Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 71

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 65 Archive 69 Archive 70 Archive 71 Archive 72 Archive 73 Archive 75


The English National Football Archive is launching on August 1. Subscription is supposed to be GBP 32 per year, which would be reasonable, except that users are supposed to view no more than 1000 pages (i.e. matches) per month! For comparison that's about two league seasons or about 20 seasons for a single club (including cup games). SO disappointing. (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability for Football Referees

Surprised there is no notability criteria for football referees. I am currently trying to rewrite the I-League page and I am using A-League as one of my models and I noticed that they had a referees section here and I saw how many of them were notable. Than I went to the Premier League and saw how almost every referee was notable. Even Football League refs are notable. Even MLS refs. So that got me thinking and it gave me a craving that the I-League should have at least ONE I-League referee on wikipedia. Just one referee from India. So I thought, who else than the referee who was just named best referee of 2011-12 by the All India Football Federation. So I started making the page and was about to hit save than I realized that I should probably check if this is okay with you guys. All I need is to create the article and than I wake up with a message saying the page will be deleted. Here is the page now on my user space... User:Arsenalkid700/C.R. Srikrishna. Also would you guys count a referee who has refereed in the AFC Challenge Cup as notable? Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the first part of WP:NFOOTBALL mentions players, managers and referees, but the second part only refers to players and managers. I'm wondering if there's scope to change this. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 14:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
You should be on pretty solid ground starting with the Indian FIFA refs. Hack (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
So basically if the referee is listed on then I should be able to make there page because again, for example A-League I click on a few referees and most of them have not done an international match at all. All A-League yet at NFOOTY it only states refs for senior internationals. I think the best thing to do would be to add a criteria for refs that if they are listed on as an international ref and the domestic league they referee is fully professional. That way we could make articles on referees and avoid millions of stubs. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
As it stands, the criteria at WP:NSPORTS says that a ref has to have refereed a competitive international match to be presumed to be notable. All other refs have to meet WP:GNG, whether they have officiated in the FA Cup final, the A-League or any other competition. Hack (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
So technically as it stands my guy (guy I mentioned in the first post) is not notable because even though FIFA says he is international I still need a source saying he has refereed or assisted an official FIFA match. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Technically, anyone is notable provided you can show they have received coverage in several sources, and you seem to be off to a decent start with the article above. Just because he doesn't pass some arbitrary guideline (and in fact many people that do pass those guidelines, particularly players for lower-ranked countries would not pass WP:GNG) doesn't mean he can't be notable. BigDom 17:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I cant write a sentence and source for every game he has done and I cant find a source of him being an official for a cup final like the Federation Cup final. I do however know that many, many national sources in India reported about him receiving the Referee of the Year award. So what if I just add more sources all about the same thing. Almost like with Tim Howard where in the sentence where it says he was born in New Brunswick there are 10 sources to prove that one fact. I think that can help as that would mean he had received a lot of coverage nationally across India. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No one wants you to write about every game he has ever refereed, let alone source it. From just a quick Google search I can see references from FIFA, the Times of India, the Deccan Chronicle and others; these are all acceptable sources according to the General notability guidelines (but be careful that there may be a case of WP:ONEEVENT here, if most/all the sources are about the same thing). And you probably have access to newspapers/magazines in India where he has received some sort of coverage. By the way, the amount of referencing for that simple fact on the Tim Howard article is an absolute joke and shouldn't be encouraged. BigDom 16:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay I get it. I think I can do that with the sources like TOI etc and avoid it being about one event (One example being his inclusion as an AFC Panel Referee). Also I thought that about Tim Howard. I shall get to that as well. Cheers and thank you for clearing this for me. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the excessive references on the Tim Howard article - I'm all ready to duck when the flames start flying. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The Tim Howard article needed all those references a while back because one editor was trying to claim that he was born in New Brunswick, New Jersey, when he was actually born in North Brunswick, New Jersey. A simple mistake but one that I couldn't get the other editor to see without ten references. – PeeJay 18:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
On Srikrishna, I find it odd that he is a FIFA ref of several years standing yet there seems to no evidence he has controlled an international fixture. Does he, or has he gone by another name? Hack (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, looks like 2012 is actually his first year on the FIFA list but he was an assistant referee in an international friendly in 2010. Hack (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

On the FIFA website they list his name as "COIMBATORE RAMASWAMY Srikrishna". So posts on him internationally might go by that name. Is there a source for the assistant refereeing and 2012 FIFA-listing. That could actually help a lot. Thank you. Meanwhile I already found an Indian referee who passes the criteria in Pratap Singh who refereed in the AFC Challenge Cup. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely reliable sources but show him as one of the assistant referees in the India vs Yemen friendly in October 2010.[1] also mentions that he was first FIFA listed in 2012 (this was changed after I emailed them today).[2]. Hack (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I dont know whether to be surprised that you found the source or the fact that even with all Indian referees India still loses 6–3!!! Seriously though I will look for a matchreport from the Yemen match. There is probably one for Times of India etc which mention him. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Found it. Got the match report from the All India Football Federation website [3]. I will add that and see if there is anything else. Also I will look at info about Pratap Singh. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Football badge accidentally deleted

Some bozo made an edit that caused the article's original badge to get orphaned and deleted. User:Alx 91 was nice enough to get a replacement up but it is a poor jpg file. Can a mod get the original file undeleted please? --MicroX (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Voila. GiantSnowman 08:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Something similar happened back in 2007. This file was deleted because it was missing a fair use rationale. A new file was uploaded by I think I recall the deleted file being a more accurate depiction of the club's badge. Thanks again for the help. --MicroX (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Lists of football clubs in X

I think we should try and get some kind of consistency in these List of football clubs in X articles. They are important lists so we should make an effort to keep them up-to-date and accurate but I don't know what the best way is. Every country or region seems to have its own style:

Obviously this is just a small selection, but it shows the lack of consistency that exists. Also, about 90% of the lists in that category are completely unsourced and unverifiable which is a big problem. Anyone have any ideas or preferences or opinions on what to do? Cheers, BigDom 13:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't particulary like these lists. They are much work to upgrade and when only bulletpointed, they don't contain anymore info then the pure category of clubs. -Koppapa (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Koppapa; perhaps we could redirect them to the relevant categories, so only notable clubs are covered. That's what was done with player articles, if I recall correctly. GiantSnowman 15:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Page protection taskforce

Have in the last hour reverted about 5–6 player articel and atleast 2 squads back to the original following IP number vandalism based mainly on simply roumers of transfers or the cheer wish of having the player in the club, see Robert Lewandowski, Luka Modrić and Galatasaray S.K.. Would like to suggest a taskforce consisting of editors with the ability to add protection to articles, to be created and active during the upcoming transfer window, which looks out for such vandalism and quickly stops it (protecting the article until transfer confirmed or window closes). --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 16:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this just WP:RFPP? GiantSnowman 17:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion on I-League article

I was recently blocked from wikipedia and while I was blocked I decided to rewrite the I-League page. I just finished now, User:Arsenalkid700/I-League Revamp and I would just like some opinions on it before I do a copy and paste onto the real article. Just say if it is good or not or if I should reference here etc. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Whilst it is generally a well-sourced article the following sections/sub-sections are uncited and thus ought to have cites added: Competition format, Sponsorship, Criticisms#Institutional football, Managers. In addition some sections have no cites but do have a link to a main article, so they are in a better position than the above, but would still benefit from direct citations. Eldumpo (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Had a quick look, first thing I see os formatting - there shouldn't be spaces inbetween fullstops and references. GiantSnowman 08:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 Done with the OS formatting and now I am doing the references in specific sections. Cheers and thank you. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Let us know when you've done your 2nd draft, we'll take another look. GiantSnowman 09:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Will do. Also giving you guys an early warning that I will be asking for another opinion on my revamp of East Bengal. As you can see from the actual article, it is in a huge, huge, huge mess. So I decided to rewrite the whole article from scratch. Probably wont be ready for opinions or corrections till the weekend. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay I am officially done with the revisions you guys said. So would you guys say it is ready for the main page. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay then I will apply it to the I-League then. If anyone has any changes dont be afraid to edit the article. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Mauro Quiroga

I have not touched it because i am not sure and don't want to unduly damage the article. However, it seems that per he played for Club de Gimnasia y Esgrima La Plata and not the one in his box (in turn confirmed by this other link ES.WIKI says it's the latter not the former as well, so we're 3 to 1 but still...

Inputs please - --AL (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

UD Las Palmas seem to think he belonged to Gimnasia y Esgrima de Concepción del Uruguay. I'd guess they'd know better than either of the unreliable sources you mention... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep, as I've stated before - we should NOT be using Transfermarkt for ANYTHING. GiantSnowman 14:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The typically-reliable BDFA website reports that Quiroga played for Gimnasia y Esgrima de Concepción del Uruguay. It's a far-better source for Argentine football than transfermarkt or footballzz. Jogurney (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

National Team Caps for editing football players

Copied from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#National Team Caps for editing football players:
I know they have to play for the national team for their national team to be updated, however does it have to be an official match or can it be a friendly?
Sebi608 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone help out? Thanks! benzband (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A friendly is an official match and would be included, as long as it is between two official senior national sides and is supported by reliable sources - but we don't include training/exhibition matchs and the like. GiantSnowman 19:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Cheers SFriendly.svg benzband (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
If you are unsure whether a match is "official", this part of FIFA's website lists all "A" internationals, so any matches that are not listed there are probably not "official". Jogurney (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

1948–49 Isthmian League

For the 1948–49 Isthmian League season, Corinthian-Casuals and Wycombe Wanderers finish equal on points. Wycombe have the superior Goal Average, however Corinthian-Casuals finish tenth, and Wycombe 11th. This is supported by both RSSSF and FCHD but I've no idea why the team with inferior goal average finished higher... Any ideas? Did they round to the nearest 1 decimal place and then separate them based on Goals Conceded? That way both would have finished on 8.0 but CC conceded fewer goals. Delsion23 (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably done on results between the two? GiantSnowman 13:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I've got the Isthmian League centenary book, I'll see if there's anything relevant in there. As an aside, is there any way to hide all the crap at the bottom like "(TQ) = Qualified to tournament, but not yet to the particular phase indicated", which is in no way relevant to that particular table.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. -Koppapa (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The Isthmian League centenary book lists the same table as on the WP article, but doesn't indicate why Corinthian-Casuals were placed higher. It does note that goal average determined the champions, so clearly GA was the main tie-breaker used when teams finished level on points. Sorry I can't shed any more light........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
GS's suggestion seems the most likely explanation. It could have been that Dulwich Hamlet and Walthamstow Avenue had the same head-to-head record, and as a result goal average was used to decide the title. —WFC— 20:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
First there are three teams joint with 24 points. Second, under the table it reads goal average is used between two teams tied on points. Don't know if that's true, but if, another tie-breaker might have kicked in. Most likely direct matches. -Koppapa (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe goals conceded was what they used, I know it sounds ridiculous but they also may have used corners. Adam4267 (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for the ideas. There's an even stranger one in 1964–65 Isthmian League. Hendon won the league despite a far inferior GAv. Yet St Albans are above Sutton (7–8th) and Hitchin are above Walthamstow (11–12th) and Wycombe are above Corinthian (13–14th) all on GAv. In fact, the championship situation makes more sense if the tie breaking criteria was actually GD. Hendon would be on +74 and Enfield would be on +63, thus Hendon would win. In GAv, Hendon are on 2.51 and Enfield are on 2.8 so surely Enfield should have won? Who's going to be the first to call Enfield 1893 F.C. and tell them they can add a new honour to their trophy cabinet? :P Delsion23 (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As FCHD says, Hendon became "Isthmian League Champions after beating Enfield in Championship play-off". The Times, "Play-off for Hendon and Enfield", 17 April 1965, p.3" says (my highlighting): "Hendon and Enfield must play off for the Isthmian League championship. ... Goal average does not count in the Isthmian League unless there is insufficient time for a play-off, and the teams are expected to meet in the deciding match during F.A. Cup final week."
As to the earlier question about separating teams lower down in the table, I'd guess they wouldn't have felt the need to do so, and that it's only in recent years that sources have felt compelled to add rank numbers before each team in the table. The Isthmian League used to be fairly determinedly amateur both in financial matters and in "spirit". hope this helps, Struway2 (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Well spotted Struway, thanks for working that one out! Delsion23 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Squad redundancy on Newcastle United F.C. article

On the Newcastle United F.C. article, the "current" squad is listed twice, once using the usual "Current squad" format and then a second time in a table under the title "First team squad". Any reason for having it twice? Which one should be removed? TonyStarks (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The squad should be listed using the {{fs start}} et al. templates and in a section called "First-team squad". The word "current" causes all sorts of issues in the event that the article falls into disrepair. – PeeJay 20:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This should be deleted on sight. A copy from the 2012-13 season article. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm asking myself whether I want to open this can of worms again... Agree with everyone above that there definitely shouldn't be two tables in the article. But my taste in flags aside, the basic structure of the offending table is informative, keeps whitespace to a minimum etc. —WFC— 21:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
What relevance do the players' birth dates and former clubs have to the club article? None, that's what. – PeeJay 21:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Personally I disagree. It would be inappropriate to talk about the current team having a great youth record or an ageing squad in prose: prose should be things that are likely to remain encyclopaedically worthwhile. But if these transitory details are provided in statistical form, it can be left to the reader to decide for themselves whether Newcastle have an ageing squad, a good record of bringing through youngsters, etc. Although a better solution might be to do what I do at Watford: have one of the basic squad templates, but also the sentence:

For more information on the squad, see 2011–12 Watford F.C. squad. The redirect has worked wonders in getting unregistered and new users to help with updating season articles, and the fact that people click on the redirect (in modest quantities, I accept), suggests that they find it useful. —WFC— 21:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Do think it has no use in the main club article. I've noticed many season articles using the 'Squad information' tables in addition to the per usual 'Squad stats'. Table overload. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree – in any article we should not have multiple tables which significantly overlap. —WFC— 22:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing Info boxes

Hello, I'm trying to edit a wikipedia page about Great Britain Olympic football team, and in the information box I type | Manager: Stuart Pearce | and yet when I save my changes it doesn't appear on the Great Britain Olympic football team page, I was wondering if you may have some suggestions as to why this may be. Thank You

Sebi608 (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Written for Americans??? Try Coach and not Manager.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
As Egghead says, the Template:Infobox national football team only uses Coach in its parameters. Delsion23 (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to accomodate both? I guess it's not a big deal, but British users would almost universally use "manager" unless they knew better. —WFC— 20:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I just looked at Pearce's page there and it says Current club - Great Britain Olympic & England U21. Adam4267 (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Roy Hodgson's article is similar - his "current club" is England. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
For managers, maybe a parameter called something like coachtitle= could be used so that the precise job title of the manager/coach can be manually entered. Hack (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Darragh MacAnthony

This article is subject to a slow burning edit war, with SPAs appearing every six months or so. As I'm seemingly the only regular editor with it watchlisted (and I'm not so active these days) it could really do with more people adding it to their watchlists. The dispute isn't football related, but MacAnthony's chairmanship of Peterborough United is his biggest source of notability. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Starting XIs in club season articles

In a discussion here, User:Kingjeff has suggested that, as a way of improving 2011–12 Manchester United F.C. season to GA or FA standard, the article should include a "Starting XI" section, which shows which players have made the most appearances in each position throughout the season. I have noticed that this is a common section in many other club season articles, but I resist its addition to the Man Utd season articles due to the fact that they are a violation of WP:OR. Policy says that we should not analyse material published in reliable, third-party sources in an attempt to advance a position not advanced by those sources; since there are no sources that analyse squad appearance data in this way, I wholeheartedly oppose the addition of starting XI sections to any club season article, not just the Man Utd ones. Can anyone offer a reasonable argument as to why they should be included? – PeeJay 17:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, but I can offer plenty as to why they should not be included... GiantSnowman 17:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It is unnecessary, a squad statistics table should cover the scope. I'm currently having a go cleaning up the Arsenal season articles to make it more prose friendly, which have become an orgy of table stats. Disciplinary record and top goalscorer tables but nothing about the matches. If I wanted that, I would have visited Statto. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, never been fan of starting XI as it is as PeeJay states OR. They should be removed from all the season articles as far as I'm concerned, it can't be referenced so shouldn't be included. NapHit (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with everyone here. Also I noticed that some users add a starting XI to the club article itself. Usually next to the squads. I noticed it in Air India FC once and long got rid of it but I do notice it again once in a while on other pages but am to lazy to remove. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll pile on with everyone else, we shouldn't extrapolate statistics to compile a starting XI. But there are reasonable arguments for adding well-placed lineups from specific games. For instance, the ones at 2009–10 Watford F.C. season are objectively chosen – first and last games of the season – and demonstrate how the team changed over the season (the notable absence of Tom Cleverley aside). —WFC— 19:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree as well. I think those match squads in the Watford article are ok but IMO it would better if they were closer so you could actually compare them. Overall I think that's a really good article though, I especially like the supporters and finance sections. Adam4267 (talk)
Thanks (I agree with your edit btw). If I could only bring myself to write a bit more about the misery of early 2010, it would be pretty close to GA-standard. Then again I said that two and half years ago. —WFC— 20:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I know the feeling. I'm sure you'll get there eventually. It is a very good article IMO. I'm sure if you polished it enough you could get it to FA. Adam4267 (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the "starting XI" is nonsense and should be removed absolutely. We have injuries, we have rotation systems, we have competitions that remove players from league play for a month, the concept of an "average starting XI" is pure original research and should be excised on sight. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I think it's agreed we shouldn't have Starting XIs but would some sort of section which effectively listing the first-choice players and formation and how they changed throughout the season. I can't think of what you'd call that section but to give an example for Celtic this season it'd be something along the lines of.

