Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 82

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 75 Archive 80 Archive 81 Archive 82 Archive 83 Archive 84 Archive 85


Moldova national football team results

Hi guys, Can somebody develop this article in standard format? I mean with footballbox collapsible template, with shortened NFT template for teams, in correct order and with full information... ? XXN (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm on the case and am currently adding in details of scorers etc. Can someone suggest an article from which I can copy the best format. Thanks. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
England national football team results – 2000s, or similar? GiantSnowman 16:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
That looks ideal. Thanks again. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm slowly working my way through this. Can someone explain why in the England results page, and elsewhere, the goalscorers' names just show the surname, but the referee has his full name? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't that always been the format, not just here but on the BBC website and others? Anyway, if we had to list every player's full name, we'd have no space for anything else. – PeeJay 14:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you there, but why should the referees be different? Why not just their surname, properly linked. Thus Marriner rather than Andre Marriner. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I guess because they are often listed with their full names in the sources we use. See this BBC match report, which lists all the players by only their surnames, but the referee by his full name. – PeeJay 20:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Same with this UEFA match report. – PeeJay 20:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Error in 1938 FIFA World Cup

Hello colleagues. I am writing in Russian so I can not fault fix It Yourself. The article incorrectly states that the championship match was held in Le Havre at the stadium Stade Jules Deschaseaux actually match was held at the stadium Stade de la Cavée verte, redirection, and illustrations in this article are not true. These are two completely different stadium.Here [1] and 2 and here [2]. Please correct the mistake. Correctly article from the French [3] JukoFF (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, PeeJay2K3. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Old Ignatians Soccer Club

Hello football fans. A lot of work has been put into the above AfC submission, but is the club notable? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I recall, only clubs in the A-League or in the National Premier Leagues were notable in Australia. Old Ignations are not in it and are thus not notable. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; I will tag it for deletion. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Generally the rule of thumb is that a team needs to have played in the A-League, the National Soccer League or have played in the top level of a state league to be notable. Most states are, or will be in the National Premier Leagues. Hack (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Forgot about that. Thanks for reminding me. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

MLS/NASL club templates

Over the past couple days I noticed all the NASL club templates, including Template:NASL2010 were being expanded with incorrect or unnecessary info. Now just today I just noticed the same thing with the following MLS club templates. Template:Seattle Sounders FC, Template:Montreal Impact, Template:Portland Timbers and Template:Vancouver Whitecaps.

There's a discussion on Template talk:NASL2010 on why the 2010 USSF Division 2 Professional League season is included in parenthesis. But, NYCWikiKid pointed out that the 2010 season isn't the same as 2011 and onward. Which is enough to prove that the USSF D2 League season shouldn't be included and that AC St. Louis, Crystal Palace Baltimore and Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) shouldn't be listed as one of the previous teams in the template. As for the club templates itself. If you look at "Club history", you can see that there are unnecessary disambiguation links of previous clubs by name/league/when the current team was formed and a few of which have nothing to do with the current franchise itself. And as far as I'm concerned, some of these links could be a repeat link case. All the templates were correct the first time, but it looks like WikiKid is going by his own research rather than relying on past consensus. – Michael (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@NYCWikiKid: - your input here would much appreciated. GiantSnowman 13:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, since these edits are believe to be a WP:OR case, I've moved this discussion to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. – Michael (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know that it's OR. I think it's more of a misunderstanding. Could someone comment or look into on the discussion about the MLS finals above please? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It's clearly WP:OR. I've been trying to explain the situation on the edit history over and over again, and yet he's continuing to re-list information that has nothing to do with the current team. – Michael (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone reading.
To make sure that everyone unfamiliar with this topic is aware, there is no WP:OR here. There is only blatant accusations by user Mikemor92 (Michael) who in the past has called me a sock puppet and has consistently been undermining any information I put by going to different articles or talk pages and simply speaking badly about me. Instead of this person speaking to me directly and trying to work together to improve articles, this person constantly edits what I do and goes around sections like these to add more wasteful attacks.
Regardless, I want everyone to know that I am a hard working Wikipedian who contributes solid information to the site on a consistent basis. I responded to the so called "reasoning" to the NASL template that Michael is using which he based on a sentence I wrote which he completely takes out of context. For those who want to read the full story and analysis of the subject, you can do so here. The information is of the 2010 year is included because the league was represented that year in the USSF Division 2 Pro League.
Regarding the other templates, they are detailed based on the history of all the clubs. There is a clear cut difference between club and team which some people keep mixing together or confusing both as being one when they are separate. Templates are under club history. NYCWikiKid (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, it's clearly not OR, but it's not accurate information either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Scott Brown at St. Johnstone

