Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 75 Archive 79 Archive 80 Archive 81 Archive 82 Archive 83 Archive 85


AfD candidate

Adrià Ortolá, has never played in even Segunda División thus far. Talk about a double "faux pas", the picture in his box is Gerard Deulofeu!

Attentively --AL (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Result table of a leaque

Hello. Do you know how can i use the result table of a leaque (like 2012–13 Cypriot First Division#Results) if the leaques have 4 rounds etc each team plays at home with each other team twice. Is there an example? Xaris333 (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Two tables. -Koppapa (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Is there an exaple? I think two table is not the best solution. Xaris333 (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The SPL uses multiple tables to show teams play each other more than twice. EddieV2003 (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thx. I hoped there was a different solution. Xaris333 (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Just use a normal wikitable then. THen you can do "3-0<br>1-2". It has no colors though. Or do:
AEK Larnaca 1–2 4–0 2–0 2–3 0–1 2–0 3–0 1–2 5–0 2–1 1–2 1–0 2–1
AEK Larnaca 1–2 4–0 2–0 2–3 0–1 2–0 3–0 1–2 5–0 2–1 1–2 1–0 2–1
AEL Limassol 2–2 4–0 3–1 1–1 1–3 3–2 2–0 2–0 1–1 1–1 2–1 1–1 1–1
AEL Limassol 2–2 4–0 3–1 1–1 1–3 3–2 2–0 2–0 1–1 1–1 2–1 1–1 1–1

-Koppapa (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I need help

I´m dealing with a IP (probably a sock of James Lindberg) who is editing from IP adresses starting with 118 who is blaking sections (as in List of Macedonian football champions, see diff) or adding complete nonsensical league names and stuff (as in FK Vardar, see diff), changing sourced facts, removing valid templates, categories, edit-warring... He had yesterday edited from and today from His edits are extremely disruptive and nonsensical, and he has got away till now cause not many editors edit Macedonian football, but he is disrupting the most important ones and the situation urges action. FkpCascais (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Kroupa, scottish penalty

Hi, I'm italian user. Writing a biography of Karel Kroupa, searching on Playerhistory/ I can read: "Scored one league goal from a "scottish penalty" (assisted by Josef Pešice) against TJ Bohemians Praha". You know what's a "scottish penalty"? --Dimitrij Kasev (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I've never heard the phrase. But, this page via google translate talks of a penalty against Bohemians that was taken by Pesice, but he didn't shoot, just touched the ball forwards and Kroupa ran in to shoot and score. The page then says (again via translator) Such a method of execution is called "Scottish Penalty". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Dimitrij Kasev (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-standard career statistics tables

Does anyone know a short-cut to convert this table to a standard table? When I realized that the table in John Carew's article was removed, I thought about re-add the table with a citation, but I'm reluctant to manually type all the numbers. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No shortcut I'm afraid, but I've added the 'correct' format back (currently hidden, needs populating). GiantSnowman 20:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Pappoe article

Can someone please reinstate the article? He made his debut for Colchester Utd against Bradford City on 14 September. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Pappoe (footballer) also exists... needs merging. JMHamo (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I've moved the existing article to the non-DAB'd title. Number 57 18:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

2013 CR Vasco da Gama season

There is a changing IP user who keeps putting starting 11 and assists back into 2013 CR Vasco da Gama season. Each day that edits occur, it is a different IP address.EddieV2003 (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Live scoring

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 8, I want to make it known that I strongly support live scoring of matches. Wikipedia is often the first to cover important news events, and sporting matches are among them. Along those lines, I categorically reject the notion that Wikipedia is "not in the business of" reporting scores in real time. We are an encyclopedia, and have a commitment to provide the most current and accurate information. Let's note with pride the willingness of some editors to take time out of their day (and perhaps monitor the Wikipedia page while watching the game), just so others can receive better information. It's a virtuous act that we should reward. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We are not a ticker news service. It's an annoying act that leads to incorrect information, and should be stamped out. GiantSnowman 17:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Where on WP:NOTNEWS does it state that we are not a ticker news service? It states that articles "can be updated with recently verified information"; the verification can easily be obtained from the ESPN (i.a.) broadcast or the online "GameCast" that lists the score and different plays.
Furthermore, WP:NOTNEWS states "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Indeed we are not emphasizing the new information with live scoring; we are simply including it in its proper place (namely, the place where the score goes). It's not like we're committing some egregious error by posting the current score; in fact, the current score is infinitely more accurate than the default score (namely, 0-0). When an editor looks up a given sporting event, they expect to see accurate information. If the score is listed as 0-0 they may think the game is still scoreless when in fact it is not. It is a disservice to readers to exclude verifiable information. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
No, because when Wikipedia states a score of 0-0 and confirms that was prior to the match, that is 100% accurate. When it says 2-0 because two editors have both added the same goal scored by one team without realising, that is 0% accurate. NOTNEWS states "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" and live scores falls under that. The fact that you are citing ESPN, a sports news broadcaster, tells us everything we need to know. GiantSnowman 18:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
ESPN is a solidly reliable source for scores. Yes, the score may be overturned within a few seconds or minutes ("the ruling on the field is overturned," as they say in American football), but those are blips on the radar. We report information that later turns out to be false all the time; "facts" change with time and may even be retroactively changed. For example, USC had some of its American football wins "vacated" - which is to say, wiped off the record books. If we want to avoid being "premature" we would have to wait, say, ten thousand years until nobody plays sports anymore, just to make sure the score won't be vacated at some future point. We can't wait forever to report scores.
Inaccurate scores are indeed problematic. However, I see the 2-0 problem as being a rare one; even if it happened 5 times, we're talking about thousands of articles, and the fact that people noticed it tells me it did not go uncorrected. Both 0-0 and 2-0 are plainly and simply incorrect. There's no way around that, and I do not endorse either. I endorse only what is current and verifiable, which is 1-0. Live scoring is an elegant and easily recognizable representation of our goal as a project - to relay the sum of human knowledge. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
ESPN may well be solidly reliable; that does not mean we should try and imitate a sport cable network! The 2-0 problem happens more often than you might think, with over-eager IPs wanting to be the first ones to update the score. 0-0 is NOT incorrect when it is made obvious that the game has not completed. Case in point, I suggest you look at this recent match - it was at 3-1 (so by your methods the corresponding article would have shown 3-1, and would have been updated as such) but then it was abandoned due to weather and will be re-played in the future. A score should not be placed in an encyclopedia until it has been confirmed as finishing. Finally, you need to stop comparing soccerball to gridiron, they are two different sports with different rules & culture, and what happens in American football is 100%, wholly, completely, entirely irrelevant to this discussion. GiantSnowman 18:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Please do not discredit my comparisons. I have every right to make them. The concept of live scoring applies to all sports, whether this or any other, and I find the concept admirable in each of those situations (except perhaps for tennis, where the score can go back and forth before there's a winner).
  • There's no harm in putting a score in there as long as it's current and verifiable. Once we find out the score is inaccurate (because the game was cancelled or postponed) we can change it, but to assume the game may be cancelled or postponed is a crystal ball prediction. Based on the best of our knowledge (past sports matches as evidence), it is safe only to assume that a given score will be upheld and will contribute to the final score, and that a game will have a final score (i.e. will not be cancelled or postponed). To suggest otherwise (that a team scoring is not really valid, or that a final score will never arrive) seems overreaching. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Outside (of you two) perspective. I've been guilty of adding scorers, but not updating scores during a match, but I understand this situation. There is no deadline so we can wait for the match to finish before updating the score. Presumably, those who are advocating updating scores mid-match would also advocate updating league tables mid-match.... What a disaster...

Having said that, it's a little like the end of season change in divisions for promoted and relegated clubs, and players transferred whose contracts don't actually start until, say, 1 July. Trying to fight this kind of knee-jerk news ticker reporting on Wikipedia is a lost cause. It shouldn't be encouraged, but we'll never 100% beat the tide of people who "want to post it first". Perhaps we could direct those folks to WP:ITN/C. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"Trying to fight this kind of knee-jerk news ticker reporting on Wikipedia is a lost cause."
  • That seems like a very dismissive way to interpret the good-faith actions of many editors who want to share their knowledge with others. Perhaps you think Wikipedia should "eventually" be good; I think it should be good right now. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Pages frequently don't get updated fully or incorrectly because more than one editor does it leaving the wrong scores, matches get abandoned and the scores still sit there. Especially important regarding abandoned matches as the end source ends up with all the stats removed. Its a constant battle and the only reliable source is the one that comes fully completed at full time. Scores is not an imperative update and we should not be trying to be a poor mans breaking news service. If people want live scores they'll to to ESPN if they want encyclopaedic and fully verifiable information backed up with a reliable and complete source then they will come to Wikipedia. The one jumping glaringly out at me point is Once we find out the score is inaccurate' we are an encyclopaedia and should not be providing the user with inaccurate info in the first place especially without a set in a concrete reliable source which with live scores it never is. There is simply no need for live scores on this site unless Jimbo decided to launch a breaking news or sports ticker service which we are neithier and is clearly what WP is Not. Blethering Scot 22:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
"Once we find out the score is inaccurate"
  • You seem to be taking that out of context. I was referring to situations in which a game is cancelled or postponed - we have no way of anticipating such situations, so they are inherently special cases. In the vast majority of cases the game actually goes through as planned. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Nobody looks on Wikipedia for live scores – there are dozens of better providers of that particular service – so there's no good reason to do it. Wikipedia can never be as good as most other providers of live scores, because editors get their scores from those providers. Good reasons not to do it include the reasons stated above by others, and one that I regularly find, that of someone updating a live score, then losing interest and buggering off, leaving an incorrect scoreline in an article long after the match has finished. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but by that logic no-one should edit anything in case they lose interest and bugger off part way through. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Given all the other means of getting a score, why would anyone choose an encyclopedia? Also a game is 90 mins or thereabouts. Editing an article on Wiki is often a lifetimes work! Buggering off half way through something which is known to have a definite end time is no way to go. Doing the same on an article on a person or a place would not be so bad as long as the article were left in an acceptable condition. Surely even in this age of instant info we can hang on until the cholesterolly-challenged female has completed her vocals?--Egghead06 (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
"Surely even in this age of instant info" -- that's exactly the point. Wikipedia helped pioneer instant, easy access to anything you could imagine. That's one of our founding tenets; that's in our DNA. This is a logical component of that philosophy. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Although another sport WP:LIVESCORES hits it on the head! Why would it be different for football? --Egghead06 (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm endorsing the idea of live scores for all sports (not as a requirement but as an option). "Only three editors participated in the discussion so the decision may need to be revisited at some point" - that's part of the problem. We haven't had a vigorous enough debate. I think there are more supporters of live scoring than it would seem on the face. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
"Nobody looks on Wikipedia for live scores"
  • Strongly disagree. Our articles about current sporting events (or current events as a whole) get tens or hundreds of thousands of views. Whether people like it or not, we are looked to as a relayer of breaking news (not a primary source, but a timely secondary source). Some editors have made good faith efforts to keep others updated, and it's frustrating to see people dismiss those efforts. Without the "live game" tag people will still update scores - but readers will not be warned - making the problem double. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of Template:Match in progress is that we're warning the readers that the match is still in progress, and that the information will continue to be updated. No reader who sees "match in progress" next to a score is going to take that score as the final score. The reader will see the tag, recognize that the match is still ongoing, and take the score as a helpful gauge of where the game is so far; the reader may check in after the game has concluded to see the final score, but most likely will not do so. For those few moments when the reader stops by the article, let's give them the best knowledge we have available to us, rather than mislead them with outdated pre-match information. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news medium. If a person wants to know the score of a match, ESPN or another source is better suited and just as easily accessible (if not easier since scores are on the front page). I do not get Bundesliga games, but I would not come here to get the score when a gamecast somewhere else breaks down the events in real time. Some members are editing the 2013–14 FC Bayern Munich season appearances table during the match which I believe should wait until it is finished, but the information of who started will not be incorrect like a goal which may be ruled later to have been scored by a different player. There is no reason to go back and correct errors when they are avoidable in the first place. The site guidelines say it is not a news ticker, so it should not be treated as one. EddieV2003 (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If a user is coming to Wikipedia for live match results, they're using Wikipedia in the wrong way. We are not a primary source, and although we get our info from primary/secondary sources, that doesn't mean that people should skip the middleman and come straight here. If they come here and find that we haven't updated the scores throughout the match, that's their problem and they should go somewhere that does do that. – PeeJay 10:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely agree! I have been told by anons that their employers have blocked sports websites so that they cannot get updates that way. My response was that if an employer thinks employees are wasting time by looking at sports websites and then if Wikipedia is used for that purpose, what will happen to this site at that place of work?
We are an encyclopedia and not a scoreboard or a news site. We should remove the MIP template, or at least update its documentation to indicate that scores are not to be updated during match play. We can also lock articles where match results may be posted on a case-by-case basis until this behaviour stops. At the very least an edit page notice should be added to those pages indicating that match scores should only be updated after full-time. It might be appropriate to link to the official location where the live score can be seen while the MiP template is in-place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So should we update league tables while these matches are going on Casey? Where do you draw the line? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And what about issued raised by #Two sources, two versions where the goalscorer is contested? GiantSnowman 17:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Livescoring has a lot of problem, minute or goalscorer sometimes are not clear. A goalscorer can change some day after the match because it is an o.g. or there is touch not seen, so on... There is already an editwarring after the end of the match because everybody what to update the tables, some times it was given to some team 2-3 victory more. There is a lot of error already updating at the end of the match. I don't want to know how much errors could be made if league table are update live. But if we allow the livescoring why we don't allow live update of league table? For me is clear to not permit the livescoring. Stigni (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Noone has ever updated a league table live. So there is no problem. If someone updates matches live, who cares. Not worth the hassle of reverting if things sort themselves out after 90 minutes of waiting. -Koppapa (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
No-one, ever, in the history of Wikipedia? I call shenanigans on that. GiantSnowman 10:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
For the Kenyan football there is this Template to remember that Wikipedia is not a play-by-play sports magazine. You are right no one now update the table, but how much undo we have done?? Stigni (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
(i) The default scoreline is not 0–0, it is a v, like Juventus v Inter Milan. If it is not updated, nobody will think it is 0–0. (ii) Here is an old revision of this season of Europa League, updated at 21:29 (UTC), 25 July 2013, when the second leg of second qualifying round took place. If you change it to CEST, it was saved at 23:29, meaning that even the latest match between Sarajevo and Kukësi had already ended. However, there are still 4 matches marks "in progress", three of which have a different scoreline from the final scores. What does this mean? It means absolutely false information. If you do not update it, nobody will blame any editors for being lazy and nobody will think the (un-updated) final scores are all 0–0. But if you leave an "in progress" tag, many will think that the match is still on, while the truth is that the match has ended two hours ago. If you want livescore, go to, please leave wikipedia as what it is: an encyclopedia. FootballStatWhore (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

So is live scoring okay? There has now been a small dispute at 2013–14 Real Madrid C.F. season were one user insists on live score. I have updated article talkpage and informed that user here He says it is okay since the mip-template was kept here. QED237 (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

From the above discussion, I think most users oppose live scoring. Also, I observed that in the first matchday of the 2013-14 UEFA champions league group stage, live scoring is seriously discouraged. Only one or two people tried to update the score when the matches were still on, and their edits were quickly reverted. Even if the mip template is not deleted for now (for whatever reason, possibly kept for multi-day sports), it should NOT be used in football articles. If some users stick to live scoring, in extreme cases, I would recommend the moderators to temporarily lock the page until the match is over. This is a transitional period from live scoring to no live scoring, so it may take some time (a few month maybe). FootballStatWhore (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Does this also apply to all the stats tables in the articles? Editors are updating top scorers, appearances and so on during matches. Is that allowed? QED237 (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It may or may not be desirable but how would you prevent it. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and they do!--Egghead06 (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Revert,Discuss,Warn,block. QED237 (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, of course you are correct. In practice experienced editors of football articles seem to have adopted more of Ignore, Tidy-up, Move-on approach. I'm not sure monitoring and policing the many articles on teams, leagues and individuals during games to check for live scoring is how many editors would choose to spend their time.--Egghead06 (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Well i cant do them all, but I start with one and then move on, and go one by one. It has worked on champions league and europa league were live updates ended, and I think it can work on other articles as well with a lot of work. Although i might need some help so i dont break WP:3RR in the progress. QED237 (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad to help on the articles I watch, and I've updated the template to reflect a better position. Don't indicate scorers or scores, only that the match is in progress. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Many years after I've volunteered my time this continues freak the admins. This last past week I got into a sparring confrontation with an enforcer of this belief during the Ukrainian Cup. So this bright eyed individual likes deleting in progress information and then when the game is finished finds some unofficial news outlet and uses Russified tranliterated names which have no wikilinks and times of goalscoring which are incorrect. I see this as typical hypocrisy and covered with disrespectful insults of ethnicity just to be politically correct because a game is not completed. Oh, yeah I had to correct their entries when the official match reports...

