish Third Division and Scottish Second Division are both leagues wich regularly have semi-pro teams in them but also have fully pro teams, but some semi-pro teams have been to the first division I find this issue confusing, because with the current rules a player who has played once for the current bottom 3rd division team is considered more notable than someone who is playing for first division team Cowdenbeath F.C.. I think the problem is that England is one of few countries that makes all the teams in senior football (League 2+) be professional and the current rule is based around this. I think it would be better if the clubs that gave notability were ones in the top leagues of a country. Adam4267 (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is that there are plenty of top flight leagues that don't receive much coverage. For instance, I live in Canada, yet I had never even heard of the Canadian Soccer League until I started editing Wikipedia even though there was a CSL team in my city. Generally speaking, if league is fully-professional there is coverage, because it is media coverage that allows a league to become professional in the first place. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
A semi-pro player will not meet WP:NFOOTBALL; however, they may meet WP:GNG, in which case they would merit an article. GiantSnowman 00:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
But their are players on profesional contracts at semi-professional clubs so are they notable? It seems arbitrary to just say only professional clubs/players are notable because generally most leagues don't distinguish between the two. Adam4267 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
"with the current rules a player who has played once for the current bottom 3rd division team is considered more notable than someone who is playing for first division team Cowdenbeath F.C." - why? Neither division is fully professional, so neither is more notable (in the WP sense) than the other..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
might be wrong, but I thought he meant bottom English 3rd div team? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
the "Easter egg" link to Clyde F.C. on the word "bottom" would suggest otherwise. Either that, or he is very confused...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly just me that's confused, then :-) didn't notice the link, my colour vision's crap at the best of times and i'm still getting over the flu, or that's my excuse... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
No-one has answered why a profesional team is more notable than a semi-profesional team? Adam4267 (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
You've just answered your own question. More professionalism = more coverage = more notable. Have a read of WP:NFOOTBALL for more info. GiantSnowman 19:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
HOW??? does more profesionalism = more coverage. The only difference is some of the players at semi-pro clubs are part-time HOW does that affect notability. Adam4267 (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone?? Adam4267 (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise you to read WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, the relevant guidelines. Any more questions, just ask. Like I said, if a semi-pro player meets GNG then they would be considered notable; they're simply not notable by default, for want of a better word. GiantSnowman 22:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand the guidlines but I don't understand why. It seems incredably arbitrary to choose professional footballers as the cut-off why not only footballers over 20, or only footballers with more than 17 appearances. Adam4267 (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
So you'd allow every player over 20 to have an article? Or over 17 (?!) appearances? Because in that case you can write an article on me if you wish - I'm 22 and I've made over 17 appearances in my life...GiantSnowman 23:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
No i ment that it seems arbitrary to say only professional footballers should have an article because that doesn't affect notability, just like it is arbitrary to say that they have to be 20+ or made more than 17 appearences Adam4267 (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I suspect this is a misunderstanding as to what notability in the Wikipedia sense actually is. Notability on Wikipedia is not a measure of importance. A subject is notable, if there is enough source material one that subject, that we can write a decent encyclopedic article about it without having to resort to original research and unverified claims. As I stated above, it is increased coverage that allows a league to become professional in the first place, hence Snowman's comment: If a league is more professional, it has more coverage and therefore is more notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
You haven't based that on anything, you have just made it up do you have anything to show that their is a difference in coverage between semi-profesional and fully professional leagues. It seems utterly ridiculous to suggest that a league can lose it's wiki-notable status because a semi-professional team gets promoted to that league. Adam4267 (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
???Adam4267 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
That would never happen - WP:COMMONSENSE. GiantSnowman 01:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Look at BBC Sport Scotland. There are a dozen or so articles right now on the front page. Apart from the headline coverage of Murray's progress in Australia, all but one (a rugby A international match report) of the remaining headlines are about what SPL clubs are doing - buying, loaning or selling players, match previews, even a rumour about SPL TV. There is one article about a (currently) professional SFL1 club (Queen of the South), and no articles at all about SFL2 or SFL3. That illustrates the difference in national sports coverage in Scotland - 80%+ of it goes on SPL football (the majority of that on the Old Firm, maybe 5% on SFL1, with the remainder on other sports (mainly rugby). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Your beef appears to be with the fact Daniele Giordano was deleted. The basic reason for that it is that SFL3 is not a notable level of football for coverage of individual players. Your argument appears to be because Giordano was on loan from Celtic, a professional club, he is notable. I don't agree because that would be inconsistent. How could one type of Montrose player (a loan from an SPL club) be notable but another one (say, a Montrose youth player who makes their first team) not be? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Giantsnowman, so that league would operate on different rules to other leagues.
How did you manage to miss the two match previews under scottish league, or what was on Chris Jardine's blog, or the numerous mentions of how sfl teams are doing in cups. Your analysis was wrong as well no more than 50% of SPL coverage was on the Old Firm. What is on BBC's headline page is irrelevant anyway as it does not establish notability.
You have quite clearly not read anything I've written if thats what you think,
I will once again show that in accordance with current guidlines (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability) a player playing for a third division team in Clyde F.C. deserves their own page, but a player at Cowdenbeath F.C. in the first division, does not. Their are many leagues that this applies to not just Scottish ones.
I will once again ask how players contract status affects notability I will once again ask why and once again not get an answer. Adam4267 (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Clyde aren't fully pro (BBC) - so drop that red herring right away. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
You're deliberately missing the point. Playing at a fully professional level isn't a hard and fast rule to notability. Someone could play (very) briefly at a professional level and have no coverage, => not notable. Equally, someone could play as an amateur or a semi-pro and receive a lot of coverage (eg amateur golfers like Tiger Woods or Sergio Garcia received a ton of coverage before they turned professional, rugby union players before 1995, etc.), which means they are notable. The point is that professional status is a guideline - it gives us an idea of what to look for and what not to. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Adam - Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability is NOT a notability guideline - WP:NFOOTBALL, however, IS, and clearly states that a player must play in a fully-professional league (as well as meeting WP:GNG) in order to be considered notable. GiantSnowman 14:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

On the lower Scottish leagues

I've said it before, but the idea that the lower Scottish leagues don't confer notability because they're not fully professional is a nonsense. Every player who makes regular appearances in the Scottish Football League receives significant coverage from multiple reliable sources; indeed, even as the leagues themselves seem to find it more and more difficult to pay players full-time wages, they receive even more coverage thanks to the Web. This heavy-handed application of WP:NFOOTBALL is not helping the encyclopedia. If, as appears to be the case, people can't use common sense to see past WP:NFOOTBALL, it's high time that we started codifying exceptions for those leagues where we can guarantee that reliable sources can easily be found. SFL1/2/3 certainly fits there, and I'd also like to see the Conference National (which currently has a better TV deal than the two leagues above it) included as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Bicycle kick