Celtic's most common formation throughout the season was a 4-4-2. Often one winger was played rather than the traditional two and an extra central midfielder was used as a more defensive minded wide-player. This also meant that this formation could be easily changed to a 4-3-1-2 with the winger becoming an attacking midfielder behind the two strikers and the two full-backs getting forward more often. The 4-3-1-2 formation was most commonly used in Europe. Towards the end of the season, after the title had been secured, a 3-5-2 formation was often used by the manager as an experiment.

Lukasz Zaluska was the first-choice goalkeeper at the start of the season. After Fraser Forster was re-signed on loan from Newcastle he became the number one again and Zaluska was limited to few appearances.
And so-on for the rest of the team, obviously the outfield positions would have more to talk about. And you could add more analysis of the formations.
Effectively its a style of play section for season articles, maybe that would be a better alternative to the starting XIs and also provide some new information. Adam4267 (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Your summary, while interesting, is pure OR. Maybe it's a British thing, but we simply don't have a "starting XI" concept. Sure, we'd be surprised if Wayne Rooney wasn't starting up front but then that's rotation for you, sure I'd be surprised if Jimmy Bullard wasn't starting but that's injury, rotation and tactics. There's no need at all for this in any form; no concept of starting formation is required in season article unless it's really unusual, and even then, only if it's notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Obviously it'd be referenced. However, with respect, I'm not going out to find references for an idea on a talk page. I don't know about your team or other teams but I can assure you for the teams I follow this would be notable. Effectively this is summarising how the team played throughout the season. In my opinion its a worthy addition and i think it would be notable for many teams. Adam4267 (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure, it would be interesting to see if you could actually find an example of a source that would back up any of your example, so we could follow it, should this approach be adopted. I can't believe such a thing exists. I see the odd "X FC played 5-4-1, which is unusual compared to their normal 4-4-2" in the odd match report but I can't believe you could actually make this swing across a whole 60-game season. Happy to be proved wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I had a quick look there and I definitely think that it'd be feasible - for Celtic anyway. There wasn't the volume of in-depth RSs that I was expecting but it could definitely be done. It would be much easier to do during the season though rather than at the end because it's harder to remember every injury and formation change and then finding it can be a pain as well. Adam4267 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There is no such concept as a "starting XI". This is enshrined in the sport's rules, which dictate that managers need name their outfield lineup only in the period immediately before kickoff. Let's not entertain any more of this fanzine nonsense. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Back online at this site, apparently. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Saw this earlier, the fact that the logo is the same means it just looks like a mirror site though... BigDom 18:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
A mirror would fix my sourcing problems anyway... When we confirm it, we could make a bot to redirect all adresses to this new one. Is all content included? FkpCascais (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Polarman (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Hey Mattythewhite. Could you please help me delete all links on wikipedia? The soccerdatabase site is an illegal copy of playerhistory, and legal actions have been taken against them. The new Playerhistory will be online within the next few months, and i will let you know asap we are online Regards Polarman

Tim Cahill

Can someone please protect this page as he has not officially signed for the New York Red Bulls yet. Thank you. I rather not get blocked again for 3RR. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm helping. It doesn't need to be protected as I commented on the poster's page. To be clear, Cahil is coming to New York for a physical. If he passes it, and there's little doubt that he won't, he will be a member of the MLS side. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
That is basically it. I probably would be okay with adding it early but after Red Bulls came out with this statement I thought it would be best to say he was at Everton still for the time being. Thanks for your help. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Santi Cazorla

Another one. Please help. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Got it. GiantSnowman 16:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Odd edits

This user's contribs are odd ([4]) but I don't think he's vandalising. Does anyone speak Turkish? He's active on tr: as well as here. --Dweller (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Whitecaps FC squad template

OK, we got a minor issue that needs to be discussed on Template talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC squad. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe all squad templates are always primary home kit colors, across the board. Although I understand what this person is saying regarding the template and going with the current and historical team colours, I don't quite agree with it. – Michael (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

AFC Wimbledon seasons

User:Infobesity has created season articles for AFC Wimbledon all the way back to 2002–03 when they played in the Combined Counties League. I think I'm right in saying that articles for that level are generally not notable, so should I just stick them all in one joint AfD? Cheers, BigDom 18:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the AFC Wimbledon story is exceptional, both because of its rise from that level to the Football League, and also because it included the English record undefeated streak in those years Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
BigDom - you're correct, articles at that level are not generally considered notable, but as Fishiehelper2 suggests, they might have gathered enough coverage to meet GNG. But without any evidence, they should go. GiantSnowman 18:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Club season articles at that level are generally not notable. In their current form they are just unreferenced stubs and should be put up for AfD, unless they can be shown to be notable. One of the articles is just "During the 2007-08 English football season, AFC Wimbledon competed in the Isthmian League Premier Division." Delsion23 (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
GS: yeah, that's what I thought. But I also considered what Fishiehelper2 said because obviously the AFC Wimbledon history is a bit different to usual. I'll give it a little time to see if anyone brings any evidence forward before heading to deletion then. BigDom 19:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Wimbledon in their current form have been around for ten years. I'd venture that creating a single History of AFC Wimbledon would be far preferable to several stubby articles covering the same period, irrespective of what level football the season articles cover. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

On a arelated note, is the name Phoenix club (association football) actually used anywhere? The references don't mention it. -Koppapa (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What Oldelpaso said. —WFC— 00:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Oldelpaso - great suggestion. Koppapa - yes, 'phoenix club' is a much-used term. GiantSnowman 08:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Phoenix club is an often-used term, but in what way are AFC Wimbledon one? They existed alongside Wimbledon F.C. so surely by definition they are not a phoenix club? BigDom 11:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
There's no strict definition of "phoenix club", and AFCW are frequently described as one in reliable sources. If one wanted to make an argument for why they're a phoenix club, it's that they were considered "dead" once they moved to Milton Keynes, even if the issue of renaming them hadn't yet been forced. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG in friendlies again

This has gone well beyond the point where anything useful will come out of it. Given the way it has continued when more than one admin has commented on the incivility of it, its time this discussion was closed. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:MOSFLAG clearly states: "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams." Since when does a friendly match with an MLS club by a Spanish club count toward using a flag? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

MOSFLAG does not imply or explicitly state that if the subject does not represent the country, flag use is inappropriate. The spirit of MOSFLAG is to prevent undue weight regarding nationality away from the subject from using flags, which often leads to non-NPOV. Usage of flags here certainly doesn't violate NPOV. Bobby (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:MOSFLAG certainly does apply based on the wording of the guideline. It's there to keep flags out of every article to make it look pretty. Friendly matches do not have presentation from the teams at a national level. And WP:NPOV is irrelevant. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It implies precisely that. —WFC— 06:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Denying the antecedent. Although often true, not necessarily always true. Further, flags adds to the readability (identification of foreign opponents) and serves as a disambiguation for teams with identical names from separate countries. Bobby (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry. That just not the case here. They don't add readability. They just add colour and they clearly violate WP:MOSFLAG when the teams do not officially represent their nations, as is the case in pre-season friendlies. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't be sorry. The flags specifically identify foreign teams and concisely disambiguate identically-named teams. Unlike flags in front of people, the colors here aren't distracting or place an undue emphasis on nationality. Your deduction of a MOSFLAG violation is stemmed from your logically incorrect interpretation of MOSFLAG to this case. Bobby (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is probably a lost cause; many club season articles use flags to indicate that an opponent in a pre-season friendly is from another country. See, for example Arsenal's current season. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, they shouldn't. MOSFLAG applies, and we should not use flags in cases like this. --John (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. There are no lost causes. I would be glad to deal with every case brought to my attention. We simply state that only national teams, champions league matches and other official (read FIFA-sanctioned) international tournaments should use flags (or something to that effect) and when anyone such as Xboxandhalo2 complain, we point them to the statement and have them self-revert to avoid edit wars. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that Champions League teams "represent" their domestic league at best and each domestic league is independent of its resident country. The connection between a domestic league to its resident country is just as arbitrary as a club to its resident country. Bobby (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
You mentioned "identification of foreign opponents". Seen as the article is about a Spanish club, Real Madrid, then any non-Spanish clubs would be foreign. By your own logic there is no need to put flags by Real Oviedo or Real Madrid themselves. Other than that this is another case of the pro-flag and anti-flag factions battling for every inch in the oh-so-important WP:MOSFLAG war.--EchetusXe 08:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Once upon a time we blocked trolls. —WFC— 10:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The OP omits the sentence following the one he quoted: "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." The nationality of clubs is pertinent to the purpose of a list of international friendlies. Kevin McE (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Why is the nationality of a club so especially pertinent in a list that it needs a flag to emphasise it? --John (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
That is a rather leading question. It illustrates a fact, and it is a matter of perception as to whether it emphasises it. There is nothing in the relevant policy to say that it must be especially pertinent, merely pertinent. Most matches that most clubs play are domestic: it is worth drawing attention to the exceptions to that. Kevin McE (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The main thrust of MOSFLAG is that using flags emphasises nationality. If it did not, why would anyone use them? Your statement contains an internal contradiction, and it might be worth thinking some more about this matter before posting again. --John (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
This little thread is getting increasingly uncivil - calm it down please. GiantSnowman 11:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"If it (sic) did not, why would anyone use them?" Because they illustrate nationality. You seem to be trying to use MOSFLAG in argument against something that MOSFLAG clearly permits. Kevin McE (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
You seem deeply confused, and I note your uncivil use of "sic" there, so I will take GiantSnowman's advice and leave you to your misunderstandings. Suffice it to say that I disagree with you still. --John (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Disagree by all means, but please don't construe difference from your interpretation as my misunderstanding. Kevin McE (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
In the champions league, the teams have earned the right to represent their nations by fielding the best team the previous season. In an international friendly, the team is simply selected. They have not won anything other than a phone call or email from the inviting team. They do not represent the country, they are simply based there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
A team is always representing its national association, not always as an entrant in a competition, but as members of their national association, they are always expected to perform respectably. I remember Wayne Rooney was suspended by The FA for a couple of games at the start of 2006–07 for getting a red card against Porto in the Amsterdam Tournament. – PeeJay 14:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
They do what? They have not earned the right to represent their nation by appearing in a friendly.
I know of at least three teams, Montreal Impact, Toronto FC, and Vancouver Whitecaps FC that don't represent their national associations since they don't play in a league sanctioned by the Canadian Soccer Association. When when they appear in the World Football Challenge, they do so as clubs located in Canada playing in a league sanctioned by USSF. So your "always" is incorrect at this level, and I'm sure other exceptions can be discovered.
When a team earns the right to represent their nation, then the flag should be used. When they simply appear because the local promoter wants to make money, the flag should not be used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Those Canadian clubs are exceptions. Like all of the US sports leagues, the MLS operates a franchise system that can locate its teams wherever it wants. Furthermore, those clubs are clearly still affiliated to the Canadian Soccer Association, as shown by their participation in the Canadian Championship. Likewise, FC Vaduz is a Liechtensteiner club (affiliated to the Liechtenstein Football Association) that plays in the Swiss league but also takes part in the Liechtenstein Football Cup. When it has a flag, FC Vaduz always has a Liechtensteiner flag because it is affiliated to the Liechtenstein Football Association and cannot compete in European football via Swiss competitions. – PeeJay 14:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
And I've just found out that Canadian teams can only qualify for the CONCACAF Champions League via the Canadian Championship, not via MLS, which kinda supports my theory. – PeeJay 14:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Whether they are representing their nation/national association or not is only relevant if you only read one sentence of MOSFLAG. Read the sentence that follows the one that you selected (I've quoted it above), and the irrelevance of the last four posts is evident. The issue is whether the nationality of the clubs is pertinent. Nobody has argued that it is not. Kevin McE (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Another case of The Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.". This is the only sentence of importance: "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams". A team does not actually represent the country, or the country's association in football terms, in a friendly. They make their own arrangements, the association does not. Your attempt at misdirection is appreciated as I needed a good laugh this morning. -- Walter Görlitz 15:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't be a dick. What tickles your funny bone is even more irrelevant than anything in this discussion. And as I said, a team is always representing their nation, if only morally rather than by merit. – PeeJay 15:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
What bit of 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 do you not understand? Or is it simply that you decide to stop reading MOSFLAG after you think it has served your purpose.("You" referring to Walter, posting anonymously 15 minutes before the datestamp on this message) This is a list of fixtures, nationality is pertinent when playing matches against teams from other countries, as this is not typical of their fixtures. So much selective reading... Kevin McE (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
What bit of of "actually represents that country" do you not understand? Or is it simply that you decide to continue reading MOSFLAG until you can find loophole that serves your purpose? They do not represent their countries even if their countries have to sanction them for being inappropriate when they play. You seem to be confusing representation and discipline. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
And besides, how is their appearance in a friendly actually "relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent"? You've got players of all nationalities playing for RM, not to mention the Catalonian issue. The club itself isn't representing the nation when it appears in the friendly despite what PeeJay2K3 has claimed. The club, and not the national association, pays for the trip and takes home any revenue from the friendly. The association doesn't. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself": the nationality of a club is pertinent to the purpose of a list of fixtures between clubs. The nationality of players who might be employed by the club, and sub-sovereign nationality, are both thoroughly irrelevant and you know it, so you do yourself no favour by introducing such blatant red herrings (although sub-sovereign nationality would, for historical reasons, be relevant if the clubs were from the UK or the Kingdom of Denmark, thankfully we can ignore that). Actually represents the nation is one grounds for permitting a flag, pertinent to the purpose of the list is another. Although some people have tried to do so, I have made no effort to justify the flags on the basis of the former; you have provided no cogent reason against including them on the basis of the latter. I think your comment about confusing representation and discipline is misplaced in a reply to my comment. Kevin McE (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So you're saying that if Madrid plays Barca in a pre-season friendly we should include the Spanish flags for each side. And that if Hertha Berlin plays Dortmund in a pre-season friendly we should include the German flags. Similarly if Ajax plays PSV Eindhoven, we expect to see the Dutch flag. When Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City, and Man U decide to have a mini-tournament each result should be emblazoned with the Union Jack (or would that be the flag of England?). There is nothing different between clubs playing friendlies within their own league or nation and those clubs playing against teams outside of their league or nation. The purpose for the pre-season matches is the same: to trial new players in game situations. It's not to represent their nations. So there is no pertinence to the flags in either situation, and I do see impertinence from some respected editors. In the case of the World Challenge, the purpose is to fill the North American stands with fans and to try to win converts to the MLS. Flags here are a misguided form of nationalism where the teams are simply waving those flags and not representing them having won nothing but an invitation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I know you to be an intelligent guy, so your argument frankly looks increasingly the result of desperation rather than logic, or even attention to the discussion thus far. It has already been said, more than once, that nationality of the clubs is pertinent precisely because most club matches are domestic games, so your asking whether I am saying that flags should be shown for those hypothetical situations is at best distraction from the matter at hand. While I would share your cynicism about the ulterior motive of the World Challenge (surely no-one believes it to be a valuable season goal of itself), it is essential to the nature of the event that it is a multi-national event, and so the multiple nationalities (of clubs, nationalities of players are irrelevant) are pertinent. Equally, the Eusebio and Bernabeu cups, despite being as meaningless as any pre-season friendly, are always bi-national events in terms of the clubs involved.
You have no grounds for attributing motivation to those posting flags, and again resort to undermining an argument I am not presenting by your final comment about representation.
As regards impertinence on the part of editors, I think you clearly cast the first stone in that regard in your post about the Wizard of Oz, so I would be careful about assuming a superior tone there. Kevin McE (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
You stated the national flags of the clubs are "pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself" and so their nation should at all times be presented in pre-season friendlies. It's a simply reductio ad absurdum, one that you don't like because it shows that your position is absurd. The fact that they are playing a club from a different nation is not at all "pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself". I, and others more intelligent than me, have stated that they are not representing that country, but you have chosen to ignore that fact and so I say you're the ignorant one for ignoring the facts. The fact that the "friendly tournaments" involve clubs from other countries is simply a marketing ploy. The fans get to see the teams from their own league at least one a year, but they rarely get to see foreign teams play. They are, in effect, football zoo. A chance to see that which you don't normally see. If the DFB gets money for the appearance of German clubs at these tournament you would have a valid point. Since they it is obvious that your argument is the result of desperation rather than logic or facts.
And the Wizard of Oz reference is accurate as the intention of the comment I was responding to was misdirection and I won't fall for that or any other kind of lie. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If you consider quotations from the MOS to be misdirection, and ceased any pretence of civility, there is no point in trying to discuss this further. You have reached the stage where determination not to admit defeat has dulled you to logic. You have neither consensus nor justification in MOSFLAG for removing the flags. Bye. Kevin McE (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
How uncivil. I am reading the whole of the guideline and understand that the teams do not represent the nations at these tournaments. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
And this edit is a blatant lie at best. The Canadian Soccer Association did not sanction Toronto FC to play in the tournament. So TFC is representing the United States at best, but in reality, they are representing their own financial interests. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Right... Club teams in international tournaments represent their own interests. Based on that logic flags should be removed from all Champions League articles, but they obviously enhance readability. This entire debate is over such a minor detail that may or may not violate MOS but blown wildly out of control through textbook bureaucratic process. The simple solution is to just use common sense and acknowledge the benefits of keeping flags. What exactly is the harm? Bobby (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Well said! What exactly is the harm in keeping them? It hardly ruins the encyclopaedia! – PeeJay 22:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If it were well said he wouldn't have been wrong that Champions League selections are made on the interest of the teams. They are made by winning the national leagues. While entry into the pre-season matches we're talking about are not determined that way at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Calling someone uncivil and then accusing them of "blatant lying"? Pot / kettle etc. The guideline looks so wobbly that there's no chance of getting a consensus to remove these flags. Guidelines are here to guide, not enforce, per WP:BURO. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Having taken it upon himself to call me a liar, and having deleted the invitation to explain himself on his talk page, perhaps Walter would care to defend the accusation here. Kevin McE (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Listen Kevein, your offer was disingenuous at best so I'm sorry if you feel offended but your terms are unacceptable. And restoring that TFC was involved in the World Challenge as a Canadian team is the lie. Plain and simple. The CSA does not officially sanction the match. They are there of their own doing. The CSA may in fact appreciate the club's participation in the tournament, but they do not sanction it. If so, it would be listed at their website. It's not. It's an MLS thing: but as you can see from, the four MLS sides involved play once, Celtic, Liverpool FC, and Santos Laguna all play once, AC Milan and Paris St. Germain each play twice, while Chelsea plays thrice and Real Madrid play four matches. So as you can see, it's about filling seats in stands for the MLS host cities not about a tournament. For the European sides, who are they playing? Do their stars get the same number of minutes on the field as they do in league play or Champions League play? No. They play what they're contractually obligated to play. This isn't an international match. The teams are not representing their nations. There is nothing pertinent about the teams being from said nations, and no one has tried to prove it: they have simply insisted that it is. As I read above: Once upon a time we blocked trolls. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The "terms" that were apparently unacceptable were to ask Walter to explain why he considers that MOSFLAG is best served by ignoring the part of that policy that I have quoted twice already in this discussion, and to offer to overlook his slander of me in return for that. Editors may draw their own conclusions as to whether that is disingenuous.
I believe that you are being too stubborn to listen. This has nothing at all to do with representation, and MOSFLAG does not require it to have anything to do with representation. You fly in the face of logic, law and common perception by stating that Toronto is not a Canadian club (although that has nothing to do with this discussion), and the format of the "tournament" has absolutely no value to discussion of whether the nationality of participating clubs is apposite. And even if your contention had any factual basis, my statement would then be an error, not a lie: if you don't know the difference, don't make the allegation. Kevin McE (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Both of you grow up and stop attacking one another. This is far too trivial an issue for the amount of drama being generated. If people need cooling-off periods I'll be happy to oblige. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Toronto is not a Canadian club. It's a club located in Canada. They play in a league that is sanctioned by USSF. They do play in a separate tournament sanctioned by CSA. There are similar examples of this in the UK: Welsh teams playing in an English league. Doesn't Monaco's team play in the French league? if they play in Champions League matches as the winner of those leagues, are they representing their own country or the country of the league?
As for factual basis for your statements, I have seen none.
Finally, the nation of the country is just decoration related to friendlies. It has nothing to do with representation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
And by Welsh teams, I mean teams located in Wales. Are they supported by the football association located in Wales or are they supported by the one in England? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
As you have already been informed this afternoon, they are affiliated to the FAW. Kevin McE (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FIFA World Rankings