IMO updates do not infract on articles. WP gives enough leeway for updates to occur until there is definitive stability and references for verification is available. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Short answer - no. A match/score is not complete until the final whistle has been blown, it could be called-off in the 89th minute and re-played at a later date. Live-scoring as if we are a ticker news service is simply wrong. GiantSnowman 11:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Short reply- yes. The result in football is no different than other sports that are followed on WP. Four day golf tournaments and five day Test cricket matches. Result is not known but entries in WP are included. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Short comment - You can not compare a golf tournament to a football match. In a golf tournament you get a score each day as a part of a tournament (for instance 69 strokes). In a football the match can be replayed from the start as User:GiantSnowman said. It is totally different to add a days score that will stand, and a football score that might change. QED237 (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually we can compare anything which includes sports that is being posting as an entry in WP. Football scores actually wont change unless there is an unusual event and in that case there will undoubtedly be a verifiable reference. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


I saw something interesting today at 2013–14 UEFA Champions League group stage. An anon decided that live scores were important. Another editor and I disagreed and the anon was eventually blocked for edit warring and the article was locked. Is this a good thing? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Waste of your time. You could better be productive on WP by adding something useful rather than deleting something that would be 99.44% correct. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Walter - yes, a good move. Sets a solid precedent that repeatedly adding 'live scores' will rightly result in a block. GiantSnowman 08:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
It's only a good move to get brownie points with the admins of this project and strut your ego, but anon IP poster won't care and will try from anudder IP. Vicious cycle will continue and again you will be spending precious time playing the enforcer rather than placing something of real value here on WP. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Preventing vicious cycles from doing vicious edits is something of real value, and without these efforts, the contents of WP would have already been nothing but a pile of shit. If you want a comparison, as you seem to like it, law-breaker will continue, but that doesn't mean that the police are meaningless; on the contrary, it shows the indispensability of the police. FootballStatWhore (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Since you are such a stat whore, maybe you could a little investigation into the edits that I have made so that before you pile your puerile tripe here. If you want a real job in policing become a good citizen of the country you live in and join the police. But if you think sentencing me for placing relevant live score information as a volunteer is worth placing me in the slammer then you should seriously have your stat examined. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
(i) I do not do policing and I have no intention to be an admin. I'm a stat whore, I update current and historical matches. (ii) Good citizens can sometimes disregarding certain common practice which he thinks is absolutely innocuous. Think about this: publicly promoting gay-marriage in Iran will definitely have you punished by law, while in Canada, discriminating lesbians is not allowed. Same here in WP, if live scoring is considered inappropriate (say, reaches certain consensus), then it is discouraged, disallowed, and the admins will have further means to ensure that it does not happen in the future (by locking up the pages etc). I am not saying that live update has any detrimental effects, I (as well as many others) am only emphasizing that it is not what WP is about. So even a good faith editor like you (not sarcastic, you do have a huge contribution to the Ukrainian pages) ignores this policy, the admins do need to take action. FootballStatWhore (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand full well that concensus on this matter has never been reached. You can look through the archives and the discussion on this topic has never been closed. Only that there are several diehard admins who like to prowess there authoritarian skills. Also I know that action is often needed but if the case happens to me I'll always remember it when WP has anudder fund drive looking for donations. And then it spurs my recollections to discussions like this where I'll equate it to putting a lock on my pocket. Thanks 4 coming! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've said what I had to say. I will simply wait for concensus and the closing of this discussion, whatever decision it comes. FootballStatWhore (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

But consensus has been reached. Unanimity has not been reached, but consensus is clear that
  1. live updates should not be done and results should only be inserted after full-time,
  2. we should discourage others from adding live results,
  3. it's probably a waste of time trying to enforce, but we can always fall-back on #1 if necessary.
Just because you don't agree with the consensus doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Consensus has never been reached by proof that this topic has had many discussions over the years and is clear in the archives of this project and also constantly keeps on being questioned by WP editors, as is the case with this thread. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Unanimity has never been reached as to whether live scores should be permitted or not, but consensus has clearly been on the side of no live scoring.
The topic on what we should do about those articles where living scoring is added has not reached consensus though. Some say that there's nothing that can be done about it while others simply point to the consensus and indicate that Wikipedia is not a scoreboard or a live scores feed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

FB team templates

There are a few thousand Category:Fb team templates, which at first glance consist of nothing but a link to a team page. What is their purpose? Why aren't the actual links used, instead of going through a template? It seems like massive overkill, but I may of course be missing something. Fram (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You're not missing anything. These templates have dozens of links, it would take literally hundreds, if not thousands of man-hours to delete and replace them with normal wikilinks. This has been discussed on a few occasions on this page previously, each time resulting in a few, at least orphans, getting deleted, but it really hasn't been a fun job. Feel free to go through the millions of league tables where these team name templates are being transcluded, replace them with wikilinks, and nominate the templates for deletion – but I can tell you from experience that it's a pretty unthankful job. I don't know what went wrong when there was a bot request to have this done – may have been a lack of volunteers. Jared Preston (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
A bot would be able to replace them. I see no value in them at all and would support a mass deletion. GiantSnowman 08:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Too much for me, GS. I'd support it too, nobody would be against it... Do you want to do the honours? Oh, and if anyone is interested, Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates/4 shows the unused fb templates from #3368 onwards. A sysop could make a start there at least. Jared Preston (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
As you say I doubt anybody has the time to TFD 1000s of templates - I certainly don't! We need to get consensus, get a plan, and then get a bot. GiantSnowman 09:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd support the mass deletion as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Are they not necessary to create the team links in result matrix templates such as here? I have created a number of these because I only got redlinks if the template did not exist even if the club article did. I presume this is not the case given what is being said above, but I could not and do not know of any other way round this. Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
They're only necessary for being used in other fb templates. If one were to use a normal wiki table, then there would be no need to create the team templates. Jared Preston (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
In that case then I would prefer to keep them on the grounds that the fb templates are more concise in terms of what is needed to create them. I think less experienced editors are able to use the fb templates more readily than creating a new wiki table. A further problem it appears with removing them all would be that it would break the fb table templates themselves, so these would all need to be completely re-done as wiki tables which would seem to me to be a huge amount of work? Fenix down (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I think wikitables are easier and should be our preferred format. GiantSnowman 09:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Less experienced editors wouldn't/shouldn't be creating dozens of fb templates if they have no idea how the tables should be updated. The intricacy makes the tables less accessible. Wikitables and simple text are easier! Jared Preston (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
They wouldn't, but it is easier to copy them from pre-existing articles imo. Regardless, I have no strong opinion on keeping or deleting them as long as removing wouldnt do too much damage. The fact is that these templates are not standalone but are requirements of other templates. Deleting them would break a so far unquantified number of other templates / tables. If there is a desire to remove them and move to wikitables, I think the correct order of work is to change the tables to wikitables and then delete, not the other way round. Fenix down (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Indeed. There used to be a set of templates for career stats tables, and a bot was employed to substitute them all into wikitable format. As at this edit here. Dare say the same would be possible with the result grids, if that was what people wanted? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Struway, the career stats table templates were deleted via TFD actually, and substituted. Maybe Plasticspork (talk · contribs) can provide further advice, his bot did all the substing of that. GiantSnowman 10:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

So (from the early-days consensus here), what needs to be done: convert the templates that use these to accept wikilinks instead, change all instances of these (where the name in the template is different from the actual article name (e.g. every call of Template:Fb team Antwerp needs to become [[Royal Antwerp F.C.|Antwerp]]), and then the fb team templates can be deleted. Correct? Is indeed preferably a bot task. Fram (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. GiantSnowman 11:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Me too, this would make creating such tables in leagues which so far have only minimal coverage a simpler task. Fenix down (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
excellent plan, one easy way to do this would be to have the template check to see if the corresponding {{fb team}} template exists, and if not, just display the passed text. I started the deletion process with a batch of orphaned ones in this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I also support the mass deletion. Everything would've been so much easier without these templates. --MicroX (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I support too the mass deletion. About the templates that use it, I think that Template:Fb cl team could be replaced by Template:Fb cl2 team. Also, Template:Fb r header also uses the Fb r team's templates, are there any other templates that use the fb r team's templates? GNozaki (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, if we use the Template:Fb cl2 team instead of Template:Fb cl team, we can get rid of all of the FB team templates and instead use wikilinks. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus has been pretty clear so far. What do we need to get the ball rolling? --MicroX (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@MicroX: - see in this discussion. GiantSnowman 08:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we make a concise and clear step-by-step proposal for a bot request? Which things need replacing, which need removal, ... The eventual deletion of the templates after the bot task is done is then the final step. Fram (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I have filed Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 56#FB team templates. Fram (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Other than links to team names, some templates get flagicons from the team templates. Template:Fb in2 player, Template:Fb lo match, and Template:Fb cm1 match get flagicons from team templates and use them to represent when a team is from another country than the subject team of a season article. Will these flagicons need to be replaced or are they going to be left out of the articles? Fb lo match and Fb cm1 match also get the ground for a match from the team template by linking it to a team ground template. If the ground is in a country different from the subject team's country, then a flagicon is displayed. Removing these team templates will require the ground information to be replaced correctly in these templates. I played with the code for Template:Fb report 2t yesterday and I know how to change it to accept wikilinks. I do not know how to have a bot go through and make the changes for each use of this template though. EddieV2003 (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The unused fb templates have been deleted. I'm guessing the bot request will take some time. --MicroX (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There are many uses of these fb team templates, but the most common one is when it is used by the league-table template. While the long-term goal could be to remove all of these templates, a good start would be to replace Template:Fb cl team with Template:Fb cl2 team, and convert the templates into wikilinks like I've done here. Is this a possible task for a bot? After that has been done, I would guess that 90% of the fb team templates are unused and that they can be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as there is consensus here for these templates to go, perhaps we should move to WP:BOTREQUESTS and get some input from the technical wizzes? GiantSnowman 13:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll copy my comment over there then :) Mentoz86 (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Nominated a few more templates for discussion here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 9#Unused fb team templates. Gno- (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Players with squad numbers and first team appearances being removed from squad template

An editor has twice removed players from {{Arsenal F.C. squad}} who have squad numbers and have played first team games this season on the basis that they are "not listed in the first team by Arsenal". They are however listed in the club's squad by the BBC amongst others. Thoughts? Number 57 21:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware that the Squad template makes any requirement of the player to be "First Team". By the same token, making appearance for a team is not essential in order to be part of the squad template (many players never emerge from the bench). However you want to slice it, they are squad members for Arsenal. The Arsenal website doesn't hold a monopoly for stating what we adhere to when making lists, just like we don't use them for statistics. Koncorde (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Whoops, didn't see that this section had been made here. Please see my argument over at Template talk:Arsenal F.C. squad#Player inclusion, essentially saying that "first team" is arbitrary and the club's distinction is better than any we can come up with. — Limabeans (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Since when did the BBC become a better source for Arsenal's squad than Arsenal themselves?! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The Premier League list 44 names for the Arsenal squad for 2013-14 here. Names and numbers as provided by Arsenal FC. --Egghead06 (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
That is actually not a bad source... it is official. I will leave that to someone else to decide. I am still inclined to go with's. It is smaller and less congested while the Premier League source would include many un-notable players. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I really don't mind whatever is decided but would point out that as well as the list above, they had a number 60 on the bench the other night is a game in which, I believe, three players made their debuts.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The issue with using "official" websites is twofold, 1. We don't know who updates them, or if the source is reputable and reliable. It's not uncommon for club sites to be wrong, and as self published sources we would typically not leave it up to them to dictate how a wikipedia article works. 2. We should always try to use neutral sources for as much information as possible so that we can be consistent across a large volume of wiki articles. The logic here would seem to dictate that if Arsenal only listed the first XI on their site certain people would be trying to enforce that? I don't believe we would. So why would we rely on their arbitrary "First Team" designation any more. Koncorde (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The Southampton template lists 30 players, including 6 youngsters who have either sat on the bench or played in a League Cup match this season. The most recent league match programme lists the squad and has the same 30 players, whereas the club website only lists 24 players. Both the website and the programme are "official" in that they are published by the club, so which has more authority? Personally, I prefer the more complete list. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It's also worth highlighting that being currently non-notable enough for an article does not preclude someone from their inclusion in a list. For the record I've always included any player who has had a squad number published by the club at the start of the season, or is signed to the club and notable enough to have their own article (ie someone who is injured for the season so isn't given a squad number) and then any players (youngsters usually) that turn up on the bench during the season and therefore get squad numbers listed in match reports. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
We've had this discussion before. I can't conceive of any useful meaning of a squad list that leaves out players at the club who have played matches. To put it another way: the list on has been entered by a web editor; a list of active players has been chosen by Arsene Wenger, who I'd suggest is a more reliable source. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── These templates are 'current squad' not 'first-team squad' - so that includes players with a squad number and/or who have played first-team football with the club and are still contracted. GiantSnowman 08:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I actually think that if a player has had his squad number taken away, he should be left off the template. It's a clear indication that he's not in the squad; the only numberless players should be new ones who are obviously going go get a number soon. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
When does that ever happen........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Di Canio did it to a few players, I think a couple of Crystal Palace players lost their numbers too. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Southampton currently have six players on their books who had squad numbers last season but not this as shown on the BBC website. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess there is the scenario whereby youth players are brought into the squad for a game or two and get a squad number but then aren't given one the following season (this has happened to several Gillingham players who were brought in for our "nothing to play for" last game of 2012/13) - in that case I'd say don't put them in the squad list the following season unless they get a number again. But I can't think of any scenario where a player would "lose" a number mid-season...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think they lose a squad number from season to season - every player at the club has to have a squad number I think (judging by pictures of our academy players training who all have numbers on their training tops - usually in the 50s and 60s). I think the difference is that the club doesn't expect them to play so doesn't publicise them.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Players can't lose a number mid-season, but they frequently do during the summer - sometimgs because they're senior players being frozen out (Saturday's MOTD made a direct reference to this, in Lee Cattermole), or sometimes youth players like Chris's example. There's no requirement for any player to have a squad number untill they're involved in the matchday squad. Training numbers are altogether different. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, while looking at the BBC website, I see the Manchester City page lists 48 players with squad numbers although the template only shows 24 of those. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

So, as a result of the comments above (I count 6 in favour and two against which I think is a decent consensus), I reinstated the players om the template, but they have been removed again. Anyone else want to intervene? Number 57 21:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I say go with the Premier Leagues website. It's complete, and should reflect changes quickly, and most importantly is a list of the "squad" as per the template description. Koncorde (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

2012–13 Copa del Rey

Don't know what SAMWINCHESTER000 is trying to achieve in this article with his edits, but why is Atlético Madrid's first goal credited to Arda Turan, when it's cleancut as can be it was not him? Sometimes, players (of the SAME team) fight for ball possession and this kind of doubt can occur (who scored the goal? Same goes for doubt if a given goal is nor is not an own goal), but it's not the case here, is it?

Here's footage of the match, please tell me where do you see Turan scoring the goal, and where do you see Diego da Silva Costa NOT scoring the goal, which by the way granted him is eighth in the competition and the subsequent top scorer award, which was vandalized also because of Turan's "goal" (see here, as always, exquisite behaviour by my countrymen José Mourinho and Cristiano Ronaldo, who by the way, don't know if you knew this, were the only members of the Real Madrid club not to go to the stands and collect their medal, out or sheer poor sportsmanship).

