Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 57

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 50 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60


Live scores again

I want to check i am correct before i post another warning. Am i correct that users should be adding scores to matches whilst there still on i.e. after every goal. User:Skyblueshaun has been doing this. I and another user advised him not to do it and straight away he has done it again. Opinions please. Warburton1368 (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters, it is going to get added eventually so why does it matter if its done while the match is still on. A warning seems pretty harsh for something rather trivial. Also so many IPs do it that it would be a complete waste of time trying to police especially when there is plenty of real vandalism to be looking at. Adam4267 (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The majority of times they are not carried out to the finish and leave the article a mess. Yes there are many ips but I personally think it is something worth fighting. This is an encyclopaedia not a news or live feed site. Warburton1368 (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
He should not be adding scores of ongoing matches.In (What Wikipedia is not->Wikipedia is not a newspaper) it states on the first line Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories see here. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 17:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC))
I don't think the breaking news thing applies here. That is to deal with ongoing stories where the facts can change. Once a goal is scored it is a fact. It can't be changed so why does it matter if it is put onto wikipedia 1 minute or 1 day after. Adam4267 (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that's not quite true. In cases where a match is abandoned, anything that happened in the match up to that point is stricken from the record, so none of it counts. There is an argument that a lot of websites provide live updates anyway, so any live updates on Wikipedia can be easily sourced, but we shouldn't be taking it upon ourselves to provide those live updates. I think if anyone's coming on Wikipedia for live sports updates when there are hundreds of other viable sources, they need their heads examining. – PeeJay 17:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This is true. Also, of course it's a fact to edit in a goal when it is scored, but if you then sod off and do something else, and not bother to edit in an equaliser when it's scored, and you leave the result as 1-0, you've created a totally false result. This happens increasingly often and it is unacceptable. Add the result at the end of the game. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I feel very strongly about this and if the consensus agrees i will warn him again. This might open another can of worms but this template 1 just encourages it and it even says in its description it is against policyWarburton1368 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated the template for TFD. It has been before but needs discussed again. Warburton1368 (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
@User:PeeJay2K3: the same is true beyond the end of a game. A result could be stricken for any number of reasons.[1] [2] How long should one wait before adding it?. an hour? a day? a week? --ClubOranjeT 12:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
@User:Bretonbanquet: Strawman argument. this is no more an issue than editors adding wrong information about anything in Wikipedia.--ClubOranjeT 12:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Getting so this should be added to WP:PERENNIAL. Here is the last one (from only a month ago). --ClubOranjeT 00:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Its become PERENNIAL due to apathy on the subject from some camps. To ignore it only creates the impression that its ok and its not. Wiki is not a live feed site and never will be. Warburton1368 (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Conference season articles

An editor has radically changed a very large number of these articles, but I only noticed when he did this one [3]. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't even read this. I've got maps covering parts of the tables. The colours are horrible, the tables are harder to read with vital elements being removed, such as the "P", "R" etc having disappeared. With no "Q" symbol for teams that have qualified for the play-offs, how is anyone supposed to tell that they've qualified while the season is still running? Why are there so many extra maps? Why do we now have home and away form in the tables? It makes updating the articles after each round of games harder and more prone to mistakes, and I'm talking as someone who has updated the Conference articles practically single-handed for the last couple of years. Is the plan to expand this to other non-league season articles, because I've been doing those on my own as well, and if they're going to look like this, it's a poor show. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

He has made a mess of a lot of season articles, particularly the Football League seasons, which now have things like maps overlapping league tables and stretched league tables created by having too much information in them and then a template alongside (on some you can't even see the whole table on a single page, which is ridiculous). These changes stretch back months and it's a shame no-one has noticed them before. Does anyone actually watch all the FL season articles? Number 57 19:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree the maps are not useful as they stand and the large number of tables to scroll through is not helpful. If that amount of tabulated information is necessary, wouldn't the article benefit from being divided into 3 articles? Russell hadd (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So it's not just me? I can't even read some of the tables because they have maps all over them, and I half-suspected it was my computer mashing things up. Like Number 57, I also have tables with one or two rows several times thicker than the other rows, and tables that are so long I can't see the whole table at once. I don't have many of these articles on watch (only the ones I've heavily edited), and the one I mentioned above was the first of his edits I've noticed. We surely can't leave them like this...? Regarding Russell hadd's point, I agree, I'm not sure that amount of tabulated info is necessary - there is a limit to how much info is easily readable in one table (as per WP:NOTSTATS point #3) and yes, with three tables on one page, it looks nightmarish. With simple, basic tables (like there were before), it's readable enough. With this new set-up, a split might be better, but do we really want separate articles for Conference North and South every season? I say keep it simple. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The user behind the edits in question should be pointed towards the MoS for league seasons. That being said, the Conference articles are – aside from the lack of prose – basically fine as they are and only need minor tweaking, but definitely not a complete overhaul. As for a possible split – this should only be done if there is enough information available which would merit a standaline article. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 20:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. The changes are hideous and readability is in the toilet, to be perfectly honest. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


IMO, and with regard to WP:NOTE, there needs to be a bit of editing down of the sheer length of many of the pages on minor footballers. Take thsis example from this player, a relative non entity in English football (I'm just using it as I think it's a typical example, nothing against him personally) [[4]]. Do we really need to know who his best friend is, or what his brother's job is. And even the more relevant parts could do with being watered down.Mattun0211 (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

He's hardly a non-entity, a Welsh international and played 90 times for Reading in the last two seasons. I agree with you on the personal life bit, although if there is a source then it could be added. The club section is fine, although it needs a few more sources and to be split up into sections. No-one seems to have added his career stats or any information from last season. The page seems to be a bit neglected. Adam4267 (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Disagree with the OP completely; we should expand all articles as much as possible, whether they be footballers or politicians or songs or whatever, as long as reliable sources can be found to verify information. Consequently, I have removed Church's 'personal life' section as unreferenced. GiantSnowman 11:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Lithuanian Football

Does anyone now any good sources for stats for league appearances and international caps within lithuania. StrugglingWarburton1368 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Try NFT for international caps, can't help with the domestic element, sorry. GiantSnowman 18:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
it was for Evaldas Razulis i created it a whilst back whilst relatively new here. Its just a very basic stub and in its current form i don't think it meets the guidelines. Hes played for Kaunas in the europa league qualifiers and in the league. The more sources i find the more confusing it gets different sites have various stats about who he has played for one even has a different date of birth. Very confused and as i don't speak Lithuanian not getting any where with it. It seems he is staying at Hearts and want to get it up to scratch. Warburton1368 (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Try (Lipik (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC))
There is a good source here about this player. I've had a go at improving the infobox in the article as well (Don't think he was ever at Skonto Riga by the looks of it - think the BBC got that one wrong). J Mo 101 (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex Shirley DOB

Can somebody please check this player's DOB for me? Currently at 1931, which seems slightly too late for a career beginning in 1945...cheers, GiantSnowman 19:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid that Rothmans has both his place and date of birth blank. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Try 1921... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thought as much, cheers for the reference! GiantSnowman 20:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

AEK Athens F.C. players

If anyone is interested in editing players of this club in the present/future, know that: User:Demis21 is one of those "no summaries, no talkpage conversations" types, and we had an "interesting" run-in in two of the new players of the team, Juan Torres Ruiz and José Carlos Fernández Vázquez.

He wrote unencyclopedical stuff in both articles (the player joined AEK because he "wants to play Europa League", "has a great - not good, GREAT! - relationship with former coach Jiménez"), things that sound poor at best even with a ref, let alone without one! I composed that "toning it down", and replaced GREEK refs with ENGLISH ones, keeping AEK's official release, i "think" that's improving (- POV + English-speaking sources)...

This is where my warning makes sense now: in an hidden message inside the box, he "advised" me to stay the hell out of editing AEK players, as i am not a fan (please see here and they know better than me...cryptic!

So, in the light of WP, i improved both articles, and am being told to stop editing there?! In a related matter, after being here for nearly 5 years, i have seen the following in Greek and Cypriot football editors: they (VERY) often write from the fans' point of view, inserting charmers like "signed because of the club's fans", "immediately a fan favourite for his passion and desire", "the fans did not like that display", blah, blah, blah. I think it's that approach that should be reverted, not the other way around. Makes me sick to the stomach how an old man (65 years of age) like Jesualdo Ferreira had to run for his life a few months ago, with his own club's fans - pardon, ANIMALS! - chasing him to the locker room for losing a game.

You have been warned, if you are not a fan, don't edit AEK players :) Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha don't worry, this is just about how some Greek football fans are, and that beastly behaviour of them is reflected on their contributions here. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 20:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If it's any consolation my friend, Portuguese ones are no better, V-A-N-D-A-L-S...a shame! And they say "it's part of the rivalry", no comments. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • See what i meant?! Found another, User:BEN917, only interested in writing rubbish in the articles. For him, David Mateos is the Gerard Piqué of Real Madrid!!!! Words fail me, i have already warned him that WP is not about that, if he insists i'll warn an administrator, be sure of it, especially if he insults me after my message, which was polite but warning that "we" are having none of it. His "contributions" included re-reverting someone who reverted him on the grounds of POV/WEASEL, in Sebastián Saja, another - you guessed it! - former AEK player.

If i was wrong in talking for everyone, if it's OK to write in football articles "Mateos is said to be the Piqué of Madrid" without any references - especially when the two players have NOTHING in common, one has ZERO games for one team, one has 40 caps for Spain and is twice CL winner with the other team - then i guess i should be the one being scolded and/or warned, not this "user"... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  • BEN has replied to me, and has also said to "stay the hell out of the AEK players' edition"...Oh, and "thank you" for the support - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • In the JOSÉ CARLOS article, another AEK fan (it really shows they know their club better than me - ironic mode off), in spite of link#1 saying he has 18 games and one goal for Sevilla FC (it's LEAGUE ONLY!! Can we say it any louder?), continues to "correct" the data. This time, he also went the extra mile, and removed three categories i had added ("AEK PLAYERS", "SPANISH EXPATRIATE FOOTBALLERS", "EXPATRIATE FOOTBALLERS IN GREECE"). Then, of course, one sends a polite but to-the-point message to these folks, and one is accused of incivility and other "wiki-crimes", these "users" apparently can "contribute" how they please...--Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Active Members

Could all active members of Wiki Project Football please check if they are on the list of active members if not please add yourselves,go here. (For all who don't know) The Wiki Project Football userbox template simply advertises the fact you are a member but doesn't add you to the active members list. I thought it necessary to add this to the talk page as a number of people who have discussed recent topics are not on the list. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 09:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC))

You don't have to be on the list to participate in discussions on this page. Adam4267 (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I never said that you had to be on list to participate I was simply letting people know not to persume they're on the list.
But it's clearly better that if we have a list that it should be accurate otherwise whats the point in the list.(★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 11:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC))
It is an opt-in list. For those that feel the need to be listed.--ClubOranjeT 12:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I beleive Danish Expert works very hard to make sure the list is up to date. Adam4267 (talk 12:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed. Although I would like to point out, that my latest "activity check" was only performed a half year ago. So the member list will soon need another "activity check". Beside of that, I agree with the comments in this debate, that the member list should be considered as an "opt-in list", and that you dont necessarily have to be a "WP Football member" in order to join the debate at WP Football. But for the sake of clarification:
  • All Wikipedians who are not listed on the WP Football Active member list are not members of WP Football.
    Showing the WP Football userbox at your user page doesnt qualify for membership by-it-self.
All editors who feel they contribute to the WP Football field, should of course be encouraged to join the member list of WP Football. As I pointed out back in December 2010, the newly introduced "sortable feature" and "taskforce coloumn" for the WP Football member list, mean that it can now be used as an effective tool by all of us, to identify and contact fellow WPF members with a declared knowledge/interest for certain Teams/Taskforces. As such, it is supposed to function as a supplement to the overall WPF talk page, where the Member list now offer all of us an extra opportunity, to arrange a more personal/intensive contact with a group of people, who match our own interest for certain Teams/Taskforces. Danish Expert (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Source help request

Another Georgi Kinkladze request. Is there anywhere reliable that has full line-ups for international matches going back to the early 1990s? RSSSF's Georgia page does not have line-ups. The Georgian Football Federation website used to carry them, but all the links have gone dead and Wayback Machine didn't catch them.

Additionally, does anyone have the 2005–06 edition of the European Football Yearbook, or otherwise know of a source giving appearance stats for the Cypriot league in 2004–05? Oldelpaso (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This should provide everything that you need for his international career. Its been a brilliant resource for an article I'm doing about the Faroe Islands. I checked the 1992 statistics and his debut against Azerbaijan is included here. I hope that helps. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 18:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I figured that if the line-ups weren't listed under RSSSF's Georgia page they weren't there. Didn't realise there was a full archive of international line-ups by date elsewhere on the site. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. I thought the same but I found it when looking through the International Country Results section. It appears to cover every full international in detail from 1987 to 2004 which is amazing. I'm hoping 2005 onwards is somewhere else but I haven't found it. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 00:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Competitive matches are included under their respective tournaments e.g. [5], friendlies are more troublesome. I was lucky with Kinkladze, his last cap came in early 2005. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Would be considered a reliable source? doomgaze (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

transfermarkt's database is user edited, and therefore not reliable (even though it usually is accurate). The article's generally come from third party sources and should be judged on a case by case basis. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Pity, its the statistics I'm interested in. I want to add a bit more prose to the Ben Amos article about the times he was on loan, things like goals conceded / clean sheets would be useful but I'm struggling for sources, pages on there like this would have been great. Are there other websites I could get data like that from? doomgaze (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The Guardian is handy. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 21:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Soccerbase or ESPNSoccernet give lists of games played on loan to English clubs. They don't explicitly give totals of clean sheets or goals conceded, but I don't suppose counting them yourself for short loan spells would constitute original research. Molde FK's website gives all games he was involved in, whether used or not and whether league or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the Guardian page is exactly what I was looking for, thanks guys! doomgaze (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


I see the infobox has changed. Does anyone know what happened?--EchetusXe 09:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Magioladitis changed it with editnote Born / Died in Infoboxes per Infobox person: did same on template:infobox cyclist which is also on my watchlist, and those for a few other sports according to his contributions history for today. Kevin McE (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, apparently we have to use a particular style as laid out by Template:Infobox person. Nice of them to inform us before making mass changes, wasn't it? – PeeJay 11:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I assume (or maybe simply would like to hope) that it was raised at some central location: which is what seems appropriate, although one not on my watchlist or, it would appear, on that of anyone who thought we ought to have a particular say on it. But it affects 100s of infobox layouts, from cardinals to playgirls and from chess players to serial killers, so I'm not sure that we should have expected any special rights of notification. It seems an innocuous enough change to me, and an aesthetically pleasing one, but I guess we can discuss changing it if we think we have a special case for having extra text of place of birth and death (but do we?) Kevin McE (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Well I clicked on your userpage Kevin and found a little heart in the top bar. Seems like we all have a little icon now that others can click to show their appreciation. Are there any other big changes (in terms of how many pages affected) that have been made recently?--EchetusXe 12:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Where was this talked about then? As PeeJay said, they could've informed us what was happening since it affects tens of thousands of articles covered by this project. I'll probably get used to it in time but right now it looks weird. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Best I can find is here but there is no conclusion to the discussion, just comments. Keith D (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Empty league table

Trying to create an article for a new season. Anyone have an empty 16-team league table (where I can just add the team names)? The manual of style one is only for 5 teams and needs lots of editing.TonyStarks (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You could use the domestic Portuguese league's current season's.  Omg †  osh  11:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that should do the trick. Weird how I didn't think of stealing from another article on my own. :D. TonyStarks (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeannot Reiter

Jeannot Reiter is called Benjamin Reiter or Benny Reiter on the French Wikipedia here. Though it seems to be the same person (the clubs/periods are identical), this source has a different birthdate from this source. Any thoughts,please? TerriersFan (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

He is called 'Bernard Reiter' by FIFA, which also confirms a 14 October 1958 birthdate. GiantSnowman 15:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
RSSSF calls him Jeannot "Benny" Reiter. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 22:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Scottish football transfers 2011–12