Currently, there is a discussion on this article about the naming of the move in different languages. It would be great if some of you could go there and participate in the discussion. Thanks, B1mbo (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be far more bothered about the indiscriminate lists of "notable" practitioners and instances of the technique and all the peacock terms in there. Kevin McE (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
There does exist a notability criteria in regards to the notable bicycle kick takers. I recall many at the project previously claimed that the player notability section would get out of control, but they were only partially correct. The player list has remained relatively stable with good sources; it has been the notable games that have gotten a bit out of hand and may require either separation into their own list-article (if it follows Wikipedia procedures) or deletion. In regards to the language, there really does not exist a problem with the current way the matter is mentioned; in fact, I'd say that the Spanish-language controversy between "chalaca v chilena" has been nicely taken care of (unlike the same article in the Spanish WP). All the best.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, there are problems in the article about the naming and there have not been addresed. Instead of trying to discuss them, you're ignoring them and saying everything is ok. That's why I've been looking for someone neutral to address the controversy and stop the edit warring that is currently taking place in the article. --B1mbo (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
It takes two to make an "edit war," so I suppose that you have drawn me into your personal conflict. That being said, my position is a non-controversial and neutral one. Seeing as how you are part of Wikimedia Chile, perhaps your organization seeks to promote your particular POV in the articles (forgive me if I am wrong). However, I assure you that my position is not one of creating an "edit war". If you can address your issues with the current way the information is presented in a logical perspective (based on Wikipedia's rules, especially in regards to WP:OR), certainly it shall be taken into account. The problem arises when you arbitrarily remove and/or change perfectly neutral and valid material in order to push the idea that "chilena" is somehow more important than the term "tijera" or "chalaca" (despite none of your sources provide that idea). All the best.--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
It's nice to see that someone else has noticed all the peacock terms, unsourced assertions, silly incomplete lists and the synthesis of facts to make some of the OR & POV arguments present in that article and the content fork at History of the bicycle kick. I was one of many editors that tried to make some changes back in about 2008 but it was quite clear thet the article belonged to MarshalN20 who reacted angrily against other editors that tried to clean up some of the guff. I can't say I've looked at it recently because I took it off my watchlist to avoid confrontation with that user and then eventually gave up devoting so much of my time to this project for several reasons, including the fact that some editors can just bully their way about on here without censure. King of the North East 23:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's stop with the personal attacks, folks. Rather than people de-watchlisting that page, I think perhaps it's time that a task force was put together to rewrite it. I would certainly agree that it has considerably bigger problems than which utter trivia regarding Latin names for the subject is included in the lede. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

2017 FIFA Confederations Cup

Can somebody translate the 'note' currently on 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup into English please? It states "If Russia takes 1st place in the European football championship 2012 or Spain will win, while Russia is the second (because Spain - World Champion Cup 2010 and will already take part in the Confederations Cup 2013), then Russia will take into account in Cup 2013 year, and the Confederations Cup 2017 will be Russia's second in a row" and I haven't the foggiest what it's trying to get across. Thanks and regards, GiantSnowman 01:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's trying to say that, if Russia wins Euro 2012 (or comes second, since Spain will already be competing in the 2013 Confederations Cup as 2010 World Cup winners), they will therefore compete in two consecutive Confederations Cups (2013 and 2017). Not sure why this is worth mentioning though. – PeeJay 02:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
All it really needs to say is "Excluding possible participation at 2013 Confederations Cup". Problem of wanting to display such tables far too early. Will edit to this effect now. Kevin McE (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Merci chaps. GiantSnowman 16:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Steve Evans (footballer born 1962)

The article for the utterly unlikeable Steve Evans, manager of Crawley Town, has unsurprisingly been subject to vandalism. This is despite autoconfirmed protection. The last vandal had his work proudly on display for nearly 6 hours. So even if you dislike this man as much as I do, please add the article to your watchlist and keep an eye out. Thanks. —Half Price 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Most pointless edits ever?

Anon editor (talk · contribs) has been on a spree recently editing loads of football club infoboxes which say things like "Capacity: 10,000 (3,000 seated)", removing the closing bracket. What on earth is the point of that?!?!?!?!? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume that they can't have noticed that the start of the "Capacity" row begins with an opening bracket, so they were trying to "fix" the double closing bracket at the end. Number 57 09:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair play table @ 2010–11 La Liga

Sorry for being a pain once again, but there currently is a content dispute regarding the Fair Play award section at 2010–11 La Liga, more precisely on the matter if a) the section violates WP:SYN or not and b) if the section is needed at all. The related discussion can be found at the talk page of the article; I would like to seek additional input here since the discussion has currently stalled. Thanks in advance, Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 21:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Here is his new "reincarnation" (, will revert everything i can, period!! Can someone help me? Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zombie433 for a full list of IPs he uses. GiantSnowman 17:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, he has a seemingly never-ending supply of anon IPs. My following question is: is there an automatic way to revert all the edits he has made today (approx. 200 in a few hours, he started off "well", removing REFS)? It may also be useful to say that he is active as of NOW! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not difficult to roll back all the changes with Twinkle, though from a random sampling of the edits in question a good few of them seem to be quite productive ([17] for instance). Might be best following up with user:Tnxman307, who issued the last rangeblock. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Twinkle? I don't think i have that one...Can anyone do it? About the "productive" edits, i thought he was BANNED. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    • AFAIK he was never banned. An indefinite block is not the same as a ban. Certainly the continued use of sockpuppets while blocked is grounds for a ban, but that needs to be taken to the appropriate forum rather than just decided by fiat. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we should lodge a request for further admin action at ANI, which seems to have many more eyes than SPI? GiantSnowman 01:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Raúl Albiol

Hi there teammates,

I have just improved the article with more contents in REAL MADRID section. Can someone help out with some language that i added therein, regarding the controversial (non)goal against Sevilla FC? I feel my English was not quite up to par in this occasion (that "inches before it crossed..." bit really sounds awkward) :( :(

Thanks in advance (and what a surprise, Albiol's page has also been vandalized!!), keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to the Real Madrid section of the article. Eldumpo (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Almondvale Stadium (Livingston FC)

Some of you may be aware that the stadium in question has recently been renamed as the Bradiwood Motor Company Stadium, though not permanantly. Should the page Almondvale Stadium therefor be renamed, or kept as Almondvale and simply change the stadium names throughout the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBry4n (talkcontribs) 15:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

All naming rights deals are temporary ;) TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
According to the titles policy at WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be named according to the common name of the subject, which would be Almondvale Stadium. What we tend to do is put a sentence in the opening paragraph to say "currently known as Sponsor's-name Stadium for sponsorship reasons" or "known as Sponsor's-name Stadium until 2015 after the naming rights were sold", and mention the deal at the appropriate place in the stadium history. And in the infobox, I'd put the sponsored name against the fullname parameter but leave the stadium_name parameter set to the common name. We'd normally use the common name throughout the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Did i miss something?

How on earth is Jermaine Jones an United States international? He appeared for Germany as a senior (3 caps). From what i have read (i heard about the Americans approaching the player), he only appeared in friendlies with the Mannschaft, thus being eligible for an "international shift".