AGF? I'm sorry, i can't. Attentively --AL (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Who do reliable sources attribute the goal to? GiantSnowman 15:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I see YouTube is not a reliable source, not even visually...In a proper reply to your question, ALL sources attribute it to Mr. Costa (including those present in his article, BBC, MARCA, etc). --AL (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Then there's your answer. GiantSnowman 18:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So, kind mate, what is SAMWINCHESTER trying to achieve? Has to be vandalism no? --AL (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

My problem with this, is that the RFEF report cited in the cup final article credits Atletico's first goal to Arda Turan, so it's not only SamWinchester who is confused. The equivalent article on Spanish Wikipedia also credits the goal to Turan, with the note "El acta oficial del encuentro otorga erróneamente el primer gol del Atlético de Madrid a Arda Turan, anotado por Diego Costa" which Google translates as "The official minutes of the meeting the first goal wrongly gives Atletico Madrid Arda Turan scored by Diego Costa", although the text credits the goal to Costa. The BBC credits the goal to Costa as do Eurosport and MSN. I guess we need to find better sources before accusing anyone of vandalism. How "official" is the RFEF report? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Having now watched the youtube video, the goal was clearly scored by Costa (I don't think Turan was even mentioned) so why are RFEF crediting the goal to Turan? I suggest that both articles are edited to credit the goal to Costa with a link to the sources quoted here to replace the RFEF source, which is obviously wrong. Perhaps this thread can be copied to the cup final talk page to preserve it. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • BOTH articles? What are those? The 2012-13 COPA DEL REY is one, and the other? Surely not Costa, that one is 100% correct and with the proper sources (i.e. BBC SPORT). Turan? Never edited there, don't know of its present state. From previous browsing in Copa del Rey seasonal articles, i see that the RFEF match sheets are used in more than 95% (if not 100%!) of the matches for source, but then again it's the site of the Royal Spanish Football Federation, does not get more official than that, but boy did they make a mistake in this case :)

Thanks for your input, GS and DK! --AL (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Griffiths in France

Aparently an Englishman called 'Thomas Griffiths' was coach of the French national team briefly in 1924. Could this be Thomas Griffiths (born 1902), whose playing career seems to end in 1923–24? GiantSnowman 11:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The article on the 1924 Olympics shows Welshman Thomas Griffiths (born 1906) as coach of the France team. This seems highly unlikely as he would have been only 22 at the time and his international career only started in 1927. Thomas Griffiths (born 1902) seems possible, but his playing career was hardly distinguished. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The English Griffiths we have an article for was also 22 in 1924 - and while he was young, and his playing career was unspectacular, it is not unheard of lowly players having more distinguished managerial careers in Europe during the early days of football i.e. John Leavy, Harry Waites, Eddy Donaghy, Peter Donaghy etc. GiantSnowman 13:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Having now added an infobox to the Welsh Griifiths, he was actually only born in 1906 rather than 1902 as the article originally said, making him only 18 in 1924, so even less likely. But I take your point otherwise. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As an aside, do we perhaps have a case for moving the two existing articles to Thomas Griffiths (footballer born 1902) and Thomas Griffiths (footballer born 1906)? I see sources referring to both of them as 'Tom', 'Tommy' and 'Thomas'. GiantSnowman 13:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree - that's probably where the confusion over the Welshman's DoB came from. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Moves made, re-directs created, in process of fixing links. GiantSnowman 13:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Returning to the original query, I see that the FIFA match summary from the 1924 Olympics shows that he came from Wales. Curiouser and curiouser. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

He was also known as Charles Griffiths and was manager of Olympique_Lillois, Valenciennes_FC, he won the 1993 Coupe de France with Excelsior Athlétic Club de Roubaix in May 1993. TheBigJagielka (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean 1933? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Is this the same Charles Griffiths who coached Bayern Munich from 1911 to 1912? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Pretty sure I've seen a 'Griffiths' in early Dutch football as well. GiantSnowman 16:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
This guy? Charlie Griffith (footballer) TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
That's the one, wonder if these are all the same person? GiantSnowman 17:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, there is an article on the French Wikipedia about Raymond Demey which says "Il fait son stage d'entraîneur sous la direction de l'Anglais Charles Griffiths, qui a dirigé l'équipe de France olympique en 1924. À partir de 1932, il dirige les joueurs du Stade Béthunien, puis rejoint l'US Vieux-condé en 1934. Ce dernier club en difficulté financière, il part à l'US Valenciennes-Anzin où il remplace… Charles Griffiths." which seems to imply that Charles Griffiths was the coach of the French Olympics team in 1924 and was the Valenciennes head coach in 1934. Unfortunately, the French article has no sources. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Latouffedisco (talk · contribs) can enlighten us? GiantSnowman 19:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is a piece about the Charles Griffiths in Germany. GiantSnowman 19:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


Here is what I can work out so far:

  • 'Charles Griffiths' in Germany 1911–1914 source
  • 'Charles Griffith' in the Netherlands 1920–1922 source
  • 'Thomas Griffiths' in France 1924 then again 1932–1936 source

Have I got it right so far then? GiantSnowman 19:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the "German" Charles moved on to Stuttgart Kickers for 1913/14. He is redlinked on Template:Stuttgarter Kickers managers. As a Briton, I guess his German career would have ended during WW1. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, seems likely - though he could well have stayed in the Continent, and then move to the Netherlands post-war. Maybe he is different to the French Griffiths though? GiantSnowman 19:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I found a newspaper clipping announcing that the reputed English manager Charles Griffith (no 's') has joined Olympique Lillois dated 23 September 1923. I can't make out the text it's too small, but it mentions Germany, Belgium and training the French national team.
  • Charles Griffith - joined Berchem Sport 1925-26 "The Welshman Charles Griffith is touted as new coach. The man has earned his stripes as French coach and trainer of Stade Rennais, Olympic Lillois and Union St Gilloise." source
  • Charles Griffith - 1933-35 at Union Saint Gillois, winning three titles.source TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
This German source says it is the same person.
    • 1910/11 Karlsruher FV (South German Champion)
    • 1911/12 Bayern München (appointed in August 1911, was first full-time coach at Bayern, sacked on 6 April 1912 spiegel article)
    • 1912/13 Stuttgarter Kickers (South German Champion)
    • 1913/14 Stuttgarter Kickers (Contract ended at outbreak of war)
    • 1924/25 France Olympic team
I've found this pretty fascinating.

TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The only Charles Griffith(s) in Joyce is this one, who played for Luton, Barrow and Preston as an inside left before making his only Football League appearance for Lincoln as per the LCFC link. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that seems to be the correct one: Aberdeen Journal 6 December 1933 (report England- France later played that day} With them came Mr. Charles Griffiths, a former Preston North End professional. In France since 1924. Finding a date of birth for him in Arnhem is impossible, the records were destroyed in World War II. Cattivi (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The Charlie Griffith (footballer) article has been expanded by TheBigJagielka to incorporate some of the above findings. Not realising this, I have put together in my sandbox an infobox. This differs from that in the expanded article, so I have shown by way of a hidden note my "sources". Could someone look through both and merge all this together in an expanded article at Charles Griffiths (footballer). -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

They're mostly the same, I came across a link which says he was manager of Be Quick in the Dutch league and the Vitesse position was the original reason for his article existing. Also, I think that the Stade Rennais Griffith was a different person. I've found several links suggesting his name was Arthur Griffith. I'm not sure that the person is mentioned in the Aberdeen Journal is the same, I can only see an extract but it's not conclusive enough to say it's the same person, in my opinion. With FIFA saying his name was Thomas Griffiths (and Welsh), I think we could be looking for a Thomas Charlie/Charles Griffiths. TheBigJagielka (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
He was also coach of RC Roubaix from 1935 to 1936. I've also found a Thomas Griffiths playing for US Dunkerque from 1936 to 1939. Another Griffiths in France was Brynley Griffiths (dob 04-17-1933) player for FC Sète, FC Nancy and AS Béziers. He played for Plymouth Argyle.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Harry Waites trained Be Quick when they won the championship in 1920 [1] A very brief spell in 1923-24 is more likely (they won the championship of the north that season) Cattivi (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Vitesse: he probably trained them for 2 short periods. April 1921 C. Griffith occupation trainer [2] and C. Griffiths left in February 1922 (no occupation given) [3] Nothing further in online archives Cattivi (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Guardian 26 August 1907: Preston NE have signed Chris. Griffiths... from Barrow, native of Rugby.. 21 years old .. 5 ft 7 inches. Cattivi (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

John Leavy/Herbert Leavey

John Leavy was actually Herbert Leavey [4] (gezinskaart from Eindhoven) Herbert Leavey played for Boscombe 1920-22 not 24 (41 matches in the southern league, 7 goals) Cattivi (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Strange that the two articles have sprung up entirely seperately i.e. no mention of English playing career in the John Leavy article, no mention of Dutch management career in the Herbert Leavey article. Are we sure they are the same? GiantSnowman 09:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

List of association football families

Input welcome at article talk page. GiantSnowman 19:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Game-day squad images

How are images like this of football pitch with 21 players created? weka (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You might want to ask the editor who uploaded the image directly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on Template:2013–14 in English football

There are two users who have been edit warring over on Template:2013–14 in English football. I've started a discussion (Template talk:2013–14 in English football#Template Style) if anyone wants to help decide whether the new proposal is better/worse than previous 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have warned both users involved for edit warring; a discussion on the talk page should have been started by one of them long ago, so good work on that. GiantSnowman 13:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
My latest proposal for a change to the original template is here. I hope you will agree that the new template is better and should replace the original. The original has many flaws in my opinion - 1. Links to the four women's competitions are scattered among three different groups. 2. The Football League Cup and Football League Trophy links are for some reason placed in the group concerning Premier and Football Leagues. 3. The Youth competition (U21 & U18) link is also for some reason placed in the group concerning Premier and Football Leagues. 4. The youth competition (U21 & U18) links do not have anchored links to the individual leagues within the Professional Development League. 5. The Premier League and Football League links are placed in one group, yet the Football Conference for some reason gets its own group. 6. Unlike the Football Conference, the leagues in the 'level 7-8' group do not have anchored links to the individual leagues. 7. The 'level 9-10' group doesn't show which of the leagues have divisions at both levels 9 & 10, which have divisions at only level 9, and which have only divisions at level 10. I believe the new template corrects ALL of the above issues, is more detailed, clearer to read, uses less white space and places each link into the right group. I would appreciate it if the template could be changed as I believe it would be a big improvement to the original.
I noticed that the link to 2013–14 UEFA Women's Champions League is gone from the second template. EddieV2003 (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Good point. That will be added among the women's competitions if the new template is chosen. Does no-one agree it is better and less arbitrary than the original?Kivo (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

How bizarre can it get?

Please read Damir Desnica's PERSONAL section, doesn't it give you pause to say the least? If corruption exists on all levels of society, certainly we can't exclude football/sport.

Happy weekend all, share some more of these stories if you have please --AL (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeap... I remember that story :) Happy weekend AL FkpCascais (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Are USL Pro players presumed notable?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sean Bateau is up for consideration. I see nothing notable about him beyond playing for a "Tier 3" (i.e. the bottom tier) professional soccer team (I'm assuming this is the approximate equivalent of a double-A or single-A minor league baseball team).

So, notable or not notable? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It is considered a WP:FPL so by playing in it he technically meets WP:NFOOTBALL - but appears to fail WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 19:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Another editor moved the page to mainspace. Despite my misgivings I did the AFC cleanup work. I did tag the page with {{notability|athlete}} and left a note on the talk page linking back to this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Help needed at Talk:Hull City A.F.C.

Hello WikiProject Football. Please would an experienced project member take a look at Talk:Hull City A.F.C.#Edit request on 26 September 2013 and the section immediately above it. These two edit requests are about the listing of two players who are claimed to be in the Hull City squad but aren't identified in the sources, though some other websites mention them in relevant ways. An editor has stated that they are in the squad, but missing them in the sources gives me a feeling of WP:OR. They are very young players who may play in the junior teams but haven't yet played in the senior team, and I suspect it may boil down to the proper definition of a squad member. Please don't hesitate to countermand my close of the edit request if that's the right thing to do. Thanks for any help. --Stfg (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Absent any advice here, I have removed the two players from the list. As they are omitted on the club's website, I think WP:Verifiability requires this. --Stfg (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Gedion Zelalem (16yo) notability issues

I declined a recent Articles for creation submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gedion Zelalem on the grounds that he was not yet notable enough to pass WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. It was close and I'm not confident of my judgment.

An article about him was deleted at AFD on April 23, 2013 (see AFD). Was I wrong - has his notability gone up so much and is it so high that an article can be created without going through a formal WP:DRV? I'm asking the experts here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, he has not played in a fully professional league, nor represented his country at senior international level, so fails WP:NFOOTY. There does seem to be some small degree of comment out there about him, but this seems to refer entirely to a couple of minor appearances in pre-season friendlies and would not be anywhere near enough to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Gedion Zelalem definitely does not fail WP:GNG, he's received significant coverage from reliable sources. TonyStarks (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It looks like he probably is notable. The ESPN Soccernet piece is fairly in-depth, but it's from that website's blog, and I don't know how reliable the ESPN blogs are. [5] is quite routine, albeit quite lengthy, and also appears to be very much a local newspaper. However, since the time of this posting, I've found [6], [7], [8] and [9]. Beyond that, there's [10] (Washington Post Blog - how reliable is this one?), [11] (is that reliable?), [12], [13] and [14]. Although I'm not 100% convinced about the reliability of every single thing I've listed here, I'm fairly sure there's enough for notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It'll be easier for us to judge if you improve the AFC submission using the new sources. GiantSnowman 11:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Shay Given

Hello all, could somebody please look at Shay Given, IP says he has retired from International football, but this source says that he hasn't. I don't want to edit war. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, JMHamo has been edit warring with me for at least a month, reverting all of my edits and stalking me on Wikipedia. He would change all of my timestamps and has only stopped after another user told him that there was nothing wrong with my timestamps or edits.

Since then, he has continued to find ways to revert other edits.

I provided a link/source for my edit on Shay Given's page and JMHamo reverted it anyways.

"At 37, he accepts that there'll be no more caps, but he keeps a close eye on his former team-mates: "I started as a fan and I'm back to being a fan again.""

As you can see, it states in the article that he is retired, yet JMHamo continues to edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this IP does not know what an edit war actually is... JMHamo (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You keep reverting all of my edits for no reason so you are edit warring. I have also told you that I don't want you contacting me on my talk page because you're stalking me and making me uncomfortable but you continue to do that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore user has already been edit warring with other users before this — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor has a long history of disruptive behavour and hasnt listen to the advice been given. I think an AN/I to wiki ban this editor is due. My talkpage contains an imcomplete list of his behavour. He has no interest in the community on here, even if he does have a decent knowledge of football, he has no ability to work within a group. Murry1975 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Murry1975 has already been admonished for reverting my edits when they are sourced and there is nothing wrong with them. Examples.. and

Users have had grudge for months and won't let it go. I am making decent contributions to the site but they continue to make it a hassle for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Whats that second link? I misread your edit and it was found not to be vandalism/disruptive and the admin made me aware. Where as you have been blocked on several occasions for your behavour, yet continue and this wastes much of everyone else's time on here, which is where your problem lies. Murry1975 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

JMHamo continues to harass me relentlessly on a daily basis because of my edits. I am not the only user who updates footballers pages when they score e.g. but I am singled out for it and harassed about it because he has been edit warring for over a month. He won't stop doing it until he gets a warning. I have already complained about unwanted contact from him on this and other sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Murry1975 accused me of making a personal attack towards another user on my talk page. "Attack" is here When I asked him to explain how that is a personal attack, he ignored me. As always, refuses to engage in discussion; continues to provoke, bait and harass me; causing disruptions to the site and numerous pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Examples of JMHamo's childishness, disruptions and stirring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Afraid you appear to be in the wrong here. Your source doesn't state that he has retired from international football. Him saying he accepts there will be no more caps actually suggests he wants to play but doesn't think he'll be called up. Number 57 16:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Major formatting error at East Midlands derby

Someone broke East Midlands derby and I can't quite tell how. This version from June is just fine, but some edits at the end of September ended up hiding most of the content due to a formatting error. I don't see exactly how this happened based on diffs, though. Could someone take a look? --BDD (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed - someone had commented out part of the table but not closed the comment so it hid the whole article. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Cameron Cammy Smith

Is Cameron Smith (footballer) or Cammy Smith (footballer) the primary Cammy Smith footballer? See talk:Cammy Smith (footballer) for the discussion -- (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Protection request for Adnan Januzaj

Please can someone protect this page for a few days? Several national media outlets BBC Sport, Sky etc.) have claimed that he is going to be eligible to play for England through residency, however this is not the case - I've added what the situation re: home nations agreement is in the international career section, however people are undoing the edit. 23:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman already protected IP edits for two weeks earlier on my request. JMHamo (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Coming back to this, is the agreement between the home nations an informal agreement or is it official (per the FIFA statutes)? Hack (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand it's a gentleman's agreement i.e. entirely informal. Technically anyone with a British passport is eligible to play for any of the home nations. GiantSnowman 10:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
That used to be the case, but the most recent agreement is codified in FIFA statute [15]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how the wording in that document would affect Januzaj if/when he acquired a British passport. There must be more to it. Hack (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

soccer images at PUF

have been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Making match pitch graphics

In the finals page, there is usually a graphic of the 21 starting players. You know? How did they do this? weka (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

21? Not the right number, but you could always ask the uploader directly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It's 22, probably a typo. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 14:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The current consensus is that starting 11 is original research (for both sides) and should be avoided without a reliable source. The concern is the position of players. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This isn't about starting XIs in club articles, it's about the line-up graphics on pages about individual matches. The ones I make using Inkscape. – PeeJay 21:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
However, by the same logic, shouldn't these images be considered OR as well? Consider the usage of one such image on 2013 FA Cup Final#Match; where is the source that the players played in these positions on the day? If such a source does exist, then shouldn't it follow that we can re-instigate the Starting XI sections on club season articles (assuming this source provides line-ups for every match in that team's season). — Limabeans (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
PeeJ, I think you an Walter are talking about the same point, any line-up graphic needs to be sourced to confirm the positions, a link to a starting XI isn't enough. Limabeans, I think this is why we couldn't have starting XIs in a club season article. no club plays the same formation / line up in each game, so how would this be translated into encyclopedic content? Fenix down (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I never make these without a valid source. For UEFA matches, I use the official UEFA press kits (see here); for FIFA matches, I use the FIFA MatchCast (see here under "Pitch" then "Tactical line-up"); and for any others I try to use TV line-up graphics from before the match. – PeeJay 10:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh no, I wasn't accusing you of that, merely responding to LB's comment about having line up graphics in season articles and how diffiult is would be to do with reliable sourcing. Fenix down (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
And positions change within games anyway. Gone are the days of rigid 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 formations! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to create a template similar to Template:Football squad on pitch. One we could add to Template:Football match line-ups instead of a file. It would be much more convenient for individual matches.--2nyte (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Football positions are too varied to be titrated down to a minimum of parameters in a template. IMO, it's best to simply create the images and try to replicate the source material as closely as possible. – PeeJay 17:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes you have a valid point, though it would be much simpler for users with limited experience in creating such images (like me) to use a template like that. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Positions do change within a game, sometimes for strategic reasons and sometimes due to substitutions or sending off, but the starting positions are what is represented. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

What shirts do you use to generate it for you in InkScape? Also can't you get the sources easily from club website or soccerway? weka (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? I colour and pattern it myself. – PeeJay 12:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Manchester Premier Cup seasons

Are individual seasons of the Manchester Premier Cup notable? e.g.:

Delsion23 (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Notable dribble/pass?