I am having a problem with User:DUCKISJAMMMY on this article. The aforementioned user created the article, but not in total compliance with the templates we have set out for the corresponding lists of English football transfers. They also attempted to change the List of English football transfers summer 2011 to match their new style. I reverted this change and modified the List of Scottish football transfers 2011–12 to match the style of the English transfer lists. The user now believes that I am acting out of spite and editing the Scottish list just to get their goat, which is definitely not the case. If anyone believes that I have made incorrect modifications to the Scottish list, please say so and I will stop; on the other hand, if anyone agrees with my edits, I equally urge them to speak up. – PeeJay 18:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ive noticed that its almost ending up in an edit war. Certainly the ref list is better now than it was. In regards to the flags the article looks better either with them on every section which im sure is probably against the flag policy but looked ok or with out them all together. Im sure other users will have a voice on the more technical side of it as with the debate above. The user who created it has done a great job with keeping it up to date and well sourced especially as they are a new user. 19:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)
PeeJay, I'd advise you to stop editing the article for now, as you are about to violate the 3RR rule. I'll give the other user a 3RR warning as well, and suggest he moves to the article talk page, as you should do as well. GiantSnowman 19:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
He's deleted my talk page post - not a good sign. However, he's hasn't re-reverted - good sign. GiantSnowman 19:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Good advice, GiantSnowman. – PeeJay 20:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, we spoke too soon. He's re-reverted the page now, and for no particular reason other than pure stubbornness. – PeeJay 20:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Spoke too soon - I have reported him at AIV for breaking 3RR. GiantSnowman 20:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Storm in a tea cup, anyone? You're in the right, PeeJay, the other version went against MOS and was an eyesore. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Mate, anything I bring here usually has that storm-in-a-teacup element to it. I'm just that kinda guy who gets bogged down in triviality. – PeeJay 23:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Should be fine now, he's been blocked for 24hrs, which will hopefully prevent any further disruption. GiantSnowman 23:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
What would be your thoughts on the flags in the article. previous version was against the flag policy. My personal preference would be to remove the flags all together. Thoughts Please. 17:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)
I'd rather have no flags at all tbh. GiantSnowman 17:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thats my preference as well if no one objects i will remove them. 18:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My personal opinion is, that the use of flags for such a list actually is okay. When I first time browsed through the list, it was a portal for me, to learn more about the national location of all clubs mentioned in the list; and to me it was also interesting to learn that 2 Norwegians opted to sign with a Scottish club. I think many readers will also use these kind of lists, to get a quick overview, in order to learn how many of their nations footballers opting to transfer in/out of Scotland. So my personal vote is to keep the flags. If I should rank it by importance, I would say the football players flag have the highest importance to me, and then the football club flags are secondary -but still okay. To support my point of view, I would also like to highlight the fact, that when I checked other transfer lists from other big football nations outside of Britain, then in 6 out of 6 cases (Germany, Denmark, Italy, Spain, France, Netherlands), they all had both player flags and club flags included by the transfer list (although some of them in a more smart way). Danish Expert (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that all of the flags be removed, only the Scottish ones. IMO, since the article is about Scottish transfers, it should be assumed that all of the players and clubs mentioned are Scottish unless otherwise stated. – PeeJay 13:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I totally missed that part after all flags were removed by Warburton1368...then I definately support your point of view. Please bring me back the PeeJay version for the Scottish transfers -unless some of you objects. Finally I also propose, that we turn the List of English football transfers summer 2011, into the same PeeJay version standard; the argument being, that it would be nice to provide more or less the same flag standard, for all the 8 nations we so far checked. For the record, the previous List of English football transfers winter 2010–11 also opted to at least show flags for foreign clubs; and IMO there is no reason to abandon that style (in fact I now vote to expand it to also feature the foreign player flags). :-) Danish Expert (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
For me its better to have none at all. To have them for some and not others is just a contradiction. The original which was full of flags was clearly wrong but for some and not other just looks a mess. Only my opinion which was why i asked last night and as no one objected then they were removed. 16:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)
Thanks for reverting maybe would have been nice to wait and see what others though especially as no one objected at all last night and now 24 hours later you object. 16:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)
Sorry, for moving so fast with the revert. It should in no way be understood as an act to impose a final verdict. I only did it to bring the article back at its previous status, and highlight that so far, no final verdict have been reached, as we are basicly now having a 2-2 vote in the discussion (and if we also count the vote of DUCKISJAMMMY and PeeJay I am sure the score is currently 4-2, to keep some sort of flags in the list). If a clear majority vote for flag removal, then this will of course also be the final verdict for the Scottish transfer list. IMO the fact that all current transfer lists in 7 out of 8 nations opted to show the flags for both foreign players and foreign clubs, however call for a very good reason, if we now suddenly should start to drop them for certain nations. In regards of the English transfer list, I vote it should be displayed, exactly like the Scottish transfer list is now displayed. For the sake of clarity and understanding, I have now also added a short flag clarification note, at the top of the Scottish table. We should of course wait for more to vote, before reaching a final verdict, for the layout of both transfer lists. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok My vote is clear. Flags are fine if used correctly. In this case the original version by DUCKISJAMMMY, which was protested for used flags for every round. This looked good but was against many a policy. You cannot include him in your vote as he has not commented in this discussion. When he does that is fine. Not sure if he will or not but as far as i could tell he did not like the current version. I have left a message on his Talkpage asking if he would be willing to comment. My opinion is the current version looks untidy. This discussion looks at it in a favourable view which is slightly looking at it through rose tinted glasses approach. Step back and look if you were an external reader do you think it looks good!! The issue on flags within this group has become a very hot topic and is this articles case caused an edit war. A decision needs to be taken on whether we use flags or not. As this is going to come up again and again. We should either use them fully or not at all. 17:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)
I certainly agree in regards of your call for a more clear Flag policy (which I just did an effort to actually formulate in the discussion above). Yet, I believe its difficult to regulate this current discussion by an overall policy. According to the current flag practise/policy, I actually believe it can be argued to support both versions we now discuss. As I understand, this discussion is more a content versus style discussion, and it is always hard to sort that out, as people will always weight the "content value" versus the "stylish look", very differently. If you focus on content, then it is more pleasant to they eye only to have foreign flags in the table (as the info become more easy to digest). If you focus on the layout style, then you are however correct, that it would be better to show all flags (as it orderly align all info). Which one should we choose? The original Scottish and Spanish transfer list chose the layout with all flags. The Italian, French and Danish list, however opted only to show foreign club flags (and added a special sortable coloumn also to list all player flags). Finally the transferlist from Germany and Netherlands opted to report transfers with a complete different layout (showing an "in and out list" for each club). My personal preference and vote goes for PeeJay's layout version of the Scottish transferlist. My second preference is the Danish/Italian/French version. My third preference is the Spanish version with all flags. My fourth preference is the different layout used by the Germany and Netherlands transferlist. While my fifth preference is no flags at all (due to the list loosing much of its value if having all flags removed). Danish Expert (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The table layout we have is really good. But if we are going for flags for some and not others then i prefer the french layout. If we go for all or non at all then i say keep the current layout as it works well. 19:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)
I would prefer a system with all flag icons as it looks far more professional however as it is goes against MOS I will concede its not the right thing to do. Therefore my new 1st preference would be the french system where all players nationality or international alliance is represented by a flagicon but only non scottish clubs represented with a flagicon.However I would prefer the current layout to remain on the(scottish football tranfers 2011-12 page) with all non-scottish clubs/players represented with flags until we reach a consensus.I would also be against changing it the German sytem a this stage.My least favourite option would be to have no flagicons at all. I would be of the opinion that the info on the page becomes more easy to digest with flagicons. It also becomes easier to find a transfer at a glance.{DUCKISJAMMMY (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC))


Approval Poll to decide final layout of the Scottish transfer list

All arguments for various layout solutions were previously discussed and posted, in our discussion above. This section is just to call for more votes, and provide a short status for the layouts we now consider. The layout decision is important, as it has been suggested to be implemented, not only for the Scottish transfer list, but also for the English + Spanish + French + Danish + Italian transfer list (which are all created upon the same concept as the Scottish). Here is a summary of the 5 layouts we now consider and vote for:

  1. No Flags at all: Implemented by none of the current Wikipedia "football transfer lists".
  2. No Flags for players -but with foreign club flags: Implemented by the English transfer list winter 2010-11.
  3. PeeJays layout -only with foreign flags: Implemented by the current Scottish and English transfer list.
  4. Flags for all players -but only with foreign club flags: Implemented by the French/Danish/Italian transfer list.
  5. Flags for all players -and with flags for all clubs: Implemented as the previous Scottish version, and the current Spanish transfer list.

To allow a certain room for creativity and some different approach, it is suggested, that we do not change the current layout of the much different Germany and Netherlands transfer list. In regards of picking a common standard for the other nations, the following number of votes have so far been submitted:

1. layout: 3 votes (BigDom, Number 57, Argyle 4 Life)
2. layout: 0 votes
3. layout: 5 votes (PeeJay, Danish Expert, EchetusXe, Koppapa, Adam4267)
4. layout: 3 votes (DUCKISJAMMMY,Warburton1368, Danish Expert (2nd vote)
5. layout: 2 votes (VascoAmaral, Salty1984)

*The "2nd vote" submitted by Danish Expert is a 2nd preferrence/compromise -in case the 3rd or 5th layout wont reach "approval consensus".

More votes to decide the matter (in this new vote section), will now be much appreciated. Danish Expert (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where did I vote for this?! GiantSnowman 21:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
You wrote "I'd rather have no flags at all tbh." in the discussion above. Since then, the discussion evolved to also include examples with transfer lists from other nations. You are of course entitled to reconsider/resubmit your vote. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did write that - but I did not vote for anything. You should remember that "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus." Please do not appropriate my - or indeed anyone else's - comments. GiantSnowman 23:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I apologize sincerely, and will remove the appropriated vote in the list above, for GiantSnowman and Argyle 4 Life. You are absolutely right, to point out, that it was wrong to count your votes in the "summary poll for the best liked standard", as your comments were posted at an early point of time in the discussion, where the other "standard options" had not yet been presented/proposed. All this being said, I believe my act to summarize the discussion, in fact is being fruitfull for us to reach a consensus, for implementing a common layout standard for the national transfer lists, which so far opted to use the exactly same type of list to show the transfers (but so far with different layouts, in regards of the use of flags). The bennefit of only having one "flag layout standard", to apply for the same type of "transfer lists tables", is of course that it would serve to prevent several "edit wars" in the near future, as we just wittnessed both for the English and Scottish transfer list. If you think we first need to set up a "straw poll" to establish wether or not a consensus exist to impose any sort of a "common flag layout standard" for the same type of lists, then it is fine with me. I just assumed it was a "no brainer", to settle both the previous discussion and try to limit the number of future edit wars, by launching this "standard poll" above. After the somewhat long and contentious discussion above, I believe it is was appropriate of me to launch this approval poll to select the best-liked standard, that has been presented and summarized in this chapter. Danish Expert (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Since this debate began I have resolved my issue with PeeJay & we have both apologized to each other. I totally acknowledged the fact I was acting irrationally. However this needs to come to a conclusion & I support the request for more votes on this issue by Danish Expert. Although at the latter part of the discussion above I said my new 1st preference was the French system. If you Danish Expert could change the voting table to reflect my views it would be greatly appreciated, Thanks in advance. (DUCKISJAMMMY (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC))
Sorry -my mistake. This is now corrected. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I would vote for getting rid of the lists altogether as they are not useful in any way. Failing that, if we're to have the lists then option 1, no flags, is what I would go for. BigDom 07:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I would vote for option three, with a second preference for option 2 please. There the flags are helpful without proving excessive.--EchetusXe 10:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Actually, I won't bother with second votes.--EchetusXe 10:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I vote for option 5, as I made last years one... Salty1984 (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
If its not to late I would like to vote for option 3.Adam4267 (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


What now?--EchetusXe 10:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should ask GiantSnowman about that! Apparently he prefer to ignore the debate, which is strange and sad. I think we are currently about 10 editors waiting for him and other WPF members to vote. Yet many WPF members only care to discuss, and dont care to help in the work with setting up important constructive standards for style and layout. To be honest, I think this is why there is little to no progress, when any of us decide to push the debate forward to reach constructive solutions. Perhaps people like GiantSnowman believe it is better to leave everything "with no guidelines", meaning 100 different ways to show "transfer lists" and 100 "edit wars" to solve each year? This is very strange. I think we are many who would appreciate if GiantSnowman and other WPF members would submit their opinion and !vote for the approval pole. If we are lucky, they might indeed soon post their opinion. Otherwise we once again lost the battle against anarchy and caos. Our only option is to leave the poll open for another 7 days to find out. Danish Expert (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I left messages on talk pages of users who created previous Scottish transfers lists appealing to them to vote so hopefully they will & other users also. (DUCKISJAMMMY (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC))
Hopefully someone else will vote otherwise were at a bit of an impasse. To me option 4 offers a compromise between option 3 and 5.Warburton1368 (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The Big Snowman voting for no flags wouldn't solve this impasse, so let us not reduce him to a puddle on the floor with a carrot and some coal just yet. I'll make a fresh appeal at the bottom of this page to try and get some more input.--EchetusXe 17:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where to add this reply, so I'll put it here. Whatever format people may prefer personally, what we can't do as a small group of football editors is impose our own guidelines if those guidelines run counter to those the English Wikipedia already has, namely the section of the Manual of Style that deals with flag usage. The particularly relevant sections are MOS:ICON#Accompany flags with country names, which says that on first usage of a flag, the name of its country should appear adjacent to it; and MOS:ICON#Use of flags for sportspeople, which makes clear that any flag used in a sports context should be the player's sporting nationality, and not an unsourced estimate based on their birthplace. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Struway. This could well be the most stupid poll in existance? You are voting on 5 options, 4 of which directly contradict the MoS. WP:FOOTY should and will not become a cabal. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, hence my preference for option 1. Number 57 19:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems to come down to interpretation of MoS in relation to sports there have been discussions on here in the past with differing view all quoting different parts of the policy. A wider debate hasn't reached a full consensus but the matter on this page needs closed. If you disagree with those options vote for the others. Warburton1368 (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Warburton1368, that WP:MOSFLAG is formulated in such a weak way, that it can lead to multiple interpretations. Hence we all need to make up our mind and ask the question: Within the spirit of WP:MOSFLAG, what is then the best and most appropriate flag use? In that regard, I would like to cite the second line of WP:MOSFLAG under the heading "appropriate flag use": In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.
It is obvious that both a club and a football player is considered as a "subject". It is also obvious per my previous argument about the "purpose of the transfer list", that many use it to keep track of "transfers between Scottish clubs and Foreign clubs" and that many use it to get a quick overview of "how many football players with a certain football nationality opted to transfer in/out of Scotland". Hence, the transfer list is a great example, where we actually have a clear purpose to indicate both the "player nationality" and the "club nationality". The use of flags are in this situation allowed by WP:MOSFLAG. Next stepping-stone, is then to find the best way to indicate "player nationality" and "club nationality": Should it be with words or with flags?
To answer that question, we need to consider both how the flag use affect the layout, and how it affect the readers digest of content. This "layout vs. digest" issue of a list, has IMO not been regulated or delt with by WP:MOSFLAG. Basicly Struway2 is however correct to point out, that WP:MOSFLAG has a paragraph that prohibit the use of flags, without also noting the nationality name of the flag with words. For many years, this paragraph was however not "fully complied" with by editors at WP Football. The argument goes, that whenever a reader (being colourblind / without knowledge of the flag name) bump into any "flag not followed by its full name", then we all simply point with the mouse on the flag, to get the popup-message with the name of the flag. The official WP:MOSFLAG policy simply forgot to take this smart feature into concern, when the original policy was formulated many years ago. This is why so many football editors currently have the opinion that: "we are not acting against the spirit of WP:MOSFLAG, in those lists were the full name of the flag is not typed into the coloumn of the list". On the contrary, it would make most lists harder to read and digest, if all flag names were explicity mentioned with bulky text. IMO this is certainly a corner of WP:MOSFLAG, which call for an update sooner or later. The fact that Wikipedia is an "online encyclopedic collection of articles", mean that it should also take all the "online features" into concern, in regards of regulating the appropriate use of links/icons. Only if Wikipedia was a hardcopy fysical book, it would make sence to demand that all flag names should be explicitly written whenever a flag is used. Wikipedia is however so much more, and this has not been taken into full concern by the current formulation of WP:MOSFLAG.
Sorry for my long reply above. Due to the previous comment, that this "approval poll" was stupid, it just called for me to explain, why the poll in fact is not stupid at all. On the contrary, I believe the launched "approval poll for the best liked standard, of how to use flags in the best way at our football player transfer lists", is very much called for and intelligent. As always, I am fully aware, that it only serve to find the best liked standard at the time where the voting occured, and that it shold not be considered a permanent long term ruling of WPF. Yet, it is still important to have as many !votes as possible in the "approval pole", in order to settle which layout we should currently continue to endorse and work with here in 2011. I consider the poll as open for more !votes and comments, until the moment were no new comments are launched for a roling period of 5 days. At that point of time, we should then close the vote/discussion -for now-, and make the final conclusion of the outcome and result. The poll and debate is still open for everybody to join. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