Since when did that change (in rules) happened? I thought only youth players could "change nationality"...Thanks in advance - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC) --JonBroxton (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
per FIFA Regulations governing the application of the statutes, VII 18.1 (p67): the words up to his 21st birthday were removed sometime between June 2008 and August 2010 (publication of the first link), and presumably before FIFA approved Jones' transfer of allegance was approved in Oct 2009. Essentially, it is only competitive appearances that "fix" nationaliy now. Kevin McE (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • On a related note (but in this case i do not think it is i who missed something, although i might have :)), how shall we deal with players being eligible or not to represent their national team after a certain time? Anon user (contributions here does not allow for people to write off any player from Portugal national football team action. See for instance Quim: he's 35, he hasn't been called up in almost three years, will he ever again? NO, but not all (most do not for sure) the players hold up fancy press conferences to announce their international retirement (even though it's common practice in clubs), they simply are "forgotten" by national team managers. Inputs please - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Eligibility doesn't enter into it. I think you are ok to use your judgement here. It shows the period in which the player won his caps. It is not the same as writing that a player's international career is over, which you would need a source for. Michael Owen's infobox shows his England career as lasting '1998–2008'. He has not retired internationally but an England comeback is unlikely. If it were to occur then the infobox could be changed. Showing just '1998– ' could be said to be inaccurate as he is not currently in the England set-up.--EchetusXe 23:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
btw had Henrique Hilário not come on as a half-time substitute then he would not have the senior squad in his national team section, 0 (0) is not possible, i.e. a simple call-up is not enough. So what that says about Quim I don't know.--EchetusXe 23:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
On that specific subject, I thought we'd ended in stalemate when the proposal to "cut off" people's international careers in the infobox was mooted. Specifically for Michael Owen I think it's outright incorrect to cut it off given that he's said he still wants to play. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
On List of Germany international footballers, I consider a player inactive if they haven't featured in this or the last tournament - so as soon as Euro 2012 qualifying began, everyone whose last callup was in Euro 2008 loses their active status - I'd apply the same to infoboxes. If they get called up, again, it can easily be undone, these articles change all the time. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I imagine there almost certainly was a stalemate on the issue. I made a quick search but couldn't find the discussion, and I thought Owen was the most obvious example and that is what his article is currently like, so I concluded that that was the state of things. Seems like different rules for different countries though. Not a big problem at all, I just don't want 38 year old lower league players who made one national appearance ten years ago to be '2001-'.--EchetusXe 18:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to reply to the original message in this thread, the rule change was made in the summer of 2009. The main person behind the change was the president of the Algerian football federation Mohamed Raouraoua who wanted to take advantage of the number of former French youth internationals that were also eligible for Algeria. Here's a link to the story: African nations set to reap benefit of FIFA's nationality-rule changes. TonyStarks (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Really nice inputs from you all, but i was already familiar with the fact that players could change nationality in sports if they only had represented the "previous nation" as a youth (even tough i totally disagree with that). But to change it as a senior is mind-boggling, are we going back to the Alfredo Di Stéfano/László Kubala days? Pityful... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Another example - today Nacer Chadli has declared for Belgium, despite playing for Morocco in November - "He is still eligible to play for Belgium because his Morocco debut against Northern Ireland, when he was named man of the match, came in a non-competitive tie." GiantSnowman 14:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Has had a makeover (and about time too). Just to save people the shock of finding out for themselves. It is a largely cosmetic change and it seems as though all the links have remained the same (thank Allah). One thing that does seem to have changed though is that matches now appear as pop-ups, the result being that match report links probably no longer work. Other than that the site is now peppered with encouragements for you to gamble.--EchetusXe 01:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can work out, players and club links remain the same, but match links don't, and season stats links, as widely used in career stats tables, don't. However, the significant change is that they now include playoff games in with regular season League games instead of as "other": e.g. Geoff Horsfield scored 2 goals in 5 playoff games, but according to his all-new Soccerbase page, he played no "other" games... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Season stat links do still work as far as I can see - here's Cody McDonald's for this season, for example...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant squad stats, as Birmingham 2001/2002, not individual players'. I think we tended to use the squad stats pages to save having to count up apps/goals by competition from the individual player/season pages. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Back on playoffs, they're inconsistent, in that if you go to the squad stats tab for Birmingham and select the 2001/02 season, Horsfield has 3 apps 1 goal in the "other" column, despite having none on his individual page... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
That's both strange and unfortunate if the club season breakdowns show play-off apps separate and then they're bundled in with league apps for the player's summary, even though there's an Other category! Eldumpo (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I seem to remember that the play-off bundling was already in place a few days ago. I came across that when updating Adam le Fondre's stats column on 1 February. At the time I just thought that I remembered how worked Soccerbase wrong. So maybe they had a policy change recently and implemented it in a half-assed way.--EchetusXe 17:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah there's been a few problems with Burnley players (Chris Eagles for example) with IPs adding the play-off matches into the infoboxes after the change to Soccerbase. BigDom talk 19:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
If the source we are using now includes playoffs, should we now consider doing likewise? —WFC— 21:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I was just thinking that.--EchetusXe 23:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
That's getting into dangerous territory. It would mean having to do the same for every country that has play-offs or it would be inconsistent. BigDom talk 23:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Play-offs aren't league games. Simple. Neither is Soccerbase the only source, nor is it always reliable. In fact, I've just found a few extra mistakes as a result of this change. Brad78 (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm playing devil's advocate more than anything else; while not going as far as to say that we should count play-offs as league games, we need to think about this. At the moment, for English players without stats in their articles, the only statistics are the infobox statistics for league games only, and invariably the only statistical source is Soccerbase, which considers the play-offs to be the league. Now, Brad may well be right. But if he is, surely a generic Soccerbase link is no longer sufficient to meet WP:V? —WFC— 01:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The only way we could possibly judge if some of the 'League' games that Soccerbase has recorded are actually play-offs or whatever is with a second reliable source, n'est pas? Therefore we have to default to the assumption that the stats are 100% League games until we learn otherwise. Either that, or doubts have to be raised about ALL of Soccerbase's stats, and we would therefore have to question its reliability, and consequently its use as a source. GiantSnowman 02:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Pas forcément. From 2008–09, we have Soccerbase stats for Chris Eagles that are internally inconsistent between the player page and team page in how playoffs are denoted. Same goes for Tommy Smith in 2007–08, and Al Bangura in 2005–06 (I have checked more widely than this, these are merely examples). Interestingly this problem doesn't seem to stretch back to Watford's 1998–99 playoff team, although Alon Hazan's league stats over his two seasons don't tally EITHER way, which adds to the question of whether Soccerbase can now be considered reliable. —WFC— 03:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Snowman, why would we assume that Soccerbase shows only league games when we know full well that it doesn't? That just doesn't make sense, especially when we know that on some pages of the site, play-offs aren't considered to be League matches. Soccerbase is not the only reliable source for any of the players ever to have played in the Football League; generic statistics books like Joyce's and Hugman's currently cover all the players up to 2005, while there are also the annual yearbooks (Rothmans, Nationwide, etc.) dating back many years. None of these undoubtedly reliable sources consider play-off games to be League matches. Then there's the individual club history and statistics books, and it is easy to come to the conclusion that while Soccerbase is invariably the easiest and most convenient source to use, it isn't necessarily the best. BigDom talk 09:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Dom, what I meant was say that the stats for John Smith show 40 games for Wikipedia F.C. in the 'League' column - is that 40 league games, or 38 league games and 2 play-offs? We don't know without another source to verify the information, but it's more likely to be the former. GiantSnowman 14:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Another "enhancement" appears to be that for retired players, the list of matches played in each season has gone. e.g Paul Devlin, Nicky Eaden, Curtis Fleming are marked in big writing "There are no matches", where those of their 2001/02 teammates still playing have full details going back to whenever, e.g Darren Carter, Paul Furlong. What would be nice, would be if someone could find enough evidence to work up a rationale for Neil Brown to be considered WP:RELIABLE. I know he doesn't cover players' current clubs, but his figures are significantly more accurate that Soccerbase's, for league appearances, and he's happy to accept corrections, where Soccerbase aren't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree with Dom. Like the National Basketball Association and other American sports, we should only include league stuff in box (regular season), the rest in a separate and detailed chart, the regular season is the only part of the competition where all the teams are "equal". - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps once it's become clear exactly what is and isn't included in Soccerbase it would be useful for some text to be added to the Racing Post article under a Soccerbase sub-heading outlining the database and what's included etc. I previously copied a thread from here to Talk:Racing Post with information on stats etc although some of this might be superseded with the changes. Might it also be useful to alert Soccerbase to these issues. It may be the kind of feedback they would welcome and which would end up clarifying exactly what is included. Soccerbase is an excellent database for modern players although it is important that we have confidence about what the stats are showing and thus I hope we can follow this through to a positive decision. Eldumpo (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotally, I'd query how receptive they are to feedback. But I agree, it's worth trying to get in touch. After all, Wikipedia throws a lot of traffic their way, and now that they're an ad-driven site, they might be more prepared to listen to the likes of us. —WFC— 22:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a good point about the amount of traffic they get, and it's in their interests for Soccerbase to remain a source that is used as a reference for Wikipedia articles. Is there any mechanism for a 'Wikipedia email' to be sent to them to encourage them to clarify the stats? Eldumpo (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Darren Peacock