Hey, is a made dribble/pass notable to add to a player article? SideMaster think it is after Jesé Rodríguez made a dribble and pass to a teammate. It wasn't a goal or even an assist which helped a great comeback, that would be understandable somehow. But just a dribble/pass? Discussion here and input "needed"... Kante4 (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Gossen IL notable?

Hello, could somebody who's familiar with Norwegian football tell me if Gossen IL who had a spell in the 3. Divisjon and are now in the 5. Divisjon are notable? JMHamo (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

  • If the 3 Divisjon was a national level league, then I'd be inclined to say that yes, they are. As it doesn't appear to be, my query changes to this; did they play in the main stages of the Norwegian Football Cup? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes I can help, thanks for asking :). The short answer here is yes: There is a long-standing consensus (long before I started edited) that teams that has played in the 3. Divisjon are considered notable. I've never challenged that consensus because it sounds reasonable - it is the lowest league that is organized by the national association and teams in the 3. Divisjon does play qualification matches for the Norwegian Cup. And yes, Gossen IL did play in the Norwegian Cup - in 2002 they met regional greats Molde FK which is a strong indicator for notability, as those first-tier against fourth-tier matches in the first round of the Norwegian Cup receives a lot of coverage (even though I can't find anything about that match now). Additionally Gossen IL was founded as a merger in 1967, between Sør-Gossen and Nord-Gossen; Nord-Gossen had a short spell at the third tier in 1965 and participated in the Norwegian Cup the same year where they were eliminated by another third-tier team in the first round. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Face-smile.svg Thank you JMHamo (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is why we don't update player stats before a match has finished

Player stats and date updated - but then he scores. GiantSnowman 19:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

But who expects a Scott to score? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
A Scots Scott almost scored overnight... Hack (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

More Jesé to go

Can anyone please weigh in in this player article's last edits? A user removed entire sentences/paragraphs which were referenced on the grounds that they were "non-notable friendlies, transfer gossip, general platitudes". I'd like to have some feedback regarding the past (and present) state of the article please,

Bit by bit: 1 - i think the first time a youngster is called for preseason play with the seniors it deserves mention, albeit a small one, which is now the case after i trimmed it down; 2 - transfer gossip: Jesé showed dissatisfaction at the fact he was not being given first-team opportunities, and hinted he would leave if the status did not change; plus, my countryman Mourinho offered an excuse not to play the Segunda División top scorer once in games of some importance, all that was ref'd, is it not worthy of inclusion (without taking sides (which is = to POV) of course)? 3 - "general platitudes" i don't know what it means, but i'd like to know if his spectacular 2012-13 season and the subsequent media attention it garnered is not worthy of inclusion.

Note: i have notified the user i have reverted of this input, he can and should participate. Attentively --AL (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This was my edit, and I stand by it. When looking at articles about players that have reached FA status - Thierry Henry is a decent example. Stuff concerning playing in friendlies never seems to make it, and why should unless something genuinely notable happens? I also removed a bunch of stuff about the player and his agent saying that he may or may not want to leave the club, plus reassurances from coaches. Why are several sentences needed for this? It's just regurgitation of typical off-season transfer gossip fluff. It's the kind of thing that can be condensed down to something along the lines of "Despite his future at the club being under question,[ref] the player stayed at Foo F.C...." As for platitudes, what does a quote such as "I fulfilled a dream, but I have to keep working. I'm happy for myself, but I also remember my brothers, my family... I dedicate this to them." actually add in terms of information to an article? There are so many football articles containing bland, meaningless quotes along the lines of "I want to do well for my new team" that add nothing to the article.Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd go half way between the two. There is too much about friendlies, that quote does add nothing, there's too much detail about matches he didn't play in, and fanboy wording "amazing solo goal" and such like does an encyclopedia no credit at all. The player's dissatisfaction at not getting into the first team is rather more than off-season fluff, IMO: youthful reserve teamers don't generally go quite so public claiming that Real Madrid's home-grown players have little or no chance of first-team football under Mourinho and the reserve team coach would do a better job. One real problem with that section is that whoever wrote it has just copied whole sentences out of the sources that made sense in context but don't without that context, e.g. Mourinho "saying critically that the youngster was being used in a withdrawn striker position for the reserves which did not exist in the senior side".[16] The copyvios have to go, obviously, but if someone used the sources for a brief outline of the matter in their own plain words, it would IMO add value.

When making comparisons with a featured article about a player whose career is nearing its end, we have to remember that articles develop. If the Thierry Henry article had been started in 1994, there's be far more about his youth career than there is now. In ten years time, the detail of Jesé's early career will have been trimmed down in the interests of balance, but at the moment, he's only had a youth/reserve team career, so there's no harm in including more detail now than we would if writing with ten years' hindsight.

Incidentally, Al mentions "Segunda División top scorer": might be me, but I don't see that in the article? and in an edit summary at the article, he says "you don't lose 4-2, you lose 2-4": I think most native BritEng speakers would say you lose 4–2, don't know about US English. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, this discussion should really have been started at the article's talk page, not here. That's standard procedure for content disputes. Nothing wrong with advertising it here, so long as it's a neutral advertisement, but in general, discussions about a specific article belong with that article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the inputs people, i'll go do some more trimming down! About Segunda División top scorer "issues", my bad, he was the SECOND in the charts, not the BEST. About the English wording which i can't be caught dead criticizing with you people of course as i'm not a native speaker, i HONESTLY did not know it was correct to say you "lose 4-2", but my question is: surely it's not entirely wrong to say you "lose 2-4" either even in an away fixture, is it? About overdetail on games he did not play, surely i agree it does not belong in ANY article, but in this case it's only mentioned ONCE Struway, the game in UEFA Champions League against AJ Auxerre which was his first callup in the competition. Thanks and cheers again --AL (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Done to the best of my abilities. I have also notified the original creator of the previous storyline (and who seems to have incurred in some wikiproblems due to his personal approach on the NPOV issue), lest he does not understand and reinserts those bits. He's also more than welcome to drop a line here of course.

P.S. Apologies for bringing this up here instead of in the article's talkpage, but something is better than nothing hey ;)? --AL (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Problem with teams?

In NK Istra 1961 says: The football club NK Uljanik from which the club originates was founded in 1948. In 1961, it joined with another local club, NK Pula, to form NK Istra.

In NK Istra says: Istra was found in 1961 from a merger of NK Pula and NK Uljanik.

But these teams are not the same, are rivals. Something is wrong. Xaris333 (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Hope Solo article

Hope Solo, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hmlarson (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


Teammates, isn't this (please see here, overcategorizing? I think it is, therefore i think it should be removed.

I leave it to your attention, obviously different opinions may arise. Attentively --AL (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would be over-categorization (at least to me). A category for Mexican expatriates in Spain is appropriate but for Europe as a whole? I don't think so. Also, if he is in the FIFA Century Club, does he need to have 100 caps for Mexico and not 99? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This is over-catting, and I will take the category to CFD. GiantSnowman 13:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Protecting historical tournament articles

I just noticed a minor yet disruptive edit on 2004 UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship. An ip intentionally changed the 4th goal of the grouo B match England 3-1 Portugal from Mark Davies to no one's name Lewis Dannan (this ip had other disruptive edits as well). This changed went undetected for almost exact one year. I have seen this type of small disruptive edits many times before (e.g. change the flag icons, goalscores, referees, stadiums, etc). These changes are very difficult to notice, and usually stays a long time before being detected. My opinion is, once a page for a historical tournament is reasonably completely, and is confirmed by a reviewer, then some sections (e.g., tables, brackets, individual match details) should be protected, so that only trusted users can edit. FootballStatWhore (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe what you are suggesting goes against the Wiki principle of anyone can edit. I happen to agree with you but then I would consider the role of Ips altogether. Why, if someone wants to edit, they just can't register is beyond me considering the time wasted dealing with vandalism by anon ips?--Egghead06 (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
As simple as registering is, I think it would discourage some potential editors from joining the site in the first place. I'm sure we all started making edits using an anon IP when we noticed something was not right or updated .. and eventually registered and became regular contributors when we realized how easy it is. TonyStarks (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah this is a no go, purely because there is no evidence of long-term or recent disruption. Why not add these articles to your watchlist and simply monitor? GiantSnowman 11:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't do monitoring. And even if I do, I need to add all pages for historical tournaments to my watchlist. No one has the passion and energy to monitor such a huge list. What I am thinking is, either we have a mechanism to prevent disruptive edits (especially those minor ones which are virtually impossible to detect), or we have a mechanism to quickly detect such edits. If we have neither, it will be a huge disappointment to me. FootballStatWhore (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
If you "don't do monitoring" then please don't complain when articles and vandalism slip through the net. GiantSnowman 13:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
That is a ridiculous argument. If I cannot be a politician, if I cannot bring a better world than they do, then I lose my right to criticize them, for corruption say? If I cannot give a better solution, then I cannot complain to the phone company for their poor signal? If I cannot play better than a football star, then I cannot comment on his dirty foul in a match? If I have this right, then why can't I complain "when articles and vandalism slip through the net"?
Yes, I don't do monitoring for a specific page because I think it is useless, especially when thousands of similar pages are vulnerable to similar vandalism. What I proposed was a mechanism that either prevents or detects quickly. I don't think my words were offensive. FootballStatWhore (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
When yous ay "I don't do monitoring for a specific page because I think it is useless" - have you even tried it? For me, my watchlist is the best resource on Wikipedia for finding and reverting vandalism on articles. GiantSnowman 14:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Carlton Cole

One spell or two at West Ham? Further input welcome at Talk:Carlton Cole. GiantSnowman 08:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove borderline in standings

Hi everyone, I would like some help and information.

Previously I have seen on every article I have looked at that when the group/standings table has been decided the borders are removed and the teams in the table instead get background colors like in this edit. Now today there is one editor who inserted this border on a standings table were all matches already has been played. I reverted his edits and now he counter-reverted me and instead of edit warring I wanted to see if anyone has info regarding this issue. He did it for example here,here and here.

Any thoughts? QED237 (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The Borderlines should remain until all games in the round have been played, but once the final game is over you are correct that there is no need for them as the background colours can now adequately show which teams have qualified, gone to play-offs, dropped to EL etc. Zirath (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you. At the end of all match the line borders are cleary an overkill for the problem, like the red b.g. for the eliminated team. Stigni (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Irish player AfDs

Rather than umpteen individual AfDs for all Irish players, would it not be better to to formally establish consensus as to whether Irish players who have not played in a fully professional league, played senior international football or received significant non-routine coverage in reliable sources for any other achievements? We can then establish a list of such players and have a mass AfD. Administratively this would simpler and would make it much easier to point out clear consensus were such articles to be created in future? Fenix down (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds sensible in essence, but large AFD bundling of players never works. But it's not that simple - every individual will have had a different career, will have received different levels of coverage etc. GiantSnowman 12:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Some League of Ireland players have played in European cup competitions so pass WP:NFOOTBALL. You have to review each career individually. JMHamo (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
No they don't. WP:NFOOTBALL only applies to league games, and has been stretched to cover cup games between clubs who both play in fully-professional leagues. The LOI isn't one of them. Number 57 19:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ghana national football team recent callups

I think this page violates WP:LISTCRUFT. – Michael (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely non-notable; there's also a possibility that the article creator is a sock of a blocked user... GiantSnowman 19:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
We've come across a few sockpuppets lately. I just redirected the page to Ghana national football team. – Michael (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Kits in club infoboxes

Has there been discussion on whether kits in infoboxes should have logos? From an image POV would they count as fair use? Hack (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm not remotely sure how kits in infoboxes are supposed to use logos. They all run off one template, I believe, and you'd have to have an individual template for each team. It simply isn't necessary or even desirable to do that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • As fair as I'm aware, detailed kits with logos & sponsors etc. violate copyright, and should not be used. On a more practical basis, we should be striving to create a strong range of basic kit designs that can be applied to multiple clubs. GiantSnowman 08:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Copyvio isn't applicable on Commons if the logos are De minimis, according to the deletion discussion for one certain kit here. Having said that, I tagged over 100 and only 2 or 3 were not deleted instantly. My summary would be to say that there is not a one-size-fits-all format here. C679 21:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem is a difference between de minimis logos that are acceptable on Commons and some projects and the rules on English Wikipedia where they're not. In the past we have needed to create "non-logo" versions to avoid stepping on the toes of those who like the small Adidas, Nike, Umbro and other kit logos and mini-crests and the legal opinions we have here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

List of footballers nicknames

In what I thought would be an interesting subject I started to amend List of sportspeople by nickname to remove the football section and produce a well referenced article with real nicknames. As it was it was mostly unreferenced and contained many non-nicknames and insults such as Judas for Sol Campbell. Even though I thought such entries had to comply with the same rules as BLPs, I have met with resistance. As it was it was very poor but it could be better and brought up to date as was recently done with List of association football families. Any comments (either way) welcome.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

From the bottom of the lead in WP:BLP - "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." WP:AVOIDVICTIM is also relevant. Hack (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

AS Monaco FC is a Monaco-based French club, not a Monegasque club

Just wanted to get something on record here at WT:FOOTY about how AS Monaco FC is a French club (i.e. registered with the French Football Federation, see here) that plays in Monaco, not a Monegasque club. This is similar to the situation with Cardiff City, Swansea City and the other Wales-based clubs playing in the English football league system. AS Monaco do not play in any Monegasque football competitions (at least not any more) and when they play in Europe, they play as representatives of France, not Monaco. I expect several people will have something to say about this issue, but there is no evidence they could produce to prove that AS Monaco is anything other than a Monaco-based French club. Hopefully we will be able to use this thread in the future as a way of stopping people from putting the flag of Monaco next to mentions of AS Monaco. – PeeJay 12:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have excluded the nationality of the club from the lead section on several club articles. The lede should just say: "Atlethic FC" is a football club based in city, country. instead of "Attlethic FC is a X-onian football club.
I know this has nothing to do with the subject of Monaco, but I added this remarc here anyway. FkpCascais (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that's probably a good idea. No club is of any particular nationality, they are just based in a country and affiliated to a national football association; whether those two countries are the same is irrelevant. Like the clubs that play in the S.League: is Albirex Niigata Singapore FC a Japanese club playing in the Singapore league or a Singaporean club with Japanese ownership? – PeeJay 13:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Re Albirex Niigata Singapore FC - clearly the latter. A club based in Singapore, playing in Singapore, affiliated to Singapore FA. Ownership is irrelevant; nobody in their right mind would make the claim that Chelsea were Russian. GiantSnowman 13:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
No, of course not, but I'm just making the point about how assigning a "nationality" to a club is often a complicated issue. Perhaps a better example from the S.League would have been Brunei DPMM FC, which is a club based in Brunei but that plays in the Singapore league. – PeeJay 13:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and we have clubs that troughout their history played in different league systems, for instance FK Bačka 1901 first played in the Austro-Hungarian leagues, then Hungarian, then Yugoslav, then Croatian, then again Yugoslav and now Serbian... So the easer way was just to say that it is a fotball club based in place X and then keep on with further detail. FkpCascais (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Henrique (footballer born 1981)

Page move needed, i was not allowed to perform it myself,

Let's see if you folks spot where the (very tiny) error lies, it's very very subtle, but where we stand now is that the article's title is WRONG.