  • DanishExpert - I have been away from Wikipedia for nearly a week (as my user + talk pages both announced), hence why I haven't joined in the debate - or any other for that matter! Also, you don't need every WP:FOOTY member to be involved in a discussion in order to gather consensus, that's not how it works in the slightest - if it was, we'd never get anything decided as there are currently 354 'active' members!. Please take more care with regards to your comments/actions in future, and I'd avise you to research what consensus actually is before attempting to reach it. Regards, GiantSnowman 20:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
In the start of the debate you were right to point out some of my "uncareful and hasty formulations". I appoligied to you for that, and corrected the minor issues. For sure we dont need all 354 members to join each discussion, and I never asked for that. The reason why I got a little heated towards you, was due to the fact that you were already a central part of the discussion; and after my comment Jule 27, I noticed you continued to actively post many comments during the next 3 days at WPF (before your 1 week holiday), but yet -for unkown reasons- preferred not to give a !vote/comment for the "approval poll for a common flag standard for transfer lists". This admittedly provoked me a bit, due to the fact that many of us already used multiple hours to reach a sensible solution/agreement for this debate. You are of course fully entitled to pick when/if you want to leave your !vote/comment for the approval pole. In that regard, it was wrong of me to target you the way i did. Sorry for that. I consider you as a noble force and member of WPF, and appreciate all your hard work within all sorts of corners. My hope however still is, that you are not just a "policy/procedure" guy, but also can understand/appreciate the huge work I did with this discussion, to actually reach the most sensible and appropriate solution for the current debate at hand. We need to settle the matter at least with a "current solution for the 2011 season", instead of endorsing a situation with an endless flag debate and multiple "edit wars" for the remaining part of 2011. I hope you will agree with me about that. Yet, you are of course entitled not to post any more comments/!votes for this debate, if you dont have the time. Danish Expert (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Apology accepted. FYI, I didn't join in the discussion in any depth - and won't - purely because I have no strong opinion either way. I was never a "central part" of any discussion, I actually think I only added one comment glibly expressing a personal opinion of something along the lines of "I'd prefer no flags." I'm more than happy to allow other WP members with more knowledge/passion on these kind of articles (which I rarely use/edit) to decide their direction. Regards, GiantSnowman 12:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Final result

After 6 days with no additional !votes being submitted for the approval pole above, it is now time to draw up the final result. With 5 out of 12 votes being submitted for the "3.layout" -and the second most populair choise being 3 votes for the "1.layout"-, we can now settle the score, that the "3.layout" is to be considered as the new preferred standard for the Scottish and English transfer list. As pointed out earlier, the preferred standard we now managed to identify, might be challenged by other discussions or approval poles in the future. Until such actions are taken, it should however be considered as the preferred layout standard for the Scottish and English transfer list. Due to the somewhat limited number of !votes, and the fact that the victory for the "3.layout" was not to be considered as superior, I recommend that we for the moment do not enforce the "3.layout" as a new overall standard, also to apply for the Danish + Italian + French + Spanish transfer list. Before taking such a step, I think it would be appropriate, at least first to give the editors a notice of this proposed layout change at the talk page of those transfer lists, so that they are given a deadline/opportunity to protest, before we also opt to standardize their transfer list, into the "3.layout". Best regards, and happy editing, Danish Expert (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

China PR Hyperlink

Does anybody know how the template  China PR always hyperlinked China national football team? It does not look right could somebody help me please. Mr Hall of England (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Where would you want it to link to? Directly to the PR, so leaving out the redirect? I got no idea for that. -Koppapa (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
As far as I understand it - the FB templates pull the country data templates and append national football team to the end of the result, thus it's <country data value> national football team. Template:Country data China PR redirects to Template:Country data China therefore the output is <China> national football team and not <China PR> national football team. The display of China PR is set by the value alias-football = China PR on that template. This value could be edited by someone familiar with the code to provide a similar output to Template:Country data USA which has a custom output for football, there may be a simpler way perhaps - the best place to ask would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template. Nanonic (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Leave out the redirect Mr Hall of England (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Do you even understand how this place works? People don't just do stuff because you tell them to. – PeeJay 17:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Adam

Hi all,

Can I have a ruling please in an edit dispute on the above page?

There was a section at the bottom titles 'personal'. I have moved this to the beginning of the article and renamed it 'background'. My view is that the info contained sits better at the beginning as it is then in chronological order. There is another editor who things otherwise.

Your opinion please folks?

Socheid (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the content of that particular section, I'd put it later in the article under the title 'Personal life'. If the section had more content about his early life, I'd say put it at the beginning under the title 'Early life', but while his father may have had an influence on his career choice, the actual content doesn't tell you much about Adam's own life. – PeeJay 09:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Barcelona in Europe FLRC

Just to let anyone who's interested know I've nominated FC Barcelona in Europe for removal at FLRC. The link to the discussion is here. Cheers NapHit (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

All the flags and then some / New technologies

Item #1: how needed is this in the clubs' infoboxes? I am well more or less proficient at the WP:FLAGICONS policy, and now we have to deal with regional flags as well? A bit irrelevant and separatist in my opinion, i have duly notified User:Garciman73 who re-reverted after i undid him at CD Atlético Baleares.

Item #2: how relevant are FACEBOOK and TWITTER entries in professional athletes' pages? I think ZERO! With an official website (if the player has it) we're more than covered, the rest is quite nonsensical methinks...

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed them again hopefully he will listen. Adam4267 (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Both item 1+2 are clearly irrelevant. In regards of the flags, then for 3 weeks ago, I created a special page with a summary of the current WPF flag policy. You are all welcome to start refer to that page (along with WP:MOSFLAG), if you think it can help to convince some of the stubborn editors, to stop their obvious abuse of flags. Danish Expert (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that item #2 is covered by WP:ELNO #10. --Jaellee (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thiago Motta

It appears that his full name is Thiago Motta Santon Olivares, but if "Thiago" is his first name, "Motta", "Santon" and "Olivares" should be his three family names. Are we sure about that? Brazilians maximum have two family names. Isn't it a hoax? --VAN ZANT (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Middle names? GiantSnowman 19:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Remember he is part Italian, Santon is probably his Italian name, if not his middle name. Adam4267 (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Any evidence that 'Motta' is even his surname? GiantSnowman 19:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • His name, from what i have learned from dealing extensively in Spanish football, is just that, "THIAGO MOTTA", nothing else. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
FWIW ZeroZero profile, and rssf all have used Thiago Motta Santon Olivares --ClubOranjeT 09:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, it seems my "extensive dealing" did not help me much here, always learning! I really believed he was just "THIAGO MOTTA", would not be that strange to see a person with only two names, thanks for the help! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Considering he is Brazilian by birth, I would assume "Santon" and "Olivares" are his family names, not "Motta". "Thiago Motta" would be his given names. Only knowing his parent's name can we know for sure. Digirami (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Outside opinion needed

At Green Brigade(football supporters group). If any editors are willing to help out with this I would be very appreciative. No more can be acheived through discussion by the editors involved and neutral, editors' opinions would be welcome. Thank you. Adam4267 (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

David Platt (footballer)

I am currently updating the article and would appreciate any opinions on it. I am gunning for GA, but need to know what else it required for it. Thank you. (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have never led the GA/FA of an article (though I have contributed to some) so I am by no means an expert, but the lack of references, and the massive amounts of POV in the article, means that it is far from perfect. Good start so far though. GiantSnowman 10:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Please clarify massive amounts of POV. It may have escaped your notice, but it is all sourced, and some of it comes from the Official England history - which is cited. (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
"having impressed many clubs", "he scored just three goals in 16 games", "He quickly established himself", "[he] took them to the brink of the league title" - need I go on? GiantSnowman 12:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
These are not POV. I didn't add them, but they are correct and easily 'citable'. So yes, I think you need to better to justify massive POV. (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
If they are "correct and easily 'citable', then prove it. GiantSnowman 15:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I have and I will! Cheers. (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Try listing the article at peer review to get feedback. From a very quick look I'd say that the Aston Villa section could do with expanding, given that he was PFA Player of the Year while there. Beware peacock terms, such as "famously went in goal". The international section appears to take a rose-tinted view of England's matches, and strays a little too off-topic, e.g. mentioning an injury to Gascoigne. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay. That is a more balancced view. (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The formatting of the refs is all over the place and needs looking at - you should really be using templates such as {{cite web}} rather than just typing the url and a title between ref tags. Some refs are duplicated - these should be combined into one. None have access dates. YouTube videos are not normally considered a reliable source, and I'd also question the reliability of, and -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay re: references. You may have a point with the first two websites, but I do not agree with Englandfootballonline. I find it to be very accurate. Have you had specific bad experiences with this website? (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
No, not at all, but if you did take the article to GAN or FAC, you would almost certainly be challenged to prove the reliability of what appears to be basically a "hobby" website run by some guy(s). I have no particular reason to doubt that everything on it is accurate, but at FAC in particular you would definitely be asked to provide something more concrete than "all the info seems accurate", if that makes sense...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if it could make it to good article when it contains sentences like "Platt increased his continental reputation by scoring goals with both head and feet, whilst displaying passing abilities and high work rates" and "Platt's first telephone call from "Robbie" – as he knows Mancini – came out of the blue"). Number 57 11:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? Its sourced from the Independent Newspaper (online) - with its exact wording. So you can check. Unless you are about to tell me that is unreliable too. Makes me wonder how any article could get to GA under those circumstances. I get the impression some people are creating obstacles for the sake of it. (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
You can't just copy from sources, unless you are explicitly quoting. The source in this case is expressing an opinion, rather than stating a fact. For many articles one could find sources with conflicting opinions, e.g. one says that a player is underrated, and another says that they aren't any good. Additionally, this is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper article. What one person calls their boss is not very encyclopaedic information, and the tone in that sentence isn't suitably formal. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

David Platts

Am I alone in thinking that David Platt (footballer) is clearly the most notable person by that name? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought so too, but using the admittedly imperfect method of looking at pageviews, the soap opera character gets an almost identical level of pageviews per month. So maybe not. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we have to remember that while there are many of us who watch MOTD on TV, there are probably more who watch good old Corrie. GiantSnowman 12:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Platt images

There are loads of images on the interet - particularly of him playing for England and Sampdoria. I have one image of him in a 1990 world cup game - a print bought for me about 10 years ago (he was one of my favourite players as a Villa fan). Can I use this? What are the CR laws about this? Thanks. (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's servers are based in the US, meaning that the US fair use doctrine applies when using copyrighted works. However, Wikipedia goes further than the legal minimum, as its m:mission is to make a freely-reproducible reference work. This means that fair-use images are kept to a minimum, and freely reproducible ones are used wherever possible (full details are at Wikipedia:Non-free content). What does this mean for Platt? Well, as a person who is alive, and of whom free-use images (like the one in the article) exist, it is unlikely that a fair use image of him could be justified. It would have to be argued that the image was of iconic status and/or historical importance. Given that even Hand of God goal has no image, this would be a tough sell. So unfortunately your print would not be a permitted image, not least because the very fact that prints are sold of it shows it has commercial value. This of course means that it would be very difficult to find a suitably licensed picture of Platt in his playing career. He played before the proliferation of digital cameras, so most photos of him in action will belong to press and photo agencies, and will remain in copyright for several decades. Sometimes that's just the constraints we have to work with. To use some featured articles as examples, John Wark and Bryan Gunn have post-retirement photos, but none from their playing careers. When I worked on Bert Trautmann, I didn't even have that, and had to make do with a picture of a statue. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Ta very much. Very informative. Thanks for taking the time to deliver a response in such detail! (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Joshua Markham

I think that the article Joshua Markham may be a hoax, since I cannot find a reference to the player on the team's website. Could someone look at the article and tag it for deletion if that seems appropriate? Eastmain (talkcontribs) 11:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged for CSD. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

USA at the 1991 Pan American Games

Good evening (it's 5 PM here in Italy) to everyone, I usually edit on, where I created the articles about Football at the Pan American Games. I have a question for you: does anyone have a complete list of the US team for that competition? I only managed to find an incomplete list, the line-up for the final game. Sorry about my imperfect English. :-) --Triple 8 (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Activity check for the WPF member list

This is just to bump a short notice, that a complete activity check now has been performed for the WPF member list, as of July 10. The check showed, that no less than 52 of the current WPF members were found to be inactive, with 0 football related edits within the past 12 months; and thus automatically were removed to the "Former member list". If we calculate the rate of how fast the member list transform "Active members" into "Former members", the average has remained very constant at around 8 users per month, during the past 4 years. With 7 months passing since the latest activity check in December 2010, it was therefore no surprise to find, that the "Former member list" today now includes 52 more user names (to form an impressive total of 390). During the same 7 months, the "Active member list" however also welcomed 47 new WPF members, meaning that we today have a total of:

  • 308 Active WPF members (declining slightly from the 313 Active members registered at 20th December 2010).

For those of you who are curious about the statistical numbers, I can also reveal, that among the 308 Active members, we had a total of 52 failing to post any football related edits during the past 6 months. Many of them appear to posses a "seasonal edit pattern", making it likely they will resume their football related edits during the next 6 months. If they fail to do so -and stay inactive for a roling period of 12 months-, they will of course be automatically removed to the "Former member list", when some of us perform the next activity check. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Good work, but I think the system needs an overhaul - one edit to a football-related article does not make you an "active" member of this WikiProject. No way do we have 308 editors who contribute here, not even nearly. GiantSnowman 12:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there some way in which we could show on the list how many edits a member has made? Surely this would make it easier to perform checks as the list is sortable.
Is there a way in which we could find people who are not on the list, but do contribute to this project and encourage them to join it?
Maybe we could have a list of articles which need work done put on the project page?
GiantSnowman, I agree there is definitely not 308 editors who contribute to this page but you have to remember that it is the "off-season" currently so a lot of people are probably not editing as much and that you don't have to edit this particular page to be a member. But I think you are right in saying there needs to be some sort of overhaul as 1 edit in 12 months can hardly be described as active. Adam4267 (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe any agreement of the "most appropriate" WPF member criteria, really will depend on, how we define the "purpose of the member list". At the main project page, a short line notes that:
  • When joining the project (by submitting your name to the member list), you should watch this page. This allows you to keep up-to-date with discussions about the project on the talk page.
So according to the line above, the WPF members are not necessarliy required to debate at the talk page, but instead only required to keep an eye with the ongoing debates. If we want the member criteria to be changed, so that only active debaters at the talk page qualify as members, then this could indeed be something we start to check for instead of "football related edits within the past 12 months". By doing so, the check can be performed fast and easy with a "browser-search" for all member names in the past 10,000 edits listed at the "View history" tab for the talk page. Or simply just by visiting the statistical info-page for the "WPF talk page". Out of curiousity, I just did this check for the current WPF members, and it revealed that only 25% contributed with minimum one comment at the WPF talk page during the past 12 months. But is it fair and appropriate, then just to chop off the 75% who did not post at the WPF talk page? Or is the current approach "only to check for football related edits" better?
My own oppionion is, that the current approach is the best one to continue with in the future. I dont mind that the member list is large, and also include those who read the debates -but never take part with their personal comment. Perhaps we could indeed tighten up the criteria, that in order for any user to maintain their WPF membership status, they need to submit minimum "1 football related edit during the past 6 months", or perhaps "10 football related edits during the past year". Due to the fact, that all checks are done manually by consulting each users "contribution page" -and not by a java-program-, we however have a "technical problem", to actually check for multiple football related edits. It would simply be too time consuming to check for that. Whether or not we should narrow down the time frame, of how long time we accept for WPF members not to post any football related edits, is however something we could change without "technical difficulties". As I mentioned earlier, I however discovered that many of the 52 current WPF members with inactivity during the past 6 months, have a previous edit pattern, where they at one point of time suddenly resume their football related edits. If we want the member list only to feature those who were active with minimum 1 football related edit within the past 6 months, then we can cut it down from 308 to 256. The question however remain, if the member list in that case would be considered to be better/worse? Danish Expert (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to show football related edits on the list? As the list is sortable it would surely make the checks a lot easier. Adam4267 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is not possible, if you ask for an automatic calculated "football related edit count". At the discussion page of the member list, I last year posted a link and description for "how to use a javaprogram" to calculate each users "edit count" within a certain time frame. This operation was however rather time consuming to set up, and did not reveal whether or not the edits happened to "ordinary pages" or "football related pages". I can imagine, that someone who is more hardcore than me to write java codes, perhaps can build a program to run and check a special Wikipedia database file, that only include the pages marked with the {{{Football}}} template. At the moment we can however only download a large database file of the entire English Wikipedia, and perform edit counts on that. For the moment, the fastest way to check for a members activity is thus, instead to consult the users "contribution page", and perform a manual inspection, which indeed for some user accounts can be a bit time consuming. If you ask for a coloumn, where we manually can type in the date of the latest observed "football related edit", then this could indeed be included by the member list table. This would help to minimize the amount of repetitive work, as we then only would need to check those who are approaching their own personal deadline to submit a new football edit, but on the other hand it will also mean a lot extra work to type in 300 new dates, each time we perform an activity check of the list.
Another more operatable approach could perhaps be, if we set up a third list of semi-active WPF members, to include those 52 who didnt submit any football related edits during the past 6 months; and for that list included a "Dato coloumn" to note the "date of the latest observed football related edit" for this group of WPF members. This change would make it a lot faster to perform regular checks, if the checks are supposed to be performed more frequently than twice a year. But on the other hand, to have a third list at the member page, would also mean that many new members would be confused about which list to hit the edit buttom for, in order to join as a member. A third possibility could also be, that we simply mark the 52 currently "semi-active members" with three stars, so that they are easier to identify and more fast to keep an eye with for subsequent checks. This way we continue only to have 2 lists, but yet create a special mark for those who are only semi-active. I am for sure ready to consider all sort of solutions and ideas, and appreciate all sort of comments/suggestions about how to change/improve the member list. Danish Expert (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be on the list or automatically done, but surely there is a way in which we could see users contributions at pages tagged with WikiProject:Football?
I think that 1 edit in 12 months is a bit of a low threshold and users can always re-add themselves if they decide to start up again. Maybe 10 edits in 6 months could be a better number. Adam4267 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
No, unfortunately we have no tools at hand either, whith the function to manually calculate or look up each users "football related edits". As I mentioned before, it might be possible for an experienced programmer who can build and compile javaprograms, that such a tool might be programmed and developed in a far distant future. AFAIK no such specialized tools/programs have yet been developed for Wikipedia. Our only option is therefore to perform the manual inspection of each users "contributions", to identify the latest football related edit. I have to repeat, that this mean it would be very time consuming, if we should start to count when uptill 10 football related edits took place for each users. Basicly it would take 10 times longer, compared to if you only look for the "latest football related edit". So for sure, that is not a viable soloution. If we should consider changes, then I will once again refer to my counter proposal above, either to split the member list into the following 3 sections:
  • Active members (with minimum 1 football related edit within the past 6 months)
  • Semi-Active members (with minimum 1 football related edit submitted between 6-12 months ago)
  • Former members (with no football related edits within the past year)
Or in the alternative (as I suggested in my reply above), simply just to mark all semi-active users with 3 stars in the member list, in order to keep the member list page as simple and operatable as possible. I really think, one of those two soloutions -or opting for status quo- are the only realistic ones to pick between. Once again, if we want to change the membership criteria, I also think it is important first to define for what main purposes we want to use the member list, so that the purpose itself can help to answer the question: If a strengthened membership criteria is really needed or called for? Danish Expert (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Why does it matter if users are officially members of the project? I would have thought football-related activity would be more important than a name in a list. Hack (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you so far, that the key question really is: What is the purpose of the list? Personally I have used it several times as a "contact list", in those cases where I needed to identify and contact other fellow Wikipedians, who shared the same Team interest or Taskforce activity, rellevant for a special burning question at hand. Currently we have 25 taskforces that also are supposed to work as local contact forums with local discussions. Most of them are however seldom being visited by their members, so posting the discussion at the taskforce page while also posting a "request for comment" at the members user talk page, will for some of the taskforces often result in much more respons, for an important question to solve. As a Dane, I might also at some point of time in the future, consider to build a Denmark taskforce, and for that purpose the WPF memberlist would help to identify the 10 users, who immedeately should recieve a special invitation for that. To say it short, the WPF member list mainly work as a "contact list" for me, and hence I am not too concerned if some of the names dont post at the talk page or even decide occationally to take a 7 month break, where they refrain to perform any football related edits at Wikipedia. As long as they minimum 1 time a year indicate an ongoing interest for the football articles at Wikipedia (by submitting minimum 1 football related edit per year), I think they are also likely to respond for any "football related question" we might ask them to comment on, if we post a link and request for that, at their "user talk page". Danish Expert (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