Was just improving/cleaning up this footballer's article (it was more about Newcastle then the player!), and found this "interesting" bit of trivia:

How on earth did Hereford United win the Welsh Cup, being an English club? I have heard about the opposite though, with the likes of Wrexham, Cardiff and Swansea, but is this correct or vandalism? Well-intended English users will certainly know the answer to this one (come to think of it, so will the vandals)...

Also, if you check the list of winners in the competition, you will see that 1989/90, the year Hereford "won" it, has TWO winners! Inputs please, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not vandalism or false info. For many years, clubs in England located close to the Welsh border entered the Welsh Cup -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks Chris. But still, how did both SWANSEA and HEREFORD win the Cup in 1990? - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The Swansea win was incorrectly labelled as 89-90 when it was actually 88-89, and I have now changed this. Eldumpo (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The 1990 final details are at [18]; the Welsh cup article had the dates muddled up, as did the article on the 1989-90 final, which actually referred to the previous year (see [19]). I hope this helps explain the idiosyncrasies of Anglo-Welsh relations! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Silly me (partly), i should have noticed there was not input for 1988/89, thus one of the "doubled" 1989/90 should relate to the "former". Thanks folks! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Playername in footballers' infoboxes

What do you think of this edit? I have no idea if the "OBE" is part of the name and should be listed in the infobox, but if yes, I would have added it to the fullname, not to the playername. --Jaellee (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  • No Jaelle, not part of the person's name, it is a reference to one of the several titles "awarded" to British persons by the Kingdom, for notable services to the country. In my humble opinion, that should belong to the article's introduction, not the box (that goes for the "Sirs" and the other accolades as well i think). - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It appears that User:Anthony Winward has been adding these awards in to infoboxes right accross Wikipedia. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Garion96 is now removing them all! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Papa Agyemang

A potential edit conflict could be arising at Papa Agyemang, after I sourced the article and removed the dubious and unsourced stuff (e.g. him scoring 13 goals for Fulham, having a trial at Mainz etc), with User:AHENFYIE reverting my edit. Considering the vast majority of his edits on Wikipedia are on the Agyemang article it would appear he has a certain agenda he's looking to maintain. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I've prodded it. There's nothing in the article to verify him playing above level 6 of the English system, or playing at all anywhere else. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Slovak Superliga - fully pro or not?

After prodding Andrej Brčák because the player has yet to play in any top-level league match – does anybody know if the Slovak Superliga is fully professional? It is not listed at Wikipedia:FPL so far. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 21:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox football biography

Template:Infobox football biography has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox football biography 2. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This is basically a proposal to finish off what has already been started. Namely, merge the two templates, using the code from the new template "Infobox football biography 2" and the name from the old template "Infobox football biography". A bot would be used to then convert all the old syntax to the new syntax, and some transitional code would be used to make sure there is no disruption. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ukraine Squad 2009 Euro under-19 Cup

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Ukraine Squad 2009 Euro under-19 Cup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Along with many others, please have a look. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 African Nations Championship squads

The 2011 African Nations Championship kicks off today in Sudan. I'd appreciate some help in filling in the squads if someone can spare the time. I've put in the Algeria squad (along with their caps with the A'/local team). TonyStarks (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Tony, how many of the participants will be notable enough to have articles (have many of them played in "A" internationals)? Maybe we can list them without redlinks, but I would be surprised if most of the players are already notable. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The entire Algeria squad is notable. I'm guessing most of Tunisia and DR Congo's squads will also be notable with Wikipedia articles. I did the Ghana team and just over half seemed to have Wikipedia articles. However, for the rest of the teams, I couldn't really tell you. If you notice that many players are in red, feel free to list them without wikilinks. TonyStarks (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to add references for each squad to the article but I wasn't sure where to put them. I didn't want to put them next to the country name because it would effect the appearance of the title and wouldn't look good with a number next to each country. Any ideas on how to do it? I'm considering just adding a line before the start of the squad with the source. TonyStarks (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Playerhistory template