Happy weekend all, thank you in advance --AL (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 14:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Grant Kerr

It seems that the page for Grant Kerr is being repeatedly edited with fraudulent info from the same IP address with no contributions to other pages. Most recently they edited back false info about the player having played at Fredrikstad (which I had previously corrected to Kvik Halden). It can be checked from the link to the Norwegian FA site's profile that I added to the page that Kerr has never played for Fredrikstad. Also, statistics for the season in Cyprus with Digenis Akritas Morphou were added, but they are unsourced and the Cypriot FA site shows Kerr scoring no goals that season, so they can't be correct either. Earlier the page also had touched up statistics for his time in Finland (30 apps and 6 goals instead of 20 and 2), but they've been left alone this time. I'm thinking of a possible conflict of interest with possibly the player himself adding the fake info in an attempt to make his career look better. Fmurto (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have made a request that all changes from anonymous and new editors be reviewed. I have also added the article to my watch list. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Fmurto (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment: Sunil Chhetri

Sunil Chhetri, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment: Baichung Bhutia

Baichung Bhutia, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Mahathir Azeman

Hello again footballers. This submission at Afc is misplaced, and I was going to see about getting it moved back into place, but if it's ready to be accepted it may as well be moved to mainspace. What do you think? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The page has already been created here which is weird that it was created by the same guy who made the AfC... you would think he would wait a little, even new editors know that. Anyway, the player is not notable. His club is not in a fully-pro league, nor has the player even played with his club yet. Also the player fails WP:GNG in my eyes still. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it's the other way around. The Afc article was decline once already, then improved, then copied into mainspace a day or two ago, where it was immediately PRODded. Thanks for pointing this out to me; I hadn't noticed the mainspace copy. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah, silly me, I did not notice the (2) in the AfC title. Anyway, your welcome mate. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, the (2) wasn't there when you looked at it. Since the mainspace article is being PRODded, I decided to wait and see what would happen before dealing with the copy. so I moved it back to Afc space where it belongs. Thanks for your help. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I see now. Anyway, as long as a decision has been made in the end it does not matter. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ched Evans

Someone, who I assume to be a member of Ched Evans' legal team, have been adding non verified and non-NPOV content onto his page. I've reverted it twice already and provided them with reasons why. A few more eyes on the watchlist would be helpful. Thanks. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added to my watchlist. GiantSnowman 09:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Statistics of European matches in club articles

Are such sections in club articles okay? I think that it is too much. --Jaellee (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely excessive. Number 57 20:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Can this apply to all continents as well? I always see this in Asian club articles and honestly I feel they are really excessive. What is the point of having the fact that you were in the group stages of the AFC Cup in 2006 when that is how far you got on the main page? Makes no sense. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I have removed it - mainly because it was unreferenced, but also per NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 09:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Champions League winners by city

There is a discussion going on at Talk:European Cup and UEFA Champions League records and statistics#Wins by city that could probably do with a few more eyes. I removed a section from the article that broke down the Champions League winners by home city because it was unsourced and, IMO, unencyclopaedic as CL winners are not usually broken down by city in any reputable sources. Two editors have since reverted me, one with no reason whatsoever and the other with a misguided interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines (they cite the fact that other articles have similar tables, despite WP:OSE/WP:WAX being an invalid argument). If more people could give their opinions, I'd welcome that. – PeeJay 10:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Jean-Herbert Austin

Can anyone confirm that Jean-Herbert Austin was an international player? The only reference on his page does not prove it and I cannot find him on national-football-teams. Thanks, C679 19:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

[17] calls him a former Haiti midfielder. -Koppapa (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't mean he was an international player. It could easily mean he is a former midfielder from Haiti. GiantSnowman 09:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
He was definitely in the 1974 FIFA World Cup finals squad, but that doesn't mean we should have an article about him. I've stripped it down and there's not much left. Any further input is welcome at the article. C679 15:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please provide review at FAC page

Dear football fans,
Please provide comments/opposes/supports at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru national football team/archive3.
The article is going for its 3rd FA review. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 18:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Saïd Mehamha

This article was deleted three times previously cause he had yet to make any pro appearances at the time. I've recreated the article now since he made 8 appearances last season. However, I was wondering if any admins could take a lot at the old versions of his articles to find the exact number of caps he had with the French U17 and U19 teams, I just added what I could find from European and World Cup appearances. TonyStarks (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the article history. GiantSnowman 09:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. TonyStarks (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


Relating to the 'Starting XI' issue - this has also been discussed before, but can't hurt to re-state the obvious i.e. they are not encyclopedic and should not be included due to different definitions and stats. What are people's opinions on including 'Assists' stats in player tables / club season articles? GiantSnowman 15:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Assists have no use outside of stats websites so remove on sight from all articles. I'd have a different opinion if 1) there was a complete definition of what one actually is and 2) they were actually meaningful during/after matches. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree with above. Should be removed, since there are different definitions on different places. QED237 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Should never be included. Far too much potential variability between sources. VanguardScot 17:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This originated from Talk:2013–14_Real_Madrid_C.F._season#Assists. In short, La Liga, perhaps unlike English football, logs assists as an official statistic (same thing with UEFA for the Champions League). As a result, at least for Spain and UCL, the most reliable of all sources exists, in addition to other sources that concur.

My position is if the competition organizers record assists, then keep. Otherwise, variances across sources over "definition" and whatnot may constitute inaccuracies. Bobby (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Your position is in stark contrast to everybody else's, regardless of what league it is. GiantSnowman 18:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If they were better defined and led to something important like the Art Ross Trophy in the NHL, then there would be a reason to include them. Ice hockey and basketball have articles about an assist in those sports because they have a clear definition. I have seen places list a player being fouled leading to a pk as an assist. Without a clear definition, there is no reason to include them in football articles. EddieV2003 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If this was a sport-wide statistic, it would be worth including, but there's far too much variation in the definition of an assist between leagues/fantasy football competitions/whatever other source we use. If a player wins a penalty that is scored, does he get credited with an assist? Some would say yes, others no. What about if the penalty is scored on the rebound? Is the assist given to a player who contributes the last meaningful pass, the last touch, the last glance? It's too vague to assign to anyone and not a stat we should bother recording. By all means do it on club-specific wikis, but not here. – PeeJay 19:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with everything said here; assists should be removed from all Season articles and player articles on sight. For example Juan Mata's career stats table lists assists, which are misleading and have no basis. JMHamo (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume this agreement also applies to league articles. Currently, the 2012–13 Bundesliga and others have the top assists listed next to the top goalscorers. EddieV2003 (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It is cited to the official site, so I don't see why it should be deleted. However, it points to the current season, so presumably the link needs fixing. Eldumpo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
A quick look at Ronaldo's stats for the 2012–13 season - one of the club's most popular players (so should have more out there about him, people paying more attention to stats etc.) and the last completed season. The Real Madrid official website gives him 9 La Liga assists, whereas ESPN gives him 10. GiantSnowman 17:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
La Liga awarded him 10 so that would be the one used and would be removed as a source. Bobby (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
But do we know which is the 'correct' source? We don't/can't, hence why there is overwhelming consensus here and at the season page that assists should not be included. GiantSnowman 18:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the position that they should be included if they are officially tracked by the competition organiser. I mean we essentially do that with goals already. If the scorer of a particular goal is in dispute, it's the organising body that decides who gets credit for it, and that's the info we go with on the relevant pages, even if other sources report it differently. This should be no different. If the organisers track assists as a player statistic and make those numbers widely available, then those stats should be included as a sufficiently interesting and reliably sourced fact. If not, the numbers published by other sources are all but meaningless and shouldn't be included. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm still against including it as it's not notable enough. Apart from the players of fantasy football there is no use for the stat. No player wins a trophy or gets a bonus and no team gets a trophy or a performance bonus for them. There are a lot of football stats that have more of an affect on the game and have a precise definition which we don't keep a track of. I would say number of fouls committed by each club would be of more use as it forms a part of the fair play rating of each club and therefore the league as a whole (not that I'm suggesting that we include it). As I've said repeatedly, the lack of a precise definition is the biggest problem and I've just as much confidence in the Premier Leagues version of the table as I do in any other. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and the difference between the current situation with goals and the prospect of using the 'official' assist tables is that there is a precise definition of when a goal has been awarded (i.e. when the referee signals for it). Using the official decision on who has scored the goal is different as there is a specific panel to decide who gets awarded the goal. That is not the case for assists. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The existence of a precise definition of an assist should be a moot point per WP:V, supported by WP:NOTTRUTH. The organizing body's version of the assists table is adequate as a reliable source. Whether you personally agree or disagree with it due to the possible existence of conflicting sources isn't relevant because the due weight should be placed on the official source. Assists are an interesting enough statistic that recently has been frequently cited (Ozil's transfer; Ribery's Best Player in Europe). It'd be a positive addition that wouldn't harm a club or league season page.Bobby (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

For club season articles any particularly interesting assists stats would be better off mentioned in the prose with a link rather than adding yet another table. With player articles I agree that they should definitely be removed. Using the standard player stats table there are already 10 apps/goals columns so the addition of another five assists columns like this makes the table excessively large and harder to read. T 88 R (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

An inherent problem is that aside from a few major clubs' season articles, 95% of the remaining season articles lack significant prose, if any at all. In those instances, including a table near the bottom of the page would be better than nothing. Bobby (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The lack of prose does not mean it is right to add a table that should not be on any page at all. I would say it is better with "nothing" in that case. We cant add "bad" information just for the sake of adding something. QED237 (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think assists qualify as being indiscriminate. Heck, it's only one of three player statistical categories that ESPN tracks. If the preeminent sports publication think it's an important enough category to include, then we shouldn't try to subjectively argue it isn't just for the sake of arguing. Bobby (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
@Xboxandhalo2: - seriously, drop the fucking stick. The only person pressing for the inclusion of assists You are not going to change anybody's opinion, there is no desire to include the assist stats, and I doubt there ever will be. Move on. GiantSnowman 16:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
A total misrepresentation -- there are many who press for inclusion if you really look closely at the talk pages. Cogent reasons have been cited and rebutted with rubbish. Variability is a non-starter; sources provide conflicting information all the time, and if there's an official body that clocks a stat, I don't see why it can't be used. Definition is a non-starter; again, the resolver will be the use of an official stat. Importance is perhaps debatable. After goals people look out for assist stats. Chensiyuan (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
A minority of editors making weak arguments at the talk pages of individual articles? Mere WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, far outweighed by this dsicussion here. GiantSnowman 10:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is getting tedious. Consensus favours no assists. I consider this discussion closed. JMHamo (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

But there is a split in consensus, that is evident so the discussion cannot be closed (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as GiantSnowman has already mentioned. JMHamo (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
There is not a split here, mysterious IP. GiantSnowman 16:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Arrived late in the discussion, but assists are sometimes infuential in determining the league best player, where is that stat going to be? in the personal player page, a mention in the league page, in the prose?--Threeohsix (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Nowhere. GiantSnowman 19:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm perplexed because UEFA along with La Liga keep records of assist but England does not, so we must remove it from ALL the articles not related to English football? La Fuzion (K lo K) 19:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

England does too actually. Bobby (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Then why or what prompted the request to remove assist from articles when it is a valid stat? La Fuzion (K lo K) 19:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with which countries use them and which countries don't. It is to do with all the other issued that you have failed to deal with. GiantSnowman 19:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Your hostility is really not necessary. There's an article that defines assists in football. Along with the leagues recording it as an official statistics but you seem to be hell bent on removing it because ...? Wait, you don't have a valid reason besides your personal opinion. Have a good night. La Fuzion (K lo K) 19:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Where have I been hostile? I'm simply repeating the point that there is no agreed definition of assists among the RS that Wikipedia uses, resulting in conflicting stats and potentially incorrect information. What is your "valid reason" for including them? Wait, you don't have one, you just like assists? Have a great night. Please also learn to indent. GiantSnowman 20:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with including assists. If there is a page that records it for the country they play in (link(s) given above and Bundesliga here) just use those to add them. I see not a clear consensus like it is/was stated... Kante4 (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The assists provide a valuable, encyclopaedic piece of information for people looking to better understand a player and what their statistics are. Although there are some statistics that conflict, this is the same with goals, minutes and hundreds of other events and facts throughout history. The fact is if the official governing body of the league the game is being played in has an assist statistic, then that should be taken. The assist is such a valuable statistic and should not be removed. Fudgy budgy (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Goals rarely, if ever, conflict - but 'minutes' is not something we should record either. We are not a statistics website, if readers want to "better understand a player and what their statistics are" then we should (and do!) provide external links to websites that have that role. GiantSnowman 08:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Why did you feel the need to indent my responses? I did not indent for a reason and it is "Please, also learn to indent.". I tend to ignore contributors who have ownership issues so I'll let you be. Keyboard warriors tend to eliminate themselves sooner rather than later. As per my "valid reason", I have none as this is a trivial argument you made into a pressing one due to your lack of effectively communicating your point for a more dictator like attitude. You feel that your opinion is valid and others are "in the way" so I say we should go with what you've said as I would not want you to do something crazy to yourself if you don't get your way. Cheers... La Fuzion (K lo K) 12:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Because you seem to lack the ability to indent - and please do not attempt to correct the language of a native English speaker with 2 degrees in the subject, you come across looking ridiculous; same goes for your unfounded accusations of OWNership and "keyboard warriors." I take it you are unable/unwilling to comment any further on the matter at hand? GiantSnowman 12:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations on your 2 degrees. I guess they just hand them out nowadays. Anyways, I have no issues with discussing this topic; however, your hostile responses are not warranted. This is just the internet buddy. As per assists, if the consensus is that most reliable sources don't agree on what an assist is and FIFA has not provided a clear definition, then it should be removed for the sake of consistency. You could have easily stated your request and then discussed it but it seemed you were busier on being condescending when someone differed from your opinion. There are other responses here that call for the removal of assists w/o the need of using the "I have the bigger stick" attitude. La Fuzion (K lo K) 13:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The only one with the attitude problem here is you - but that's to be expected when you have been canvassed for your comments here. GiantSnowman 14:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
If you guys want to continue this, please leave this section and go to your walls and continue. This is so lame. Coming to assists tables, I have noticed that even La Liga 2013-14 season has not been fully updated since matchweek 2. If this is the scenario, discussing about whether or not to keep assist tables is a pathetic joke. Also, Atletico Madrid 2013-14 page has more of La Liga 2013-14 contents than its own. Not sure who is playing this though. Assists have been well documented, though different sources credit it differently. But that's the same case with goals as well. The issue has not been resolved yet. So I suggest we wait and watch till the end of current season and see how it develops. One year isn't a long time is it?Deepak 15th September 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Doubt this will ever be resolved to everyone's satisfaction until FIFA or some other body come out with a definition of an assist and provide statistics showing them player by player. Even then an agreement would have to be reached that FIFA's was an acceptable definition for Wiki to use.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I am just hoping for some positive outcome sooner than later. -Deepak (talk) 15th Septembet 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 07:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Assists should never be included. Differing definitions of what makes an "assist", coupled with the fact that multiple places don't even keep a chart of them, means that the information is not reliable enough to be of use. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Such a shame that it has been decided not to include assists in the statistics. Why should it be included in NHL articles and not in football articles? The definition is the same in both sports. Assist are extremely important when you're evaluating a player by his stats. Furthermore, the issues regarding different records of assists are no different from the same issue regarding goals. As long as the articles link to the reliable sources, I don't see the problem. (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not just about different definitions about assists but also that some websites, like ESPN, does not count assists in some tournaments like the Spanish Cup (Copa del Rey). --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Starting again and trying to get some answers here: If official league websites publish them, why shouldn't those be on wikipedia. We go after that. For the League/Cup games we use official websites, for Europe we use and so on. Nearly every official site has an assist table. Don't see an issue with that as they can be sourced in the table(s). So, tell me why we should NOT use the official sites that DO publish them? I don't need them included but i don't know why it should not if there are official/reliable sources. 16:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Because no sources agree on what a definition is, and they do not count the same number, so we do not know who to trust. GiantSnowman 16:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
So, what about my question with using only the official league website above as the "right" one (and UEFA/FIFA in cont./int. competitions)? It can/will/should be sourced of course than. Kante4 (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
But how do you know that is the "right" one? Imagine this scenario - the league website, the UEFA website, and an independent reliable source (ESPN or similar) give one player 9, 10 and 11 assists respectively. Which one is right, how do you decide that? GiantSnowman 16:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
If it's for league/cup games we use the league website with 9, for UEFA games the UEFA one with 10 and so on. Other sources (ESPN or so) should not be used... Just an idea! Kante4 (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
So you're gonna pick and choose sources that conflict with each other, taking a bit from one and a bit from another, to get a 'correct' tally? Laughable. GiantSnowman 16:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I said it was just an idea. And tough to realize it i understood, just wanted some input as that would be good for the League (official website)/UEFA ( statistics table. A total would be made out of it easily at the end (adding league/cub assists + UEFA games). Try to understand what i mean next time before you make a "laughable" and pretty cocky comment, especially as an "admin". Kante4 (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The source wouldn't be arbitrarily selected. Using common sense, the official league website would be used. It qualifies Wikipedia criteria for RS, and using it as a source does not violate any Wikipedia policy that I am aware of. To further simply things, and do not track assists for domestics leagues, so each competition has one unambiguous official source. Bobby (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
No answer as expected. Kante4 (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I've been away for two days actually, so thanks for the GF. You have not convinced me - or anybody else - that the 'official league website' is the most trustworthy/accurate for assists. Keep trying though. GiantSnowman 11:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Nice behaviour for an admin... And you have not convinced me why they should NOT be used, easy as that. When we agree on one source (the official one) it's easy. But i see you have no interest in discussing, so you can OWN it. Kante4 (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you even know what 'OWN' means? GiantSnowman 12:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Official site is the must trustworthy, just as with goals. And i'd say it doesn't matter if different assist tables differ, as long as the one in the article is sourced. Any player having a difference of +/-2 doens't change the whole picture of that table anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The more you guys speak, the more you harm your own argument. It doesn't matter if it's not accurate?! GiantSnowman 12:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it does not matter if anohter source that is not the official league one, has a different number, as this won't be used. But keep spinning it the way you want to have it. Kante4 (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't really see the difference between goals and assists, afaik it is only in England you have a Dubious Goals Committee, and in every other country sources are reporting conflicting numbers when it comes to goals, but when they do we use the official league's source don't we? Why can't we do the same for leagues that have an official statistics for assists? I don't want to include the assists in the career statistics sections, as it clutters the table, but I can't see why we can't use that information other places. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Assist break

Since the discussion seems to have slowed, I'd like to raise an issue I first stumbled over at Talk:Mesut Özil.