As a result of the debate above, I have just updated the WPF member list to feature a new layout, where we start to mark semi-active members with yellow. The semi-active members are defined as such, if they posted the latest football related edit 6-12 months ago (measured at the time of the activity check). Currently the member list include 52 semi-active members, where I noted a short parenthesis behind their name with the date of the latest football related edit. With this new system in place, we can limit the activity checks during the next 6 months, only to be performed for the semi-active members. Hereby these activity checks will now be a lot faster to do. I propose we continue with this system for the next 6 months, and then make a new evaluation if the WPF membership crititeria should be maintained/changed. Danish Expert (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Much better, good work! GiantSnowman 22:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, good job! (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 22:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC))
Definitely, an excellent idea Danish. Adam4267 (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Turkish football corruption scandal and affected articles

Since Turkey has its own version of Koriopolis now, would it be worth to create an article on the topic as well, and if so, under which title?

In related matters, additional pairs of eyes would help at Fenerbahçe S.K., 2011–12 UEFA Champions League, 2010–11 Süper Lig, 2011–12 Süper Lig and other articles related to the case. Especially the Fenerbahce article might be a target for possible false edits, as the club might face demotion to a lower league. However, neither UEFA nor the Turkish FF have made a decision yet. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 15:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have put the fenerbace article on my watchlist and will help reverting unsourced edits. Adam4267 (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Until a more specific term comes into common usage, I think that 2011 Turkish football corruption scandal is a perfectly good starting title. I don't know the full details, so perhaps 2011 Turkish football corruption allegations may be better for now. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I think I will go with the "scandal" variant once I find a little time in my schedule to start the article (unless someone beats me to it, of course). Meanwhile, could you please add Trabzonspor to the list of surveillance-needing articles as well? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 08:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Done, I removed Fenerbahce from my watchlist because it is now semi-protected. Maybe you should think about getting Trabzonspor protected as well. Adam4267 (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess i'd contribute to that article. Maybe i'll start it later. -Koppapa (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
There it is: 2011 Turkish football corruption scandal. -Koppapa (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
It looks good, until all the information comes to light it doesn't need to be updated much more, per Wikipedia:BREAKING NEWS. Adam4267 (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Article now lists a lot of people. Are those to be included, especially if allready released? -Koppapa (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Celtic F.C task force

I am hoping to start this up. Anyone interested in joining this task force please post here. Adam4267 (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait! I'm "a little" interested in this. I will help you some in them.  tatasport  my talk  03:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm already started! :)  tatasport  my talk  06:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I've not edited Wikipedia extensively for a long time due to my studies but I'm willing to get involved here in whatever way I can. Nathan | talk 10:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Celtic F.C. task force sign up here. Anything you can contribute will be helpful. Adam4267 (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll certainly try to help with this, I hope I can be helpful WilliamF1two (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Women's World Cup Final

As it's on Sunday, it would be nice to have no redlinks left on the template below. I've created a few articles, but am off on holiday early tomorrow so might not get a chance to do any more! The Japanese wiki has a full set, and although I can't understand much of what's on there, I was at least able to get clubs and stats from the articles. Number 57 20:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll do a few of them. Adam4267 (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I've done 1-3,5&6. I will do a few more tomorrow. Adam4267 (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay I've done nine of them now, only one more to do before the final tomorrow. Number57 pointed out that some of the articles are a bit messy and I would probably agree so any help tidying would be welcome. Here is a list of the articles created;

Asuna Tanaka, Megumi Kamionobe, Miho Fukumoto, Nahomi Kawasumi, Mizuho Sakaguchi, Kyoko Yano, Azusa Iwashimizu, Yukari Kinga, Nozomi Yamago. Here is what Number57 pointed out

The main issues are:

  • You need to categorise the articles.
  • You need to include all the clubs - only using club5 in the infobox will mean the template fails to display the information if club1, club2 etc details are not filled in. All their details are on the Japanese wiki, and can be easily run through a translator (if you do this, beware that "FC Reinasu Saitama" is actually "Saitama Reinas" and is the old name for Urawa Red Diamonds Ladies!).
  • Add the templates to the articles - you can find out which templates the players feature on by clicking on "What links here".
  • Add the interwiki to the Japanese article, so that all the other ones can be picked up by bots.

Any help would be appreciated guys. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Juán Ángel Sebástio

Hi, does anyone know if this player really exists? The article was created by User:Robmorley who came to my attention with an unconstructive edit in Raúl González. I strongly suspect that Juán Ángel Sebástio is a hoax (Google only finds the Wikipedia page), but I'm not an expert on Spanish football. --Jaellee (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

An 18-year old who has scored 14 goals in 23 La Liga matches -wow! How come he has set his sights as low as Rochdale, Carlisle United and Workington! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Definitely a hoax not one hit on google despite such a "brilliant" season. Adam4267 (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
They have modified José Luis García del Pozo from the looks of it... Hack (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
While I was still wondering what to do next (Prod? Speedy deletion?) User:Struway2 has already acted. Thanks! --Jaellee (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Boualem Khoukhi

Hello. The page Boualem Khoukhi has just been deleted in the French Wikipedia. I don't know if it meets the criteria of this project, but you should consider taking a look at this page. Thanks -- Quentinv57 (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why it would be deleted in the French Wikipedia. The player plays in a fully professional league and has been doing so for the past couple of years. No reason for it to be deleted as the player easily passes WP:Footy.TonyStarks (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to update after my last message .. had a look at the notability criteria for footballers in the French Wikipedia and he does not meet their guidelines (very skewed and biased towards the top level of football).TonyStarks (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Good morning. I add a small word about the criteria present in the French Wiki: These criteria are the result of a compromise because the project:football was two years ago under attack from contributors who wanted to see sport and football especially leaving Wikipedia because the subject seems to you it was not "noble" enough. We had to make large concessions to continue to exist. Without these concessions football would almost limited to international players. We are fully aware that the criteria in place are very restrictive compared to other wiki, but we had to go through it to continue to be present. Matpib (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability of players in Chile

The notability of Juan Luis Mora Parada was brought to my attention by another user who also pointed me towards an editor who is creating a lot of articles on Chilean players. My knowledge of South American football isn't great so are players who have appeared no higher than Chilean Primera División B notable? The top division doesn't appear as a fully-professional league but is listed further down stating that a club needs 12 players to be professional so does that mean it is or not? If the top division isn't fully-professional then the second division certainly isn't and most of those articles will need to be deleted for failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Regards. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 08:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In the case of that particular player, he has played in the top division e.g. [6] Oldelpaso (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The "problem" with determining his notability is this discussion back in 2010. It was "determined" that the Chilean Primera B and Primera A were not fully professional because of two phrases in the season regulations: 1) "Each club can authorize in this tournament all players who are properly registered in the Registry of Players, with a minimum of 12 professionals" (Article 7.1); 2) "Between the eleven players who start a match there must include, at the minimum, seven professional with a registered contract," (Article 34.1). I can see how people can assume that because of those phrases, the Chilean Primera is not fully professional. But, I don't think that is what they are saying. I think the wording on the first phrase is to make sure that each club is made of professionals (you would need twelve players to make a squad). Phrase two seems to be mainly about the contractual situations of the players. It seems to be saying that the other four do not need to have a registered contract with the ANFP, but still have to be professionals. In there end, there is nothing that says that the Chilean Primera is not a fully pro league. After all, it is run by the Nacional Association of Professional Football, not the National Association of Amatuer Football or a non-existant semi-pro association. I would assume good faith on the professional status of the Chilean Primera, which would make Juan Luis Mora Parada notable. (If it sounds a bit confusing, it is. Try understanding it at 5am.) Digirami (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, since that discussion I've come round to your way of understanding it, and would agree that the Primera is fully-pro. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
On a similar note, I think it is safe to say that any top-tier league in South America is fully pro, and their second-tier as well if it is part of the same association of as the first (like how in Chile, the Primera and Primera B are part of the ANFP, and in Colombia, the Primera A and Primera B are part of DIMAYOR). Digirami (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. It makes sense that the second division is fully-professional if run by the same organisation, like the LFP's in France and Spain. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 11:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sam Hutchinson

I'm confused about this player's status - he retired due to injury in August 2010 and embarked on a coaching course, but appears to have played in a friendly today for a Chelsea XI against Crawley Town today. However, I can't find any news (other than on fan forums) about it. Can anyone shed any light? Cheers, GiantSnowman 23:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears as if he has come out of retirement. There might be something in one of the papers about him over the next few days. Adam4267 (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm also confused on this matter,as it claimed he was release by Chelsea at end of this season despite the fact he retired the previous season. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 00:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC))
Looks like he has been undergoing rehabilitation and is trying to make a comeback but am only finding links to forums about it at the moment. There should be something in a reliable source soon to confirm it. I thought his name was familiar so I looked and we were keen on him years ago. Back when we weren't pants! Argyle 4 Lifetalk 11:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability of footballers - NSPORT and GNG

The WP:NSPORT guideline as written effectively gives a "free pass" to footballers who meet the football-specific guideline, on the assumption that they will meet WP:GNG, but the articles do not have to show that GNG has been met. Clearly this is the current/agreed position and applies to a number of sports (that have varying criteria). I wanted to get a view of what Footy editors think of this situation, whereby players can be deemed to achieve notability via a competition/team criteria rather than meeting GNG. Please note this is intended to be a question about the principle of this approach, rather than a discussion of what football-specific criteria should be acceptable. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

While the current consensus appears to be the "free pass approach", NSPORT explicitly states the opposite:
In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. This guideline provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Information about living persons must meet the more stringent requirements for those types of articles. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It's interesting that you've selected this text from Nsport as I've flagged there before that I believe it can be interpreted the way you have, and that it conflicts with key text that is bolded in the intro of the guideline:
"The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline, or the sport specific criteria set forth below."
I would suggest that because it is in the intro and bolded it has more weight but I accept that is an arguable point, although I note you agree that 'free pass' is how things work in practice.Eldumpo (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the assumption is that any of those articles with proper time and research could be demonstrated to meet the GNG, but because time and resources are finite those are allowed to stand until someone has the resources and wherewithal to put everything into the article. matt91486 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


I have been wondering this for a while and I have to ask now because I've run into a sourcing problem for a list that I'm aiming to take to FLC. Would Soccerway be considered a reliable source? I haven't used it much before so don't know who is behind it and what fact checking they do, but it has always seemed accurate to me. The problem I have is a friendly match between Luxembourg and the Faroe Islands. The sources I've been using don't cover it in detail and the best I've seen is this. I don't want to put it in if it gets pulled up at FLC and I have to take it out.

Since there were no goals scored then I could use FIFA since the result is listed there, but it doesn't include the attendance and I'm a stickler for completeness. The company behind Soccerway is Global Sports Media and they seem legitimate, but I'd rather ask and be certain instead of including it and then having to take it out again later. Regards. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've generally regarded Soccerway as a reliable source, although I don't know where their information comes from. Eldumpo (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You won't have any trouble with Global Sports Media. Their about page identifies them as a serious media organisation, and as such assumed to do proper fact checking. Make sure you put them as publisher in your references, to clarify who Soccerway are. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks guys. They employ a large number of people and any time I've used the site it has appeared reliable. Their website indicates professionalism and reliability so I'm happy about that. The amount of competitions they cover is insane. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
One more thing. Where on this new layout at does it list the attendance for a match? For instance, here the attendance for Estonia vs Faroe Islands is 5,201, but I can't find it anywhere on the match page. I don't like the way FIFA operate, but their website isn't at all frustrating compared to UEFA. Nice and simple - [7]
With regards to SoccerWay, I just want to add my thoughts .. very reliable website that I use quite often for Algerian football. They cover many leagues, most which aren't covered by anyone else, and do a great job with the stats. Whenever there is a mistake (rarely), a simple email with references will usually fix the issue within 1-2 days.TonyStarks (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, i found one when writing the Czech Women's Cup, i.e. Sparta didn't lose but win 7-0. So one should double check sometimes. -Koppapa (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Placar Guia

Whatever it is, it's apparently getting a lot of citations. It seems to be football-related, so I though I'd drop by here asking about it (specifically about what should be done a potential article about it). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It is Brazilian's most important football magazine. There is already an article about the magazine (see Placar). Placar Guia 2011 is the specific magazine for the 2011 Brazilian season. Hope that helps. --Carioca (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Excellent! Many thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is it?

Just noticed two links on the main page today "Japan women's national football team" and "United States women's national soccer team". Shouldn't these be consistent? BUC (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, because WP:ENGVAR says we should use the appropriate form of English for the nationality of the subject - clearly for the USA this is "soccer" whereas for other countries it's "football"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

More player notability issues

Moving further north than the Chileans, but staying in South America, is Oscar "Ñembo" Restrepo notable? Can anyone verify anything from a Colombian goalkeeper from the 50s? He is listed as an Category:Unreferenced BLPs and we need to either reference it or delete the article. But looking at the bigger picture, your project's efforts on UBLPs has been fantastic, down to only 60 articles now, from well over 7500 two years ago and 1700 last year. Well done all. The-Pope (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The only mention I found of Restrepo is a post to a blog from someone claiming to be his grandson ( The blog itself seems like a reliable source (connected to the El Colombiano newspaper), but I notice that the blog author appears to question the validity of the "grandson's" post. In short, I worry that we'll never be able to properly verify the information in this article. Jogurney (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

John Buttigieg (footballer)

If the reliable RSSSF shows all his caps in detail and says 95, why can't it be the number that appears in his box? I have been reverted 2,3 times, most puzzling is that those reversions guessed it...ZERO words in summary!

So much for teamwork, happy week all - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, warned, reference added. GiantSnowman 23:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Reverted who and warned for what? An innocent IP made a good faith edit mentioning Buttigieg guided the team to the Euro Cup - which was a former name of the Maltese Lowenbrau Cup - and which Birikara won in 2008.
Vasco, other than today, you last edited in July 2010 and left 97 caps there. Prior to that you edited in September 2009, also leaving it with 97 caps. Where are these "reverted 2,3 times"? --ClubOranjeT 13:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Reverted & warned an IP who changed the number of caps from 95 to 97 - despite a reliable source (which existed as an EL before I added ref tags) which contradicted their edits. GiantSnowman 13:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
That IP did not change caps from 95 to 97. That change was done in December 2008 by a different IP who only ever made 4 edits to the page and was never talked to. --ClubOranjeT 20:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, apologies in that case, I was acting on Vasco's information. I'll pay more attention in future... GiantSnowman 20:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply to ORANJE: the edits to which i refer date from way back, mid/late 2008, sorry i only "reported" it now. The only reason i edited in July 2010 (for example) and left 97 caps was because i knew someone was going to change it back to 95! Regarding the sentence i erased, i did not remove the most important, which was the team won the MALTESE CUP in 2008, if the cup was named EURO CUP before, then the anon user "doubled" that info (his addition read "... leading the side to the 2008 Maltese Cup and the Euro Cup.") and i was right to remove/adjust it.