We have {{englandstats}}, {{FIFA player}}, {{soccerbase}}, {{nfteams}} etc. - why not {{playerhistory}} for this widely used site? GiantSnowman 17:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an awful website, but I suppose there wouldn't be any harm in having a template. I'll have a go now. BigDom talk 18:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
There, I think that should work. BigDom talk 18:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced we should encourage linking to a registration (fee) required website like playerhistory. It's better than nothing, but there are dozens of completely free websites that provide the same or better information. Jogurney (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the reservation about creating a template for a website that is not freely available. I'm not sure how accurate the site is (being a pay-site suggests it generally is accurate), but will there be enough instances whereby the required stats are not available at other sites, in order to justify use of a 'playerhistory' template? Eldumpo (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not like an extra template is going to break the wiki, we're not running out of kilobytes just yet. The template's there if people want to use it, and if there are better/freely available sources then they don't need to use it. BigDom talk 18:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Cheers for that Dom. I know it's not a perfect website (far from it) but it can be useful at times, and having a template for it won't kill the Project. Thanks again, GiantSnowman 19:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Age in years and days in the infobox

And another question: User:Jaganjac makes a lot of [20] these edits. Template:Infobox_football_biography_2 uses the Template:Birth date and age in the example which displays the age in years. Displaying the age in years and days seems to be a bit too much information (at least for me). Am I correct in reverting his edits? --Jaellee (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That edit was totally unnecessary, and I wouldn't encourage it. Jogurney (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I came here to ask the same question and I share your opinion. Jaganjac had made a number of such edits in the past few days. He is also replacing the "Serbian Cyrillic" template with "Bosnian Cyrillic" (for example here) in articles about ethnic Serb players from Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is complete nonsense, probably motivated by nationalist POV (Bosnian Cyrillic is an extinct script which fell into disuse in the 18th century). These templates should read either "Cyrillic" or "Serbian Cyrillic", depending on the linguistic interpretation. Timbouctou 18:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I claim complete ignorance on the Cyrillic topic. But User:Jaganjac is a very active editor and changed the age display in many articles. I've asked him not to do this and hope this is enough. If not, do these edits constitute vandalism? --Jaellee (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Not vandalism per se, as he is acting in good faith. However, if he continues to make such changes after being warned then he would certainly be considered as disruptive. GiantSnowman 19:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sweden Taskforce

I have proposed a Sweden taskforce at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Football/Sweden task force. Please support this if you are interested. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

National team seasons

Didn't we agree that articles like this should not exist?--EchetusXe 17:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right. Digirami (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Jamie Redknapp

Jamie's page says he has 239 appearances for Liverpool with 31 goals, but on the Liverpool page for his profile they say 308 apps with 41 goals, i'd think the Liverpool page would be reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanRs (talkcontribs) 17:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The infobox contains league games only - so he made 239 league appearances, but 308 appearances in all competitions (cups, Europe etc.) GiantSnowman 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec) :As the note at the bottom of the infobox states, the 239 appearances are league game only. We don't put cup appearances in the infobox. The LFC website doesn't differentiate between the two, Soccerbase does. Nanonic (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I filled in the stats for Redknapp. Unfortunately Soccerbase and LFCHistory disagree on his Liverpool league appearances, and the Bournemouth stats aren't on the web. So if someone could take a look over it and perfect it then that would be great.--EchetusXe 23:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't know about perfecting, but the Hugman PFA books give 237/30 for Liverpool, as do LFChistory, Sporting Heroes and Neil Brown, and that's also his total league apps/goals in the career stats table on the article, so I've changed the infobox figures to those, and added a sentence to the lead, sourced to Hugman, stating his goals/apps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok great. I think that means the Career statistics table I filled is is accurate then, just need to find out in which seasons he made his cup appearances for Bournemouth. It was Soccerbase that gave out the inaccurate stats...--EchetusXe 18:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Manager Nationalities

Owen Coyle discussion Adam4267 (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Writing the school which football players studied in infobox?

Although most of the schools everywhere have their football representative team, not all the schools players studieed should be written in the youth career column in the infobox (Template:Infobox football biography 2). I think the schools meet one of the following conditions can be written in the column.

  1. Footballers cannot be registered in that school and other football clubs at the same moment, like Japan.
  2. The representative football team of school is allowed to play in an offical football competition with other normal football clubs, like Emperor's Cup.

What do you all think? Thanks--FootballHK (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

North American college soccer clubs are fine; schools are not - far too trivial. GiantSnowman 14:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree, especially for point number one. Notable achievement in school team could instead be mentioned in the article itself. Checkiema (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Page move(s)

Me again, someone has moved (without a word in summary, as habitual here!!) Ricardo Pereira's page to a WRONG title, i am Portuguese and i know, there are lots of Portuguese football goalkeepers named as such.

I tried to re-move the page, was not allowed, can someone take care of it? Thanks in advance - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You can request page moves in Wikipedia:Requested moves. And I believe this could be listed under Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial requests, so someone there could quickly fulfill your request. — MT (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Loan vs Co-Ownership

What's the difference between a loan deal and a co-ownership. – Michael (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In Italian football two clubs own a player for a set period of time with the player usually playing for the weaker of the two teams. At the conclusion of a specified time, if the two clubs can't agree to extend the co-ownership, the two clubs put in secret bids to the FIGC and the highest bidder gets the player. Hack (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
You can have a look on these two articles for more information: Co-ownership (football) and Loan (sports). — MT (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese football sources

I said that I wouldn't take this here unless I got reverted again, but what I'm searching for goes far beyond a petty dispute with an IP. Does anyone know of reliable sources that specialise in Portuguese football, apart from ForaDeJogo and ZeroZeroFootball? I'm currently working on an article in my own space regarding this fellow, with the aim for it to become a Good Article. I've had to use the two websites mentioned for references in certain areas and for the most part they look legit, but I don't know where they get their material from and there are some errors (like the one that the IP believes to be true, even though it's clearly an error).

If anyone is aware of reliable sources regarding appearances and goals in Primeira Liga/Liga de Honra in the mid/late 1990s and the Second Division from 2009 onwards then please let me know. Also is there anywhere that lists all youth international caps/goals by an individual player? Probably a bit too much of an ask (I haven't seen anywhere come close to that of The FA so far). Regarding the IP. He/she believes that Mendes' appearance and goal tally for Braga here is 3 and 3, but that is just a glaring error by that website. If you click on detail to the right it brings up two matches which tallies with L'Équipe, a reliable source, and ZeroZeroFootball, to name just two. The IP's reason why 3 appearances and 3 goals is true; "i am Portuguese so i know how to read a POR source, leave it be". That's me told then, it must be true, just ignore what L'Équipe and Record say about it.