First the issue: several editors have been adding assists. A few editors, myself included, have insisted that the source (ESPN) is not a RS for assists. The source claims to list assists for the player in the Bundesliga, La Liga and now the EPL. The question is, since trades may happen between leagues, if we do implement assists, what would happen if a player goes from a league that keeps assist stats to one that does not? Would we remove all assists? Not display them for that league? This is primarily a question for those who think that assists stats should be kept. I suspect I know what those who don't want them kept think should happen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This is yet another reason why we should not include assists - no universal definition, no universal coverage. GiantSnowman 11:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Leagues that maintain official assist statistics

I'm suggesting that we make a list of leagues that maintain the statistics, with a link to the official statistic page. I am including La Liga because of the comment made by Xboxandhalo2/Bobby above. This list is not an effort to encourage keeping assist statistics, simply a catalogue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

  • La Liga
  • Major League Soccer [18]
  • Bundesliga [19]
  • Premier League [20]
  • Ligue 1 [21] and so on... Kante4 (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
So either this topic has gone off the radar or this is the extent of leagues that maintain assists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
What's the point? There is no consensus to include assists. GiantSnowman 11:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Two "English football" doubts coming up!

1 - Barry Wellings. Can someone have a look at the article? His last two (at least) clubs have to be wrong, he signed with my country's Académica in November 1984, then proceeded to remain there until he retired. Please check the two links i added to the article.

I remember i started watching football around this time, and Mr.Wellings played with Académica from 1984/89 300% sure, the source may be all the reliable we want, especially for English football(ers), but it is wrong in this case please. Please feel free to make the adjustments/reversions to anything i have unduly removed, sorry for any (possible) inconvenience.

2 - Matt Jones (footballer born 1986). A source in the article noted that this guy was the first English footballer to compete in Portugal. Well (see above) he's not, not the first and not even the SECOND (Scott Minto, Steve Harkness, Brian Deane, Tony Sealy, Raphael Meade, Gary Charles, etc, etc), but the source is a quite thorough interview about his career, in the States and my country, and it deserves to be there methinks. Two users (or the same with two accounts) beg to differ, removing the sentence and the ref without one word of explanation! I have added Mr.Wellings' part to Mr.Jones' article

Attentively, happy week --AL (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Situation #2 resolved, i read the article better and there is a possibility the folks there are referring to Jones as the only English player to play in Portugal AT THE MOMENT, not the FIRST EVER. Maybe my bad and i apologize for that.

I would still like to receive some help in item #1, please. --AL (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Can't help with #1, but with #2 the article is saying that he is the only Englishman currently. It's not the best wording because of the mixing of tenses, but the only way to read the actual meaning. Koncorde (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Barry Wellings, the dates on the Neil Brown site are for seasons played, not actual calendar years. For example, John Smith played 2 games for Man Utd - one at the end of the 1983–84 season, one at the start of the 1984–85 season. Neil Brown will show his career with the club as "1983–1985", but in actuality he was only with the club from March 1984 to November 1984. GiantSnowman 10:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Wellings played for Swansea sep-oct 1984, he played for Southport, Runcorn and Droylsden in the early 90's Cattivi (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Many thanks to you all, i'll duly arrange box with those inputs! --AL (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • A belated mention that I have expanded the Wellings article, your concerns regarding his clubs before moving to Portugal should now be addressed. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Miami FC/FTL Strikers categories

I'm not a guy who often comes on here and points fingers at a certain Wikipedia contributor, but earlier this morning (pacific time), which would've been last night for most of you, I just noticed that this user named NYCWikiKid started moving pages requesting moves for categories that had to do with Miami FC or Fort Lauderdale Strikers. Apparently he's trying to add distinction on all of them because team is defunct. So I've spent all day placing merge/rename/deletion tags on every single article that was created as well as listed every since category that has been nominated on the original project page. On there, you'll also see two unnecessary FTL Strikers roster templates that I've also nominated for deletion. I suggest everybody have a say on each section because right now as you can see, it's a complete mess. And also come to think of it, I would also consider checking to see if NYCWikiKid is a sockpuppet to another user. – Michael (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

:*Wow! What a load of hypocrisy.

  • Before I begin, I want everyone to know that I have been working diligently to create a proper reflection of the Fort Lauderdale Strikers club's entire history. The information for the timeline was spread out and lacked true coherency. I invested several man hours and days, and did extensive research in order to put things to into proper arrangements in order to create more depth. Prior to my vast contributions, there was an enormous gap and lack of information regarding seasons, players, stadiums, etc. Now everything is finally placed in order so everyone interested in exploring the long history of the club can do so.
  • After all the work I did, I discovered by chance that all the arrangements I made was being suggested by the user above (Mikemor92) to either be deleted or renamed or merged. This was never informed to me. I just simply found out about it. I then replied to the proposals and explained that they should not be followed through. In the process, the user responds and it was evident that this person lacked the full insight of the club's history. I asked this person to kindly refrain from making the suggestions to delete and simply contact me directly so we could converse and carry an amicable conversation. I even invited this person to collaborate with me and others in working towards improving the information. I did so on several instances.
  • Rather than contact me, which should have been the right thing to do, this person comes here with such low class insults and defamation of character. On top of this, tries to entice some malicious warfare. I want no part of it, and have no time whatsoever for it. I only replied because this is clearly disgusting behavior from the user above. Next time Mikemor92, be a real person with honor and contact the individual, and not go behind their backs trying to stab them when they are not looking.
  • Strikers fans, believe me, I have been working for all of you to give you a better connection to your club's history. It now looks organized. Visit here - Category:Fort Lauderdale Strikers. I am working with others in continuing the details and trust me, at the end, it will be well presented and definitive.
  • So please, let's be constructive and help me to expand the information, instead of doing like some who know little about the club and want to be deconstructive in order to hinder the knowledge of its history. NYCWikiKid (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
NYCWikiKid has been working on NASL articles and to the best of my knowledge isn't a sock, but I have never requested any verification. Without a smoking WP:DUCK, I wouldn't even go down that road either.
Some of the editor's recent edits seemed suspicious when they showed up on my watchlist, but when I looked at them they appear to be logical. I don't know about this group of edits since I'm not watching those articles. Could you two do two things?
What I see is that the former team is being distinguished from the current via categories only. I'm not sure if that's the problem you're seeing or if there's something else. If not, could you please provide the list of articles in question?
Let's focus on Wikipedia, not the editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Well you see the list of categories and templates on the project page. The articles in question are Washington Darts, Minnesota Strikers, Orlando Lions and Fort Lauderdale Strikers (1994–97). – Michael (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
It's both the categories and the articles. – Michael (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
@NYCWikiKid: - you have a history of this. Making such controversial, undiscussed changes is disruptive and could result in a block if this happens again in the future.
@Mikemor92: - accusations of sockpuppetry are serious, please either retract or take to WP:SPI. GiantSnowman 08:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Anyone, including higher ranking admins, are more than free to do an extensive search of my history since day one and determine the value I provide here on the site. You have my blessing. I feel confident that I have been more than a positive contributor. I let me history stand on its own.
  • Any arrangements I have done with respects to the Fort Lauderdale Strikers club have been with valuable knowledge and proper reference. Please, anyone reading do explore the information thoroughly and use sound judgment with regard to how Category:Fort Lauderdale Strikers now looks like. You will see how well it is cataloged. Simply compare it to other clubs' main categories that are also in great need of improvements (e.g. Category:New York Cosmos; Category:Tampa Bay Rowdies; Category:Vancouver Whitecaps; Category:Portland Timbers; Category:Seattle Sounders FC; Category:Seattle Sounders (1994–2008); Category:Seattle Sounders (NASL); and the huge list goes on of categories that need proper organizing). You will instantly see the major improvement. You should have all seen how unorganized the category was. I hope that many of you can better assess what has been accomplished. Thanks. NYCWikiKid (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
But the Seattle Sounders teams are considered seperate franchises/entities, reflected in the fact that they have seperate articles. What you have done is create numerous categories for the same team - an entirely different scenario. GiantSnowman 16:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It appears that I am watching those articles. Seattle, Vancouver, Portland and Montreal are all different issues than Miami. They went from other leagues to MLS. MLS is a single entity ownership model where every team becomes a league "owner" and the clubs are franchisees. Miami FC was never an MLS team nor was Fort Lauderdale. They were part of a more traditional model where local clubs exist and were free to join a larger league structure simply by participating. They stopped operations and started again then moved. However, keeping the history of Miami under its own category isn't unreasonable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

  • This is right. The MLS model is quite distinct from traditional models and team names are used as part of the league under franchises where the league itself is like a "club". This is instead of an organization that represents various clubs that field specific teams to said organization and others alike. One club can have several teams simultaneously in different leagues. In the case of MLS, they are a "club" that fields several teams within their league. I use the term club very loosely in this scenario to make the analogy, with no intent to depreciate the proper value of MLS and their contributions to US Soccer.
  • The Seattle issue is a separate discussion, differing from the original topic at hand. This is something that I would prefer to discuss elsewhere and with proper methodical exchange. However, I will say that all the "teams" that have carried the name Seattle Sounders are not the same "team", though some carry direct (uninterrupted) lineage, as most have been under different leagues. Still, because they all share the right to the name, they do fall under one historical club. Dynasties of continuous ownership is a separate story altogether. Again, this is something to discuss elsewhere. To note, the separate articles for these teams are accurate and well done, though always in need of improvements. However, a future club article should be heavily discussed by all parties as a I am formally proposing for all the teams that have gone through so many periods of change. (There is a difference between the term club and team. Unfortunately, I have seen the two overlap and misused throughout the site). This should be a complementary article to all the teams of a given set and should not replace any of the individual articles of specific teams. Again, to be talked about in a separate forum.
  • GS, in truth, I have not created numerous categories for the same team (e.g. Miami FC (2006-10 USL First Division) and Fort Lauderdale Strikers (2011- NASL); Washington Darts (1967-69 ASL) and Washington Darts (1970-71 NASL); etc). I have created categories for separate teams that share names but are from different periods or leagues, or have been rebranded. These are distinct teams, even though they carry direct lineage and form part of one club (the Fort Lauderdale Strikers). They deserve individual categories and articles, while still recognizing their connection. NYCWikiKid (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
NYC, please bear in mind WP:TLDR - you need to try and be more concise. Secondly, you have created multiple categories for the same team - we have only one article on Washington Darts, but you have created new categories and edited/removed existing categories. If you believe there should be separate articles on teams by the name of 'Washington Darts' then make that proposal, but do not edit in the matter you have been doing. GiantSnowman 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • GS, if what I wrote was "too long" for you, then you are clearly not even concerning yourself with the full facts. Merely because an article, in this case the Washington Darts, is written in a generalized format to be inclusive it does not imply that two teams are the same, when they are distinct. Therefore I have not created categories for the same team, and won't repeat this statement. I have already made my point for others who do want to read the entire issue with clarity. Cheers NYCWikiKid (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I read it all - but walls of text are not constructive and do not make conversation easy. I won't repeat myself either - if there is one article about a club then there should only be one set of categories related to it. GiantSnowman 18:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I responded to several points being made by others. I only write what is necessary.
  • This statement - "one article about a club" - is what I mean by not using the term club and team correctly in the site. The club was absorbed into the Fort Lauderdale Strikers club. Here, in Wikipedia, there is consistency of placing categories for specific teams. I have met that criteria for each given team. NYCWikiKid (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Not as far as Wikipedia is concerned... GiantSnowman 18:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I doubt that you speak for all. As far as I see, mostly every team on the site is categorized accordingly, and I have followed proper relevance - very much inline with precedence set in Wikipedia. NYCWikiKid (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
You've done nothing of the sort. You have created a new category for every time a team has changed division - and in the face of past consensus at WP:CFD where such categories have been merged. GiantSnowman 19:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • GS quote - "You have created a new category for every time a team has changed division" - What? Division? I am starting to now heavily doubt that you are truly informed about this topic. Shame. Someone knowledgeable on this matter would never make that statement. I hope that other well informed readers can see this too. You bring up WP:CFD which only addresses the specific topics that we are already discussing here (Category:Fort Lauderdale Strikers and everything included). So what? What past consensus? You and someone else agreeing with the user above without proper conversation or historical account of the subject at hand? Ok GS, I thought you were really here to discuss things rationally, but now I doubt this. Regardless, I initially responded to someone else's comments, the very person all the way above who decided to propose multiple deletions and such to all the countless hours of work I did.
  • The goal here is to be productive, and that is what I am, have been doing, and will continue to do so. Moving along.
  • PS: you can continue to reply all you want without real solid foundation of the facts of the subject because you must have the final word. Cheers and Peace! NYCWikiKid (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The teams haven't changed division. To be clear, when Miami joined, they did so when USL was the sanctioned second division. The current Strikers team is in the NASL, which is the currently sanctioned second division.
That said, it's not clear that Miami was "absorbed" the Strikers team, but I may have my history incorrect.
So the question I pose is: in European leagues, when two teams merge are the players and other articles kept in separate groups with a new category for the merged team or is it all merged? Whichever model is already establishes is the model that we should use.
As side note, when Miami started to play, they were a formidable opponent but they didn't have the financial backing to maintain such a rich roster in a league that didn't have huge gate receipts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
FC Ingolstadt 04 formed in 2004 from the merger of ESV Ingolstadt and MTV Ingolstadt. Peter Dietrich played for ESV in the 1960s, Franz Gerber ESV in 80/81, Michael Lutz MTV 2002–2004 then FC Ingolstadt until 2011, Manfred Müller ESV in 1979, Manfred Ritschel ESV sometime before 1968, Helmut Schmidt (footballer) ESV 74–76, Jürgen Wittmann MTV 93–94. All of these players are listed in the category FC Ingolstadt 04 players. This category states it is "Players of FC Ingolstadt 04 and its predecessors." SpVgg Greuther Fürth merged with TSV Vestenbergsgreuth in 1996. The information regarding both teams in under Category:SpVgg Greuther Fürth. EddieV2003 (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. So unless some examples that follow the pattern of these two clubs can be found it seems clear what must occur to these new categories. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
...and they are at CFD already, full list can be found here. GiantSnowman 12:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


Why isn't there an article for headers?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What is there to say that isn't already covered at Glossary of association football_terms#H.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
There has been a bit written on an apparent link between heading the ball and brain injury. Hack (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Clifford Roach

I'm hoping someone might be able to help here. I've been expanding the above article on Roach, a West Indies cricketer in the 1920s and 1930s, and came across this which claims he played international football for Trinidad. Is socawarriors a reliable source? And does anyone know of anywhere else to check that he played football? The cricket sources do not mention it, nor does the only obituary I've found from the region, albeit Jamaica rather than Trinidad. Any help appreciated. Thanks! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Socawarriors is reliable when it comes T&T. This article has more details. They usually take their information from newspaper clippings, the information about his amputations would have been taken from a newspaper from before he died. The matches would not have been recognised by FIFA though as they were not members at the time and T&T was part of the UK. TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
This is not quite correct. The Martinez Shield matches are now recognised as full internationals by RSSSF (see [22]) and for the ELO ratings. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Neither the RSSSF nor ELO are FIFA, so what's incorrect with TheBigJagielka's statement? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)"
Point taken, but neither is it correct to say that "T&T was part of the UK". -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Pedant ;) I think it was still a British colony at least. :) TheBigJagielka (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed on both counts. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think socawarriors is a reliable site for the history aspect of his career at all. The article on Roach makes little or no reference to exactly when he played, claims he played a certain number of games but doesn't bother to identify a debut season. Far better I think to look at T & T football history. Search for Roach and a number of reports from contemporary newspapers are found. RossRSmith (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the above replies. Between all this, I've managed to cobble together a small amount about his football. Much appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vladimir Slišković

Dear footballers: Another submission at Afc. What should we do with this one? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Clear rejection. The Bosnian top flight is not fully pro, so he's not notable for his playing career, and assistant manager, as a rule, are not notable either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep, appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I have declined it. Thanks —Anne Delong (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Parade High School All-Americans nominated for deletion

Category:Parade High School All-Americans (boys' soccer) and Category:Parade High School All-Americans (girls' soccer) are currently nominated for deletion. If you are interested in contributing to this discussion, please go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 22#Category:Parade High School All-Americans and do so. Rikster2 (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

English FL: records and consistency

I've been looking at articles on English FL clubs, and it is often very difficult to follow their progress through the various divisions, because the information is incomplete or buried in mass of relative trivia. For a few clubs, full details of Played, Won, Lost etc for each season are given (which is overkill IMO), but for others (including clubs as famous as Manchester United) there is nothing structured.