Thanks for your inputs people - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Advice for Season Pages

Can someone please give me a list of websites that may help me with information when creating past Season pages, specifically Scottish clubs past season pages. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 23:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC))

Any particular clubs. Warburton1368 (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Its ok, I found the necessary websites, currently doing Dundee FC past seasons. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 13:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC))


What do the colored boxes and arrows next to players' names mean on "match" articles? For example, in the article for the 2011_FIFA_Women's_World_Cup_Final, under Match Details, where the players' names are listed out, Azusa Iwashimizu and Aya Miyama have colored rectangles next to their names, and several other players have red or green arrows pointing up or down, accompanied by numbers.

The meanings of these may be perfectly obvious to a football fan, but I think it would be great if there were some explanation, either in the references section, or at the top of the Match Detail section, or, as some other things in Wikipedia do, if there were a question mark next to them you could click on to find out more. For example, the "Nihongo" template used to render Japanese words in Japanese characters and romanization and/or translation, uses it. e.g. Azusa Iwashimizu (岩清水梓 Iwashimizu Azusa?). Cheers. LordAmeth (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A red arrow means a player was substituted off, and a green arrow means a player was substituted on. A yellow icon indicates that the player was booked and a red icon (sometimes accompanied by a yellow icon) indicates that the player was sent off. The numbers refer to the minute when the substitution, booking or sending off occurred. – PeeJay 12:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Antonio Pedroza‎

Had a look on soccerway and it has him down as a Spurs player. Is this a mistake? I can't see anything on google news to confirm. doomgaze (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

he claimed he was joining, but it all fell apart later. (disclaimer - no opinion as to the reliability of sources is implied) --ClubOranjeT 12:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah that's the latest I'd heard. As neither of the clubs have confirmed anything anyway I've emailed soccerway about it. doomgaze (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nélson Oliveira - check edit history please

And why is the vandal that did that not blocked already?! I know, i know, rules...he has not been warned several times, incredible!

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV - but there's been nothing for a few days, so they won't act. GiantSnowman 20:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


What is the best way to disambiguate between two players with the same name. Adam4267 (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Year of birth usually. Player name followed by (footballer born xxxx). Argyle 4 Lifetalk 22:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
What happens if two players are born in the same year? Adam4267 (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
If they're from different countries you could do that, but if not then you could do it by position or month of birth. I've never had to disambiguate by the latter two but I'd imagine they would be fine. Who is the player in question? Argyle 4 Lifetalk 22:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Morten Rasmussen (footballer born January 1985) and Morten Rasmussen (footballer born March 1985). Both Danish. Although one's a defender and one's a stiker. Adam4267 (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
That looks fine to me. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Carles Puyol - Bits and pieces

In another story, what could possess a "person" (quotation marks intentional!) to go into the page of one of the most clean players i have even seen, Carles Puyol - am cleaning up his article as we speak, for POV/WEASEL and overlinking, also removing who his current girlfriend is (who cares?) - and write "...plays for Barcelona and Spain and IS A DOUCHEBAG". Bitter Real Madrid fan maybe?

Also in this article, Carlos Marchena, Puyol's teammate at EURO 2008, is mentioned in that article regarding that competition, and he played in Valencia CF at the time. An "enlightened" user corrected his team to the one he plays in since 2010, Villarreal CF...Don't these people have a clue? A pity - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

First editor is clearly some bored teenage vandal, but with the second editor assume good faith - I presume they merely got the two teams confused, rather than anything malicious! GiantSnowman 23:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks mate! Still, could you have a look and see how much of the PERSONAL section is relevant, even if ref'd? I mean, some of it is RIDICULOUS - his puppet in this Catalan show owns a sheep?! Also, from what i've read, the REF#25 says nothing of the sort, only containing a twitter comment about his Napalm Death preferences - and he only hears it on warmups! How reliable is a twitter comment for an encyclopedia?!

Cheers! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If something is referenced, then I'd say keep it in - however 'trivial' it may seem. After all, it simply adds to a more complete biography. If it's unreferenced, remove on sight, especially with regards to BLPs. GiantSnowman 01:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Only 56 left - including about a dozen which are at PROD/AfD - in case anybody fancies joining me in trying to get that figure down to a tasty fat zero. Cheers, GiantSnowman 20:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. However, keep in mind that most of these are recently (and inappropriately) tagged. Let's also be careful about PROD'ing some of these as at least some of them are pretty easily referenced fully-pro-league players. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Good point. Also, I have boldly introduced a new listing of 'BLPPROD' on the Project's table of nominations, for two reasons - partly because BLP PRODs last for 10 days rather than the usual 7, and partly because having a seperate list makes it easier for editors to know which articles require sourcing to save. GiantSnowman 22:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • All done, those that are left are at PROD/AfD. Thanks to everyone who helped. GiantSnowman 17:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Great work. I had a bit of time to kill earlier so expanded a couple of them. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Neymar - mass vandalism

Can we have some more eyes on this article please? There's been so much vandalism, and I don't know much about him, so trying to find a correct version to roll back to is proving difficult. doomgaze (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is how it looked when page protection expired. It'd be safe to revert to that and then update his statistics again if necessary. Why it wasn't renewed immediately afterwards is what puzzles me. Long-term protection, like Romelu Lukaku, would be the best thing to do. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Javier Balboa's B international matches - mentioned once

Seriously, even if ref'd, do we need mention to EVERY game he played with the EQUATORIAL GUINEA B team? From what i have seen, in many many articles, there is not even mention to all the games a given player played in a World Cup for A-TEAMS (refs or no refs), why do we need the detail here? User:Kolins is really really raising the bar here in my opinion...

Really puzzling - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between over-the-top detal for 60 A-games, and mentioning (with a reference) that a player "made two appearances for the B team in 2004, against Spain and Portugal." The level of detail in Balboa's article is appropriate, I feel. GiantSnowman 14:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) An editor adding one line of what you consider excessive detail isn't an excuse for calling their edit "appalling rubbish" in your edit summary. Believe me, not using edit summaries at all is much, much, less damaging to the encyclopedia than using them as a vehicle for abusing and belittling other editors' contributions. Please stop it. Struway2 (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • You are correct Struway, i apologize, but i am not a punk in search of a wiki-fight ("abusing" others), and my contributions are no better than those of the average well-intended user, just a big big anger management problem hanging over me...About the technical input, you are correct Snowman, as long as the B-team matches does not get over-detailed. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this have been discussed at the article's talk page and then only brought here if a consensus couldn't be reached? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yup, a discussion would have been good, but i did not revert Kolins in the article at all, so i thought a mere input here would suffice... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Winners of match X or team A/team B

Could I have further input here? It's a minor disagreement over whether the third qualifying round of the Europa league should be shown this way

or this way

Team 1 Agg. Team 2 1st leg 2nd leg|- Winners of match 21 35 Winners of match 13 28 July 4 August
Team 1 Agg. Team 2 1st leg 2nd leg|- Croatia Split or
Slovenia Domžale
35 England Fulham or
Northern Ireland Crusaders
28 July 4 August

The second way is the way that UEFA themselves use. Valenciano (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Try using that second method in {{footballbox}} and see what response you get. The way it was done before I got to the article looked horrible. – PeeJay 12:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Well for comparison the full version is here and I don't see the problem with it. It makes it much easier to see who your team's opponents are and as I say, is the way that UEFA themselves present the info. Valenciano (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Numbers or teams. I can't say that I'm a fan of the latter, it looks messy and just screams laziness to me since there is a table directly above it showing the match numbers. You can use OTHERCRAPEXISTS to justify anything. To give an example for numbers, the last World Cup used "Winners of match x vs Winners of match x". Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Although the second is easier to see the information quickly. Using {{footballbox}} it looks really cluttered and messy. The first option is by far the better of the two. Warburton1368 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Argyle, I've no idea where the "other crap exists" comes in, as you've linked to a section on deletion discussions which doesn't apply. The only "crap" being referred to is the format used on the UEFA home page, the home page of the people who, y'know, actually organise the competition! Nonetheless it's clear that the winner of match X format is the one preferred by most people but that's not to say it can't be tweaked. There are problems with it on days like today, where only half the second legs have been played and we have this godawful mess....
Team 1 Agg. Team 2 1st leg 2nd leg
Slovan Bratislava Slovakia 3–1 Kazakhstan Tobol Kostanay 2–0 1–1
Sturm Graz Austria 6 Hungary Videoton 2–0 20 July
Zestafoni Georgia (country) 7 Moldova Dacia Chişinău 3–0 20 July
Dinamo Zagreb Croatia 3–0 Azerbaijan Neftchi Baku 3–0 0–0
Valletta Malta 2–4 Lithuania Ekranas 2–3 0–1
Malmö FF Sweden 3–1 Faroe Islands HB Tórshavn 2–0 1–1
Shamrock Rovers Republic of Ireland 1–0 Estonia Flora Tallinn 1–0 0–0
Rosenborg Norway 14 Iceland Breiðablik 5–0 20 July
Bangor City Wales 0–131 Finland HJK Helsinki 0–3 0–10
Skonto Latvia 0–3 Poland Wisła Kraków 0–1 0–2
Linfield Northern Ireland 1–3 Belarus BATE Borisov 1–1 0–2

How are people supposed to know in that situation that the 6, 7 and 14 refer to match numbers? Surely there should be a separate column on the left of the table which gives match numbers instead of placing them in an "aggregate" section? I don't know how to work the football box otherwise I'd amend that myself but surely match numbers in a separate column would be better? Valenciano (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


Another User:Zombie433 in the making? No summaries, does not talk to anyone...In the last days, the following: he receives warning messages, he removes them (see example here

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

His edits don't seem bad. He updates quite a bit. It's his user page, if he doesn'T want to see something there, he is free to remove anything. -Koppapa (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I first encountered him while referencing Petar Grbić. I undid his most recent edit that added an appearance and goal to the infobox for Olympiacos despite the note at the bottom being very clear. At the beginning it looked like this and he blanked it after being WP:BLPPROD. Odd behaviour. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Man Utd FC on 59 trophies and Liverpool FC on 59 so why not parity on the Wikipedia trophies won table?


LFC have won 59 including the English Super Cup of 1986 an FA/Football League endorsed competition for top flight English Clubs. if the Intertoto Cup is included (a defunct summer tournament) then why is the Super Cup of 1986 not included also. let's get history right.


JoeRob55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeR55 (talkcontribs) 16:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

He talks about Football_records_in_England#FA_Premier_League_.E2.80.93_Since_1992.E2.80.9393_season. -Koppapa (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually he's referring to Football records in England#Most successful clubs overall (1871 – present) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The Intertoto cup was a 40 year long European competition, it was played in summer because the winners qualified for Uefa Cup, Champions league. The Super cup was a one off competition and its inclusion doesn't seem merited just so Liverpool can have the same number of trophies as Man U. Adam4267 (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick player notability reminder, please

Does playing in the qualifying rounds of a continental club competition such as the UEFA Europa League suggest notability under WP:NFOOTY? I am asking because I was wondering if the articles of this Fulham and this Dundee United player should be prodded or not... --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 18:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, they're not fully-pro competitions (same as the qualifying rounds for domestic cup competitions) so the player would fail WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd PROD them, to be honest. Qualifying rounds in Europe aren't enough. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Found another one; Alex Darlington. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
According to this Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition these players are notable. Adam4267 (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:FOOTYN is merely an essay; WP:NFOOTBALL is what the community as a whole should be using. GiantSnowman 23:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't say if players who play in cups are notable. Adam4267 (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Check again ;) GiantSnowman 00:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Alexanderalgrim and his continual creation of non-notable footballers

How much longer are we going to put up with this? Vasco told me a while ago that he had tried talking to him without success. I've prodded quite a few of his creations in the past and found another one at Tiago Ilori. I was going to prod again but decided to check his contributions first and there are a lot more creations about players that aren't yet notable, including Ricardo Sousa Esgaio, created on 10 July, which was speedily deleted the day before as Ricardo Esgaio. What should be done? The guy has been around long enough and had enough pages deleted to know what is and what isn't acceptable, yet he continues to create work for other people to clear up. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 22:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had a similar problem with Raggi2010 (talk · contribs) - I've sent them both a {{subst:uw-create1}}, which is for "Creating inappropriate pages", so hopefully they'll get the message... GiantSnowman 22:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I see that you beat me to the punch on Betinho. ;) I've left a message on his talk page and been as friendly as I can, given the number of times I've had to prod his creations, and hopefully he will understand. It is clear from his work that he has a basic grasp of English so there is no excuse. Vasco has tried talking to him before and got nowhere, so I've warned him what will happen if this continues. I didn't think I'd be doing this at midnight today but it's Wikipedia, there is always something to do! Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No he won't get it Snowman! He has been saying "talk to the hand" for two years now! Has even been granted autopatrol rights and did not even then communicate with the person that bestowed that honour upon him. The ESGAIO example is quite good to see his M.O.: he creates an article, has it deleted, creates it AGAIN with a different name, what gives?! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Well guys, if he continues to ignore our advice + the policies of this encyclopedia (one must always remember to AGF!) then he is obviously becoming disruptive, and further action should be taken - either to ANI or maybe a RFC. GiantSnowman 23:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, it's up to him now which direction we go. I left him another message before prodding more articles about players who have gone no higher than the Portuguese Second Division, pointing him in the direction of WP:FPL. His articles created can be viewed here. I've only reviewed the most recent 13 and they're all non-notable which doesn't bode well. His activity shows no communication with other users at all so I'm not holding out much hope of a response, never mind a positive one. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
He has been editing since I left the messages but they have been ignored so far. Classy. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
He may not have responded - as we expected - but at least he has probably seen them, and so has had fair warning should further action be needed. GiantSnowman 23:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's up to him now, I've made it as clear as I can to him. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah forgot this: User:MYS77 also engages in the same behaviour, even players from the reserves, they get ONE first-team callup (mind, callup, not appearance), bam! They get a WP article. I have notified him once, he did respond, but his behaviour persists... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • AfD the pieces and block this person (or have it blocked)! If he starts another account without asking anyone, we'll known with what type of user we're dealing... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sporting Clube de Portugal Youth Sector

Can we have some input here please folks - it's been listed for nearly three weeks! Cheers, GiantSnowman 00:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

On the topic, can someone explain to me what makes a youth team notable? I really fail to see how most pass the notability test (although I can't say I've really looked into the issue). I see way too many youth teams (and even amateur clubs) that make me wonder how they're notable. Thanks. TonyStarks (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
They are notable because they are run by the owning club so if they didn't have there own page they would be a subsection of the owning clubs page. Also youth teams are not amatuer. Adam4267 (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah true, I guess that does makes sense.TonyStarks (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It might "make sense", but it's specifically disavowed in our notability guidelines. A club's youth etup is not automatically notable just because a club is, and just because something might be appropriate in a section of another article that doesn't make it appropriate for a standalone page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

POV / OR issue

I've discussed this before, but didn't get a great response. Basically, edits like these keep appearing on Enfield Town's page. I revert them quoting WP:POV and WP:OR, which they clearly are, only for the policies to be ignored. Where do I go from here to avoid getting into an edit war and keep the POV/OR off the page? --Jimbo[online] 13:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article and will warn/block editors if they continue to add nonsense like it. Number 57 13:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sumgayit City Logo Help

Can someone help me to upload this logo of Sumgayit City F.C.? As I don't know how to upload logos to Wiki commons due I am not familiar with licensing. Link for the logo is And the logo is taken from this news

Big thanks.--NovaSkola (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone with better knowledge may be able to correct me, but I don't believe logos can be uploaded to the Commons, as they are not copyright-free. They have to be uploaded to the individual language Wikipedias together with a "fair use" rationale. Number 57 13:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
You are correct that logos cannot be uploaded to commons. Upload it here with a fair use rational as described at WP:RAT. Use the template from an existing team logo as a guide if needed. Camw (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be deleted from Commons very quickly. I'll do it now if nobody else is already in the process of doing so. Shouldn't take long. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
All done. How's that? Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of "difficult" sites (see above)

If you are planning to use Atlético Madrid's website for transfers and other stuff, forget it folks! It always leads you to "HOME"! Even if you try and alter it, clicking on the "HOME" feature of your choice and replacing it as source, it does not work, always goes to the aforementioned home page.