Thanks. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 15:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's clearly a typo on Fora de Jogo, as clicking on the magnifying glass makes clear. The IP seems not to have bothered checking. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep, common sense is lost on some people. One more request, if someone has a book (by Hugman or similar) from when he was with Plymouth Argyle, could a specific reference be provided to verify his full name and date of birth? Thanks. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
His page(s) at the Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional give full name and date of birth. Hugman 2006/07 doesn't give the Pereira. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Did you try They have a complete listing of match appearance data for the second division (formerly Liga de Honra) for the past few seasons (e.g., [21]). Jogurney 16:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I have indeed. Unfortunately he dropped down to the third division in 2009 with Moreirense and again in 2010 with Gondomar, which the website doesn't seem to cover. So I'm relying on ForaDeJogo for that at the moment. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 17:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I understand now (I can be pretty dense). It looks like the website tracks current season statistics for II Divisao (e.g., [22]) and III Divisao (e.g., [23]). I suspect we can manipulate the entry to get prior years, but I need to do some testing to be sure. Jogurney (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice find. I had a brief look there yesterday, but didn't find anything. The stats match those for 2010/2011 on his ForaDeJogo page which is encouraging. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I was the anon user, my apologies to Argyle for my summary, i wanted to use "please" there but ran out of space. Yes, my bad for not using the magnifying glass in FORADEJOGO. Now i did and what do i see? I see THREE (substitute) appearances, not TWO, which prompts my saying there are some inconsistencies regarding both this site and ZEROZERO, but we most nonetheless apply it to Portuguese footballers, being those two Portuguese sites. Also, both sources state "PEREIRA" as part of his fullname, so it must be.

2 games, 3 games, what do i care? I will not revert Argyle again that's for sure. Attentively, sorry for any incovenience(s) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What I see when I click on the magnifying glass for the 2002/03 season is 1 start 1 sub = 2 apps for Braga, and 2 starts 2 subs = 4 apps for Moreirense. Exactly the same as on zerozero. There isn't any inconsistency between the sites, but there are typos in the Braga line in the overview table on ForaDeJogo. cheers, Struway2 17:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Vasco, I have a very short fuse when it comes to IP's. I saw you had edited the article before, using your account, so I'm not sure why you edited it before and after without signing in. I don't mean to be rude, but how didn't you check before you reverted me? When you click on the magnifying glass it clearly says two matches for Braga, against Belenenses and Guimaraes, and four with Moreirense, which both tally up with L'Équipe and ZeroZero. We're only human I guess. It didn't occur to me that I could use the reference Struway mentioned on for his name and date of birth despite the fact I used the website a lot yesterday to reference his club career. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 17:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess we are "reaching something" folks...Cross my heart and hope to die, would you believe i have never clicked on the magnifying glass until TODAY (and i continue to confuse myself - now i have seen clearly, as STRUWAY says, 2 for BRAGA and 4 for MOREIRENSE (i mixed both clubs last "peep"), and of course no goals :) :))? Nice team work, that's the way to go, and no problems ARGYLE, i understand your "short fuse", happens to me more than i would like, even though i still feel i did not merit your reaction.

Regarding STRU again, i still say there are inconsistencies between ZEROZERO and FORADEJOGO, in some players not all (see for instance Liédson). Let there be wiki-peace! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

♫ All we are sayyyyyinnnng, wiki-peace a chance... ♫ - Wmcduff (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


Does anyone have any info regarding Rui Fonte's birthplace? It's not consistent in his article and, if it is Penafiel, Portugal, then one category has to be removed. His Soccerbase entry states nothing on the matter.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Penafiel confirmed by ZeroZero. GiantSnowman 22:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, i thought i had forgotten to write something (sigh)...yes, ZEROZERO says Penafiel, but FORADEJOGO, the other habitual Portuguese site, says Lisbon! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have composed article to leave only one birthplace. Please "undo" me if there are any developments on this that are contrary to my last edit. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Makedonia Football Clubs Association v. Union of Football Clubs of Macedonia (Thessaloniki)

These two articles cover the exact same subject. I have created the second article after failing to find the first, which I found a few days later. Union of Football Clubs of Macedonia (Thessaloniki) is better structured has more content and citations, but its title does not look alike the titles of the other Association football governing bodies in Greece articles. My proposal is to merge these two articles in a new one, under the title Macedonia Football Clubs Association (Thessaloniki). I think the reference of Thessaloniki in the title is essential, to avoid confusion with Football Federation of Macedonia. The name Macedonia Football Clubs Association is the direct translation of the federation's greek name (Ένωση Ποδοσφαιρικών Σωματείων Μακεδονίας). The federation contains Macedonia in its title as when it was established it was the governing body of football in the whole region of Greek Macedonia. Hansi667 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of your suggestions. Can you confirm that the proper translation of "Ένωση Ποδοσφαιρικών Σωματείων" is "Football Clubs Association"? Thank you. Jogurney (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The translation of each word is as follows:
  • Enosi - Ένωση = Association, union
  • Podosferikon - Ποδοσφαιρικών = genitive, plural of Podosferikos = of football
  • Somation - Σωματείων = genitive, plural of Somatio - Σωματείο = Club
  • Makedonias - Μακεδονίας = genitive of Makedonia - Μακεδονία = Macedonia

So yes I can confirm the above mentioned translation.Hansi667 (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thessaly Football Clubs Association

I think the title should be changed to Thessaly Football Clubs Association (Magnesia). When this association was founded it actually was the association that run football competitions in the region of Thessaly, but nowadays although it still holds Thessaly in its title, its jurisdiction is restricted within the borders of the Magnesia Prefecture. Hansi667 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Re this post and the thread above, the only English-language (or indeed Latin alphabet) source provided in the two articles is to RSSSF which only refers to "EPSM", without (as far as I can tell) indicating what this stands for. Would it be appropriate for the article to be called whatever the EPSM stands for? It seems that the association used to be at a higher level of the Greek football pyramid, whereby the winners of the EPSM would play off with the 'Athens' champions for the overall Greek championship. If the only English-language sources are for this period would it be better to name the article according to this, and not have Magnesia in the name if this is referring to a recent change? Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
If Google Translate can be trusted, the "EPS" (Enosi Podosferikon Somation or "Ένωση Ποδοσφαιρικών Σωματείων") is roughly translated as Union of Football Associations (Clubs). I noticed the Greek-language websites for these regional associations use "EPS" in their web addresses - as in [24] or [25] - but they don't have English-language websites. I don't think the "EPS" is widely used in English sources (only at so the "Fooian Football Clubs Association/Union" or "Union of Fooian Football Associations/Clubs" seems more appropriate. Any Greek-speakers than can give a more appropriate translation? Jogurney (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Are you aware of any other latin alphabet sources for the topic of this article other than RSSSF? My view is that we should not be coming up with unsourced English-language translations of Greek unless we have to. It would be different if only Greek alphabet sources were available, but what with RSSSF and the "eps" website names we have some reasons why it should be called "EPSM". Eldumpo (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand. It doesn't appear that there is English-language coverage of the regional championships, so maybe we are stuck with the inelegant translations used by I did finda personal CV in English of a person who works for one of these organizations (EPSR) which names it as "Rethymno's Football Association" so the "Football Association" seems a viable translation if we can rely on an English speakers way of refering to the organization. Jogurney (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thessaly Football Clubs Association is not EPSM. EPSM stands for Enosi Podosferikon Somation Makedonias (Macedonia Football Clubs Association) while Thessaly Football Clubs Association's abbreviation would be EPST which stands for Enosi Podosferikon Somation Thessalias (Thessaly Football Clubs Association) The exact translation of each word is as follows:

  • Enosi - Ένωση = Association, union
  • Podosferikon - Ποδοσφαιρικών = genitive, plural of Podosferikos = of football
  • Somation - Σωματείων = genitive, plural of Somatio - Σωματείο = Club
  • Thessalias - Θεσσαλίας = genitive of Thessalia - Θεσσαλία = Thessaly

The problem with the title of the article is that, while Thessaly contains Karditsa Prefecture, Larissa Prefecture, Trikala Prefecture and Magnesia Prefecture, the Thessaly Football Clubs Association]] is the governing body of football only in the the Magnesia Prefecture, out of a total of 4 prefectures of Thessaly. Until 1960 Thessaly Football Clubs Association was indeed the Association that run football in the whole region of Thessaly, but it was then that the Footbal Clubs from the Larissa Prefecture split to form Larissa Football Clubs Association. Later on Karditsa Prefecture's clubs and Trikala Prefecture's clubs established their own respective Associations. Thus Thessaly Football Clubs Association, although its title indicates that it runs football in the whole region of Thessaly, it actually does so only for the Magnesia Prefecture. That's why I propose to add Magnesia in its title, as the title of the Association itself is misleading. Hansi667 (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't hassle the Greenhoff

Does anybody know if Frank Greenhoff was father to Jimmy and Brian? This site simply says "awaiting confirmation"...GiantSnowman 22:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

José Fonte

Can anyone please have a look at this player's chart of statistics? I removed a wrong club therein (never played for SALGUEIROS), and now the SPORTING B fields are separated. Also, i think chart is a bit confusing, with seasons being mixed (i.e. 2006/07, then 2005/06 and 2006/07 again), and i also don't feel that English and Portuguese careers should be separated.

Attentively, ty very much in advance - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As he now plays for "my" club, I'll give the article a look over when I can. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ferenc Fodor

Can anyone provide any credible evidence that Fodor has been signed by MTK? - I've looked around on MTK's website and using google advanced search for Hungarian language articles, and I cannot find anything to confirm this claim. On a related matter, even if he has done so, I believe the Hungarian season is on break at present, so he cannot have made a Hungarian league appearance, if the infobox claim is incorrect he would fail WP:NSPORTS as appearances for Northwich Victoria are at a semi-professional level Zanoni (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much as signed as his release from Oldham returned him to his parent club under the terms of the original contract. He's on the MTK website under their Junior/Akademia section in the U19's here. The MTK site does not hold any statistics for him. Nanonic (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
So he went out on loan to a club who then proceeded to loan him out? Anyway, he does not meet currently notability requirements. But if he going to turn out for MTK then there is no point in deleting the article. Your call on that count.--EchetusXe 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

new article for Los Angeles FC: is this real?

Is this article real? I don't think it's the Los Angeles Galaxy, googling some of the players resulted in nil, and none of the players are legitimate bluelinks. I don't watch this project page, hit me with a {{tb}} if necessary. tedder (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed the unsourced "professional" bit then nommed it for speedy delete. ither a hoax or nonnotable club.Cptnono (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Most probably some kid from made a page. Nanonic (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thiago Motta

Regarding Thiago Motta's international appearance for the Brazil U-23 in the 2003 CONCACAF Gold Cup, should it be listed as Brazil U-23 or Brazil in the infobox? I think it should be listed as Brazil because of the following reasons:

  • Brazil was invited to the 2003 CONCACAF Gold Cup, but decided to send their U-23 team because their senior team was just competed in the 2003 FIFA Confederations Cup a month earlier.[26]
  • CONCACAF Gold Cup is a continental tournament for senior football teams in North and Central America and the Caribbean. All international appearances for the players are counted as an senior caps.[27]
  • RSSSF and FIFA listed the matches played by Brazil and any other teams in that tournament as an official international match.[28]
  • Other Brazil players who played in that tournament has their international appearances and goals from that tournament counted as senior caps. For example, see Robinho#International statistics[29] or Kaká#International goals[30].
  • FIFA recognizes the first match in the tournament (against Mexico on July 13, 2003) as the first international appearance for Robinho[31], Nilmar[32], Maicon[33], and Heurelho Gomes[34]. In the same game, Thiago Motta made his first appearance in Brazil shirt.

Since his teammates have their appearance in the tournament as caps for Brazil, I think Motta's article need to reflect the same information. I've raised this issue in an older discussion in 2009 and the consensus was that the matches in the 2003 CONCACAF Gold Cup are senior international matches. Now that Motta has switched his national allegiance to Italy, should this means that the caps was for Brazil U-23? Since I'm not a regular editor on WP:FOOTBALL, I would like another opinion on this issue, and I'll probably need some help to keep the correct information in the articles, since several IP users keep reverting my edit an ignoring my plea to discuss it in the talk page. — MT (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the tournament article, it looks to me like "Brazil" were invited, rather than "Brazil U-23". The fact that the CBF decided to restrict their selection to a certain group of players is not really here or there. National teams often field weakened sides for a variety of reasons, typically because star player(s) cannot be bothered to take part in some minor tournament or friendly. I think the bulk of evidence points towards Motta's appearance being a full international appearance, albeit in unusual circumstances that are worth noting in the text of the article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Definitely a full senior cap, it was a properly sanctioned international tournament. Just because Brazil decided to send their under-23 team, it doesn't alter the fact that they were full international matches. BigDom talk 14:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep, 100% agree that these are full caps. GiantSnowman 15:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree too. If Fabio Capello went insane and decided to select only non-league players for England's next Euro 2012 qualifier, the team would still be England, not England C -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
They'd probably do better than the regulars to be fair. BigDom talk 17:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • But thank god Manuel Almunia was never a choice, imports "clog up" clubs well enough as it is already, please leave national teams "be". - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the comments. Now it would be helpful if any of you keep an eye on Thiago Motta and Carlos Alberto de Jesus, where a lot of users keep changing the infobox to exclude those Gold Cup caps. — MT (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Zsolt Pölöskei

I've nominated this one for deletion (2nd time) - No evidence that this player has played professional football to satisfy requirements of WP:NSPORTS or meets WP:GNG. Information on Liverpool appearances incorrect. Cannot find evidence of him at MTK at present on their official website, no sources for loan move to Gyori. Details included on appearances and quotes as not sourced. Recent edits for some MTK players suspicious in my view. Zanoni (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Now the creator(s) are confirmed as yet more Alex Latham, I've tagged Pölöskei, Fodor and St Louis-Hamilton for speedy deletion under criterion G5. Might work... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