I propose that there should be a small section summarising clubs' league career: periods in each division, highest and lowest placings. I've put a prototype on the page of Accrington F.C. which was the first club to exit the League permanently. It could well be combined with the Honours section (of which Accrington achieved none!).

I'm prepared to work away at this doing a few clubs every month or so. The two clubs with only a single season in the league could be omitted as it would be pure duplication of the body of the article.

What do others think? It would also be useful to have FA Cup performance, but I currently have no reliable source. It could be included in the Club template. There is also the question of how far down the pyramid one goes - reliable information is potentially an issue at lower levels. One might restrict it to national-level leagues i.e. Premier, FL and Conference.

And another thing... many articles on FL clubs seem to be written in imitation of tabloid jouranlism. I don't beleive this is appropriate. Also, a football club is surely singular not plural. E.g. "It was (not They were) elected to the Xth Division in 19xx". Comments? Chrismorey (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

On the last point only - it's a transatlantic thing - see WP:PLURALS. In British English, xxx are a football team, they were elected....etc.--Egghead06 (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Most of the big clubs have articles listing all seasons in their history (see List of Manchester United F.C. seasons), so there's no need to add anything like that to the clubs' main articles. If small clubs have enough seasons in their history, they too could have "List of Foo F.C. seasons" articles created if you fancy doing that. – PeeJay 00:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
In the Accrington example, the "Honours and League Performance" section is surely a total duplicate of the "League and Cup History" section below..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
on second thoughts I agree with the above re Accrington, which probably applies also to other clubs with a brief league tenure. I didn't spot a link to the MUFC seasons list and in fact still can't see it. I've added a link where it seems to go best. I would like to make make three points: (1) there is no place I could see in the template for a summary of competitive performance, other than honours won (and many clubs never win any); (2) it's customary to put a summary of a subsidiary article in the main article (re PeeJay2K3's comment), and for a club like MUFC a summary of its 100+ league seasons is highly desirable; (3) the MUFC article is in general very long and arguably over-detailed.
and finally, the MUFC article switches between singular and plural between paragraphs, as does the list of seasons. This is less than ideal IMO. Clearly I'm not the only person who likes the singular for a club (I can see the case for the plural when referring to a team as opposed to a club), but I don't intend to be dogmatic - and the style manual allows either Chrismorey (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
British English is used per WP:ENGVAR so there's no debate on the last item of your comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
When you say "there is no place I could see in the template for a summary of competitive performance", which template are you referring to? If you look at {{Manchester United F.C.}}, for example, there is a link to the "seasons" article in the "history" block, and the same is true of most clubs' equivalent templates....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup Final imagemap

Maybe somebody could make imagemap for 2010 FIFA World Cup Final (like for 2006)? And maybe template for that should be made? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

2019 Africa Cup of nations

When I read the article, I notice that : The hosts for this tournament will be announced later in 2013.. Have you got informations to confirm that? And you can put this link Senegal is candidate to 2019 AfCoN (in french)to complete information about Senegal. Moreover when you read the website, you can notice that : it's a part of a great social and economical project for Senegal, named : “ Sénégal Horizon 2020”. Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for player's stats

Hi, I am compiling a career stats table for Gary Mills (footballer born 1961) and have come across conflicting league totals for his second Nottingham Forest spell, with some sources (including the Rothmans books I am using to cite each season) coming to 74 and others to 78. However, I don't have access to any reliable sources giving a season-by-season breakdown that come to 78. I was wondering if anyone had access to such a source? Bit of a long shot but it's worth a go. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I've got The Official History of Nottingham Forest (1998) and Nottingham Forest: The Official Statistical History (2006) at my dad's place, so I can check that out for you next time I go there. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 14:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, if either of these books do give 78 would you mind telling me what season(s) is/are different and what the stats are? Thanks again, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Will do. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 16:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Right then. The 1998 book gives league stats as follows: five starts and two substitute appearances in 1983-84 (page 223); 18 starts and eight sub appearances in '84-5 (page 224); 13 starting berths and one sub appearance in 1985-86 (p.225); and finally, 27 starts and five subs in 1986-1987 (page 226). Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 19:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Julian Green

It might be worth considering re-instating the article about Julian Green. He's just been called up by the U.S.A.'s full national team. TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between being called up and actually making an appearance. So, I would wait before restoring myself. JMHamo (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
When a 18 year old is called up for a nation with a large population like the U.S.A., I'd say he meets the Wikipedia:GNG criteria. I hadn't heard of the player before, my first port of call was Wikipedia, yet there's no article. It's a consistent policy as he hasn't played any pro games but it's not always the best one in situations like this (Raheem Sterling is an example that springs to mind, he had 15,000 page views but no article) TheBigJagielka (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The population of the country is irrelevant, especially when 'soccerball' remains a relatively minor sport in the States. I know you like creating articles about called-up players (Harry Wilson the most recent) but there is consensus at AFD that being called-up is not enough. We have even deleted articles about players who were squad members at tournaments but never played. GiantSnowman 10:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Julian Green has received a significant amount of coverage. I had no idea who he was less than a week ago but I googled his name after he scored a brace for Bayern Munich's reserve team and read some articles on him. Being called-up doesn't warrant an article, but the coverage he's received does in my opinion. TonyStarks (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to WP:DRV. GiantSnowman 15:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Odaine Demar

Hello again! Another football article at Afc. Can someone help with this one? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

...and another one: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mohammed Habib : Indian Football LegendAnne Delong (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The first player is not notable by WP:FOOTY standards as none of the clubs he has played for are fully-professional. He could pass WP:GNG though. Habib meanwhile is notable but the page is just... crap. He did play for India internationally and is an award winner in India so he should have a page, I shall do that. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Odaine Demar fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; ArsenalFan700 has already confirmed that Mohammed Habib is notable. That AFC, however, is atrocious. GiantSnowman 15:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
You mean you don't think prose like "The 80,000 strong capacity crowd gaving a thunderous ovation as the Cosmos and Mohun Bagan players took the field. The defeaning chant of "Pele Pele Pele" rent the air, as the referee blew his whistle to signal the start of the match. Fortunately the rain had held up but the ground was still slashy.Both teams started on a cautious note with occasional forays into the rival territory. One such move saw the Cosmos team opening the score. Cosmos drew first blood in the 17th minute. However Mohun Bagan evened the score in the very next minute. Habib initiated a brilliant move,dribbling past a couple of Cosmos players and passed the ball to Akbar. Akbar evaded a diving tackle from Morais and gave the ball to Shyam Thapa whose brilliant punch found the net" is encyclopedic? You do surprise me ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
That gem is actually copyvio of this, unless the AfC submitter wrote it there first. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Bloody hell this brings me back to when I first started here and tackled the Mohun Bagan A.C. page (a battle yet to be won to this day). Anyway, that can easily be paraphrased to mainly only mention Habib's role in the game. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the copyright violation. I found that another piece was from a newspaper article, so I have requested deletion of that article. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Is Mohammed Habib the same as the Mohammed Habeeb who played at the 1970 Asian Games[23]? Hack (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
@Hack: - the deleted AFC did claim that 'Mohammed Habib' played at the Asian Games in 1970 and 1974, so it likely they are the same. GiantSnowman 09:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on date format in the 1994 FIFA World Cup article


There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#WP:STRONGNAT and international events hosted by the United States.

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

List of national football teams by penalty shootout record

Is this article even remotely encyclopaedic? Seems like the sort of thing that might go in a stats book, but surely not an encyclopaedia? – PeeJay 16:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to WP:AFD it and see what happens. It's borderline WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
An AFD is definitely merited. GiantSnowman 17:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national football teams by penalty shootout record => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Mick McCarthy at FC Vevey

An IP has added that Mick managed FC Vevey after ROI, but I'm finding it difficult to find any sources. Can anyone back that up? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

In the same session the same IP moved Martin Cranie to Standaard Wetteren, which might come as a nasty shock to Barnsley seeing as he played for them on Saturday, so I'm not totally surprised you're struggling to confirm it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Spank my good faith. Thanks Struway2. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Fan site awards (Ryan Burge)

An IP wants to add that "Despite leaving the club Burge's efforts were rewarded at the end of the season as he was crowned as the joint OVF (one vale fan) player of the season along with fellow team mate Tom Pope & goalkeeper Chris Neal, voted for by the fans." One Vale Fan is a popular fansite. I don't believe this is notable enough to report on in the article, a GA class article. I don't want to break the 3 revert rule so I came here for more opinions.--EchetusXe 21:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Is young Ryan looking for fresh employment again? the CV-hyping edits do tend to coincide with his appearing unsettled work-wise. OVF would be a reliable source for its own award, but a three-way tie, when all they do is count up the number of matches that each player has been voted man-of-the-match in, is hardly voted player of the season by the fans, and IMO not worthy of inclusion. Although past experience teaches that he doesn't hold my opinion in particularly high regard :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
My mum's Bradford City player of the year last year was, direct quote, "Little nicky Nahki noo". I'll get her to start a website and we'll post that on his aricle then, shall we? GiantSnowman 15:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Completely agree with GS, unless there is significant reliable coverage of the fan award in other independant sources, then it is not notable. The fan site itself is simply a primary source. Fenix down (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The IP's still at it..... - ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
He still refuses to back down, so perhaps a block on his two I.P.s is due. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Nobody has attempted to discuss this with the IP (other than through edit summaries) - I've issued a 3RR warning and will block if needed. GiantSnowman 18:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If you can get him to discuss anything other than through edit summaries, you'll be the first to manage it in four years of trying..... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Head coaches/managerial changes in a league season article

I was just wondering how I should date this box at the top. It involves the 2 coaching changes at Salgaocar and Pune and the one involving East Bengal. Basically the three old coaches were announced to be leaving their clubs before the season ended (so well in advance) but they all still stayed till the season ended on 11 May 2013. As well as that, two of the new coaches were unveild before the season ended as well but did not take over till the day after the season ended. So, in a way that seemed logical to me, I decided to list these changes as occuring on 12 May 2013 as that is when these coaches left and the new coaches technically took over. It just made sense to me, however I would like the opinion of the people here before I actually send this to the main 2013–14 I-League page. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it fair for me to ask why no one has replied here yet? This is not complicated? I just want a simple opinion. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
This season's Bundesliga article dates the one for Bayern Munich on the day that Guardiola officially took over. Werder Bremen's Schaaf is dated as the last day of the season with his successor, Dutt, dated for the date of his appointment. EddieV2003 (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Was Schaaf announced to leave before that day though or was he relieved of his duties that very day? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
According to the source in the article, "Schaff, who was the longest-serving active coach in the league, would not be in charge for the last game of the season against Nuremberg on Saturday, the club said in a statement." I was mistaken on the matchday. He was relieved midweek between matchday 33 and md 34, so he was actually released during the 2012–13 season and his replacement was appointed between seasons. EddieV2003 (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the need of including what date the managerial changes takes place when it happens after the end of the season and before the start of the new season. I believe I've seen that some of those tables simply state pre-season instead of a date. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Can you show me an example of when the dates were not used? As far as I have seen they have always been there. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah sorry, I was mistaken. It was the "position at departure"-column that state "pre-season", not the date-column. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Christian Giménez

Please can people keep an eye on this article ? The article could prove controversial over the coming days as Mexico's World Cup depends on FIFA's decision to decide whether or not he was eligible to play for them in World Cup qualifiers. TheBigJagielka (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Match fixing in association football

I have created this article and an associated template, expansion and improvements welcome to both. GiantSnowman 15:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:TENNIS discussions

Tennis is an olympics sport, and well, I thought I should mention the ongoing discussions going on at WP:TENNIS; we are discussing how career statistics list should be modeled, it would be nice if any of you would participate in it. I'm asking you since several football lists are of FL-quality, so you seem a lot more then us on the topic.. --TIAYN (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tommy Craig (footballer)

This article is a little different from most of the football submissions at AfC. Ifnotable, it may need sourcing help from someone who has access to old newspapers. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There may be online sources available, I'll have a look momentarily. GiantSnowman 17:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be the player who made 131 league appearances (4 goals) for Dumbarton and 259 league appearances for East Stirling. Worth noting that Tommy Craig is also a footballer, so the Tommy Craig (footballer) title would be ambiguous. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
East Stirling were in the top division during one of his seasons at the club, so assuming he played, I think he may be notable. Number 57 20:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Vincent (rugby union)

Hello, footballers; sorry to pester you again, but this article is about to be deleted as a stale draft, and I don't know enough (or anything) about football organizations to know if this fellow is a notable player. Would anyone like to rescue this article? All it takes is one edit... —Anne Delong (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong code of football, you'll need Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union. GiantSnowman 19:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, that's why I always ask for help with sports revies - I'm more of a musician myself. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Aleksandr Evgenievich Bondar

I declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aleksandr Bondar about a Russian footballer who was on the roster for one game in a fully-professional league but who never played. Did I make the right call? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Number 57 22:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

New articles archive files

Noticed that most of the new articles archive files contained links to so many articles that they breached the template include limit, see relevant category. Which means they don't render properly, scroll down e.g. this one to see what that looks like. So I started splitting them. 2013 so far is now into its third archive file, and 2012 divided nicely into January–March, April–August, Sept–Dec. But when it came to 2011, someone must have been on a mission, because September alone contains enough links to exceed the template include limit. So assuming we do want to keep these pages readable, I was wondering if anyone could suggest an alternative to splitting 2011 into about six archives, of which some will break mid-month.