Looking at some football articles using the latest version of Wikipedia:Article Feedback, I noticed that it has been on FIFA World Rankings for several months, and only 25% of the 123 responders found what they were looking for. Its clear from the comments that our readers want the complete list, not just the top 25. For copyright reasons we cannot do this. I was thinking of indicating this in some way, a note under the top 25 saying something like For copyright reasons, Wikipedia cannot show the full ranking list, which is published on the FIFA website. Of course this method would fly in the face of WP:EL and no doubt several areas of the MoS. But if it would benefit our readers, is it not worth invoking WP:IAR? Does anyone have a more graceful suggestion for how to nudge our readers towards the list they seek? Oldelpaso (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm also not too comfortable with the self-reference. How about For copyright reasons, the full ranking list cannot be included here. See the External links section for a link to the complete list.? --Dweller (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I've added it in a row at the bottom, in a way that should hopefully avoid the perception of being self-referential or overly promotional of FIFA. We have clear-cut evidence that readers expect to see the entire list, and are not finding it easily despite the link to a reference after "Top 25 Rankings as of 4 July 2012". Given that copyright policy and law prevents us from providing the full list, I'm very comfortable ignoring the MOS in order to better accomodate our readers. —WFC— 04:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A genuine question, rather than an assertion: can the results of a calculation be copyrighted? The rankings are a statistical report on what has happened. Is this not analogous to the principle under which we can publish lists of results and league tables, but not fixture lists? On the other hand, if the rankings are copright, what legitimises our publishing of the top 25? Until fairly recently, it was only the top 20 that was shown, and we were told that that was for copyright reasons. Kevin McE (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue both "no" in a general sense" and "no" in a Wikipedia-specific sense. We have complete current rankings for literally every other sport. On a practical note, I don't imagine FIFA actually license this information anywhere, and thus the likelihood of us actually getting into trouble is negligible. This would also obviate the need for a disclaimer, which is always a bad idea. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
If the full list were to be added to Wiki it should be on its own page in a list article. The main article could then wikilink to the full list at that page (i.e. List of national football teams by FIFA World Ranking or something like that). Delsion23 (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I think if FIFA has any claim to copyright over the rankings, it's because the formula used to calculate the rankings is proprietary. – PeeJay 12:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Who would want to update that list every month? And where are full lists on any other sports? Tennis World Ranking lists only the top, as does Chess's FIDE ranking, the UEFA Club coefficiens... It's so easy to find really. -Koppapa (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The relevant legal term is sweat of the brow. No doubt intellectual property lawyers could expend a lot of energy arguing whether this does/doesn't apply to the rankings. The US (where the Wikipedia servers are based) does not recognise sweat of the brow as conferring property rights, but most of us edit from the EU, which does. No idea what the situation is in Switzerland, where FIFA is based. While I would personally favour the side of the argument that rejects the notion of copyright applying to the ranking, playing devil's advocate should not be part of our editing. I think erring on the side of caution is the right thing to do.
As for where top 30 comes from, I have no idea. Back when I was at university the plagiarism and copyright guidance was for quotes and excerpts to never to exceed a total of 10% of the source document. For the 209 member FIFA, this would be the top 20. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The European High Court specifically disavowed SotB in the case of fixture lists, which are also compiled by proprietary means. Furthermore, fixture lists are actually currently licensed: there's been no indication that publishing FIFA rankings (in full or in part) has ever been subject to this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
As I'm a layman, not an IP lawyer, I'd be less guarded if I saw that someone else, somewhere, was publishing the whole list, or most of it. Has the full list been published elsewhere? I can't find anyhting from a cursory search, the average news article has the top ten or so plus any specific ones of local interest (I appreciate that this is purely anecdotal from the sample I've done so far). Oldelpaso (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
So there'd be no reason why I couldn't, as someone living outside the EU, post the entire list in the article? Hack (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

International notability question

For the purposes of WP:NSPORTS does the phrase "in any officially sanctioned senior international competition" exclusively refer to competitive matches organised by FIFA? I came across this guy for whom the only claim to meeting WP:NSPORTS seems to be a few appearances for Guernsey official football team. Hack (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Officially" is a notoriously nebulous term, it extends only as far as the authority of the office is recognised. But I believe that in football, senior international competition can be taken to mean FIFA-recognised (not organised) events: I assume the enquirer did not intend to doubt the notability of participation in Copa América/CONCACAF Gold Cup/European Championships/African Nations Cup etc, which are organised by continental confederations, not FIFA.
As to the exclusion of the Guernsey team, and its equivalents: the fuller text at NFOOTY is, "Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria." A player from Guernsey is eligible for England (and possibly, s a non-UK born UK citizen, any of the home nations, but I'm not certain whether that has ever been tested so let's steer clear of that), so the Guernsey side is not the highest level open to him. The notion that the Island Games comes under the compass of "the highest level of football" is laughable.
But this drawing of our attention to the text of NFOOTY opens my eyes, and I suspect those of others, to another issue. Does the phrase "in any officially sanctioned senior international competition" mean that those playing in international friendlies are not assumed to have met the notability threshhold? In major footballing nations, the level of club competition will have assured notability long before appearance internationally in any friendly, but for many countries we could be left with the situation that players with a number of full caps are short of the threshhold. Is this our intention? Have players been AfDed in the past for only having played in friendly matches, even though they have been FIFA A internationals? Kevin McE (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Almost all recent continental championship matches have been full internationals (which require FIFA approval) so there'd be no question over participants being presumed notable under WP:NSPORTS. On the friendly question, I've never seen an article deleted because the subject has only played in friendly internationals. Tangentially related, for the purposes of players' national eligibility, FIFA currently make a distinction between competitive matches and friendlies; players can switch countries despite having played full international friendlies but not competitive internationals. Hack (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but your original post read "organised by FIFA", which I think we all agree is not a requirement. Kevin McE (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, my original question was more about the presumption of notability participating in non-FIFA competitions. I was just riffing on your point about continental competitions. Hack (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I've taken it to mean playing in a match between two 'official' countries, whether that be in a FIFA competition or a standard friendly. GiantSnowman 09:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I am fairly sure we all have. In that case, does NFOOTY need to be changed to read any officially sanctioned senior international competition any FIFA sanctioned senior international match? Kevin McE (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I think "competition" was just a poor choice of word; I don't recall it ever being intended to exclude individual friendlies. Certainly I don't think there's a significant difference notability-wise between playing in X random international friendly and in a tournament like the Kirin Cup which is a "competition" even though it isn't a FIFA-organised event. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I went to to confirm that they actually list Kirin Cup matches as friendlies, which I am confident that I remember was the case in the recent past, only to see that they no longer describe any matches as friendlies, nor do they list them as part of tournaments, on the teams' fixture pages. Kevin McE (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd support a slight change in wording to clarify. GiantSnowman 11:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I've always understood this to mean FIFA "A" internationals (which can be friendlies, but only if FIFA recognizes the match). Jogurney (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it as proposed above: may as well have it say what we all read it to mean. Kevin McE (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Indonesia League

This move now has the article at a really strange title, hasn't it? -Koppapa (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Correctly reverted by PeeJay. GiantSnowman 11:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

club Women football by year?

International women's club football, as 2011–12 UEFA Women's Champions League and others simils are not in articles likes 2011 in association football, 2012 in association football, 2011 association football continental champions, 2012 in sports, also we have a rule of how post it in? is there a article to use as a example--Feroang (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Only continental competitions are the UEFA Women's Champions League and the Copa Libertadores Femenina. Just add those winner to the aforementioned articles. Doubt a list of all national champions is needed. -Koppapa (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you prefer the history sections in club articles?

Right now I am revamping the East Bengal F.C. page and am about to start the history section. Now before I begin should I make the history section a small summary of East Bengal's history with a wikilink to another article explaining there history in more detail. This is what they do for Arsenal. OR should the history not have a separate article and the whole detailed history goes on the article, like Fulham. OR should I do a mix of both (which I am guessing is harder) like Manchester United. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Depends how much content you intend to include. If there's so much content that it unbalances the main article, then spin it out to a separate history article. If there isn't, don't. Whichever you do, please don't copy the recentism of the Fulham history, with its endless unsourced hype about the last few seasons. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
If there is enough content, I prefer a summary style in the main article plus a separate history article. The Fulham page needs rewriting so it's not so recentist, and it could probably be condensed, with the finer details spun off into a separate history article. – PeeJay 13:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Fernando Llorente

In Fernando Llorente's infobox, the clubs he played for have descriptions saying they are affiliates of Athletic Bilbao. Is that really necessary? I mean I don't doubt the veracity of the statement but is it really necessary to specify that club X is an affiliate of club Y in the infobox of a player? TonyStarks (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not needed, I've removed. GiantSnowman 09:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
That was fast .. thanks! TonyStarks (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Logos on kits

I have had the unpleasant opportunity to remove kits that bear logos at Arsenal F.C., FC Bayern Munich, FC Barcelona, and Real Madrid C.F.. Could someone post a link to a tutorial (or create one and post a link to it) on the project page? Also, if someone could fix the kits to not display the corporate branding of the kit manufacturer and the club's logo, that would be helpful as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And Borussia Dortmund just now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
If it's a copyvio you should probably request the football kit bodies are speedily deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Delsion23 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that other Wikipedia instances have the same guidelines. They are happily used on the German and Spanish sites but for some reason, they're not permitted here. Might be a difference in copyright law. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It's been an issue for a while, it's a debate I've got involved with a few times trying to find an amicable solution (mostly without success). Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 21:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Apart from the copyright issues (which I'm not sure exist for Nike, Umbro or Adidas - see Threshold of originality), the "logos" are pointless at that resolution - they're just indistinguishable squiggles that serve no purpose other than to make the kit look plain wrong. BigDom 21:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I've experienced similar problems to Malpass93! on commons. Logos on football kits is an endemic problem. Some editors seem determined to make a rubbish facsimile of the latest kit. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. In the French version of Wikipedia, I'm trying to detach kits with logos because they are not allowed on the French version as well. Right now, I'm drawing kits in transparent without logos.--Principal adjoint (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

For people who have no idea what we're on about, have a look at Template:Football kit/pattern list. GiantSnowman 13:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Another problem with listing the new kits (shirts only) is that I don't even know where they live in the commons. This is the state of one before I completely remove them. Nike logo clearly visible on the right shoulder and club crest on the left. Another editor, who knows how to manipulate these, fixed the Bayern Munich kits. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I assume you're flagging any excessively-detailed or logo-splashed images on Commons for deletion? We really should have a proper drive to get this under control once and for all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I have not been because I can't easily find them. Tips on finding them? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You should be on the look-out for a Portuguese editor called User:Bruno-ban. – PeeJay 11:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The Bradford City A.F.C. kits - check history for the home I changed a few days ago - fall into this category. GiantSnowman 11:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

How to find the kit parts on Wikicommons

How does one find the various kit parts on Wikicommons? I see things such as _arsenal1213h, _bayern1112h, and _rmcf1213a. The naming scheme is obvious: underscore, clubNameSeason{hat} where h=home, a=away, and t=third. However where they live in the commons is not clear. Also, how to change them also isn't clear. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of them are categorized: [5]. There are categories by season, by club, etc etc. -BlameRuiner (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
We shouldn't change them; we should delete them, and create plain templates that can be stored at Template:Football kit/pattern list and used across multiple teams. GiantSnowman 14:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
How can we go about deleting them? I don't think there's any Commons policy that says we should delete them. Also, I do think individual kit templates seasons are a good idea, but it's the team crests, manufacturers' logos and sponsors that shouldn't be there. Whether the lines are blurred by the likes of the Adidas stripes or the Hummel chevrons I'm not quite sure... Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 19:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
What's more, the commons method for deletion isn't quite as simple as Wikipedia's. Perhaps replacing the offending images is more simple. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Replacement is easier said than done - the Bruno character that PeeJay referred to earlier is rather stubborn. My most recent attempt to de-logo the images ended with him responding "não comece a fazer besteiras novamente", which Google Translate tells me means "do not start crap again". Lovely. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 10:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If someone can point me to some of the offending images and I can determine how to remove the logos, I'll have a go at editing despite our Portuguese editor's best efforts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I've got it now. The template automatically prefixes "File:Kit_body" to the name when looking for it in the commons so we need merely to look for "pattern_b1=" and "pattern_b2=" etc, then look for with that value. I fixed Cardiff City F.C. to start and I'll try a few others. I suspect that there may be some edit wars, but they can't delete earlier versions only replace them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that this is resolved, how do we nominate kits with logos for deletion on the commons? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

On Commons, you click on "Nominate for deletion" under "Toolbox" on the left-hand panel. – PeeJay 21:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Won't that delete the entire image not just an historical one? Regardless, I've opened a discussion about him at here and he opened one against me immediately below for removing the logos and crests. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Links to the copyright policies in that commons discussion would be helpful. There are five editors who believe that small logos do not violate copyright, and I would side with them to be honest. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
So after I fixed the logos, I restored the kits without the logos. Then the cabal at the commons started to restore the copyrighted versions of the images. After disengaging from the edit war there I removed the kits again here. It was determined that those kits were indeed against copyright but yet they have not all been removed. It appears that adidas is not copyrighted and the Nike swoosh is similarly not capable of copyright, but team crests are. Someone is attempting to fix the logos. In the meantime, a third party has gone and restored the kits and has reported me at WP:AN/I. Sigh. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem with the Nike swoosh etc isn't copyright, but trademark. Using their tick in association with a low-quality representation of a football kit might imply their endorsement. We could possibly argue successfully against that one, but even then, paying that level of attention to detail implies that what we are displaying in the infobox is an accurate and faithful representation of the real article. One or both of these things could be considered to be to the detriment of the company in question, which therefore means that we shouldn't be using the tick on the shirt, even if the tick itself would ordinarily be considered in the public domain. —WFC— 21:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Another Commons user is now reverting en masse - commons:Special:Contributions/Gustavo_neto. I fear this isn't gonna go away any time soon. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 20:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Franck Ribéry

It appears that someone is intent on add Ribéry's adopted Islamic name, Bilal Yusuf Mohammed, to the lede. Should we be concerned? Should we be cautious that this could become a religious battleground? Should we allow it when it may fly in the face of WP:COMMONNAME? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, not needed in the lede - WP:UNDUE weight and all that. Mention in a 'Personal life' section by all means. GiantSnowman 19:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
He won't be changing his official name, right? Hack (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sulley Muntari

Can someone please confirm for me that Sulley Muntari never scored in the league for Sunderland? There's no record on Soccerbase of him ever scoring for them, and it's not mentioned in the stats table in his article, so why do anons keep changing the infobox? – PeeJay 19:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

He thought he had scored in the 2–1 away win over Bolton on 7 May 2011, but it was later given as a Zat Knight own goal. [6] [7]. Neil Brown has his stats as 9-1 because he hasn't updated it. Looks like this is where it came from. Cheers, BigDom 20:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Cheers Dom. – PeeJay 16:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

1,000,000 or 1 million?