2009–10 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round

Further to previous thread on this topic [35] and subsequent message exchange [36] it appears that the match reports are no longer available at UEFA. Can anyone confirm if this is the case, as otherwise the links to the match reports ought to be removed (unless there are alternative sites containing match reports?). If UEFA regularly delete match reports perhaps we should think more when writing current season competition articles as to how the pages will function in later years? Obviously my point relates to other seasons, other UEFA tournaments and potentially many other football competitions. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure there ever were actual match reports for the early-round games? On the current season article, the report parameter links to the index page for each qualifying match, not the report page, because there isn't anything at the report page. Match reports for this season on the UEFA site only start at the group stage, but the group stage article still link (sensibly, in my opinion) to the index page for each match. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether match reports as such were ever at the 2009-10 page links. Looking at the 2010-11 article, the "report" link for the first 2 games listed (Tobol, Ulisses) go to a match overview page whereby the 'report' tab does not have an entry, but there are entries for 'line-ups' and 'commentary', and thus the latter is a form of match report. It may be that the wording 'report' is chosen in the Wikipedia links for ease when technically 'match stats' might be more accurate, but this takes up more space and I don't see a major problem with calling these links 'reports'. However, looking at the 2009/10 link for the Spartak Trnava game [37] there are no alternative tabs for line-ups etc, so there is now nothing showing at all for that game, and thus I'd like to understand whether there are appropriate stats out there and whether it makes sense to have all these 'report' links if the information is not going to remain. Eldumpo (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The layout's different on the archive pages from this season's pages. The line-up and other links are on the right, under Post-match. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that links to stats etc are available on the archive pages, I hadn't spotted those, largely because you click on a link entitled "Report" and expect a match report and are greeted with the text that there is no match report and assume that's it. I take it "Report" is used as the standard Wikipedia link for all external stats of a game? Eldumpo (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly used conventionally as the wording for the link in that parameter of the footballbox-type templates... Personally, I've only ever used them on club season articles, to link to real match reports that source the other contents of the template. I've never worked on UEFA competition seasons, but I'd have thought it made sense to link to whatever's available on the UEFA site as a source for the match details, without worrying whether it includes an actual match report or just line-ups or minute-by-minute? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian League Cup

Is the Ligakupa considered a fully professional competition? I ask as MTK Budapest FC have some of their players who have appeared in this season's competition who play for their reserves who played in one / both of the games the team were in this season's competition. They don't have their own articles yet, and I was thinking of adding them if this conferred notability. Zanoni (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well it's a League Cup, so no non-league teams can enter. However, the League system in Hungary isn't fully professional all the way down - only the top league, the Nemzeti Bajnokság I is. GiantSnowman 14:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
If the matches were against opposition in a fully-pro league (ie. against teams that also play in the Hungarian top-flight) then that is generally enough to be deemed notable. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I created a couple of stubs for players (who normally turn out for MTK II) but I'm less certain this is correct the more I look at it - for example, another one I could create is Gyula Forró - player profile. His soccerway profile would seemingly have him playing for MTK in a League Cup match on 24 July 2010 against Paksi SE who are top level NB1. This isn't marked down as MTK II like all his other appearances but MTK, but the whole team seems to pretty much be MTK II players match summary. I'm not thinking to go further with stubs as at the end of the day I don't want to go to all the bother if I end up blanking them all for a CSD... Zanoni (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Etoile FC

For some reason, the people who edit this page think its acceptable to list player nationalities based on the place of their birth. They even had this line prior to the squad to justify their decision: "Nationality given from place of birthSoccerway.Com: Etoile FC Squad List" I've consistently reverted it back to follow Wikipedia guidelines but every time I return to this page its changed back. They basically try to list as many players as French even though a player like Khaled Kharroubi is an Algerian international (although born in France0> Can someone help? Will a semi-protect do in this case? I'm not too familiar with that kind of stuff so if anyone has a better idea please let me know. Thanks. TonyStarks (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I understand there is/was originally a certain degree of consensus at Footy regarding the "FIFA eligibility" disclaimer that is included before squad lists, the reality is that there is confusion about what exactly is meant by the statement, as I believe it was shown previously on here that the FIFA statutes don't specifically define international eligibility, but say something like "provided thay meet their prospective country's criteria". 'Footballing nationality' can only be determined once someone has played representative international football or otherwise stated their 'nationality', so how many of those players at the Etoile FC article does that apply to? Whilst the "place of birth" note they were placing on the squad list may be no more correct in determining nationality, at least it is a lot more clear as to where the flags have come from i.e. place of birth. Eldumpo (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this guy notable?

I don't know enough about British football to know if Aaron Barnett has played at a notable level - it doesn't appear that he actually played for the Perth Glory, only at the second level in WA, which isn't fully professional. The BLPPROD was removed by the article creator (possibly a COI/Autobio) with very weak references. The-Pope (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in his British career to make him notable. No evidence of his actually playing first-team football above level 6, two tiers below fully-pro level. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
He doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL, and is a worthy candidate for AfD. If you don't/can't take him there then I'm more than happy to. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
You could PROD him to start with. BLPProd doesn't preclude an ordinary proposed deletion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Ha, never knew that, cheers Struway. GiantSnowman 16:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


Can I suggest (if known) adding a home town section in the players info box template. I say this because place of birth is sometimes misleading as to where a player is actually from. For example Arsenal fans call Ray Parlour "Romford Pele" because that is where he was born, but recently he was on a chat show laughing at the nickname because he is actually from Dagenham (near Romford). Some of time hometown and even school is written in the article but I think it would be beneficial as an encyclopedia to give an idea of where players actually come from without having to read through. Thoughts? GunnertheGooner (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What if about a player has more than one 'hometown' - for example, I was born in Canada and raised in a number of English towns, all of which could be considered my 'hometown.' Keep it in the article prose, if at all. GiantSnowman 18:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree it is not appropriate to add hometown to the infobox. Place of birth is used in the majority of sources, and the hometown can always be added to the article, if sufficient sources warrant it. Eldumpo (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
GiantSnowman I feel if someone hasn't got one then a simple n/a is appropriate. I just think a lot of people when looking for facts just gloss over the article and the details in the infobox become more important. If you don't agree fair enough GunnertheGooner (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
"Hometown: n/a" would look ridiculous -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I beleave the only one worth having placed in the infobox is the place of birth (town + country) and all other aspects, if important, should be mentioned in the article prose. FkpCascais (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that place of birth can be hugely misleading often because they are limited to where hospitals are, but unfortunately it's a compromise that has to be reached. For example, Michael Dawson's place of birth is Northallerton but aside from his birth, he's never actually been there. Brad78 (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
These are footballers not wrestlers.--EchetusXe 07:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rochdi Karaa

From Rochdi Karaa: "Rochdi Karaa was the first Tunisian professional to play in the English football league." Can anybody verify that and, if applicable, put the article into the appropriate categories? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I added categories and a source, but I couldn't find anything to verify most of the facts in that article. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Added another source and infobox, and removed all unreferenced information. GiantSnowman 17:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks! :-) --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 12:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Macedonian First League

This league is listed as pro, so if a player has played a match in it is notable. Is this so? FkpCascais (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Such a person is presumed notable, but if there are not sufficient reliable sources to write a decent article (and establish notability), I don't think the article would satisfy our guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, just checking. Thanx a lot. FkpCascais (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)