Bugger, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly link to some of the site. What exactly were you trying to do? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That's the address of the home page, so it will land there. Go to the home page, right-click on the Adrián window and select copy link location, which gives you the address of the page you're after: . That's the Spanish version, obviously: the English page doesn't have a link about Adrian anymore, i don't think. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Great help folks! Take it easy ;) --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Club notability

Basically, WP:FOOTYN is not fit for purpose - saying that there are at least 6000 notable French clubs is nonsense - and needs a massive overhaul, on a country-by-country basis. Ideas welcome! GiantSnowman 14:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Since a few countries already have some sort of inofficial notability criteria, it might probably be a good idea to collect these first in order to get some fundamental input. I would suggest to do so at User:Soccer-holic/Club notability criteria. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 15:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I have started the list. Number 57 15:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't understand this obsession with allowing FA Vase teams an article. Why say that teams down to Level 10 are notable, then contradict yourself by then including Vase clubs, who can play at Level 11? If clubs playing in the Coupe de France aren't automatically notable then clubs competing in the fifth-most prestigious cup in England (after the FA Cup, League Cup, FL Trophy and FA Trophy) certainly shouldn't be. BigDom 16:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The difference between FA Cup and FA Vase is minimal - the vast majority of clubs that enter the FA vase are also eligible for the FA Cup (I believe it is a qualifying rule for FA Cup entry that the club must have played in the Vase the year before) and the number of clubs entering the Vase from Step 7 is marginal as clubs have to have floodlights to do so. Number 57 16:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
What's your point then? That we shouldn't exclude clubs just because they can't afford floodlights? BigDom 11:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Moved from my talk page:
"I read your message at WT:FOOTY and agree that Club notability needs a overhaul. My personal suggestion regarding French clubs in the Coupe de France would be since every club is eligible to participate in the competition, the only clubs that should merit notability on Wikipedia are the ones that reach the 7th Round since that is the round professional clubs in France start off or possibly the Round of 64 since that is the round where the French Football Federation site starts archiving results at leaving the early round results to the regional sites. See here. — JSRant Away 16:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)"
GiantSnowman 16:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll also add that 655 clubs are participating in the Coupe de France from the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region alone! Club notability, particularly for the Coupe de France, does need to change. The constant yearly increase in clubs has resulted in this year's Coupe de France beginning almost two months ago. — JSRant Away 16:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Re:France, I'd say any club that has played in the Round of 64 of the Coupe de France (i.e. the round at which the FFF website archives results) would be an ideal candidate, as it implies GNG. GiantSnowman 19:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems unfair allow 64 teams from the French Cup, if we're allowing over 700 from the FA Cup. Surely in France a better measure of notability should be based on league standings rather than the cup competition. How about teams from the CFA2 (fifth tier) and upwards. That would include 17 divisions, so around 250 clubs - still less than a third of the English clubs but still a bit fairer. There are websites (such as this one) that keep a record for French clubs showing which divisions they have played in, so it would be easy to enforce. Results and league standings from this level are also readily available for GNG purposes. BigDom 19:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Unofficially, the CFA 2 is kind of the limit for club notability for clubs in France. Like here for example. After skimming the round, excluding Sablé-sur-Sarthe, the clubs that are red-linked played below the CFA 2. I understand where BigDom is coming from, but I think the primary issue is a some user making an article about.......let's say Athletic Club de Paris, a club that plays in the 14th division of French football, on the basis that the club playing in the first round of the Coupe de France makes it notable. — JSRant Away 21:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
OK well if it's going to be based on the Coupe de France, then clubs that reach the Seventh Round seems like the most sensible option to me. Of course, to even it up a bit we could only allow articles for English clubs that reach the First Round, seeing as that is where our professional clubs come in(!) Obviously that won't happen but it does show how biased a lot of editors are. BigDom 11:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ottawa FC and other Canadian clubs

I live in Canada and fail to see how a club like Ottawa FC or the vast majority of Canadian clubs qualify as being notable. With the exception of the clubs in MLS and NASL, the rest are amateur teams or semi-pro at the most. Can someone explain to me what makes them notable? TonyStarks (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this specific team or the league they play in to be able to comment on whether the club is notable. However, a club can still be notable just because it's not fully pro, it's down to its coverage in sources. I'm sure plenty of non-MLS or Nasl clubs get coverage. Eldumpo (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
And the top level (second) clubs of Canada qualify as being notable i guess. Else no women's club besides the USA maybe wouldn't be notable as amatuer/semi-pro. -Koppapa (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I just took Ottawa FC as an example because I know the team quite well. Its a U17 or U18 team that gets zero press coverage. The same can be said about lots of other teams that have articles. As for the top level argument, we don't have a national league in Canada per se. The only thing we have is the Canadian Championship which technically speaking is the national league since the winner qualifies for the CONCACAF Champions League .. and that only has 4 teams (the two in MLS and the two in the NASL). [edited my msg twice] TonyStarks (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Canadian play-off final

Rogers Cup (soccer) and Givova Cup should be combined, as it is just a name change due to sponsorship, right? It is the same format. I'll do that and maybe add some more text to it. Question is what name to use? Canadian Soccer League finals, List of Canadian Soccer League finals, Canadian Soccer League play-off finals, List of.... I'd go for the first choice. -Koppapa (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Soccer League championship would be good too. -Koppapa (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
If they are one and the same then they should be merged. Sponsorship should never determine the name of an article. It should be mentioned in the lead but nothing more. It needs plenty of referencing too. The name depends on what sources call it. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Right, what the sources call it. Okay, so i now went with Canadian Soccer League championship final, which is used by the CSL itself. Even the don't use the sponsors name. -Koppapa (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 in International football

Do we have an article in Wikipedia like '2011 in international football' which lists all International Football matches (matches between FIFA meber nations - friendly matches, tournament matches etc.) for the year 2011, giving the results, goal scorers, ranking points earned etc. ? if not, can we have such an article for every year. I saw a similar article for Cricket. Thank You.
Anish Viswa 02:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 in association football is probably the current nearest equivalent. --ClubOranjeT 07:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Anish, do you refer with "similar article for cricket" to articles such as International cricket in 2011? If so, a list with every football match between national teams might not be a particular good idea because such a list will become very large and very difficult to overview, especially if a variant of the footballbox template is used, as there are more than 200 national teams alone, in comparison to a few dozen nations with cricket teams. The current consensus, as far as I am aware, is to include any national team match into articles like 2010–11 in English football, so you might like to follow this path instead. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 00:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I do admit that the list will be big and also that be the reason why such an article is not created. But currently, if we like to have the information on International matches in 2011, we virtually have to browse through 200 odd articles in Wikipedia. That is why I think we can have a go at this, segregating it into month wise tables and giving colour-coding to Tournament matches, WC qualifiers, Euro qualifiers, Friendly matches, Matches between a national side and a club side like that. We can also have at the end of the article, statistical data like 'Performance by Nation', 'Top scorers' etc. A bit ambitious, but we can make it possible, with all your support.
Anish Viswa 00:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't RSSSF cover this? I don't think it is needed here. -Koppapa (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
If that is the case, we may not require thousands of articles here in Wiki. We are not doing original research in Wikipedia. Almost all the information in articles are available in some other place, which we call 'references'. RSSSF can be a reference for the proposed article.
Anish Viswa 07:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but i don't see a need for that article. Especially friedlies are pretty uninteressting and not notable, ranking points have basically no meaning in soccer and it would just create a lot of redundancy here in wikipedia. -Koppapa (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Ranking points decide how hard a teams group will be for tournaments and qualifying stages. They are incerdibly important to international football. Adam4267 (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Why has the discussion moved to ranking points all of a sudden? The proposal was to have a simple list of international matches per year, not anything which includes any sort of points... --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 19:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
So, is there any support for this proposal ?
Anish Viswa 04:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
we already have Portal:Current events/Sports and with nationals teams games every day, maybe we just need more active there.--Feroang (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Amending football box?

As this seems to have got lost in the middle above, is there a way to amend the football box so that we don't have the mess of match numbers confusingly appearing in the same column as aggregate scores? Valenciano (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. It is not that confusing, is it? On could always write Match 5 instead of just 5 in that column to avoid confusion. -Koppapa (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I have to say I agree with Valenciano. I actually lookes at this page the other day, without knowing that this discussion was ongoing and I was thouroughly confused. It took me about 5 mins to work out what those numbers meant. Adam4267 (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Valenciano as well. There seems no logical reason to support the confusion when a solution that removes it is available.  Omg †  osh  16:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
There are two possible solutions to this problem. One could either type "Match 5" instead of just "5", as proposed above, or the header template could be altered to include a switch which changes the "Agg." column header to "Tie no." or something similar when activated. Pick your poison. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
But the problem occurs when some of the games have been played and not all. So that has the problem of match 5 appearing in a column headed "agg(regate)" and which will, in that circumstance, contain aggregate scores. Surely there must be a way to just have a separate column on the left of it which just says "match no." ?? Valenciano (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
In that case, I would still suggest to include an optional parameter into both the header and body templates so that such a column is only displayed if the parameter is set to some value. The column itself would be the very first of a line. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 22:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
What's wrong with having "Match 1" written in the aggregate column? People aren't stupid, they'll work it out pretty easily. I do understand the confusion that comes with just having a number, but if that number is preceded with the word "Match", that solves the problem simply with the minimum of fuss (unless of course people act intentionally obtuse). – PeeJay 22:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Brownstown United and Brownstown Royal Saints Football Club

I know practically nothing of Caribbean football but Brownstown United and Brownstown Royal Saints Football Club aren't notable, are they? If they are then all of the material in them is WP:OR and WP:POV. Looks like nothing more than a group of people creating a team and having a kick-about at a park; nothing notable about that. I found them while prodding an article created by User:12Rolando and found more of them, including Rolando Texeira which is probably himself. The second club must be a recreation of Royal Saints F.C.. What should be done about this guy? Wikipedia is not a social network or a host yet this user appears to have been getting away with it due to the obscurity of football in that part of the world. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 17:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure that Rolando Texeira has been PRODded before - can an admin verify please? GiantSnowman 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
No deletions in the log unless it was under a slightly different name........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
They're all slightly different, according to his talk page messages. Rolando Lewis Teixeira has been deleted by prod, as has Rolando Lewis, and Rolando Lewis Texeira just the three times... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll raise it to four; Rolando. His talk page is a mess. I wonder how many times I can create an article about myself before I get blocked. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 18:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I think everything has been nominated now, so what should be done about this guy? His MO is to create some articles, mostly about himself it seems and then disappear for a while. Once they've been deleted he leaves it for a while and then recreates them under a different name. I'm a bit surprised that some of his creations have remained for so long but it's understandable that we can't have eyes everywhere; Shane Williams (footballer born 1989) has been around for more than a year and one of the external links is the main page of YouTube. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I think any and all article variations he create(d/s) should be deleted and SALTed - that's a given. As for what to do with the editor himself; he obviously doesn't accept that the article he has created do not meet our notability guidelines, though nobody has actually sent him a message without using automated templates, so that should be our first call of action. Should he fail to respond, then we could maybe log a report at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. Oh, and is File:Training brownstown.jpg eligible for deletion? I'm not very good with images... GiantSnowman 20:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. He should return soon, since he is due for one of his sprees, so lets hope that he falls in line or we'll have no choice but to take it further. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Alexis Sánchez

Could we have some more eyes on this article please? His 'current club' keeps being changed to Barcelona (who he joins on Monday, but he hasn't signed his contract yet) and I don't want to get blocked for edit warring. Cheers, doomgaze (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You won't get blocked, but that specific user who keeps changing clubs to Barcelona (it's been one user only lately) might if he keeps acting so. I left him a warning and reverted the page. --Angelo (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Well according to WP:3RR I could, better to play it on the safe side. That user said he'd stop, so hopefully it'll be ok for now. Cheers, doomgaze (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
But the Barcelona move is 100% assured no? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes - apart from an act of God, or legal issues, or whatever. Let's wait until the proper time, shall we? GiantSnowman 20:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
According to the BBC, Sanchez has actually signed a contract, he just hasn't had a medical yet. That's what's happening on Monday. – PeeJay 20:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
A move is never 100% assured until the player actually joins the club. This particular move looks 99.99% to happen. But moves can break down due to contract disagreements, failed medicals, work permit issues, player not liking the club, selling club demanding more money, buying club backing out/not having enough money/looking to other targets. There are a whole host of things that have to be agreed upon before a player joins a club and we have to treat every transfer in the same way. Adam4267 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Another user has started this again can someone please remove Sanchez from the Barca squad as I have done it 3 times already. Adam4267 (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Why did one user change the section headings? Consecration at Udinese... Really? Argyle 4 Lifetalk 02:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Consecration... hahahaaa... FkpCascais (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Page protection has run out and the IPs have returned, saying he has joined Manchester United and breaking the infobox among the usual. Probably needs to be protected again, otherwise I'll keep undoing edits when I can until official confirmation that his transfer has been completed. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 15:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My request at WP:RPP has just been granted, hopefully that should stem the tide for a while. Thanks for your help, doomgaze (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, you beat me to it. I was actually filling in a request for page protection when it told me there was an edit-conflict and it was you. Our best efforts continue to be ignored though. I don't know whether people are actually that blind or they do it just to annoy, you be the judge. Suffice to say, I LOL'd. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 18:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Myrmecophagous refuses to listen and accused me of being a vandal. Don't people have better things to do on a Sunday night? I've undone his most recent edit and repeated what I said on his talk page. I'm going to step back now before I get into trouble for edit-warring. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 21:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Warning issued to Myrmecophagous for edit warring, let's hope he understands. GiantSnowman 21:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


It is (was) not the best site, but it was OK, with pics of players and statistics, being not very well updated to be honest...

Now, either it has undergone a cibernetic makeover, or it's dead as a dodo! Can't tell which is which, but all the players that have that external link are "not working". In case we're talking about "the worst", R.I.P.!

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem accessing the site. Mention some specific article where the link is not working so I can check it out. FkpCascais (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I think what Vasco means is that links to specific players e.g. Marek Mintál, at the bottom of the page are not working any more. I've removed them routinely when ever I saw them. --Jaellee (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

SFL squad numbers

Do they use them, specifially in Division 1? GiantSnowman 20:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not one hundred percent sure but i dont think they do. Only recently realised that myslef. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I've always been under the impression that numbers aren't assigned to players but haven't seen anything official that confirms it. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
While creating a season page for Dundee FC for last season I noticed from reading the match reports for the cup matches that the players had alternating squad numbers that would lead me to believe that they don't have official squad numbers. See here & here (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 20:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC))
The SFL Rule 87.7 says "Those players commencing the match shall be numbered one to eleven in accordance with the list handed to the referee before the match and the substitutes numbered from twelve onwards." Or, no, they don't use squad numbers. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, much appreciated! GiantSnowman 11:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


Would anyone be interested in setting up a task force on football in scotland. I think one previously existed but dosent anymore. Im heavily involved in trying to improve and create articles within Scottish football and some of these need a lot of work. I feel a task force would be the best way to do this. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Scottish football existed until January 2008, quite surprised no task force was set up then; or if it was, why it disbanded. I'd be happy to get involved as much as I can, though to be honest my Scottish football contributions are pretty much limited to trying to keep the pages on the mighty Accies as tidy as possible. GiantSnowman 22:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I would definitely join this, although I probably don't contribute as much to Scottish footall as some others. I can think of several other editors who would definitely join this task force. I think it would work well. Adam4267 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Definitely In (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 00:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC))
Thats great will look into how to create it. Warburton1368 (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Appeal for Help

As explained above I am creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Scotland task force. If anyone has any experience in the initial set up of a task force i.e creating the associated categories and the taskforce banner and is willing to give up a wee bit of time it would be greatly appreciated. Warburton1368 (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Anthony Winward

I don't know if anyone's noticed this, but this guy has been adding people's honorific titles (e.g. MBE, OBE, CBE) to the top of infoboxes. I'm fairly sure this isn't something we should really encourage, so how do we go about stopping him and reverting the damage? – PeeJay 18:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone has already advised him that it may be against policy - have a look at User talk:Anthony Winward#Adding postnominals to short names in infoboxes. I'd suggest talking to the guy, persuade him to stop - I just think he's slightly over-eager is all. GiantSnowman 18:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Anderson Vital da Silva or Dedé

Can anyone have a look on this cut and paste article move ([8] and [9])? I believe this should be fixed so that the page history of the articles are continuous, but I don't know how to fix this. Anyway, does Anderson Vital da Silva notable enough to occupy the page Dedé? Before he got a call-up to the Brazil team, the article Dedé is just a redirect to Dede. — MT (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

C&P move reverted - article is back at Anderson Vital da Silva - and editor given some friendly words of advice. If you - or anyone - wants to move it, please follow procedures at WP:RM. Regards, GiantSnowman 16:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Iranian football clubs in 2010–11 season

Does anybody have a clue what the purpose of List of Iranian football clubs in 2010–11 season is? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 15:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just move it to List of Iranian football clubs, explain that it is a list of clubs in the first four divsions and as of 2010-11, and it suddenly it has a purpose. Calistemon (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

David Goodwillie

Your comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding the above player. Its been brought up that his recent investigations by police and crown office shouldn't be mentioned in the article. I think it needs to be there in some context especially because his proposed recent transfers were delayed as clubs wanted to wait for the outcome. Warburton1368 (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Be careful not to WP:CANVAS... GiantSnowman 18:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Just making editors who would have an interest in this aware of it as im sure most members werent. Nothing wrong in that as thats what the project is for. Warburton1368 (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Saying "here is a discussion you may be interested in" is fine, it's actually encouraged. However, then giving your opinion + rational at the same time could be seen as trying to sway influence. That is all. GiantSnowman 18:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Disagree but that is your opinion of which you are entitled to. Just to say there is an ongoing discussion dosent really accurately draw why its being brought to attention. Anyway everyones input is welcome whether they agree or not that is the purpose of it you dont have to agree with me. Warburton1368 (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panagiotis Kourdakis