Just a question about this edit here on the 2012-13 Arsenal F.C. season article. Do we prefer transfers to be said as $10,000,000 or $1 million. I would go for $10,000,000 but that is my personal opinion. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's referenced, I would say $1 million. GiantSnowman 08:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
That's quite a heafty lawsuit! Delsion23 (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Haha, whoops! PS I think you were looking for this? GiantSnowman 13:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Haha yeah, couldn't resist! Delsion23 (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

FIFA badge

Just wondering if anyone had a decent quality photo of a FIFA ref's badge. I've just created an article on the FIFA International Referees List which could do with a photo. Hack (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind - found a good photo on commons. Some assistance would be appreciated on sourcing the usage of the phrase "FIFA badge" being used to refer to being placed on the list. Hack (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Norwich City away kit

I'd be grateful if someone could help coding this into the unintelligble gobbledigook we need for the team kits on these pages! Thanks --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Basic version added. GiantSnowman 12:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks great, thank you. --Dweller (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Talimeran Ao

Can someone help me here. User:Psychonaut believes that the content on this page is a direct copyright of this [8]. I dont believe it is all at all. Here is what the last version of the page looked like [9]. Now if you go to references you can see that I sourced all the information to other websites so how any of this is copyrighted is beyond me. I have never been in this situation before so maybe I dont have this right but I could use some assistance please. Thank you. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a copyvio to me, let's take it to the article talk page. GiantSnowman 17:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Germany at the 1964 Olympics

Hi, guys. I've added the infobox at Football at the 1964 Summer Olympics, but there's a problem with the German team. Apparently it was a unified team (I couldn't check out this info in IOC's official site since it's quite poor on historical data), but the problem is that FIFA attributes its statistics to East Germany (as seen in the official reports), since (as the article states) it was a de facto East German national football team. The East Germany national football team follows FIFA here, but I'm not sure what should we do in the 1964 article, where I found the team is presented as Unified team of Germany. I'm thinking in just a note pointing out the discrepancy IOC-FIFA, and then changing the flag to East Germany, but I'm not sure. Opinions? Ipsumesse (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olympics is unusual in so many ways, you have to make allowances for it. It should say Germany, with the unified team flag, and an explanatory note. The link can go to here  Germany, which also explains the situation. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that article, thanks. It doesn't give much space to the 1964 situation (it's more clearly explained in East Germany national football team), and it attributes the data and FIFA code of the 1964 team to the actual Germany. So that would clearly lead to identify the 1964 unified team with the West Germany/nowadays Germany. It's a good idea, nevertheless. Anyway, as you say, Olympics are a mess... Isn't here a task force for clearing that mess up? Ipsumesse (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Football Manager as a source

Richard Brodie, which is a Good Article, uses the PC game Football Manager 2010 as a source for non-league stats in his early career. Seeing as we have no idea where the game makers get these stats from, I don't think it can be considered a reliable source and it's not really acceptable to reference, especially in something that's meant to represent some of the project's best work. Do others agree that these should be removed unless a proper source can be found? BigDom 10:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the Football Manager researchers are usually pretty good (check out the SI Games forums), but you're right that the FM database probably shouldn't be used as a source. – PeeJay 10:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
FM should never be used as the stats, though no doubt fairly accurate, cannot be sourced. GiantSnowman 14:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Jade Bailey and Becks

This youth footballer article has just been created as she was on the boat with Becks at the Olympic Opening Ceremony on 27 July. Notable as a footballer and/or notable as part of this (one) event?--Egghead06 (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Just not notable at all as far as I can see. BigDom 11:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
AfD it: none of the 7 kids who actually lit the cauldron have articles. Sources in the article are one sentence in a show-bizzy puff piece about Beckham, a twitter message, and inclusion in a list of 30 players (including one U9 and several U12/13/14s) from an academy who have joined training schemes at pro clubs. Kevin McE (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I am the creator of the article: I came here hoping to ask for help in expanding it because you folks presumably know what you're doing. Article notability derives not from judgement but from whether sources find the subject notable, and I assume you don't need the (growing) list of sources noting her presence on the boat (I will provide if necessary). So whereas I appreciate that she may not be notable in her capacity as a footballer (I don't know enough to judge that), she is notable on other grounds. She may not have been notable on Thursday. She certainly is now. I'd appreciate it therefore if you did not proceed with the AfD.
Incidentally, my original request still stands. I don't know enough about footballers to do a good article here. I need 1500 characters to get it past . Would you care to help? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:ONEEVENT Adam4267 (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:ONEEVENT does not preclude people notable for one event from having their own article. WP:ONEEVENT discusses Gavrilo Princip and points out that notability requires large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. In Jade's case, the former is obvious (the ceremony has been widely covered), and the latter are growing. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
No more notable than any of 8000 other carriers in torch relay, just slightly prettier. Kevin McE (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The 8000 other carriers in the torch relay weren't pictured on the prow of a jetboat roaring up the Thames between Beckham and Redgrave and seen by 1 billion people. "The Australian" considers her notable: so much so, it gives her third billing after the Queen and Becks. "Sky News" considers her notable: so much so, it mentions her and forgets to mention Kenneth Branagh. The notability of a subject is bestowed by sources noting that subject. Incidentally, if you could offer some help regarding the infobox and categories, I'd be grateful. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
This really should be taken to AfD. GiantSnowman 16:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds for an AfD. User:BigDom assert lack of nobility without offering evidence. User:Kevin McE says that others do not have articles and there is a paucity of sources, but the former is a non-sequitur and the latter have been expanded. User:Adam4267 cites WP:ONEEVENT, but WP:ONEEVENT permits people known for one event provided notability is established, and I have established notability by the inclusion of sources that have noted her. So there are no grounds for an AfD. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Anameofmyveryown - nowhere here have I said that she is not notable, so I would advise you to strike your comment about me please. GiantSnowman 16:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
So stricken. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
She fails WP:NFOOTY so your belief is that she is notable because she carried the olympic torch and was part of the opening ceremony?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for a sensible question. The answer is "not quite". My belief is that she is notable because she carried the olympic torch and was part of the opening ceremony AND Sky News, The Australian, the Los Angeles Times, etc considered her notable enough to mention her specifically by name whilst ignoring more established celebrities. Given that, I have to say there is a prima-facie case for her being notable. Hope that answers your question, Regards Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
But being mentioned by name doesn't make someone notable. The general notability guidelines require "significant coverage" where the sources "address the subject directly in detail". This clearly isn't the case here. BigDom 18:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Now at AfD. GiantSnowman 18:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Club notability question

Hi, if a club competed in the national cup, is it notable or not? I am asking this question because an editor nominated Caiçara Esporte Clube for deletion despite the fact that the club competed in the Copa do Brasil in 1991. The nomination page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiçara Esporte Clube. Thanks in advance. Regards, --Carioca (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically yes they should be notable however do make sure that they pass WP:GNG as well. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A category with a bad name invented by Wikipedia

You might be interested in the discussion of association football team categorization on the BLP noticeboard. Yes, home-grown player rule really is a redlink and an article that you didn't even know that you didn't have. Uncle G (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sent off 2

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Sent off 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


I stumbled upon the Pele article and a dispute regarding whether Pele also played the attacking midfield position. This information was added by User:Lsw10 which was disputed even though Lsw10 provided sources. I restored the information after it was deleted with a note claiming the addition was vandalism "Vandalism by ls10..." see history where the addition of this information is consistently labeled as vandalism. The reference provided to support that it is vandalism state that Pele did play this position though not as frequently or effectively as forward, but both those things seem to support that he did play attacking midfielder.

I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to know if the position I have taken is well supported, but from my superficial review it seems appropriate to include both. Can some footballers with more knowledge than me weigh in on whether being an attacking midfielder should be listed as a position in the infobox. Pelé -- thx Bloodzeed (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

2012–13 Arsenal F.C. season

Sorry but when you click the Arsenal FC 2012-13 season link does it look horribly wrong. By wrong I mean your screen. This only happens on this page. This problem was not there 3 hours ago. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? I can see nothing wrong with the page appearance-wise. Kosm1fent 03:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hm, its weird because before when I went on that page the wikipedia symbol at the top left, the left side links (Main Page, Interaction ect) and the top links (watchlist, Sandbox etc) were within the article itself but now it is okay. Maybe it was just my computer. I only got worried because it was only happening on that page and no where else. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I also think it was your computer, that happened to me before as well. :) Kosm1fent 03:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Haha I guess it was one of those wiki malfunctions again. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Rebranding of European Cup

As we all know, football began in 1992 with the founding of the Premier League and the UEFA Champions League. Irony aside, though, do we have any evidence, other than UEFA's assertion that the old European Cup was indeed rebranded as the UEFA Champions League in 1992/93? From looking at some Leeds United (1992/93 - see here and here) and Manchester United (1993/94 - see here and here) programmes, it seems that the Champions League branding was not used (at least on match programmes) until 1994/95 (see here, etc.). Granted, I'm only looking at the English clubs there, but it seems pretty conclusive that the transition to the "UEFA Champions League" name was not as clear-cut as we are led to believe by the powers that be. – PeeJay 21:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, it's formal name in 1992/93 and 1993/94 was the 'European Champions' Cup' but the competition was colloquially referred to as the 'Champions Cup'. When UEFA announced plans to shakeup and rename the competition in December 1993, it was done to capitalise on the success of television, namely BSkyB's deal with the Premier League. They hired TEAM – an advertising agency to control 'visual' affairs. The starball logo was designed to reflect the eight 'star' teams, in the two group stages of four. Now of course, it's 32 teams. Sponsors such as Mastercard and Ford were signed up to boost income. The anthem was created to give it a special feel. It launched in September 1994, hence the match programme changes. Hope that answers your query. Explained a bit better here too. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, good stuff mate. OK, so we can acknowledge that the UEFA Champions League did indeed begin in 1992/93, but the complete overhaul of the branding didn't occur until 1994/95? – PeeJay 22:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
TEAM's official site state the Champions League was incepted in 1992, likewise this magazine excerpt. However, from this video of Leeds v Stuttgart in 1992, ITV use their own graphics and slides, as opposed to the per usual UEFA ones. Found a report of it in The Guardian: "Soccer: European Cup, first round, second leg Leeds United 4, VfB Stuttgart 1 ... AN INSPIRED attacking performance at Elland Road last night only just failed to keep Leeds United in the European Cup." So to answer your question: the competition format changed for the 1992/93 season (where it was formally titled the European Champions' League), the format again changed in 1994/95 and it was rebranded to the UEFA Champions League - its present name. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
This is purely off the top of my head, but I seem to remember that when the group stage of the competition was introduced for the first time, the title "Champions' League" referred only to that specific stage of the competition, with the competition as a whole still officially called the "European Cup". I might be mis-remembering, though....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Nivaldo Batista Santana

Sick and tired but i'm willing to compromise, even though i think two sources are better than...well, NONE. Those sources are: and his entry (well not a source in that sense the last one).

What do those sources say? That the player played for Colo-Colo de Futebol e Regatas in his country, not Colo-Colo in Chile. A Chilean anon IP (the person has several) has been giving me the time of day(s), changing from the former to latter club without one word. They also do not write summaries and do not talk to anyone in reply to the messages they received, and (speaking of sources) offer no sources to explain the "corrections".

Can somebody add something else? Thank you very much in advance - --AL (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reservations about using Transfermarkt, and we definitely shouldn't be using another language Wikipedia as a source. GiantSnowman 08:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It might be correct that he played in Chile, if we put the vandal-IP's aside, my experience is that most IP's are correcting errors. When your only source is a unreliable source (according to GS), I would have assumed good faith in this case and let the IP change his club, unless you are certain that he didn't play there. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Definately the Brazilian Colo-Colo. -Koppapa (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It's an interesting one. I'd go with the Brazilian club, per Sambafoot and Fortaleza EC, one of his clubs in Brazil before he came to Europe. There are reliable sources for the Chilean club, e.g. Real Valladolid, but I wonder whether those sources stem from an assumption that Colo-Colo is the Chilean club because their writers didn't know there was any other sort. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Nehru Cup (Again)

Okay now can someone un redirect the page as the official list of 5 teams for the cup have been announced. [10] [11] [12]. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I've undone the redirect, I'll leave it to you to weave your magic ;) GiantSnowman 08:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
LOL Cheers mate. :) --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


Hello Regarding the Rangers fc page,the club is now defunct and should be altered to reflect this.The cessation date of the company should be displayed on the page after the company as now been liquidated and the registered company name has been changed having two rangers fc names the old one simply must been shown to acknowledge the recent changes that the old rangers officially defunct.

Thank you Allen Morris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allen231 (talkcontribs) 14:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:American soccer logos

Category:American soccer logos, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 16:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Football clubs with a home-grown player policy

I recently made a page with details of clubs who have a self-imposed policy to select players from their own nation. It's been nominated for deletion by GiantSnowman a he feels it's non-notable. I'm also interested to see what others think, please comment on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of football clubs with home-grown players policy page. Thank you. TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

IP constantly adding Facebook links

We have this IP ( who has been insistently adding Facebook pages to external links sections. He has been warned, but he continues to do it without ever communicating with nobody. What shall we do? FkpCascais (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If there's no official club website, as is the case with anon's recent edits, Facebook links are fine, but not the fan ones. I don't believe that adding them is against any rules though, so mop-up of the editor's additions and education of the editor may be required, --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I honestly doubt the Facebook pages are official. The one he claims to be official has even the club name wrongly written (Suteska instead of Sutjeska). I think it is a personal Facebook page that he just wants to advertise. I will keep them removing until he doesn´t respond. FkpCascais (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, look at this latest edit of his, he simply almost blanked the article of the rival club... Pure disruption. FkpCascais (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League