At the moment, the new articles list uses the {{La|articlename}} format, and when people archive a month, it's just copied over to the current archive. If the template calls were stripped off when each month is archived, leaving just a straight wikilink to each article, it'd solve the problem, but it'd mean the person doing the archiving would have to do the stripping. Any ideas welcome, anyway. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A bot - or someone with clever AWB programming - could strip the 2011 archive to straight wiki-links. If that's what we want, I could probably do the AWB stuff. GiantSnowman 10:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
If that's what we want is the point, I think. It's quick and easy even for the non-techy such as myself to copy the wikitext out to notepad (other text editing methods exist), do a replace-all, and copy it back, without need for programming or bots. While I can see uses for the templated format on the current new articles page, so that viewers can see stuff like redlinked talk pages, I haven't yet thought of a reason why we'd need more than a plain wikilink in the archives. And it would certainly be preferable for there to be just the one archive for each year and for all that year's creations to fit in it. But I'd prefer to give it a few days see if anyone else thinks of a reason not to. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Right then. I'll assume tacit approval, and get on and do it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, done that. There's now a single archive for each year, named straightforwardly Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/New articles/2013 Archive etc. For the time being, I've left intact those files whose content has been merged into each year's archive (files with a 2 or a 3 on the end of Archive, as Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/New articles/2013 Archive2) so that if I've messed anything up, all we have to do is revert my edits. Then if everything's OK in a few days time, I'll request deletion of those ones. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Dutch national team results

I found this article – Netherlands national football team results. In my opinion the results should be split by decade and not by year, but it looks like there is no point merging as the individual pages are generally unreferenced. If anyone is interested in creating new pages, please go ahead and do so. Thanks, C679 12:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well the match report links are there. So there isn't much more to reference. -Koppapa (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
2012 and 2013 have links to match reports, but not the earlier years, although I haven't checked every one. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Association football goalkeepers who have scored

I just noticed this category, Category:Association football goalkeepers who have scored - my first thought was that this isn't a WP:DEFINING characteristic, and that the category should be deleted, but I thought I'd ask here first what people think about it. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's probably better off as a list, rather than a category. GiantSnowman 13:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
List of goalscoring goalkeepers already exists.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It's hard to say, actually. In some cases, it IS a defining characteristic - Chilavert, Butt and Ceni are famous for their high number of goals (Chilavert scoring more goals in his career than a lot of average strikers have done, with 112 goals), Schmeichel is well known for scoring as well - and the only thing of real note Jimmy Glass ever did was to save Carlisle from relegation into the Conference by scoring, which even he has admitted. In others, it's a case of "How unusual, a goalkeeper scored". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


Do you know some websites where i can find info about footballers? Now i use soccerway, but i need more sources co verify data.
And another question: do you know some websites which shares photos of footballers/stadiums under free lincense? Thanks XXN (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:WPFLINKS. GiantSnowman 12:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


Can you help me to open a page for football player ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


can i ask you something ? how can i open the profile page in wikipedia ? for a profesional footbal player — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexhiy (talkcontribs) 22:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Look here Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players XXN (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Help!! Club crests are in danger. Experienced users come here to consult and support

Guys, i need help, support. Exist at an discussion about football club crests and WP:NFG rule?
Look here, one dummy remove crests gallery of my favorite club. You can see here Borussia Dortmund#Crest, and here Chelsea F.C.#Crest. If he will found these articles, he also will remove their crests too. We must protect somehow this thing. XXN (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion on a proposal to remove the Chelsea crests here. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 MLS Cup Playoffs‎

2013 MLS Cup Playoffs‎ is showing potential macth-ups for the final tie of the series when the semi-finals have not been played. I have always seen this sort of thing removed. Is that a problem here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Spanish 5-a-side footballers

I've created/imported stubs about Spanish 5-a-side footballers. If some one could come in and do some basic tweaks to them or improve them, that would be really fantastic. It would also be great to see more articles about 5-a-side footballers. :) --LauraHale (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Help fixing template

Hi, I recently made this Template:Fb ss3 player by copying this Template:Extended football squad player, but I'm pretty sure I did something wrong. As you can see here (compared to this) the shading of the table is not right and the columns do not continue after a certain point. Any help would be much appreciated.--2nyte (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are you making a new template when we have an existing one? The last thing we need is even more different templates. You should have proposed changes to the existing one. Number 57 13:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, we need to get rid of these complicated templates - not make more of them! GiantSnowman 13:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The existing one looked well established (i.e. I didn't think my changes would have been accepted) and I couldn't find one the same where I could simplify what was shown in 2 separate tables. I didn't think it would be that controversial.--2nyte (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
make a request on the talk page of Template:Extended football squad player and see what happens. Frietjes (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The code only allows for 8 columns since the last variable input in the code is {{#if:||| style="text-align: center; background:#F0F0F0;" | {{{8}}}. You will have to add coding for more variables to get more columns. The best way to do a large table like this one is to use a wikitable instead of a template. EddieV2003 (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Gedion Zelalem

In light of several new references added to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gedion Zelalem, especially this link which contained a remark by the Ethiopian Foreign Minister, I'm thinking this person now meets WP:GNG. On the other hand, with his recent injury, he may or may not be playing on a fully-adult fully-professional team as soon as he turns 17 I previously speculated.

Your thoughts - approve it as-is (my tentative recommendation) or wait for either more coverage (to bolster WP:GNG) or his first game that would qualify him under WP:NFOOTY? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Copying my comments over here, but I don't think we need a copyright check since the whole thing was substantially rewritten by myself - not that I'm going to oppose one being done, of course! I'm pretty sure he meets WP:GNG (otherwise I wouldn't have rewritten the article!), and there's lots of other sources on the web that are reasonably reliable and offer in-depth coverage on Zelalem, particularly surrounding the issues of which nation he'll end up playing for (like Januzaj) and his Asia Tour performances. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick reminder

Just wanna let you guys know, in case you haven't picked up on it yet, that there's a discussion on the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding NYCWikiKid's recent edits in all MLS/NASL club templates that appear to have been made by his own research. I would ask all contributors to join the discussion and give their imput on this. – Michael (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Live updates (again)

Hi everyone.

I have been reverting livescores (and so has a few other editors) according to WP:LIVESCORES and consensus reached at example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81#Live scoring. I have done this by putting information on the article talkpage and then informing the editor adding the livescore on their talkpage.

What I would like to discuss now and have some information about is if this also applies on appearance-tables, "top scorers"-tables and so on. I have managed to stop livescoring on the matches themselves (the current scores), but now editors are live updating goals in scorers-tables, inserting starting XI in appearance tables and so on. Shouldn't those tables also be updated first after the match has finished? QED237 (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. No stats should be updated until the game is over and the result is made official. – PeeJay 22:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Revert (without breaching 3RR!), warn, and then report at WP:AIV for editing against consensus/guidelines. GiantSnowman 12:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
That is what I have done so far (informed without warning first, then warn if it happened again). QED237 (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This website appears to have disappeared. It was a useful, although not always 100% accurate, source. This search indicates that it has been cited over 700 times. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

  • It was useful, but I'd wait a while before we pronounce it dead, and not just having a temporary outage. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I can't remember where I saw it, but there was a message from the owner saying it would be down for a week while he changed servers. TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Even if it is down there should still be access to the site via the Wayback Machine. GiantSnowman 13:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The site now has a message: "Sorry, is unavailable at the moment while we are upgrading. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience." So all is not lost. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It's a good thing I have archived most of the lineups (up to number 299000 or so) just in case. (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It's now back online and all appears to be working fine. "Panic" over. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ireland's First Real World Cup

Not sure if this is the right place but the articles affected are all about football. I would like to complain about the actions of User:Jac16888. Out of pettiness , Jac16888 has decided to remove a reference from several articles which I have contributed to because he believes that because a book is self published it is therefore an unreliable source. As a supporter of Wikipedia and having contributed to thousands of articles, I decided to share some of my research. I think it is only correct that this research be referenced properly and credited appropriately. I am staggered to be find out that Jac16888is a Wikipedia administer as I believe his action falls little short of vandalism.

Needham, David (2012-05-21). Ireland's First Real World Cup: The Story of the 1924 Ireland Olympic Football Team. The Manuscript Publisher. ISBN 0957115725.  Djln--Djln (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

  • This user is an administrator, so it will not be out of pettiness that Jac16888 reverted your source. In fact, he is absolutely spot on; you should not be using your own books as sources, as this violates WP:OR and WP:COI - and also gives you the appearance of being a spammer. The conversation on their talk page is bad from both sides, but it is YOU who made the false accusations of vandalism. He is also absolutely spot on about the username issue - under no circumstances should you link your own userpage into a reference in an article! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 02:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Might also be worth reading WP:SPS. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 11:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Have to agree with the above. Adding a reference to your own book is bad enough, but linking your name to your userpage? That's unacceptable. Jac16888 was spot on when he said that you reporting this would only result in a WP:BOOMERANG case. As a fellow admin, I wholly agree with him, and I would advise that any further attempts to reference articles to your own work will probably result in a block. Number 57 11:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Even worse is that this user has clearly given their own book false reviews on the internet (see Jac's talk page for the Waterstones link), and is an author who can't even spell "administrator", or even get close to spelling it right... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, if this is the case and I am been regarded as an unreliable source. Fine. Would Jac16888 please revert all edits I have made and the articles I have wrote in the last six or seven years as clearly he thinks I am a liar and a fraud. All I am guilty of is correcting a link form David Needham, the wrong author, to User:Djln the correct author, and this so called administrator goes off on one. Who says just because Jac16888 is an administrator he can’t be petty. He’s just proved it by his recent actions. Plus Luke you are well out of order with your accusation of me writing false reviews. This is nothing short of libellous. (Hope I have spelt that right for you). Please there must be someone out there in Wiki world with an ounce of fair play and common sense. Djln --Djln (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Tell me, how many unrelated editors will it take to stop you acting like such a child? You are provably lying, here you are adding your own book to an article, and here, here, here, and here, and unless it is a massive co-incidence there is a review of your book right here, reviewed by one "Djln". It's not libel if the statement is true. --Jac16888 Talk 16:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • User:Jac16888/User:Lukeno94, if you actually checked your facts properly, which I suspect you have not, you would know that Waterstones and similar bookselling sites have systems in place preventing authors from reviewing their own books. I did not place the review on Waterstones and it is libelous to suggest I did so. I believe this info/review may have been copied from a synopsis I wrote on Amazon, hence why details appear attached to it. I can assure you I have had nothing to do with this Waterstones site and make no money off it. Again this just smacks of pettiness and jealously on both of your behalfs. At worst I am a guilty of promoting my book, hey that’s capitalism for you. I’m having trouble finding the books you have written, possibly because you have not written one I guess. Have you even read a book between you? Is it filed under the title Pathetic Loser or did you use some other pseudonym. Hope my spelling is up to your high standards. I feel it only fair to advise you both, that I have forwarded a complaint about your behaviour to Jimmy Wales. PS Happy to be referred to as a child, if you believe that your behaviour is that of an adult. Djln--Djln (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you seriously still trying to claim that the review written by a user registered as "Djln" was not written by you? Please feel free to complain to Jimbo, he is known for his fondness of users who edit Wikipedia articles to bring themselves profit. Perhaps you could also follow the correct procedures and request a review of the reliability of the sources in question at WP:RSN, or if you want to take it further you could submit a report about my misconduct to WP:ANI - I suspect you will find it goes as well as your complaint here. --Jac16888 Talk 18:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Cut the bullshit, David. It is libellous to suggest that the Djln account on Waterstones is the same person as yourself on here? Who the fuck do you think you're kidding? I'm doubting the value of that book more and more, given the lengths you're going to promote it. And running off crying to Jimbo is a sign of desperation. Don't whine too much when the deserved WP:BOOMERANG comes round and hits you in the arse. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The book is pretty-much self-published (it's a vanity press, for all intents and purposes) and Mr Needham is not, as far as I can see, a renowned football historian. The source should not be used and Djln should certainly not be promoting his own work. GiantSnowman 19:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Totally irrevalant point, all writers have to start somewhere, self publishing is just one route. Have you ever tried to have a book published without being a celebrity or someone famous, it's nigh on impossible. If source should not be used please remove contributions I made and not just references to book. Otherwise Wikipedia is being hypocritical. Happy to use peoples contributions but not willing to give them credit. Djln --Djln (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Wait, you think only famous people have their books published?! GiantSnowman 19:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
        • No of course not, but it certainly helps if you are, or if already work as a journalist. Ordinary people like myself have to jump thru hoops to get published by a mainstream publisher. Have you had any experience in trying to get published ? Djln--Djln (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Good to see your true colours emerge, Luke. Is it really necessary to resort to swearing. I thought I was meant to be the child here ! Stop focusing on the Waterstone review, have told you three times that has nothing to do with me. That said they seem happy to sell it and they are reputable bookstore who would not sell books if they had no “value” as you suggest. I would be more than happy to forward you and Jac a free copy of my book and you can judge for yourselfs how a reliable source it is. (Should warn you there might be some big words and it doesn’t require crayons). How prejudiced is it for you to judge a book without having read it first. Check my Wiki contributions where I referenced this book and show me which ones or unreliable or inaccurate. I note that while Jac was happy to remove me as a source, he was happy to leave my contributions. Does this not smack you of hypocrisy. PS Thanks for the free publicity by the way. Djln --Djln (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Made it about half way through the second chapter before I lost interest, not exactly Ulysses is it, pretty much a straight telling of events with a little bit of fluff and some extra adjectives thrown in for good measure. Since you continue to ramble on with your ranting and personal attacks I've no interest in discussing this matter further, the book has been removed as a unreliable source and you have been warned about using Wikipedia to promote yourself, end of story as far as I'm concerned unless you decide to escalate, in which case I will enjoy seeing you prove me for a fool as successfully as you did here--Jac16888 Talk 20:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of the literary merits of the book, I don't think we should link to a site that may infringe the author's copyright. U+003F? 19:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
You're probably right, I apologise, I've removed it--Jac16888 Talk 20:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Jac, never claimed to be the next Joyce, severely doubt you have actually read book, looking forward to reading your book, oh damn I forgot you have not actually had balls to write one. You remind of the old saying - those who can do, those who can't critcise others for having a go. Sums you up perfectly Djln--Djln (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I find it hard to decide what I find more amusing here, is it the shocking number of errors you just managed to make in 3 sentences, the idea that one needs balls to write and self-publish a book, your apparant continued belief that I or anybody is remotely jealous of this, the fact that you have managed to drag this out for so long with your rants and ad hominem attacks all in response to a polite request not to link to your userpage, or maybe the fact that you have now decided to retire in true diva style. Anyway, if all of the above is a sample of the type of editor you are, I think I can safely say that Wikipedia is better off without you or your spam--Jac16888 Talk 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Still managing to get a rise out of you an asshole like you Jac, I must have a different definition of the word polite then you because none of your actions in the last few days falls into that category. Hardly polite to point out minor spelling errors. Pretty petty really. And again if my past edits are as bad as you allege, grow yourself a set of balls and remove them. After all they come from an "unreliable source" and I am sure you can convince some fellow idiot here to agree with you. Djln --Djln (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
You really think any of this has caused me the slightest grief? Nah, doesn't bother me at all if you want to throw a tantrum. Anyway, thought you'd left? Desperate to get the last word? Would you like a snickers bar? Or perhaps you came back to explain to all the nice folks here what exactly it was in this particular message that caused you to throw all your toys out of the pram so violently--Jac16888 Talk 22:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Take it elsewhere, guys. No one wants to see this bullshit played out here. – PeeJay 22:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. In fact I'd go so far as to say take it off WP altogether. There's nothing to be gained from this continued gratuitous insult slinging, and you're both just coming across as dicks in equal measure. And I write as someone who has had a book published ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


So about a week ago I PROD'ed an article about an Estonian footballer, it was promptly contested by someone who misinterpreted this, as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football, as meaning that all footballers who have played in a national top flight are notable. I see this type of objection every couple of months. So this got me thinking, is WP:NFOOTBALL as clear as it can be in conveying the intended meaning? I don't think that it is.

First let me say that this is not intended as a discussion on whether or not we should change the national caps and FPL appearances confer notability rule. If you want discuss that please start a separate thread.

That being said, I would like to propose the following the wording for WP:NFOOTBALL:

  1. Players who have appeared in, managers who have managed in, and referees who have officiated any FIFA sanctioned senior international match (including the Olympics) are notable. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
  2. Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.
Note: For the purposes of this guideline, a player has appeared in a competition if he or she was in the starting line-up or came on as a substitute. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

There are a number of advantages to this wording. The changes to point one address the issue I brought up above. Also, they preempt any abuse of the word represent. You might argue that the current wording doesn't include managers who manage the national team of a country other than their own since they don't represent their country, though the notion that they are somehow not notable because they are foreigners is clearly preposterous. This wording avoids discussion as to whether or not neutral referees represent their country, and matching the wording to point 2 has an added benefit given the changes to the explanatory note.

I think point two very clearly conveys the FPL rule, and doesn't need to be reworded, though there is currently an errant comma after the word managed that I would like to remove.

Finally, this wording makes it clear that the you must actually play rule applies applies to national and club teams alike, and avoids fights over what constitutes a domestic team.

Please bear in mind that this is only a first pass at clarification. Your thoughts, suggestions and improvements are appreciated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This may be an opportunity to codify the apparent consensus that players appearing in cup/continental matches between two teams from fully professional leagues are presumed notable. Hack (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd support both the above changes. Number 57 07:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm also in agreement; but the discussion should take place at WT:ATHLETE for broader consensus. GiantSnowman 13:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I have moved the discussion to WT:Notability (sports)#Wording of WP:NFOOTBALL. Please post all further comments there. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Non free images of football trophies

Hi. The Swedish Football Association publishes this list with links to images of the Swedish football trophies. I'm fairly certain that these specific images cannot be used on here but I wanted to make sure anyway. The Wikipedia File Upload Wizard has a non free image criteria that says:

"This is a depiction of a copyrighted three-dimensional work or building, which is the object of discussion in an article. This is a photograph or other kind of depiction of a copyrighted, three-dimensional creative work, such as a statue or work of architecture. The article contains a discussion of that work which requires illustration. The photograph as such is free, or was provided by the creator of the sculpture."

Would this, this or this this fall under that criteria? All these images are linked from the page above. If available, I would use them in Lennart Johanssons Pokal, Gustaf VI Adolfs Pokal and Svenska Supercupen. Articles like two firsts ones are about the trophies themselves and would obviously benefit a lot from visual identification of the subject. The first one already has a free image but it's a rather inappropriate image for that article since it displays logos of Malmö FF, it would be more appropriate to use a neutral image for this article, even though they are my favourite football team. Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You may have already read this. If not think use of these might fail at least one of the criteria.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Football (association football)

Just seeking to draw a wider range of informed opinion at Talk:Football (association football) regarding using "association football" a synonym of football/soccer ball. Thanks.--2nyte (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

EURO 2020 Bids Article

Hey guys,

I am just scrolling through and when I am reading the EURO 2020 Bids article, I noticed that the cities on the maps is not IN the map itself, but all over the article. It looks so messy and distracting from the article itself. Can anyone please help fix it?

UEFA Euro 2020 bids

Hisakiwa21 (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I have fixed the dots, It occured when an IP inserted the blue dot for Belgrade. Not sure however why that dot should be blue, but all the dots are now on the map. QED237 (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)