Could we have some more input at this AfD please? Has been relisted once and it has been up for nearly two weeks. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 01:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

1983 Copa America, Top Scorers issue

In the official web of the 2011 Copa America (and other publications), [10], one of the mentioned top scorers of the 1983 Copa America is the Peruvian player Eduardo Malásquez. The problem is that according to other publications, including the RSSF, only attribute 2 goals to Malasquez. Moreover, other publications claim that the top scorer of the tournament was Peruvian player Franco Navarro (allegedly with 4 goals). Since Paolo Guerrero attained the Top Scorer of the tournament for the 2011 Copa America, I am trying to include him into the Peru national football team article (which, by the way, if anyone could contribute some help to make it an FA would be great). This is how I ran into this confusing issue. Could anyone please provide some input or help on how to deal with this issue?--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Another CONMEBOL source I have (a pre-tournament ZIP file with records on the tournament) would agree with what you've found. I would reference his achievement to counter any possible dispute on the matter. Digirami (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Might you know what Malasquez's three goals were? I've found he scored one against Colombia from a penalty kick, and another on Uruguay from a corner kick. I've run into some trouble with this issue in the Spanish Wikipedia as well (one of the editors accused me of being a "vandal". lol).--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not know that. Sorry. Forget the Spanish Wiki; I would just concentrate one making sure the English version is correct. Digirami (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hahaha. Thanks Digirami. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I think RSSSF is a pretty good reference for soccer tournaments. Moreover, in this particular case, where is important to distinguish the number of goals scored by a player i'll be more confident to rely on a reference that shows full detail report of all tournament matches than a simple goalscorers recap, besides is from a Conmebol page. I think is more probable the recap is wrong.
Also, when putting Malásquez in the "three goals" group you're leaving the article on an inconsistent state, the goals scored by Perú are 7, but from the goalscorers list you can count 8. --Gonchibolso12 (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Number of teams participing by edition, in table

Hi, I did find in Baseball World Cup there is a beatifull, usefull columne "title" number of teams, we should add it too our football historic lists, should show easily that 1930 was 13 teams and 1998 was 32 teams, I am a little bad with wikitables... can somebody upgrade it--Feroang (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Year Final Host Final four Number of teams
Champions Runners-up 3rd place 4th place

Great Britain

United States



United States

United States



Puerto Rico

This is a really good idea.--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I did in in FIFA World Cup article, was not dificult, but we should expand to women, u-20 and u-17, --Feroang (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
That not bold !width=4%|Number of teams that line is the change you should add,width=4% and reduce 1% in others 4 columnes under the line that say !width=14%|Fourth Place and |13 or |16 or |24 in every edition, that mind upper every|-, not so hard--Feroang (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
FIFA Women's World Cup and FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup and FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup and FIFA U-20 World Cup and FIFA U-17 World Cup and club football (FIFA Club World Cup), and football variants such as futsal (FIFA Futsal World Cup) and beach soccer (FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup) done. --Feroang (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

German championship articles pre-Bundesliga

The articles dealing with the German championship before the establishment of the Bundesliga are a) in a very sorry state (at least the majority are) and b) have been moved to articles following a season naming scheme, such as 1947–48 German football championship. However, as the championship was not played out in a league, but rather consisted of play-offs of the various Oberliga champions, those articles should properly be located at 1948 German championship (where the article from my example had been prior to its un-discussed move.) I'm unsure how to proceed now. Move all those articles to what I think should be the proper name and clean up? Advice welcomed. Madcynic (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The three sources in that article all refer to it being the 1947-48 championship, rather than 1948, so I think that it probably has the right name. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I think its just the same as the Stanley Cup playoffs, they only have the year they were held in in the title, not the whole NHL season. Move I would say. Calistemon (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
To counter my above argument, the German Football Federation lists the champions under the 19xx/xx format. There may not be enough support for a move from reliable sources after all. Calistemon (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a disservice to users, as it is just confusing. I'd expect a season article, not just one for the play-offs. So either we add tables for the relevant Oberliga seasons or we move to the 1948 German championship format. As for the DFB-site: Ironically they list the Bundesliga champions in a year only format too. Maybe shouldn't be a deciding factor. Madcynic (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Adding Oberliga tables may make sense (5) but when you go to the seasons before that, ther were 16 Gauligas from 1933 and I don't know how many first divisions before 1933, around 50 or so, far to many for inclusion. Calistemon (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Hence I'd prefer the Year German championship format over YYYY-YY German championship. Madcynic (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Calistemon drew a very fitting comparison with the reference to the NHL season and Stanley Cup play-off articles. I would hence suggest to keep the German championship articles at "<year> German football championship" and additionally add season articles for the competitions which determined the championship round participants, e.g. 1949–50 West German Oberliga season or 1934–35 Gauliga season. As for the articles about the seasons between 1902–03 and 1932–33, Hardy Grüne's "Enzyklopädie des deutschen Ligafußballs" only includes the regional qualification rounds for the national championship; it would thus be the best if we would do the same. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 17:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Other, more related examples would be the Football League play-offs, like in 2011 Football League play-offs and the MLS Cup, as in MLS Cup 2010. On that note, to stick with the pattern of related football articles, definetly move to calendar year. Calistemon (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've started to move the articles to their respective championship year, but I've run into trouble. Beginning with the 1931-32 season I'd have to move over redirects. Admin help, anyone? (Also, 1932 german championship redirects to 1932-33 german championship. Clearly BS) Madcynic (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You only need admin help to move pages over redirects if those redirects have more than one revision in their history. – PeeJay 19:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You're right, but for some reason, it won't work for 1931–32 German football championship and 1932–33 German football championship. Help? --Madcynic (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Those two are older articles that previously were at a different article name. That could be why. Calistemon (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Moves should be complete now. There is "only" the clean-up needed for about thirty or so championships now. Madcynic (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sergio Busquets

Maybe this article could be protected for more than one month now (it was so on 28 April 2011, so it's time to "take it up a notch" methinks), vandalism is still rampant, Busquets is probably more hated in some parts of the world than this guy, and all he does is PLAY FOOTBALL (and feign a bit, but is he the only one?)...

Bitter Real Madrid/Manchester United fans, or lowlifes? Maybe both...Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that you need to think about what you wrote. Comparing a footballer who might have a tendency to cheat with a man who murdered 76 innocent people is just plain stupid and at worst, vile. Prior to your most recent edit, the article hadn't been vandalised for a week and the reason for another uncivil edit summary was due to the spacing of one sentence. Does that justify shouting and telling other users to drop dead? Think about what you write. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 06:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry if i offended you (again, seems like the order of the day, me always getting on people's nerves), i'll elaborate: i am not the one who keeps vandalizing the page, hence showing their ill feelings towards the player, i admit my comparison was unhappy, but again, i say: does a mere football player merit this (and i'm not even a Barcelona fan) for the mere fact of playing football? That is what i meant with my comparison (stupid as it might have been/seemed), the level of vandalism/hatred makes you think if you're dealing with a mass murderer, instead of a FOOTBALLER.

Second bit: my exaggerated summary was due to the level of vandalism, it does not matter that the last "contribution" was almost a week ago (does it make it any worse if the vandalism is recent? I feel not), but i admit i again crossed the line as far as WP guidelines are concerned, but please don't call lowlife vandals "users", they are "un-users" at best. Ah, and if you think i wrote "drop dead" because one chap's use of spacings, then i am lost for words at a maximum...Please read the summary thoroughly mate, first one thing (mention to the spacings), then the other (nothing but utter despise for lowlife vandals).

Again, i apologize to anybody who might have felt uncomfortable with my comments about the recent tragedy in Norway, not my intention, never! Was just trying to drew a comparison, fell (terribly) short. All of this said, the article will not be protected, the vandalism will continue, okeydokey...

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wydad AC Casablanca

This article only has 5-6 edits in its history, anyone know where the rest of its history is? An article for a club that famous must have over a hundred edits if not a thousand. The reason I ask is because the name of the article isn't right. If we use WP:Commonname, it should be something like Wydad Casablanca instead of Wydad AC Casablanca.TonyStarks (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I would assume the missing history can be found here and probably here. These copy-and-paste moves are really annoying at times... --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah thanks, figured that was the reason.TonyStarks (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Article is now back at Wydad Casablanca (the original location), the two other pages redirected and history merges requested, and the user in question warned about C&P moves. GiantSnowman 13:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. Number 57 13:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks! GiantSnowman 13:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
That was easy, thanks a lot for your help guys. On the same topic, what about Raja CA Casablanca, using same logic, shouldn't it be either "Raja Athletic Club" or "Raja Casablanca" (personally I prefer second) ? TonyStarks (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and I also notice that the same editor did a cut and paste move on that article some months ago (I have just performed a history merge there too). His user talk page has several requests not to do such things, but it seems he continues to ignore them. I will tell him that next time he does it, he will be blocked. Number 57 14:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Nice teamwork people, i'm proud to be a member of this "committee"! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wingate and Finchley F.C.

Resolved: Done. --Dweller (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin move Wingate and Finchley F.C. over the redirect Wingate & Finchley F.C. please. Thanks, --Jimbo[online] 13:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Page move

Per constant kind input of User:GiantSnowman, confirming that Quique Flores is known mostly that way in England, as i already knew he was in Spain, and after page talk discussion (the Colombian anon user has declined to participate this time, only thing he did was revert me), i have removed the "Sánchez" from the article's name, embracing the WP:BOLD philosophy.

If i have not made the correct thing, please have an admin revert me, altough i feel it's an improvement, for all that's said above. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but rememeber that if somebody reverts you, you MUST discuss it. I feel it should be at the current location, but if anyone disagrees, WP:RM is the place to go - no point in engaging in yet another edit war over this page. Regards, GiantSnowman 17:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


Considering the amount of warnings given to this Greek IP (please see here, why is the "user" still not blocked?

Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless somebody reports a vandal at WP:AIV, the chances of them getting blocked are very slim indeed - unless an admin stumbles upon the editor in question. He hasn't edited for over a week, so hopefully he's got the message... GiantSnowman 17:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, i'll have a go (geez, you'd think after being here for five years, i'd had also "gotten the message" on how to operate :)). In another matter, could somebody remove the 2010/11 season in Diego Tristán's STATISTICS chart? He did not play in that season (retired in June 2010)... I'm afraid i'll screw it up if i try :( --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • 2010-11 season stats removed. GiantSnowman 18:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Traditionally the warnings are supposed to escalate. You can install the twinkle tool to help you issue warnings effectively. The levels being:
  • 1. Hey there chum, maybe you are trying out new things, Please use the sandbox instead, thanks!
  • 2. If you carry on doing this then a punishment will follow.
  • 3. You will be banned if you keep this up.
  • 4. One more time and you will receive a ban.
I see he never received a warning beyond level three. If vandalism is serious or extensive enough you can just issue a final warning straight away. Then as Mr Snowman says you go and report the user to the administrators. If they see the user has been ignoring their final warning then a ban will certainly follow. Without such warnings a ban is less certain.--EchetusXe 18:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • User/admin Gfoley4, just from me providing a list of "contributions" and a few diffs, has already blocked two or three IPs/accounts, without the "users" having received any warnings whatsoever. A different approach i guess, but a welcome one - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

IP changing figures in numerous footballers articles

Are the edits of (talk · contribs) accurate or of concern? I don't watch this page so if any action is needed post to my talk page or WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've checked a random 6 or 7, they seem OK. I've left a note at their talk asking them to update the as-of date, and ideally add a link to their source if necessary, when they update the stats. Maybe they will. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin Help

If an admin has a moment of time would you have a look at the request to update the Template:WikiProject Football at Template talk:WikiProject Football. Its to update the template to allow the start of the Scotland task force. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Club categorisation question

I have recently been cleaning up some non-League articles and came across the Category:Former Southern Football League clubs. I was previously led to believe that we do not have "Former" categories for clubs, just as we do not have them for players (i.e. there is no such thing as Category:Former Ipswich Town F.C. players), but a few of these Former Fooian League club categories were created by Djln (talk · contribs) just under two weeks ago. I emptied the Southern League one (putting around 10 articles back in Category:Member clubs of the Southern Football League, where the vast majority of former clubs' articles were anyway), but an editor on the Spurs article doesn't approve (initially even seeming to think that my edits were vandalism).

Whilst I was previously an advocate of "Former" categories, I have come round to the idea that it is more sensible just to have a single category for past and present clubs (which is also better from a maintenance point of view, as once a club is in a league for a single season, the category never has to be changed again). What do the rest of you think? Number 57 22:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that it makes more sense to have just one league category for clubs. Having multiple could be a slippery slope - former League 1 clubs, League 2, Conference etc. etc. If a club gets promoted/relegated a number of times, they'll be in far too many categories. GiantSnowman 23:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Being the editor on the Spurs article who described the edit of Number 57 as mischievous (only because the edit summary did not explain the reason for the change and therefore looked dubious), I suggested a referral here on the article Talk page. In the case in point Tottenham Hotspur was not listed in Category; Member clubs of the Southern League until 16th July and the only for a matter of les than an hour before the category of 'Former Members' for the Souther league was created and Tottenham transferred by the same editor who added Spurs to the Member Category.
Reverting this useful change and including all present and the many many former members of the Southern Football League in the same category is in my view misleading to the user. I could understand if the League was now defunct although see Category:Former Football League clubs, but as the Souther League remains active to have clubs who were members up to over 100 year ago included in the same category alogside current members does not help distinguish between current and former members. I assume there are at least a few other examples of league categories of former members whether labelled as such or otherwise and many many cases where former members of a league are not included in the category with the current members. In fact when a club is relegated or promoted its category classification is ritually changed often erroneously on or before the last day of the season. I'm not attached to the term 'Former' and not in favour of adding it to all leagues just keen to have the utility of distinguishing between present and past members.Tmol42 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure extra categories are needed to distinguish between them when you can simply see all current members on the league article and template. Plus, whilst categories may be ritually changed for high profile clubs, it is not common at the lower levels (where more maintenance would be needed due to the higher number of clubs moving between leagues). Number 57 00:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


Can some members have a look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottawa St. Anthony Italia and provide their input, currently its only 2-3 people discussing it. I might be wrong in my thinking, so I'd appreciate some additional input from some of the more experienced people here. Thanks.TonyStarks (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Lille OSC 2011-12 Season


Not sure if i'm doing this properly but I recently created the page 2011-12 Lille OSC Season. I was just hoping that maybe somebody could maybe check over and and possibly help out with what else may need to be done. As mentioned i'm not sure if this request should be here or not but any help would be most appreciated. Also, if anybody does help please let me know so I know what to do next time :)

Thanks in advance! Pereirab04 (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Team shortcut templates

I.e. those found in Category:A-League team shortcut templates - thoughts & feelings folks? GiantSnowman 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they make sense. -Koppapa (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
These templates are part of an own microcosmos of templates solely used for articles about Australian soccer. Most of them are redundant, if not even inferior, to templates already included in Category:Fb team templates Australia. The parent category Category:A-League templates could also use a redundancy check, by the way.
And while we are at it, the Australian soccer league season articles in general could need an overhaul, as they are not complying with the MoS for league seasons; see 2011–12 A-League, for example. Especially the schedule bits need to go. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 20:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
What's the point in Category:Fb team templates Australia while we're at it? A 'shortcut' that's longer than just typing out the team name?! GiantSnowman 20:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it's not that you always would have to type, for example, [[:Template:Fb team A United]] to get the content of the template, {{A United}} is enough for that. But having said that... if team templates are solely used for league tables and not also for results tables, a standard wikilink would do as well, especially since there is a second version of the table rows which is able to handle plain wikilinks. (I would comment longer on the issue, but this would be pretty off-topic...) --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 20:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been opposed to these "shortcut" templates ever since they were created. Why does no one ever listen to me? :-( – PeeJay 20:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Time to take a stand PeeJay! Fancy doing the honours...? GiantSnowman 20:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
If only it were that simple, my snowy friend. The use of these templates is now so widespread, it would take extended effort from more than just me to quash them! – PeeJay 21:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Ha, I was just thinking about TfD to be honest... GiantSnowman 21:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there was a discussion about this a couple of years ago on the Ausrtralian football project page. It's something to do with tables and location maps. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be honest... Hack (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty busy at the minute with a Master's thesis (damn you, distractions of Wikipedia!) - is anyone willing to take it to TfD please? GiantSnowman 10:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Maltese club season articles