One or more users, I believe it is Branis1av77, is currently disrupting the article about UEFA Champions League, with a whole lot of different IP's. From my point of view, the user is just making a WP:POINT - he thinks that West Germany and Germany should be separated, because use Yugoslavian flags on the Serbian clubs. I've requested a semi-protection for the page, but in the meantime the article needs attention from a couple of other editors, so that I'm not the only one reverting. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you are fast approaching 3RR - please do not revert again. Secondly, historical flags should be used. GiantSnowman 12:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I am aware of it - that's why I haven't reverted again. But the editor in question is unhappy about the Yugoslavian flags on Red Star and Partizan, and have changed changed flags on German clubs to West Germany (even though it's the same) and divided the history of the German clubs into "before" and "after" 1990. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Flags should be historically accurate. Different flags were used for German clubs before and after the Wall came down, so the article should refelct that. GiantSnowman 13:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, if the main reason of this edit war is about the flags – the West German and post-1990-German flags are the same, which make 98 percent of this quarrel a completely moot point. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
While Branis1av77 often doesn´t choose the most appropriate way to express himself (I already reprended him for his tone at PeeJay´s talk page), he does have a good point about consistency, either we use historical flags, either we don´t and use current ones. He finds unfair that Serbian clubs have an historical flag (Yugoslav), while the others have a current one. FkpCascais (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The only flag we could conceivably change is the Romanian flag. The flag of the current nation of Germany is exactly the same as it was before the reunification, and the country has had the same name ever since the Allies withdrew from Germany in 1949, even following the reunification. Furthermore, the same football association governs football in Germany now as it has done since 1900. It would be different if any East German clubs had ever reached the Champions League final before reunification, but they didn't. Therefore, there is no reason to separate out the "West German" results from the German results in the "Results by country" table. – PeeJay 22:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
But the thing is that the same exact argument about the governing football association is applicable for Serbian case as well, as FIFA and UEFA recognised the Football Association of Serbia as the same and only successor of the Football Association of Yugoslavia. However the flag did changed, although German changed as well during the 1930s and 1940s and we do use the historical "Nazi" flag for that period for Germany.
The thing is that we need to be consistent, and if we use for commodity reasons the current flags, Serbian should replace the Yugoslav as FIFA and UEFA regard them as one. Otherwise, we should use the correct flag for each period. Basically, as suggestion, I would say that we could use the historical flag in historical contexts, and the current one for statistical ones (basically, if Red Star for exemple reaches the final again, hypothetically, we would use only one flag then, the Serbian one, despite their first campaign having been under Yugoslavia back then...). Does this sound logicall? FkpCascais (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Our usual principle for such things seems to be to determine the relevant point in time for identifying "contemporary" as the last time that the entity involved made the achievement that earned entry on the list. To do anything else would be akin to describing Ian Smith as a Zimbabwean politician. Both Serbian clubs last reached a CL final before Serbia as a separate sovereign state, so the use of a Serbian flag would be anachronistic. They reached the CL final representing Yugoslavia. If the French flag had changed since 1959, then Stade de Reims would be marked with a different flag than that now shown: if that change had happened between 1959 and 1976, then Reims and St Etienne would have different flags. If Red Star win the CL next year, then their flag will be replaced by the flag of Serbia, and Serbia can replace Yugoslavia in the list by nation. Kevin McE (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
FkpCascais, your suggestion is a little complicated because Yugoslavia was split, like the Soviet Union, unlike Germany, which was merged. What would we do if both (for example) Spartak Moscow and Dynamo Kyiv had reached the final before 1992? We would use the flag of the USSR, of course. But what if Dynamo Kyiv had beaten Bayern Munich in 1999 and reached the final then? Would we change their flag to that of Ukraine, or that of Russia (which, as you allude to, is the country that UEFA recognises as the successor to the record of the USSR)? I'm almost certain we would change it to that of Ukraine. But what about the times when Dynamo Kyiv reached the final when Ukraine was part of the USSR? Does that record change to Russia, Ukraine or stay as USSR? – PeeJay 10:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I fully understand all the implications here, and that is why I never bothered about what flag stands there, and I never edited those flags... Red Star Belgrade in 1991 and FK Partizan (finalist in 1966) obviously represented Yugoslavia before 1992, nothing to argue over that. It just passed trough my mind to find some sort of a compromise so both would be represented and thus create less edit-warring perhaps, but I really don´t have a strong position on either side and I am OK whetever is decided. FkpCascais (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all the idea that I am using different user names and IP's is very offensive to me. I'm a medical school student in the US and I DON'T have time for such stupid and childish things. Those other IP's were people who I don't know personally but they support my opinion. By saying that those people are actually me in disguise you are diminishing their opinions and their right to edit wikipedia. Second of all the point that the west german and german flags are the same is absolutely irrelevant because the "by nations" section would have a seperate section for germany and west germany respectively. Also those west german flags would link to West Germany and not Germany.Fortunatley for all of us this entire debate is unnecessary as FIFA and UEFA have already decided the answer. According to FIFA and UEFA, Serbia is the direct descendant of all records and trophies won under Yugoslavia. On the UEFA official website under SERBIA they have one champions league victory. The link is here --Branis1av77 (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you ask whoever is making this charge to open an SPI. I looked at the IPs and each appears to be coming from the UEA. If you're in the United States, an SPI would clear that up pretty quickly. Erikeltic (Talk) 00:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This month I've been on holiday at my parent's in Canada. Would that still work? I'd be happy to do it.--Branis1av77 (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is my take on it, such as it is. Historical revisions should not take place. If the country no longer exists then the awards the country won should still be listed by the country. In other words, if the Soviet Union or the Republic of Texas won something, then the article should reflect that. Case in point, Olympic Hockey; both Russia and the Soviet Union are listed because both nations took prizes. As for the substance of the German argument, this leaves me just shaking my head. Germany, or more to the point, the Federal Republic of Germany, never ceased to exist. The term "West Germany" only really exists in the minds of the English speaking west. The Federal Republic of Germany, however, now includes the former German Democratic Republic -- or "East Germany" to those same western Anglophiles. Basically, the Federal German Republic added five new states. It never ceased to exist. Would the United States cease to exist as the United States if Puerto Rico became the 51st state? Of course not. Erikeltic (Talk) 00:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

While you have a very good argument, the very article you cite Olympic Hockey lists both West Germany, East Germany, and Germany. That really actually works in my favour. But I do agree with you to a certain extent. The point here is and if you will let me quote another user who wrote to me "To the same extent to which Germany claims continuity with Western Germany, Serbia is entitled to claim continuity with Yugoslavia since footballing criteria depends on footballing governing bodies namely Football associations - German F.A. today is same as it was in past and Serbian F.A. is actually only renamed Yugoslav F.A. that is FIFA affiliated since 1921." In the end, I still don't know why we're debating this since FIFA and UEFA already have an official stance on the matter. My whole point on starting this discussion was to maintain consistency within the article. Personally I would much rather have Germany and Serbia rather than West Germany, Germany, Yugoslavia, Communist Romania etc.--Branis1av77 (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, you may personally rather have one over the other, but that would not be factual. The fact is that at the time they represented Yugoslavia, not Serbia. That's a historical fact. As for my example, I don't see how it "works out in your favor". Again... there never was a "West" or "East" Germany, but two different nations--only one of which no longer exists. Erikeltic (Talk) 02:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I only mentioned my personal preference because I like avoiding clutter, but I have no problem with keeping it as Yugoslavia. The fact is Monchengladbach, frankcfurt, and Hamburg were representing West Germany, not Germany. That's a historical fact. To claim West and East Germany never existed is just silly on your part. Of course they did. The very article you cite Olympic Hockey uses West Germany and Germany. But honestly, after over a month of debating this, most editors seem unwilling to change their opinions. So you know what? You win. I give up. As far as I'm concerned you can change Yugoslavia to Zimbabwe and Germany to China.--Branis1av77 (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
What other articles do is irrelevant, per WP:WAX. West Germany and East Germany were only colloquial names to differentiate the Federal Republic of Germany (the same country that exists today) from the German Democratic Republic. Borussia Mönchengladbach, Eintracht Frankfurt and Hamburger SV all competed in their respective European Cup finals as representatives of the German Football Association, which still exists today, while Red Star and Partizan competed as representatives of the Football Association of Yugoslavia, not the Football Association of Serbia. – PeeJay 15:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The football association of Serbia is the Football association of Yugoslavia. It's the same institution only renamed. I keep posting this link but it's important --Branis1av77 (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Serbia didn't exist then; Germany did. Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder, if Dinamo Zagreb or Hajduk Split had reached the final of the European Cup when Croatia was part of SFR Yugoslavia, would UEFA still consider Serbia to be the successor to those records? – PeeJay 23:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they would consider them as victories for Serbia. In fact the Olympic medals won under Yugoslavia, even the ones won by Croatians are considered victories for Serbia. I recently read this article I suggest using Google translate. --Branis1av77 (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me if I have my doubts about that website's validity as a neutral and reliable source. Erikeltic (Talk) 23:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok how about this Croatian newspaper. --Branis1av77 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
@PeeJay (I wasn´t aware that this discussion was going on), Yugoslav FA is actually Serbian FA, it was only the country that changed name, but the federation is exactly the same. Germany also changed name from Western Germany to Germany... FkpCascais (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I know the current Serbian FA is the successor to the old Yugoslav FA, but the Yugoslav FA used to encompass football in Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania and Macedonia. The situation becomes a little bit more convoluted when a nation splits than when one joins another. – PeeJay 15:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

German Cabrera

So ya, just look at the page history. I am not undoing his edits again as I already reverted them 3 times and now I have a fear of getting blocked. (Can you get blocked if your 3 reverts were just undoing an edit that deleted a AfD box?) So could use some "security" so to speak on that page. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think reverting the removal of an active AfD tag is exempt from the 3-revert-rule. You should have warned him with this: Template:uw-afd1. Cheers. Kosm1fent 15:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Will use that next time. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Can someone undo the edit that removed the AfD from his page. I rather not violate 3RR (Still worried). Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You know, it doesn't count towards 3RR if you're reverting obvious vandalism (which removing an AfD template definitely is). – PeeJay 06:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
@ArsenalKid: See WP:3RRNO for what is exempt from 3RR. Reverting obvious vandalism is on that list so don't worry about doing it, you will not get blocked. TonyStarks (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I just wanted to be sure before doing anything. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • User has been blocked for 48 hours for disruption. GiantSnowman 08:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Elo Rankings in football tournaments.

An IP added the Elo rankings of the teams in the 2012 Nehru Cup. I removed them and now the IP brought them back and on my talk page asked for a discussion (I assume on my talk page between other editors) on whether the Elo rankings are needed or not. I honestly dont thing so but what are your opinons. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

They are completely unnecessary. They have no relation to the Nehru Cup. TonyStarks (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Good enough for me. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Find My Past

Have noticed a discussion [13] which indicates the site is not acceptable within Wiki for referencing dates of birth, middle names etc.. Have seen this used on many articles on footballers particularly when new articles are created on young players. Should it be or is it considered original reasearch?--Egghead06 (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are eight players called John Smith born in Leeds in January 1994, and we don't know which one ours is, then clearly don't use it. If we have an article on Ezekiel Fontaine, and he's the only one, then go for it. GiantSnowman 08:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Findmypast is presumably a transcript of birth records, and as such effectively a public record itself. Where living people are concerned, WP:BLP#Misuse of primary sources is pretty clear on this (their italics):
"Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."
I'd guess this would cover middle name(s) as well. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh. GiantSnowman 09:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

How would photos taken from a club website for a club that is already defunct work?

I am trying to revamp the Baldeep Singh (footballer born 1987) page and while looking for sources I found his player profile from when he was at his old club JCT FC. Now JCT is defunct since 2011. The website was last updated 30 May 2011. Now in his profile I found a picture of him which would be perfect for his wiki page but I dont know how to get permission. I tried contacting the club for 2 weeks and no answer yet. Again the site has been inactive for more than a year. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the status of the club, the copyright is still in effect. It's similar to if a person dies, (according to UK copyright law, at least)any copyright they could have claimed in life is still valid for a number of years after their death. – PeeJay 09:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Baldeep Singh has the same birthday according to article. Either there is some mistkae, or it describes the same person. -Koppapa (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It all looks a mess. The only ref on Baldeep Singh refers to a 42 year old who is clearly not the subject of the article; the only working ref on Baldeep Singh (footballer born 1987) leads to a guy called Baljit Singh, with a different DoB, and no other personal or career details. And the link takes me to a Japanese ceramics shop! So at the moment, both Baldeep Singh articles are unsourced bios. Kevin McE (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Which is why I am revamping the article. I have access to a lot more sources that I can use for him. As for the other guy, that was during a period of confusion last year when I first joined and some other former editor were working with the Indian football pages. Will do a small touch-up on him as well. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how copyright laws work in India but, if it's anything like the rest of the world, photos do not suddenly fall out of copyright because they are on the website of a defunct club, copyright lasts for a certain number of years regardless of who took the photo, for what purpose, and what their current status is...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

All countries known - don't use if it violates.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Naming convention/MOS for Football Clubs

hi i wanted to ask a favor. Would it be possible to have a guideline or a MOS for how to decide on a club's article title be included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs guideline article. according to Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Official names "Common names are generally preferred to official names as article names". it would be great if a covention specifically related to clubs' titles could be included in the footy guidline so that it is clear to new users who assume official names is the convention. If it is not possible to add it to the WikiProject Football/Clubs article, than could you guys help with the following examples:

Should the title of the following clubs be Boca Juniors (actual) or Club Atlético Boca Juniors (redirect)? Club Atlético River Plate (actual) or C.A. River Plate(redirect) or without periods CA River Plate (redirect)?

according to Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Official names Boca Juniors is the proper title. correct?

another one, a user recently moved Universidad San Martín to Club Deportivo Universidad de San Martín de Porres? leave it as is or move it back or maybe to CD Universidad San Martín or C.D. Universidad San Martín?

any help would great thanks.Sandromauri13 (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's tricky. For one, we need to follow those guidelines you listed above (common name, official name, etc.). On the other hand, the project is aiming for consistency. For the most part, we try to follow the club's official name, with the F.C. or A.C. or whatever in initials. But, there are going to be exceptions. Since you started with South American examples, I'll continue with those. Boca Juniors might just be one of those exceptions. América de Cali is another (no one is going to propose renaming that article to Corporación Deportiva América, or some variation of that). Exceptions to the official name guideline usually has to be a name that is commonly used by both the fans, the media, and a football governing body (i.e., CONMEBOL)). Arsenal de Sarandí is another example, and so is Deportivo Cali, Colo-Colo, and Sporting Cristal (to name a few). As for River Plate, it's either going to be Club Atlético River Plate or C.A. River Plate since "River Plate" is a disambiguation page (the Río de la Plata is also called the river plate). Use your best judgement, but aim for consistency. Digirami (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No need to delete Template:Playerhistory

I read here, that the above-mentioned template will be deleted. We, at the Italian football project, have discovered a backup site, This site keeps the same URL syntax as, so basically all you have to do is change the domain name in the template, like we did. Hope this helps! --Adamanttt (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

See above..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
A definite need, I'd say. GiantSnowman 17:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry for that. I'll point that out to our project. Many thanks. --Adamanttt (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Football start2 player

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Football start2 player has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Philip Lloyd

Hello. I'm currently going through a list of people who have played cricket for Wales Minor Counties in English domestic cricket. I've come across Philip Lloyd [14] who played for the team in 1990. According to the link to his profile, he played football for Wrexham. However, I can't seem to find any mention of this. Would anyone here, who knows where to find these things out, be able to find out if he played for the Wrexham starting XI? Thanks. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Per these stats for 1946–2008, no Philip Lloyd played League football for Wrexham in that time. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. As he didn't play any major form of cricket or football, I can remove him from my to do list! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone know how credible the club statistics listed for players on are? The site usually has statistics for players that can't be found anywhere else but I really wonder how accurate they are and what their sources are. I'm talking more specifically about African players, I know that stats for other players in the world can usually be found. TonyStarks (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it like this. I used the site once when I was doing a redo of Mehtab Hossain (still doing if your wondering why the page is still crap) and on NFT it said in 2004 he played 2 games and then from 2005-2011 he played a grand total of 0 matches which is obviously untrue as there is plenty of proof to show that in those 6 years he has at least 50 caps for the teams he played for between those years. So ya, overall I dont trust it. Maybe if you use it for Premier League players you will get accurate stats but for Asia, Africa, OFC, and North America I would not recommend at all. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
What specific stats are you asking about Tony? For instance, about National Teams, they are usually accurate, although they are incomplete for most African nations. Regarding club stats, they are usually right about European and worldwide major leagues, but regarding African ones I think they usually only include South Africa and perhaps North Africa... Generally, they are OK, although often incomplete. FkpCascais (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't think of a specific example off the top of my head but I know that I've stumbled across a few profiles of African players with statistics for their time in less-publicized Africans leagues and considered the accuracy of the information. For those players, I always wondered if they maybe got their stats from Wikipedia (or if it was the opposite). TonyStarks (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a site I really like and find useful, sometimes the stats are slightly off but no site is 100% perfect. They're also good in that if you highlight a mistake, they will change it - a good sign. GiantSnowman 10:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC) is definitely not a reliable source for club stats from African leagues. Admins of this website doesn't put too much weight on club stats and often took them from unreliable sources like Football Manager and football agencies websites. Sadly there are many stats from there also on wikipedia, I've spotted that some of them were obviously false like in Mohamed Bangura (footballer), Dieumerci Mbokani or Agyemang Opoku, but most Afican league stats from can't be verified.
GiantSnowman, I highlighted some mistakes and provided sources for them, but they don't change it. On the other hand they inserted unsourced info from other user without verifying it. Check out their forum, user boca wrote on Feb 10, 2012, "Alhassane Issoufou - In season 2002-03 for club JS Ténéré Niamey he collected 26 caps and 12 goals.", these stats were added on NFT. But there is no 2002-03 season in Niger, only 2003 and JS Ténéré Niamey played in 23 games in the league, so stats are incorrect.--Oleola (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

There was probably a cup in Niger as well so it was league + cup which Boca added up. That usually happens. Have seen it a lot for African, Asian and OFC pages. Its a hassle because you see the caps and then you calculate the number of games in each season there were there and somehow they have more caps than games actually played in the league. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, N-F-T does a pretty good job of using 0-0 for Latin American leagues where the club statistics are not readily available (pretty much everything before 2000 except the Mexican Primera and Argentine Primera). They certainly have missed portions of player's careers which are less well known (and are missing entries for probably thousands of players who were capped before thr 1990s), but they do make corrections when you point out errors (although I think Soccerway is better at this, it does not capture 20th century information like N-F-T). Jogurney (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. Just as I imagined, the club stats for players in certain regions are not the most accurate. I'll keep that in mind for the future. TonyStarks (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Campeonato Sudamericano

Hello everyone. I am writing an article about the history of the Copa América on, and you all know that before 1975 the tournament was called "Campeonato Sudamericano de Selecciones". But... how can we be sure of it? While searching for data I used several books of the Argentine Football Association (you can see which ones here), and every book says "Campeonato Sud Americano de Football" (or "de Foot-ball", or other little variations), and the name "de Selecciones" never appears; furthermore, I have found this book, the official 1927 tournament book, and it is entitled: X Campeonato Sud Americano de Football (yes, 10th, I don't know why, since the 1927 Sudamericano was the 11th edition, but it is probably due to the "Extraordinario" editions... maybe. No clue about that). This is an official document, and the title says "Sudamericano de Football", not "de Selecciones". Now, I don't know how CONMEBOL currently calls it, since its official site only mentions the "Copa América": but it seems that the official name given by the CSF at that time was "Campeonato Sudamericano de Football". I have not found any single occurrence of the name "Campeonato Sudamericano de Selecciones" on AFA's official documents. What do you think about it? There's probably something I don't know, but this fact seems weird to me. --Triple 8 (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe 1916 was not counted because there was no trophy. Or they miscounted. Hack (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Football box wcstart

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Football box wcstart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification: FIFA-related discussion

Hi, the discussion on FIFA country names was opened in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Some lacking data (aliases, military).... --Virtpedia (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


I had this discussion today. FkpCascais (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I must ask, how long did it take you to compile that huge list for Sandbox17. Very informative. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
After a couple of years of continuos searching for sources that I knew I had used in some previous article, I decided that it was easier to have them all listed in one place. Once I made it, now its getting bigger and bigger, new sections start to appear, and keeps on growing (I supose you know the process :) It has a couple of years now. FkpCascais (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, just wow. Seriously I added that to my watchlist. Very informative and could help me. Thank you for compiling that. If you want to add anything for India or anything South Asia dont be afraid to ask. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I've just noticed this thread - is there any chance that you could merge the contents of your sandbox with the project's list of links? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So basically the 'new' site of Soccerdatabase is a mirror/scam and shouldn't be used? GiantSnowman 11:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am the owner of We are currently offline due to rebuilding the database. is a scam, and i have put a lawyer on the issue. I would like very much if you could delete all stolen links. soccerdatabase is NOT playerhistory. Thanks --Polarman (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi. Please compare some sources: [15], [16], [17]. I think two players are confused. Other opinions? --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, they did a bit of a mess there. The "original" Zequinha (born 1934) is José Ferreira Franco; the second one, the one who played in the USA, was born in 1949 (José Márcio Pereira da Silva). --Triple 8 (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Soccerstatskey

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Soccerstatskey has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Solution to the Rangers FC impasse

The Rangers FC article, one of the most high profile and linked-to pages within Scottish football, is currently woefully out-of-date, having been locked down for a month since an episode of edit warring that accompanied the recent high profile saga.

The facts are that Rangers FC became bankrupt, entered administration followed by liquidation, at which point the assets of the club were sold to a new company, the association membership was transferred from soon-to-be-liquidated oldco to newco, and Rangers FC now plays this season in SFL Division 3, retaining the same name, same kit, same badge/stadium etc...

This scenario is not unfamiliar, Charlton, Leeds, Luton, Middlesbrough, Bristol City, Fiorentina, Napoli all being examples of oldco/newco situations, all of which retain one all-encompassing article under the recognition of continuity of club identity, and the necessary demand for inclusion of 'oldco' content this entails.

In direct contrast to the consistency of the precedents stated above, a Newco Rangers article was created, a raft of content from the Rangers FC page copied across minus of course any history prior to Spring 2012, in conflict to the SFL website entry for Rangers within the 3rd division section. This has since been subject of AfDs and proposed mergers with the original Rangers page, but to no avail, and is similarly bound to be mired in disagreement.

We are at an impasse, with some entrenched users resisting a sandbox version, fully updated and including reference to the dispute. Establishing consensus is proving a long drawn out struggle.

For the sake of Wikipedia credibility this situation needs a solution, preferably, in my opinion, in line with the consistent form applied in precedent cases above. This involves one all-encompassing article, with sub-sections detailing the saga and accompanying repercussions, with a stand alone page providing in depth chronological content in high profile cases, for example Middlesbrough: Survival from liquidation.

What are the options available to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion and rectify the current disservice to Wikipedia users researching Rangers FC?Gefetane (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, from all that I've read with regards to the Rangers situation, an all-encompassing article in the mold of previous oldco/newco situations, is the right approach. TonyStarks (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
How do we solve the situation - is there a kind of "panel" of administrators, football ones, general ones whatever, that look at the merits of the case/consistency of other precedents and make a decision on that basis?Gefetane (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
im in the process of taking it to the higher up who can look to dothis, but it might not go in yoru favour nor might it go in the ne club camp favour--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The only "higher body" that can be appealed to after the RFC process is ArbCom, and they rule on content disputes in only the rarest of cases. For the time being it would be far better to continue to seek compromise on the talk page than to repeatedly shop around for a forum in which someone will "bless" a work page which still appears to be hotly disputed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Scottish Cup Final

Hi, can someone please take a look at this. The IP user seems to believe that the same information ahould not be in both the lead and the article. So has been removing information from the article. I have reverted him but don't want to breach 3rr. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Will do.... and in Hindi! --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
शुक्रिया Adam4267 (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
WTF! That is offensive man and really uncalled for. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It was supposed to say thank you, sorry if it didn't. Adam4267 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I think (hope!) Arsenalkid was joking... GiantSnowman 21:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It was a joking. You did say thank you, dont worry. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Per WP:LEAD, the IP is mistaken. But the IP is right on one thing - requesting in the edit summary that it should be taken to talk (which has not been done). We can hardly expect IP users to be au fait with the finer points of WP:LEAD, and should not treat them as vandals when they make good faith edits. Take it to article talk – after the first revert, not the third. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I know your right Oldelpaso, but I honestly can't be bothered doing that every time an IP comes along thinking they know better than every one else how wikipedia works. And when you do go to talk page it tends to go along the lines of
User: Please read this guideline.
IP: You're a vandal. Stop vandalizing my work. I'm going to report you and keep reverting till I get my way.
Also looking through his edit history and seeing this made me want to act appropriately even less. Adam4267 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── One day people will stop treating WT:FOOTY as the "here buddies, revert for me because I'm at 3RR" board. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

If any admins are about, I've put in an edit request at Template talk:WikiProject Football. Cheers. Delsion23 (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. GiantSnowman 08:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, GS Delsion23 (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

While we are on that topic, can someone please help me get the India task force on that template. It would help a lot to know exactly what pages are stubs, starts, c, b, GA, etc. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Penalty win maked as a draw or win?

In the article about the 2012–13 FC Barcelona season, the pre-season game against Paris Saint-Germain was a draw after regular time, then a win in penalties. Since the FIFA rules state that "The kicks from the penalty mark are not part of the match" (Laws of the Game 2012/20138, p.133) I marked it as a draw. Now it has been changed to a win time and again, so I'd like to know what the official view is towards such situations. - Svefnpurka (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Found this Penalty_shoot-out_(association_football)#Win_or_draw.3F hope it helps. BadSynergy (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
You could just do the sensible thing and get rid of the pointless colour scheme. BigDom 15:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Pointless, exceedingly garish and ugly, and in the majority of articles where I have seen it, unkeyed. Can we get rid of this from the template? Kevin McE (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
BadSynergy: That's exactly what I was referring to, but people still ignore it.
BigDom & Kevin McE well, that would be the more extreme move and maybe not completely needed, but it would definitely get rid of that question until it comes up for some statistics. - Svefnpurka (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"not completely needed" - What's the point in it though? Surely by looking at the score you can tell whether the team won or lost, without having the page look like an explosion in a paint factory. BigDom 16:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we just remove the collapsible part and there won't be a need for colors. La Fuzion (K lo K) 16:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Extended content


HSV 125th Anniversary
24 July 2012
18:00 CEST
Hamburg Germany 1–2 Spain Barcelona
Arslan Goal 20' Report Dani Alves Goal 5'
Deulofeu Goal 38'
Imtech Arena
Attendance: 57,274
Referee: Peter Gagelmann (Germany)

Summer Tour
28 July 2012
23:59 CEST
Raja Casablanca Morocco 0–8 Spain Barcelona
Report Alexis Goal 12'40'
Rafinha YC 31'
Messi Goal 34'37'45'
Dani Alves Goal 58' (pen.)
Sergi Gómez Goal 87'
Deulofeu Goal 89'
Stade de Tanger
Attendance: 23,000
Referee: Hassan Kamranifar (Iran)

Le Trophée de Paris
4 August 2012
19:45 CEST
Paris Saint-Germain France 2–2 Spain Barcelona
Ibrahimović Goal 60' (pen.)
Camara Goal 82'
Report Rafinha Goal 6'
Messi Goal 54' (pen.)
Parc des Princes
Attendance: 48,712
Referee: Saïd Ennjimi (France)

Summer Tour
8 August 2012
20:00 CEST
Manchester United England v Spain Barcelona

Or just use the collapsible template without colours... BigDom 16:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Or get rid of the colours from the template altogether, as I have proposed at the template's talk page? Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it w/o collapsible looks extremely busy so i guess the removing of the colors makes more sense.La Fuzion (K lo K) 17:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Definitely don't remove the collapsible part, it looks bad this way, just removing the colours would be more than fine. - Svefnpurka (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

India task force template on Template:WikiProject Football

Can someone help me add the India task force (with the India flag) on this template. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic: Have the creation of this task-force been discussed at this page? Mentoz86 (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I have previously questioned the need for an Indian task force, due to lack of interest - there were six editors apparently involved, but three of them were Arsenalkid and his sockpuppets. See here for the discussion which, in my opinion, resulted in an overwhelming 'meh' for the task force. GiantSnowman 21:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
And since then we have added 7 more editors who are not me. If you look here you will see that we have 10 members. 3 of which are mine (I noted and indented that they are me) and 7 other editors who contribute regularly to pages relating to Indian football. So technically we have 8 members of the India task force which is more than the France task force (6), the Hong Kong task force (6), the Netherlands task force (4), and the Taiwan task force (3). Also keep in mind that I have the youngest task force in terms of countries (excluding club task forces) so I do expect growth in the number of participants as time moves on. There are already editors who I see edit Indian football pages a lot but I am not telling them about the task force till I believe that they can positively contribute to the task force. Meanwhile that last discussion mainly focused on my other accounts which I still think I am entitled to use (which I have proven in the past to other admins who have questioned me). --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Page move

Can i be bold here (or someone in my place)? There is this page of a Spanish footballer called Joselu (sporting name, correct approach), then we have this other article of another player from that country with the same nickname, but his page "shows" us his real name, José Luis Moreno Barroso.

I was thinking of having both pages named JOSELU, with SPANISH FOOTBALLER BORN X or Y in brackets. What does the "commission" think? Attentively, thanks in advance. --AL (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion is ok, but I would prefer if you moved Joselu to José Luís Sanmartín Mato (or maybe there is a shorter commonname?) and let Joselu be a dab-page. Alternatively, you could just put a hatnote pointing to José Luis Moreno Barroso in Joselu's article. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with Mentoz, having two full named articles and Joseul as a dab page. GiantSnowman 17:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Hang on, are we completely forgetting WP:COMMONNAME here? Shouldn't both articles be entitled Joselu with the correct disambiguation, so Joselu becomes like "Joselu (footballer born 1990)" and José Luis Moreno Barroso becomes "Joselu (footballer born 1991)"? Mattythewhite (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll bring in WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE here - there's a difference between a common name and having dozens of articles at Ricardo (Brazilian footballer born September 1980), Ricardo (Brazilian footballer born January 1980), Ricardo (Portuguese footballer born 1980) etc. - basically, with these kind of footballing nationalities, it's a slipperly slope. GiantSnowman 17:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Personally I think using date fo birth to distinguish footballers of the same name is a pretty stupid way to do it. Nationality, clubs played for, position. All things players are known for, how many people actually know footballers dates of birth. Adam4267 (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Likely not many, but neither are many readers going to immediately identify who "José Luis Moreno Barroso" is without having entered the article. But I would certainly discourage the use of clubs as disambiguators, as we'd then be subjectively choosing what club to use. Nationality, DOB or position make the most sense as objective choices. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've put a hatnote on Joselu to point to the other, which will help the reader until something comes of this discussion.

Personally, I'd go with birth year. There's no real need to go against WP:COMMONNAME or WP:STAGENAME when there's a generally accepted method of disambiguating footballers that works for these two. If we end up with so many Joselus on the English Wikipedia that the method does fail, then whoever's around then can have a rethink, but at the moment, AFAIK, it works. It's true that no-one knows footballers' dates of birth, but that's what the dab page is for: to give enough information about each subject for the reader to find the one they're looking for. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

We definitely shouldn't use club as a disambiguator - unless there is nothing else - and nationality and position are both iffy. YOB should be number 1. GiantSnowman 08:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
But the thing is it doesn't actually disambiguate. Which is the whole point of a disambiguator. If two footballers are born within a few years of each other then it doesn't work. For older footballers maybe even 10 or 20 years would render it ineffective. Adam4267 (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It does, plus it's solid, whereas nationality and position are much, much more open to interpretation. GiantSnowman 11:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe its just me, but I don't know whether Andy Gray (The footballer turned commentator) is Andy Gray (footballer born 1955) or Andy Gray (footballer born 1964). I know he's a Scottish international striker who played for Everton and Rangers then went on to becaome a Sky Sports commentator until his sexism row and he now works at talksport. I know all that off the top of my head but I don't know his year of birth or age. I know he's middle aged but is he 57 or 48? I really don't know. Look at Morten Rasmussen (footballer born January 1985) and Morten Rasmussen (footballer born March 1985). One of them played for Celtic, I'd consider myself a pretty big Celtic fan and I had to link to Rasmussen a number of times on Wikipedia (Which is basically impossible to get right). I still don't know which ones which without checking the page. I know a lot about Rasmussen, he is a Danish international striker, his nickname is "Duncan", he played for Brondby then Celtic, then he went on loan to Mainz, Aab and Sivaspor (where he once played in goal). He's now at Midjtyland. Again, I don't know his year of birth never mind month. Adam4267 (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Nationality is often fine, but position is definitely out. Thankfully the footy project isn't as plagued by moronic conversations of that sort as the music project is with genre-quibbling, though I suppose we've got our hands full enough with the plague of nationalism. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I assume that what you(Adam) mean is that it doesn't identify the individuals clearly. That may be true, but it doesn't have to. Redirects, so long as they are done accurately, will be the source of the vast majority of page hits. Readers do not type Joselu (Real Madrid footballer) into the search box any more than they enter Joselu (footballer born 1990).
Or that is what I came here intending to say. But I had overlooked the predictive nature of the search box. Once one has entered Josel, it would be useful if the content of the drop-down box did provide user-friendly disambiguation. Where players are of different generations, as Adam says, the year of birth provides that; for near contemporaries, it does not. In this specific case, then club identity is fairly clear for both people: if there were a second Steve Claridge of a similar age, it would be trickier. Our purpose is to provide the best experience for the reader, if not, there is no point in Wikipedia at all: frustrating the reader with ineffective descriptions to distinguish between people of the same name does not enhance the reader experience. Kevin McE (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
If you're so inclined to fix that particular issue, I'd advise opening a bug to implement some better way of presenting the search bar autofill. Perhaps it could display a couple of lines from the article introduction when a result is hovered over? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If anybody is seriously contemplating changing the title of an article every time a player moves club, then you're insane in the membrane. For historical players - would we list every club, or just the 'important' ones (POV)? GiantSnowman 11:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not really the point but in all honesty club would be better than year of birth. (Disambiguation pages actually use club, don't they?) But nationality and position (which would fix the Rasmussen issue) would be best. Adam4267 (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Who determines positions? Many players play in multiple positions and the boundaries are vague. We should stick with YOB, place hatnotes saying "for other people called John Smith, see [link to disambig page]", and ensure the disambiguation page is as detailed and up-to-date as possible to aid navigation. It's a mad, mad world if we end up with articles called John Smith (Manchester United midfielder) or John Smith (Arsenal centre-forward but sometimes plays in defence). GiantSnowman 11:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
You're just being intentionally ridiculous now. As is Chris. I'm not going through this whole stupid process again, particularly not with two admins who I expected better of. So I'm going off. Bye Adam4267 (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm being intentionally ridiculous to highlight the flaws in your argument. Can you not see that that is where articles would end up? GiantSnowman 11:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The point of a disambiguator is to give each article a unique name and to "ensur[e] that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily". It's certainly true that when you search via the dropdown box, finding Morten Rasmussen (footballer born January 1985) and Morten Rasmussen (footballer born March 1985) isn't overly helpful. But you also find Morten Rasmussen, which is what I'd expect people to click on if they were looking for a person of that name. And when that takes them to a dab page, the info after each entry ought to tell them enough to get them to the Morten Rasmussen they want in one more click. Not sure that particular dab page does that, because some people are a bit too keen on updating them to only contain the player's current club, but that's by the by. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there a case (and I'm only raising a discussion point, so no need for the tone of remarks that GS and CC have employed in this discussion) for having redirects that will be search-box identifiable? Possibly an issue beyond the scope of FOOTY, but initial reactions? Kevin McE (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Having a redirect like Morten Rasmussen (Celtic-player), so that people writing "Morten Rasmussen Celtic" in the search-box will get what they look for at once seems like a good idea, as long as we create a new redirect every time a player changes club. But writing only "Morten Rasmussen" will not show that particular redirect.Mentoz86 (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Typing merely morten ra would be sufficient to bring up that redirect in the drop-down box. Kevin McE (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
No, atleast not mine box: When I type something that could be the start of the "correct title", the redirects isn't visible. For instance, when I type "Manchester Unite" the box doesn't show the redirects Manchester United and Manchester United Football Club. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Did you try typing morten ra? If you type Manchester Unite you will get the ten most visited pages that start with those 16 characters (including any that have intervening punctuation). Unless it is possible to construct it differently from the default. Kevin McE (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Right, "Manchester Unite" was a bad example. But when I type "morten ra" I only get 3 pages (the same as you?), and not the redirects Morten Rasmussen (footballer), Morten Rasmussen (football defender) and Morten Rasmussen (football striker), which means that redirects aren't visible (for me) unless I am typing something else then the article title. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah: now I see. Obviously, entering different search box text was something of a red herring (although your example did throw up the example of a redirect being included in search box returns, in the case of Manchester, United Kingdom). I was previously aware that redirects are picked up by the search engine, but was unaware of these other Rasmussen redirects, so not alert to their absence. Might it be that if a title has brackets, and is a redirect, it does not show in the search box? Maybe pages need a certain minimum number of hits before the Search box will throw them up? Either way, it seems to scupper my suggestion. (stranger still: I've just discovered that entering morten rasmussen (foo will give the redirect to the disambiguation page, but neither of the specific redirects you had alerted me to: they only arise if I go all the way to morten rasmussen (football s or morten rasmussen (football d) Maybe this restriction is what Chris meant by the technical difficulties of the autofill in the search box. Ah well, it was just a thought. Kevin McE (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
As I stated above, the search bar autofill issue is a technical problem which warrants a technical solution. Creating club-specific redirects opens an enormous can of worms. I've no idea why pointing this out is "ridiculous" but making vague suggestions regarding the Right Way to do things with no concrete plan is somehow a practical way formward. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't seem technical to me, simply a matter of carefully selected redirect titles. Kevin McE (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I have raised the matter at WT:Disambiguation, using the Mortensons to illustrate. Kevin McE (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
John Smith plays for Arsenal 2000-2005, there is a John Smith (Arsenal) redirect to his article. Then a second John Smith starts playing for them in 2012 - where does the redirect direct to now? GiantSnowman 13:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I started this sub-thread by saying that it is a discussion point, so I am asking about the principle. Of course hypothetical situations can be thought up, and I'm sure there have been real life situations that I can't remember right now, but the query was about redirects being created purely for the sake of search box finds. But given that early responses at WT:Disambiguation are favourable, that redirects are cheap, and that it will never be any more than a redirect, why not have [[John Smith {joined Arsenal 2012)]]? It will identify to the reader the particular John Smith the player he wants to read about, and that is the purpose. To my mind, the only limiting factor is that the drop-down box is limited to 10 links. Kevin McE (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not sure about the redirects, it is a good idea but for large groups of players it might not work. I do think the best solution is to have article names at better titles which more clearly disambiguate. The fact is all players with the same name can be disambiguated by something. But they are all unique so I don't think one rule should be in place. We should look to disambiguate players based on the thing which most clearly disambiguates them to the largest number of people. Adam4267 (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification: FIFA-related discussion 2