Today I discovered Category:Maltese football club statistics, and I can't decide if the articles in it have any merit. Three are about multiple seasons for each club, while Senglea Athletic F.C. season 2009-10 is about a single season (created shortly after the end of that season and not edited for a year, incidentally). Marsaxlokk F.C. seasons and Qormi F.C. seasons cite some official sources, all of them dead, and the others are unsourced. The start dates seem to be quite arbitrary for the multiple season ones - Marsaxlokk have existed since 1949 and played in the Maltese league since 1955, but the list only starts at 1999. All four clubs are semi-professional, but they do play at the highest level of Maltese football and have fairly notable histories (although why they're covered as opposed to the more successful Floriana and Sliema Wanderers beats me). I don't think there's enough material to justify them, but it'd be nice to have some more opinions. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, the content of the three "<club XYZ> seasons" articles is nothing extraordinary which would warrant a stand-alone article. They could easily be merged with their parent articles. As for that Senglea Athletic season article... I highly doubt that the season of a semi-professional club meets WP:GNG. All articles should be merged/prodded. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 17:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree with the merge idea - there's not enough verifiable information to justify a series of seperate articles. OR, you could create new articles at History of X F.C.... GiantSnowman 18:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Strangely enough, there's already a History of Marsaxlokk F.C., one of very few of the type that already exist (History of Valletta F.C. was the only other one I could find). Trouble is, it isn't much good either, with just one reference, and that for a relatively minor point. Given how little history the team's pages have, perhaps adding stuff there would be better as a first step. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, Senglea Athletic F.C. season 2009-10 is PRODded, so we'll see how that goes. Having seen how poor the Malta national football team article is, I think I'll be focussing on that before doing anything else about the domestic game. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

AFC Rushden & Diamonds & AFC Rushden & Diamonds U18's

Are these notable or not. I thought the first may pass GNG just but surely there is no need for two articles. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't pass GNG in my eyes, the sources are about the old club's administration problems. I'd say merge into Rushden & Diamonds F.C. until the new club becomes notable. GiantSnowman 21:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Even if the article on the "main" club is kept, a separate article for the under-18 team definitely isn't justified, in fact I'm off to redirect it right now. Oh, and can I just say how bored I now am with "phoenix" clubs choosing the desperately unimaginative AFC + old team name approach.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
In the unlikely event it becomes necessary, I'd hope my lot would return to Small Heath Alliance... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The club probably scrapes by GNG, but the youth team certainly doesn't. Agree with Chris. Argyle Football Club wannabes. ;) Argyle 4 Lifetalk 04:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Chairmen

When do they warrant an article? Mike Lloyd just became chairman of Port Vale, replacing Bill Bratt. He used to be chairman of Walsall, but I don't know much else about him. Former chairman Bill Bell definitely warrants an article because he was there for a long time and was very controversial, (even now getting in mischief) but I haven't really found any great sources for him.--EchetusXe 12:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the primary concern for football board memebrs should be the WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 13:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Other than the GNG, its difficult to develop a rule of thumb. Some will be notable as businesspeople outside football, some won't. Even at the top level, there's a big difference between the profile of publicity-seeking types like Doug Ellis, and quiet behind the scenes figures like Peter Hill-Wood. As an aside, I've just noticed that there's no article for the notorious Burnley chairman Bob Lord (Bob Lord is about a music executive). Oldelpaso (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed before that there was no article about Bob Lord, but have never got round to writing one. I really should do, it would certainly be interesting. BigDom 18:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Right, I'll create a Bill Bell article some day but wait on the Mike Lloyd article until when and if something of note comes up.--EchetusXe 16:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Do referees follow GNG too?  Omg †  osh  17:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
See WP:NFOOTY for referee notability. In other words, if the guys/gals have worked a UEFA/CONCACAF/CONMEBOL/etc. or FIFA match once in their careers, they are notable. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 17:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Roberto Junior Fernández

I know we have this policy that says do not add player's national team into his infobox if he has not received a cap. But I found the article of the player mentioned above which presents a weird situation. He was a member of the Paraguay squad who were the runner-up in the Copa America that just finished, so he has the navigational template for the Paraguay squad. But, he was an un-used substitute who has yet to receive a cap for the team. Which means, by our policy, "Paraguay" has not been added to his infobox. It seems a bit off. I know he is young and he very well will get capped in the future. Can anyone give me a good reason why I should not add Paraguay to his infobox, even though he doesn't have a cap but was part of a squad that finished 2nd in a continental tournament? Digirami (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the policy is reasonable. If we put 2011– Paraguay 0 (0) in the infobox, it will violates WP:CBALL because there is no guarantee that he will make his national team debut in 2011. His notability as an unused substitute already highlighted in the prose and in the navbox below. Those should be enough to make the reader aware about his presence in Paraguay's Copa America runner-up squad. There are several players who have similar situation like this and do not have their national team listed on the infobox. They are usually unused substitute goalkeepers who were never capped, such as Italian goalkeeper Francesco Antonioli who was in the Italy's Euro 2002 runner-up squad. — MT (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
So Fernández has 0 caps for Paraguay? Hey, so do I - can I put that in my infobox? GiantSnowman 22:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC) have not been included in an official squad to represent Paraguay at a major notable international tournament. Basically the same reason nil caps for Paraguay should not be included in Ryan Giggs infobox.--ClubOranjeT 05:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


current template below

proposal to expation table, both sexs, age versions, and football variants, maybe the organtization in the table can change to do it nicer but there is all the imformation you need in a template with the name "Worldfootball"--Feroang (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

FIFA Women's World Cup and FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup and FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup and FIFA U-20 World Cup and FIFA U-17 World Cup and club football (FIFA Club World Cup), and football variants such as futsal (FIFA Futsal World Cup) and beach soccer (FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup) done. --Feroang (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
do you agree on expand the current "micro" template?--Feroang (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The categories on the left-hand side are clumsily named - 'Nations' should become 'International', 'Young' to 'Youth' etc. GiantSnowman 02:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
of course somebody should fix what is unperfect, I am a newbie about write big templates in wikipedia--Feroang (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How about something like this?:

Or similar? GiantSnowman 02:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

that is nicer and complete, OK to do the change, and plaste the template in everyone of that articles--Feroang (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
"International football" sound incomplete, too near of a "european championship" or a friendly match, "World football championships" sound better to me, like in Template:Main world cups and diferent to Template:International football where continental event is.--Feroang (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

and the link to association football --Feroang (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Template finally changed--Feroang (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If the Afro-Asian Club Championship is there, then shouldn't the Copa Interamericana be there too? --MicroX (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruud van Nistelrooy - Player positions overall

After another (imminent or ongoing?) edit war, User:Raulseixas asked me to bring this forth: Can we change the player's position to STRIKER? This guy is a pure striker, one of the best in the last 15 years. I feel we should differentiate between STRIKER (more static player, plays inside the box) and FORWARD (do not score as many goals per season, operate also in the wings, especially in the 4-3-3 system - Pedro Rodríguez Ledesma, Michael Owen, Pedro Munitis come to mind). The article "Forward (association football)" contains some inputs to all three variations (FORWARD, STRIKER and CENTRE FORWARD) doesn't it?

Oh and i think that Dimitar Berbatov should also "be" a striker (the top goalscorer in the Premier League is not a striker?). Your thoughts please, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think, Defense, Midfielder and Forward differentiate enough. Positions are not set in stone anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It's an argumentative change. For instance once you start amending Nistlerooij to "Striker" what do you define those wide forwards as? Some would say "outside forward", others are "wingers" and then those that are "forwards" who just happen to be not "strikers"? How would you define the difference between Wayne Rooney, Alan Shearer, Cristiano Ronaldo, Fernando Morientes and Gianfranco Zola? Is Owen any less a striker for the fact that he has occasionally played wider, and are we not then slicing the fine edge of a wedge?
As it stands the Forward (association football) article is poor anyway and confuses matters all the more by making the terms interchangeable within the first 10 words (then later includes wingers). It also lists Shearer and Torres in the traditional "forward", but then lists strikers as a seperate category (both Torres and Shearer however are described as "Strikers" on their own articles).
I'm all for accuracy. But consistency should be achieved first. Outline the criteria for the positions and it'll be easier for them to be maintained (and protected from edit warring). Koncorde (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought i just did...alright, maybe OWEN is debatable (hence he could fall under "striker"), but PEDRO and MUNITIS are "forwards", period. I guess in some cases either position is fine, but in some it's just poor info, as in van Nistelrooy's case. About the "winger" stuff, how come they appear in "forwards" info? I thought they stemmed from "midfielder"...
Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
You haven't set out any argument for why Munitis and Ledesma are Forwards at all though, seeing as you just admitted wingers should stem from midfield. Both their wikipages also describe them as "wingers", and true "wingers" stem from the concept of an "outside forward" in days of yore. The Forwards in a 4-3-3 meanwhile needn't be "Outside Forwards" (see England, 1966, Wingless Wonders). Effectively the criteria you set out in your first comment can be taken apart at each level and argued over without consensus. Koncorde (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oops, your mixup my kind man! I did not admit wingers should stem from midfield, at all. I said that's where i first saw them mentioned, in the article midfielder. Again i'll admit it's a very difficult issue, and now i also realize the idiocy of my "certainties", as PEDRO and MUNITIS are forwards, for sure, but also wingers (especially as the latter's team, Racing de Santander, plays in a classic 4-4-2). --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
My understanding of the situation is that there are "wide midfielders" and "wide forwards", while "wingers" are a hybrid of the two, playing not so far forward as a wide forward, but in a more attacking role than a wide midfielder. Pedro Rodriguez and Pedro Munitis, for my money, are wide forwards, as are Alexis Sanchez, Ashley Young and Cristiano Ronaldo. Antonio Valencia, however, would be described as a winger, while David Beckham is more of a wide midfielder. – PeeJay 00:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Great input there, on the spot! Beckham should never be labelled a winger just because he plays in one flank, he's indeed a wide midfielder. Ronaldo can also be "called" a striker, hence his box should read "STRIKER / WINGER", or the opposite - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What do the reliable sources say about VNs position. That should be the starting point. Eldumpo (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  • ALL i've browsed refer to him as a STRIKER ("Dutch striker", "30 and so-year old striker", etc). --Vasco Amaral (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Aleksandar Vuković

I've noticed that Aleksandar Vuković was deleted because he "fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL". I was surprised because Vuković is a very experienced player, he has more than 200 appearances in Ekstraklasa – a fully professional league. [11] Could someone restore this article? Thanks in advance, UrsusDriver (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

At the time it was deleted, the article was about a player from the Montenegrin lower divisions. What appears to have happened is the article was originally about the player from the Polish league, but an editor overwrote it with an article about the non-notable Montenegrin player. I've restored the article to how it was before the overwrite. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


Could someone revert the POV entry in the lead of this article. I've done it twice today and warned the user about WP:3RR. Thanks, --Jimbo[online] 15:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

POV removed, but the heart of the edit should remain - the source provided does indeed refer to Maradona as a "playmaker and goalscorer." GiantSnowman 15:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


When using {{footballbox collapsible}} the report parameter ends up with a bare URL which are usually frowned upon because of link rot. How is this normally got round for example is a reference used against the report to give the full details? Keith D (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Simples - you can just pipe it, a la "Report." GiantSnowman 17:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
That is a bare URL... Personally, I format the reference in the report parameter using cite templates the same as any other ref, as at 2011–12 Birmingham City F.C. season#Background and pre-season, but most editors seem to leave them bare and formatted how Giant Snowman did. In fact, a couple of days ago, someone reformatted the refs in that season article to the
report = [url Report] layout, because that's what the template documentation says... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Whichever way it is done then we need to change the documentation to show how it should be done and be consistent across all articles. Keith D (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Majority of all articles follow the example set out by giant snowman and in the template documentation. I don't see any need to change it now. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
If we are to avoid using bare URLs then there should be a change to the usage of this template. The suggestion by Struway2 appears to be a way of avoiding the bare URL. Keith D (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

error on the name of the article

The article Antonio Carlos Viera is about an brasilian football manager, but the exact name is Antonio Carlos Vieira. Can you change the name of article? Because I would create the article in french. And an error on the title is not a good thing to understand. Cordially — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And in the article, you can see an other error. Antonio Carlos Vieira was born in 1958 and on February 7, 1956. For me, a person can't be born on two different years. In french I put the second information. Anyone can correct that? I must thank the user who has renamed the article. Thank you!!Merci!!Cordially! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
You can edit the article yourself, should you want... GiantSnowman 18:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Squad template for season articles

Having recently discovered that The scottish football league does not require squad numbers for players. I was looking to amend season articles to remove the option to show squad number. I have tried and using the template you dont appear to be able to. Does anyone know if you can or of another similar template you could use. The template im using can be seen here 2011–12 Partick Thistle F.C. season think its called the Template:Extended football squad player Warburton1368 (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You could just copy what I've done at Hamilton Academical F.C.#Current squad. GiantSnowman 23:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
We need a template that includes goals & appearances & yet doesn't have a squad number section (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 23:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC))
No need for a template for that information, just use a wikitable. GiantSnowman 23:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Qualification for championships (AFC)

I made the new template Template:Qualification for championships (AFC), base on old Template:Qualification for championships (UEFA), every collaboration is welcome--Feroang (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Football squad template & FIFA eligibility rules

Hi all, I started a page on FIFA eligibility rules (a long-standing requested article), and I wondered if it would be useful for the football squad templates that are used in club/national team/transfer list and similar pages to link to this? Each squad list template, like Template:Football squad start, tends to include the following statement (or a close variation):

Note: Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.

The link currently given is to the general FIFA page, but there isn't much on that page on eligibility rules. I thought it would be more helpful, for interested readers that wish to know more, to link to the new article instead. Do others feel it would be worthwhile to consider this? Deserter1 10:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again. It has been proposed many times that the text in that header is inadequate, if not misleading, but discussion on a replacement has dwindled out on an equal number of occasions without anything being done. Kevin McE (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, I wasn't aware of previous discussions. To clarify, I'm not suggesting any changes to the text, just to the wikilink. Deserter1 10:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
No-brainer for that template. Requested on template talk page (editprotected). Any other templates in particular? --ClubOranjeT 11:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
No criticism intended: sorry if it read as such. But linking to an article, that is indeed more appropriate, that makes it clear that many players have multiple potential FIFA nationalities makes the imprecise nature of the hatnote even more obvious. Kevin McE (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
No worries at all, and I agree the second sentence is far from ideal. Many thanks ClubOranje; I am aware of a couple more relevant squad templates listed in Category:Association football squad templates, though I'm not clear if they are widely used: Template:Football squad mid & Template:Football squad mid2. Deserter1 11:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Those two templates are only for use with the {{Football squad start}} type templates when splitting into two columns. They are never used by themselves. --ClubOranjeT 11:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thumbs up. Excellent work. The written article exactly match the one we requested someone to create, back at the previous discussion in December 2010. IMO we can increase the value of the article even more, by adding a table where we dedicate one row for each FIFA National Team in the world, and let the coloumns show each type of eligibility criteria, and X mark those eligibility criterias currently being used by each FIFA National Team. A short example is, that the Danish Football Association has defined -underneath the overall FIFA eligibility rules- their own more strict eligibility rule: That you can only play for the Denmark national football team if you posses a legal Danish citizenship (which by Danish law only can be applied for by "foreign people", after minimum 7 years of residence in Denmark). AFAIK some National Footbaal Teams opt just to stick with FIFA eligibility rules, but the majority actualy has defined their own more strict eligibility rules -within the overall FIFA eligibility rules. Hence, I would appreciate if some of you also have the time, to create this suggested wikitable in the article. Danish Expert (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful comments, but I'm wondering if this information would be more relevant elsewhere? A record of which national associations adopt their own, more stringent, criteria on international eligibilty might not be considered appropriate under an article specifically on FIFA's rules; perhaps such information should instead come under articles on the football association and/or national team in question? Deserter1 22:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability of USL Premier Development League clubs

In the opening line of the USL Premier Development League article, it states that "the USL Premier Development League (commonly known as the PDL) is the amateur league of the United Soccer Leagues in the United States, Canada, and Bermuda, forming part of the American Soccer Pyramid." With that said, are the clubs playing in it considered notable if its an amateur league? With no relegation/promotion in North American football, its more than likely that most of those clubs have played solely in that league.

Also, if a club is clearly not notable (I'm talking about a University rec league team: NGEF Rock), what's the best approach to deleting it? CSD? PrOD? Thanks.TonyStarks (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The rock article reads like a comedy and has no refs at all. -Koppapa (talk)
Yes, they are all notable. Why are you on some kind of crusade to delete pages for senior amateur teams? You going to start in the Northern Premier League next? JonBroxton (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Port Vale went on a tour of North America this pre-season, playing four PDL teams. As the PDL is the US equivalent of the English fourth tier I would they would prove to be notable clubs.--EchetusXe 13:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Definitely notable - there is NO rule which says "amateur club = non-notable club." GiantSnowman 13:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
@Jon: I knew someone would mention that :D .. it's not a crusade or anything like that. I live in Canada and I know people that play in the PDL, CSL, etc. and I know how amateur the players in the leagues really are (not in terms of ability but in terms of the definition of professionalism). That is why I I've been bringing up the issue on here. What makes them notable? If you notice, in every post of mine, I haven't rule out the possibility of misunderstanding the definition of notability in terms of WP:Footy, so not trying to get rid of pages just for the sake of it. Also, to reply to the last message, just because the English 4th division is professional does not mean that it's the case for 4th divisions elsewhere in the world.TonyStarks (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The players are niot notable of cause. I guess we agree to that. -Koppapa (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes .. sorry, seems like I was applying the player notability guidelines to the clubs. So yes, if I'm not mistaken, players playing in the USL PDL are not notable.TonyStarks (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
They would fail WP:NFOOTBALL but could still pass WP:GNG. Also, don't forget that club and player notability are completely seperate - non-notable players can play for notable clubs, and notable players can play for non-notable clubs. GiantSnowman 14:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)