Please read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#Naming principle?. --Virtpedia (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Football box header

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Football box header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Eyes please: discussion re icons and ranking fluctuations on nft articles.

I tried to start discussion a month ago at Talk:FIFA_World_Rankings#Updates_on_nft_articles: obviously very few eyes on that page. Basically, it is about the desirability of the recent advent of turquoise bars and red and green triangles in the infobox of national team articles to indicate fluctuation in FIFA rankings. Kevin McE (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Transfer Fees Reporting

At the 2012–13 Arsenal F.C. season the signing of Santi Cazorla has been added but nor has any official from Arsenal reported the transfer fee so I would guess we should say undisclosed but some news journalists actually use fees when making articles on the signing. So should we use the fee reported in the papers or should we stick to undisclosed since Arsenal did not announce a fee. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah memories!!! You take me back to my first edit on Wiki where based on numerous newspaper reports I added a transfer fee which was not reported by the club. The might of the Wiki football cabal massed against me and I was told that the club are the final word on what the fee is. Guess this is still the case.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Glad I can take you back around 5 and a half years. Will see what I can do because if that does come down as the rule than I have a lot of work to do. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
In player articles I would use an official cite for the undisclosed fee and an additional cite for the reported fee(s). In season articles (eg Forest 2011-12), I would just use the reported fee (with cite, of course) if a definitive one can be found. When reports use "in the region of..." or different news outlets give different amounts, I use undisclosed. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 14:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I think prose and tables are two different situations altogether. In a table it should always be undisclosed – if a table says £1.8m, I take that as an assertion of fact. With prose, it is possible to say something like "an undisclosed fee, reported by [reputable media outlet] to be ['in the region of/'approximately/'whatever qualifying language the source uses] £1.8m'". —WFC— 20:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you could have £1.8m (est.) or something like that. I think if it's been estimated by media sources that should be put in tables. But making clear its not official. Adam4267 (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
So wait. You want me to put undisclosed with a note saying "Reported to be around $50,000,0000,000". --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a symbol could be used for such an occurance next to the reported figure, with an explanatory note that all fees marked with the symbol were "officially undisclosed" or words to that effect? Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 23:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Honestly I dont know. The more I think about it the more I dont like this idea and instead I want to put undisclosed for every transfer unless one of the two team announce a fee. So for Santi it would be undisclosed unless Arsenal or Malaga do a fee. And from this and this it shall remain as undisclosed. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
How can you justify having the total spend including Cazorla's fee when you list it as Undisclosed in the article? Adam4267 (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Thats another thing. Personally I would get rid of it as we honestly dont actually know how much Arsenal spent and gained. All of these fees are just speculated and I could possibly find sources with different numbers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Professional Development League

The first two are in an awful state; the last one will no doubt be created in due course. I feel they should be merged into one - Professional Development League - other thoughts? GiantSnowman 11:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge for now. Provide a section which clearly talks about the structure and how the teams will be divided. And then once the teams are divided make the 3 pages. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"once the teams are divided" - the teams have already been divided, clubs know what level they are playing at, the groups have been drawn, fixtures in some cases are published.[18] TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Oops I messed up, sue me. Anyway I still stick to the merge of the actual articles and the separate seasons. They are only Reserve Leagues. I doubt there will be enough references for them to need there own article anytime soon. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, there are separate pages for the Premier Reserve League, Central League, Football Combination and Football League Youth Alliance. Would you propose they be merged into one page? They are separate competitions. These new PDL competitions are the successors to those competitions, all English league clubs are in the process of being audited and given a category status and have been placed into one of the three new leagues based on the expected status. The Premier Development League page should be about the system with the PDL 1,2 and 3 articles providing information about the new competitions. The three competitions are controlled by different bodies. Premier League are maintaining PDL 1 and PDL 2 (23 clubs in each) while the Football League maintain PDL 3.TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
There is not enough referenced, meaningful content to justify 3 seperate articles. GiantSnowman 12:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't believe the individual seasons (see 2012–13 Professional Development League 1 and 2012–13 Professional Development League 2) merit their own articles. BigDom 13:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I've changed my mind about this. We may as well remove PDL1 and PDL2 pages, but keep the individual season articles as we do with the old Premier Reserve league season articles . TheBigJagielka (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Unless anybody objects / beats me to it, I will attempt a history merge today/tomorrow. GiantSnowman 16:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have merged PDL, PDL1 and PDL2 and created PDL3 as a redirect. I think a discussion over individual season articles should continue at Talk:Professional Development League. GiantSnowman 16:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Celtic F.C. in European football

Someone recently made an edit cahanging the table from being quite plain to having lot of colours and symbols. I'm not sure about the colours but I know the symbols shouldn't be there. At the same time I don't want to remove a lot of work that a user has done. At least without knowing that others agree with me. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What do the colours/symbols mean? We can tell but the average reader may not be able to - they should be removed. GiantSnowman 18:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the person has tried to make it easier to read however don't really think it does and the symbols are ticks and crosses for wins and losses. Admire the effort but reads a little odd to me. BadSynergy (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It needs references above all. Kosm1fent 18:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, also needs to get rid of abbreviations - what are ECCC, ECWC etc. in the opening table? We need to remember that most people reading articles aren't going to be experts. GiantSnowman 09:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I've spelt out the abbreviations, but what on earth is EUSA? Valenciano (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:USVEM

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:USVEM has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In the slight possibility that anyone else was uninformed by reference to USVEM, it is a club from Leichtenstein playing in the third level of the Swiss league. Kevin McE (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The goal that won the title

I have already put this up as a suggestion for the 2011–12 Manchester City F.C. season. I would think that the goal that won Manchester City the 2011/2012 English Premier league title, aka Sergio Argüero`s 3-2 goal vs Q.P.R, deserves its own page. This will probably be the most notorious moment/match in English league football (At least the premier league), and one of the most legendary moments in any European national league. I would like to write it myself, but I am not sure about my editing or English skills. Anyone up for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a small possibility that the match may, at some point in the distant future, deserve a new article - but the goal certainly will not. GiantSnowman 12:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Considering that we don't have a standalone article on Maradona's Hand of God goal, which is 10000000 times more notable, I think we definitely don't need one on that goal of Aguero's...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

.. maybe time we make an article on the Hand of God goal ? TonyStarks (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Agüero goal is described in detail here (scroll to end of section). Rather oddly, the Manchester City season article only mentions it in the lead and has no match-by match detail, unlike their cross-town rivals. BTW, not one of these articles has this match referenced, and the Manu one is rather overblown in its tone and was clearly written by someone for whom English is not their first language; e.g. "Their go to Stadium of Light carries the ambition to become a champion, although it's impossible" and "But at the same time Manchester City win against Queens Park Rangers 3-2 in Etihad Stadium at a dramatic injury time, City scores a last goals by Sergio Agüero, and then United failed to be a champion." Perhaps efforts should be concentrated on improving and referencing one (or all) of those articles rather than creating a stand-alone article. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hand of God goal redirects to Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup)#"Hand of God" goal which describes it adequately. Prior to January 2009, there was a separate article (see here), but this was merged with the main match article following a rather brief discussion. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
There is so much coverage of Maradona's contribution to that game that an article could just about be justified (Diego Maradona in the 1986 FIFA World Cup Final?) Hack (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't the final..............? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course (d'oh!). My point, that his performance was notable, still applies. Hack (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
If we were going to have an article on Diego Maradona in the 1986 FIFA World Cup match between Argentina and England, how would that differ from the article on the game that we already have, which, naturally, focusses almost entirely on El Diego's role in that game.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Very, very few goals in history are important enough in themselves (and have enough independent, reliable coverage separate to that of the game itself) to warrant articles. This would be pretty blatant recentism. The goal can be adequately covered in the main league article for now; as GiantSnowman suggests, there is a remote chance that one day the match itself will be seen as so important as to warrant its own article, but even that is unlikely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

We have articles in other sports about specific events within matches, e.g. That Ball by Warne to Gatting. The difference there though, I think, is that they exist for sports made up of a series of discrete events, but the way football is played is continuous. So match articles are our smallest subdivision.
The way we decide on what match articles to have outside major cup finals is pretty haphazard though. The response above suggests Manchester City 3–2 Queens Park Rangers would not get a favourable reception at AfD, yet it undoubtedly had a more lasting impact than today's 2012 FA Community Shield will. (FWIW I'm a mergist, and despite 93:20 on 13/05/2012 being one of the greatest moments of my life, I favour keeping things in a season article unless it reaches a point where the article length necessitates a daughter article. However, the sandbox article User:Stevo1000/Manchester City 3-2 Queens Park Rangers shows the creation of a match article has been considered by at least one user.) Oldelpaso (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Chicken and egg

Have Carshalton Athletic F.C. copied the history section of their Wikipedia page into their website history section, or has someone copy pasted the website history section into Wikipedia? (link to website: [19]) (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It was added to the article about six years ago, so it looks like Carshalton have copied it from here. BigDom 15:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The bulk of the history was added in November 2006 [20]. That text contains a number of changes from today's version. Looks to me like Carshalton got their info from here, not the other way around. Wayback Machine has no archived copies of the page, but looking at the URLs of those it does have from the Carshalton site, the "cafc11" part of the url corresponds to a creation date of 2011. Oldelpaso (talk)
Agreed. The Wayback Machine does have copies of the Written History cited as a reference (albeit in the Ext links section), and the history added in 2006 wasn't copyvio of that either. Seems pretty clear that the current incarnation of Carshalton Atletic copied their history from here. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
And, proving conclusively that I can't read straight, the last few paragraphs of the history, from about 2000 onwards, actually is copyvio of that Written History. I'd only looked at the beginning, seen it massively expanded from the source, and made assumptions. What should we do about it? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The copyvio raises suspicions about the rest of the expansion by the (long-inactive) user. It appears that a book, Carshalton Athletic Football Club The First One Hundred Years 1905-2005 was published in 2005, no ISBN and likely self-published. The chances of either copyvio or plagiarism from that seem high. Unfortunately none of the borough's libraries have a copy. We definitely need to delete the material from The next four seasons saw the club use five managers to Graham Roberts was appointed in his place to try to restart a promotion push; the rest is unconfirmed but certainly under a cloud. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I've taken out a little bit more than that. Will return to replace the deleted bit with a brief summary of the club's history during that period, but not for a day or three, so if anyone wants to get there first, please feel free..... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
We are writting history :) FkpCascais (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Matches in progress

I thought we said dont edit a match and say in progress. Didnt we talk about this before. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Several times. Many of us have got bored of reverting or sending (often very rudely) ignored messages to those who find the experience of watching a match incomplete without updating wiki as the game goes on. As the originator of the template, I would be perfectly happy to see it redundant (I'm sure whoever put together the vandalism/unsourced/pov templates would feel the same), but for as long as the practice continues, we should at least warn the reader that it is not a result. Kevin McE (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Basically you hope that eventually it wont happen again but for now sense it is we should just let the reader know that the match is not over yet. Okay. Still feel it is messed up. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
If people use the existence of the template to justify the practice, you can always refer them to the documentation for the template. I've already done so for your co-gooner. Kevin McE (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Will do for next time. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Your unregistered disputant has actually replied in very good mannered on on his talk page. Kevin McE (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Saw that. He does seem like a useful editor who was following the rules. I would definitely put him in the category of good IPs. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Community Shield formations

Anyone who watched the Community Shield today, can you remember what the pre-match formation graphics showed? I'm afraid I missed the game and ITV Player isn't showing it, so I'm having to go by a best guess for my customary line-up graphics. At the moment, I'm working on Chelsea playing a 4-3-3 with Hazard, Mikel and Lampard as a midfield three, Ramires and Mata on the wings and Torres up front; and City in a 4-4-1-1 with Zabaleta, Kompany, Savic and Kolarov in defence, Milner, De Jong, Yaya Toure and Nasri in midfield, and Tevez supporting Aguero in attack. Corroboration please? – PeeJay 16:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have game on Sky+ shows Chelsea playing 4-2-3-1 or could be viewed as a 4-5-1. Man City were showed as 3-4-1-2 with Zabaleta, Komapany and Savic in defence however Sky sports app says City played 4-4-1-1. BadSynergy (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
If there's no reliable source / you're attempting to interpret graphics from the TV, then the formation graphic shouldn't be created. GiantSnowman 17:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Usually one of the papers will have the formations in tomorrow so I think it will be ok. I didn't see the first half but Man City were definitely playing 3 at the back with two wing-backs in the second half. Ramires was playing at CM and Hazard on the wing. Milner at RWB. That's about all I can remember. Adam4267 (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
What about this? BadSynergy (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll get a copy of The Guardian tomorrow, they're usually pretty good. Until then, that Chelsea source seems to corroborate with other sources I've found. – PeeJay 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't like these diagrams at all. At best they can show a starting line-up. Positions are often fluid. Ramires may have started in midfield, but he spent most of the match playing right-back. Zabaleta switched sides for the second half. And of course we can only put what is in reliable sources. Otherwise I'd add details of the rather memorable sight of witnessing a stand-up fight between a steward and a bloke dressed as Zippy shortly after the start of the second half. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the point though (Showing the formation at the start of the match, not the Zippy violence). You'd say in the prose if players swithced positions. Adam4267 (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

2012-13 Aston Villa season

I have just realised that 2012–13 Aston Villa F.C. season is rated as stub-class. As one of the main editors of this article, I would have to disagree as I have seen many that are of much poorer quality. Is there anyway I can become the official main editor to help boost the quality of this article etc? Cheers User talk:DMVillan 17:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with the quality assessment and you think it meets the criteria for a higher class, you can change it on the article talk page. For your second point, you can't own or be the "official main editor" of an article - this is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. You should try to work with other editors to improve the article rather than try and force your own style upon it. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
First off, I agree with Dom, dont believe you are the main editor (the big guy I would say). I did that with Indian football (still do) and so far it has not helped, been pretty bad actually. As for the page I would give it a "C" class (Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.). I say this because we are not even past the first game of the season yet so the information will obvious be minimal but you have also provided details of almost everything. Basically if you keep this up, add a Review section in which you talk about there Premier League season then be maybe the mid-way point we could push to "B". --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Club badges for non-league

After a lot of work, there are now only three teams currently in levels 1–10 in English football that lack badges in their infoboxes: Eversley & California F.C., London Bari F.C. and Thurnby Nirvana F.C.. That's 608/611 teams done, but I can't find these three badges anywhere. Any help would be great to break this milestone. Cheers. Delsion23 (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure this is not the Eversley crest [21]. It must be the same club because the league table section has them listed in the same league. The other two are going to be hard, specially Bari because of the Italian team. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I think more of an issue is whether the clubs are notable enough for an article.Eldumpo (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
They definitely don't seem to be. But seeing as they are English then I highly doubt they'll be deleted. Adam4267 (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Eversley have very recently changed their name to the somewhat exotic Eversley & California F.C., so presumably their new crest would reflect that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Best option for Thurnby Nirvana F.C. appears to be the two badges from this programme! - Both badges appear on the players shirts. League Octopus (League Octopus 16:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)).
Well noticed Octopus! Very odd that they've just adopted the two badges of the former clubs rather than creating a new one. I've added them to the article. Agree with Breton that it's unlikely we'll see Eversley & California's badge as they're a new team so it may take a while for one to emerge. London Bari are a newly formed one too from what I can make out, and have only recently joined the Essex League. Cheers for the help everyone! Delsion23 (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Bit that leads to bizarre newsflash

I need help in Template:Racing de Santander managers if you please. One dash needs to be removed in Juan Carlos Unzué because he has been fired BEFORE the Segunda División starts. Oddly enough, his replacement, Fabri González, met the same fate at SD Huesca, talk about your football oddities!

Attentively, thank you very much in advance --AL (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You've still got Unzué's row formatted as if it were the last entry in the list, as opposed to the ordinary format. You just need to format it the same way as the preceding one (Cervera). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I've fixed it, but what I really want to know is why we are using such a horrendously complicated template (using the {{Football manager list entry}} subtemplate)? I've now changed the template to just use the standard hlist format, which has pretty much halved the size of the template (6,855 bytes to 3,766) with no visible change to it. Having all these sub-templates (there were 78 involved here) puts more strain on a browser as it gives it more to process. Why is this needed, and can we get a bot to strip it out (I did it using a simple search/replace function in notepad)? Number 57 14:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
A word on your "football oddities", Leroy Rosenior got fired after ten minutes as Torquay United manager. So yeah... beat that.--EchetusXe 16:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Mohun Bagan sign Prasanta Banerjee as new coach after firing Steve Darby but then they relegate him to assistant in literally around 5 minutes after they signed Subrata Bhattacharya. But he was not fired so ya, you win. Speaking of which though, the article on Leroy says "Fastest sacking in English football." What about All-time football? --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that is just a case of the editor covering themselves in case someone in Zambia got fired in 8 minutes or whatever.--EchetusXe 22:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Belarus flags

There is a new flag of Belarus (which is in fact the old version slightly modified). There are very many articles and templates that display the new flag where there should be the old one, so after an administrator completes my request we could start gradually changing the ones concerning the period between 1995 and 2012. By the way, per our article, it seems that the old Malawi flag is not yet re-adopted, and the version featuring the white sun is still in effect. --Theurgist (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is already done... Belarus (1995), Belarus (Now). Cant tell though. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
As I'm typing this, it's not done. The only "alias" the template has is "1991". {{flagicon|BLR|1991}} produces Belarus (File:Flag of Belarus (1991-1995).svg); any other value, whether "1995" or something else, is ignored, and the default flag is displayed. --Theurgist (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
It's done now. --Theurgist (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Squad numbers for specific seasons

Anyone know how to find them? I'm having a go fixing up the 1991 FA Charity Shield article, and it's very difficult to locate Spurs squad numbers (or Arsenal ones) for that season. I'm not even sure if either club have published a 1991/92 annual, so if they can't be found, should I just remove the numbers? Lemonade51 (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Players were only assigned numbers on a game-by-game basis until 1993, so you won't be able to find any season-long squad numbers for that season. It seems likely, however, that the numbers already in place in the article are correct (with the exception of David Hillier wearing #25... surely the starting line-up wore numbers 1 to 11?). You might want to get hold of a copy of the match programme for the match-specific numbers. – PeeJay 01:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Cheers, will certainly have a look into this. Lemonade51 (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The programme from the match itself probably won't help, as it was printed before the game, amendments made with a biro notwithstanding. I could've sworn there's a comprehensive Arsenal stats site somewhere on the web but I can't find it right now. [22] gives the line-up, almost certainly in 1–11 order, but doesn't help determine which sub was 12 and which was 14. The realisation that there are now adult football fans too young to remember top-level teams using 1–11 makes me feel old ;-) Oldelpaso (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It's true that the match programme was printed before the game, but it is possible that the teams announced their line-ups in advance of the game, allowing them to be printed in the programme. This has certainly been the case for a number of pre-Premier League programmes I've purchased. – PeeJay 20:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Pre-1992 programmes always had the teams printed in them (I have hundreds of them), but the teams printed were invariably only on a "best guess" basis, and changes were pretty much always announced on the day (I have a Gills programme from 1980-something where I have crossed out and replaced ten out of eleven players on the opposition team). Even for a high-profile match like the Charity Shield, there'd be no guarantee that the programme printers would get all 22 players right...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Correct, there were no squad numbers in English football at that time. Bring back teams wearing 1-11 I say. Along with goalies wearing green and refs wearing black </oldmanrant> -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Why did they change it to teams having squad numbers?. I didn't know that "back in the day" all goalies had to wear green and refs could only wear black. What happened if a team wore green or black? Adam4267 (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I can only speak for England, but referees only wore black until the creation of the Premier League, when they switched to green. Before then black kits were not allowed (Manchester United promptly brought out a black away kit upon the change). There was never a rule about keepers wearing green, they just almost always did unless there was a clash. Try doing Google Images searches for random pre-90s keepers. I'm feeling a lot older than my 31 years right now. Jumpers for goalposts. Saturday afternoons. Marvellous. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Not to make you feel even older but I have absolutely no idea who that guy was. I understand what he was saying but I'm not sure whether it was a joke or not. Adam4267 (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Now that makes me feel old! Do a search for Paul Whitehouse. – PeeJay 21:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Archie the pub bore. Talks to people in the pub, and when they mention their profession, no matter what it is and however unlikely, he always claims to have had the same profession ("I used to be a single mother myself"), That made me laugh. I did think that video of Ron Manager looked like a spoof but I just wasn't sure. Sorry to make you guys feel old. Adam4267 (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I would imagine they introduced squad numbers because it made the Premier League seem a bit more cool/jazzy/hip, and because it allowed the clubs to charge mugs fans extra to print names on their replica shirts...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
They did indeed. Check out David Conn's book "The Football Business" for more info. – PeeJay 21:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Jules Boykoff

The University professor Jules Boykoff has played for the United States Under-23 team. Does anybody know what game(s) he was involved in? TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently he was involved between 1989 and 1991 but didn't make it to the Olympics. He later played professional indoor soccer. Hack (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
He seems to have played in the 1989 and 1990 Toulon Tournaments. Hack (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Any admins about

please could they have a look at the deleted Will Packwood, who made his debut in the League Cup last night, and restore it if there's any worthwhile content. Thanks in advance, Struway2 (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Done and done. GiantSnowman 09:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Ta. It's better than I remembered it, saves a lot of messing about. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:UE Lleida seasons

Guys, I'm not about much over the next 2 weeks, anybody fancy taking a look at {{UE Lleida seasons}} - first glance most are unreferenced & non-notable. Sputnik, I'm looking in your direction ;) GiantSnowman 21:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Lucas Moura to PSG

PSG have reached a deal with Sao Paulo for Lucas Moura who will join up with the French club in January 2013. Should his infobox list PSG now with 2013 as the year or should we wait until he officially joins in January? Also, for Sao Paulo in his infobox, it says 2010-2012, sort of implying he's time with the club is up, which is not the case. How do we fix this? The reason I ask here is because I've had this same issue for other players before and wasn't sure how to approach it. Personally, I think PSG should be removed from the infobox until he officially makes the move in January. TonyStarks (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. The infobox is an overview of his career to date. Adam4267 (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree as well. Shall remove PSG for now. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Hopefully people don't keep changing it back. Also, the article is currently at Lucas Rodrigues Moura da Silva, however he is more commonly known as Lucas or Lucas Moura. I know it will be impossible to move the article to just Lucas given how common that name is but can we justify a move to Lucas Moura? There's a discussion about it on his talk page but it only has a few messages. TonyStarks (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
For anyone interested, a move request has been made to move the article to Lucas Moura. To voice your opinion and vote, see his talk page. TonyStarks (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Fernando Llorente

After seeing what i saw in the article's talk, this next week could be interesting. Someone there "ordered" us to write what can be seen there, when the media speculation (and nothing more at the point) is on his teammate Javi Martínez, only the newspaper Bild wrote about a possible transfer, no official issues still.

What's "interesting" is that, according to the user who wrote before me in Llorente's talkpage, the player is going to play for FC Bayern Munich II. Well i never!

In a unrelated item, can someone have a look at a possible re-protection on Cristian Tello? Vandalism afoot (last year i don't believe the player had an article still, but now that he may go and play for Liverpool, vandals ahoy!), especially one MICHAELS1882, have a look at this edit (please see here and the following two. Sigh... --AL (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's that time of year. Don't worry about it. Revert, use templated warnings if you feel like it for fresh vandalism (you've got Twinkle, I think?), ignore. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Twinkle? I don't think i do mate, what is it? An helping tool? Unless it's automatically installed i'd have to say "no" to that question. Cheers --AL (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, for some reason I thought you had. It's a tool whereby if you revert a vandalism edit, it automatically links to the user page of the editor who made the edit and offers a menu of templated warnings thst you can use. It also helps with reporting vandals to AIV, requesting page protection or deletion, and with nice things as well, like welcoming new users. See Twinkle. Other similar scripts are available, e.g. Huggle. But it's like the rollback facility, in that if we use it for reverting vandalism, it must be really vandalism, not just an edit we happen to disagree with or by an editor we disagree with. See Wikipedia:Twinkle#Abuse. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Northampton Town Football League level

Bit of a discrepancy here. The article itself says that it sits at level 16 of the pyramid, the English_football_league_system page places it at level 12, while the United_Counties_Football_League page lists it as a feeder league, implying that its at level 11. Which is it? Valenciano (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Northampton Town Football League (NTFL) was always seen as the lesser division (relative to the Northamptonshire Football Combination (NFC) with NFC reserve sides often playing in the NTFL, but both had notional Step 7 (i.e. level 11) status. With this season's new National League System regulations and requirements, the FA decided to demote the NTFL to its true position (just below the NFC's five divisions) at the 16th level mgSH 12:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
my reading of it depends of the regional issues and the fa placement cant say for sure what it is, not found a defintive source that says one way or another--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Pinxton F.C.

Could an admin please restore Pinxton F.C. which was deleted in 2008 because the club had not played in the FA Vase. As of 2012–13, it will have competed in the FA Vase three times. Delsion23 (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The article should only be restored/rewritten if it passes GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Which it almost definitely doesn't. BigDom (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Lukas Podolski

Can someone help me here. Already undid 2 and sorta undid a third (I actually replaced an edit with a note) and I rather not do another edit and risk a block. Basically it is his shirt number, have not confirmed anything yet editors/IPs add with no real source. I have left a note but you know how things go. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

English club websites

Just a heads-up for you all - several English clubs have relaunched their websites over the course of this summer, meaning that the old URLs now redirect to the home page. I don't know whether the articles have been deleted or simply moved - however it will definitely take time to correct this - through use of archived links if necessary. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 12:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that Bradford City have done it, didn't know anybody else had and didn't know old links were dead. Good thinking clubs! GiantSnowman 12:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
They need to learn that websites aren't managers, who change every season. Kosm1fent 14:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I always tried to avoid using club links as this was always likely to happen.--EchetusXe 15:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Could be worse, the url for the official list of Australian internationals now points to a club membership brochure... Hack (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The risk of having WP:OVERREF thrown at me notwithstanding, I often used multiple cites from official sources and news outlets for precisely this eventuality. Good to see it was the right call. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 14:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find any alternative sources or archives for some of the statements at Tranmere Rovers F.C. Many clubs seem to use the same structure website - has anyone determined if the old articles have been moved or deleted? Cheers. U+003F? 15:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Also it appears that access has been blocked from outside the UK - at least, I cannot get past the home page on the the Southampton site. I'm in France for several weeks; it's bad enough missing the start of the season - how am I supposed to keep up to date with what's going on? I have the same problem with the Bristol Rovers, Bradford City or Tranmere Rovers sites. They all just go to a blank page. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer U+003F's question: unfortunately for us it appears that articles older than the start of last year have not been retained, not even in an archive section. In the case of Forest for example, that's eleven years worth of transfers, contracts, managerial hirings 'n' firings, and match reports (as well as a fair bit of PR guff) lost. At a time when The Independent still has articles from the '90s, when the Google News Archive can bring us articles printed in the early-'90s in Kuala Lumpur in seconds, this is a massive backwards step by whoever runs the club websites. Very disappointing to see. Also, some clubs that had the old standard layout haven't changed to this yet (such as Cardiff, for example). Would it be worth finding alternative sources now as a precaution? Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 16:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Damn. I dropped a line to Tranmere to see if they've just moved the pages elsewhere, but I won't hold my breath. The old site seems to have very poor coverage on the too – I wonder why. U+003F? 21:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Jermaine Grandison nationality?

So there's some confusion about whether or not Jermaine Grandison made an international appearance for Guyana. A couple of folks are saying that it was a different Jermaine Grandision, but the sources I found are saying that it was the defender from Shrewsbury Town F.C.. – Michael (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

All the sources (specially transfermarket) link him to being a Guyana player (the Shresbury guy). I would add the info and then ask the guy who reverted why he thinks it is someone different when sources clearly show it is the Shrewsbury player. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It can't have been the Shrewsbury Jermaine Grandison who played for Guyana. He played a night game for Shrewsbury against Swindon the night before the international match in question, so he'd have done well getting flights to Grenada in time to play, and played for Shrewsbury again a few days later. This mentions him being stuck in traffic on his way to the ground, but not him having recently played for Guyana. Neither of these articles about him in the Shrewsbury local paper mention Guyana. In fact, according to Google, there are no articles on the Shropshire Star website containing both Grandison and Guyana, and there certainly would have been had he played for them. The Guyana Chronicle names the squad member as Junior Grandison, not Jermaine, and specifically mentions which of the squad were not locally based players.
The trouble with relying on purely statistical sites is that they all source from each other, particularly on more obscure matches/players/countries, so that once one site publishes inaccurate information, the misinformation spreads and becomes "fact". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Transfermarkt mantions his one cap for Guyana at his front page but fails to have a match report to back it up. This is why I keep on saying that only the matchs report backed statistic is reliable on transfermarkt. FkpCascais (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:North African Cup of Cup Champions Seasons

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:North African Cup of Cup Champions Seasons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Premier League Copyright at Tottenham Hotspur FC.

I was looking at there 2012-13 page and not only did my computer get a virus but also I saw that they had the Premier League fixtures here. Now I thought that the fixtures were copyrighted so I just wanted to bring this to attention. So delete the fixtures or not. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If you thought the fixtures were copyrighted, maybe you should have had the courage of your convictions and just deleted them. I notice you bring a lot of stuff to WT:FOOTY when it doesn't really need to be discussed, so perhaps this could be the start of a new chapter for you. – PeeJay 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Simple. I am on mobile. I cant highlight and delete and the internet is slow enough as it is as I have this page on desktop. That explains it. I dont disagree however, I shall do that in the future. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't mean to sound harsh by the way, I'm just a little blunt. Also, yes, those fixtures are licensed (rather than copyrighted), and since Wikipedia can't afford an annual licence, we don't add them. – PeeJay 19:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh okay. And no I did not take it like that. I do understand and I have been thinking that myself. Now that I am back on computer I shall remove it. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm the original editor of the page, having added much of its content and format when it was first created. I know this has been a long-running controversy between a few contributors/editors and I wanted to come on here and discuss the situation and seek an amicable solution. First and foremost, I want to point out that there is both precedent AND valid reason to keep the fixture list intact on the listed page. For the previous seasons' page, the fixture list was kept intact for the entire season, with (to our knowledge) no copyright or license claim filed by Football DataCo against Wikipedia. Second, I want to point out that the ECJ ruled against Football DataCo in March, throwing out their case against Yahoo!, eZines, and betting sites for unlicensed use of fixtures by stating that it was not a matter of copyright infringement. Finally, I wanted to point out that Wikipedia is based in the US and, as such, falls under US jurisdiction in the matter of copyright claim. So long as the ECJ has ruled against Football DataCo, they have no legitimate claim against an American company following American law - and in the US, fixture lists/schedules are not copyright material and need no license. So the above listed are three very solid reasons as to why the fixture list should be kept intact. That said, if further confirmation or proof is required, please refer to the following links for information about the ECJ ruling: (, (, (, --jeffjones217 08:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)