Scott Brown was due to move from Bradford City to St. Johnstone over the summer; the move fizzled out Brown was eventually given a squad number by BCAFC. However, the move looks to have completed without either club announcing it (as far as I can see) seeing as he has made his debut for SJFC. Can anybody clarify please? GiantSnowman 22:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I couldn't find anything official from either club or SPFL. He was given a squad number by St. Johnstone in August and I found this from the same month saying he had signed if it helps. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The player tweeted he joined on 24 July which the club retweeted but his twitter account isn't verified and club didn't announce it via twitter or their website as they were probable distracted with hoo-ha of the Europa League. Only thing I found from that date was this. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! GiantSnowman 12:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Potential premature move at Manchester United F.C. (Gibraltar)

On the 8th of November, a banned user (User:Thegreatelgrande) has moved the page Manchester United F.C. (Gibraltar) to Manchester 1962 FC. No source has been given for this name change. The user has also uploaded a new logo for the club removing the 'United' from the logo. The UEFA website lists the clubs full name as Manchester United (Gibraltar) F.C. [4], but does list the club as Manchester 62 in the fixtures, possibly to avoid confusion with the other team of a similar name. The logo on the UEFA website still has the 'United' on it though. The reason I came across this was due to reading a BBC article about their possibly being two Manchester United's in the CL [5]. Wondering if a more experienced user could look into this, to see if the page should be moved back to Manchester United F.C. (Gibraltar), and if the badge should be changed back. To me it looks like Manchester United F.C. (Gibraltar) is still the official name. Cheers, VanguardScot 21:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy Lopez writing in The Telegraph names the side as Manchester 1962 FC here. --Egghead06 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
That user moved it at least once by copy and paste, as well: most of the edit history of the page is at the typo title ManchesterUnited F.C. (Gibraltar) (without the space between Manchester and United). If some kind admin could re-unite page and history, it'd be appreciated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done - article history now at Manchester United F.C. (Gibraltar) with no comment on the 'correct' name. GiantSnowman 21:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The club have changed their name - see their official website and GBC. As such, I've moved the article. Number 57 22:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Is that the official website? What makes it official. Their UEFA page is the only official page I can find and it says their full name is Manchester United (Gibraltar) F.C., but also uses Manchester 62 as an informal name, I assume to avoid confusion between the two. VanguardScot 23:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted the badge back to the one on the UEFA website for now, it was changed on 8th November as well. User:Number 57, I would suggest you moving the page back to Manchester 62 F.C. was premature while this discussion is ongoing. VanguardScot 23:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it would be inappropriate to move the article if a WP:RM were in progress, but there isn't one - just an informal discussion. And when there's clearly a correct answer, I don't see the problem in being bold. At least three editors are of the opinion that the club's name has changed, whilst only you don't agree. If you need any further proof, look at the Gibraltar FA website (go to the Domestic Leagues section). You'll see Manchester 62 sitting in 5th place in the table. Number 57 08:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
As I'v said before Manchester 62 has always been an informal name for the club. Even the Badge on the Gibraltar FA website says 'Manchester United F.C.'. If the club have changed their official name to 'Manchester 62' or 'Manchester 62 F.C.' when did they change it officially and where is the proof? Newspaper articles etc? VanguardScot 10:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The RSSSF has them as Manchester United last season and Manchester 62 this if you want to compare. But anyway, the best place for this discussion (if you want to continue) is on the article talk page and possibly a formal move request if you're not happy. Number 57 12:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
There was nothing wrong with N57's inital page move - and I agree this discussion should continue on the article talk page as a formal WP:RM. GiantSnowman 12:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

England international footballers

There are now 1,200 players who have appeared for England as listed here, but the Category:England international footballers lists 1,201. Does anyone have any idea who the extra player is? I could go through and compare the two lists but as they are in a slightly different order, this would be rather time-consuming. Cheers. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

David Moss (footballer born 1952). The errant category was added a couple of months ago as part of an otherwise constructive edit... I've removed it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe the editor was trying to add Category:English expatriate footballers and typed Category:England international footballers by error. GiantSnowman 12:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of QR codes in articles

Are there any guidelines that cover the likes of this......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information. Links that provide consistent information are strongly preferred to social networking and communication services where the content changes rapidly and may not comply with this guideline at any given moment in time. Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate corporate "communication strategies" or other forms of marketing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Order of contents

Hello kind members of the "commission",

i always thought the order of contents in footballers' article should be: 1 - CLUB CAREER; 2 - INTERNATIONAL CAREER (with INT.GOALS under it as a sub-section); 3 - HONOURS; 4 - STATISTICS; 5 - PERSONAL/PERSONAL LIFE to close it. In some cases one could opt to bring the PERSONAL stuff all the way up and name it EARLY YEARS or similar.

Now i have learned that preferably, HONOURS go after STATISTICS not before. Hard work for me since i've done several articles the other way around, but i'll try to comply whenever i come across it. But, i've also learned something that does not make much sense in my opinion: PERSONAL items come before STATISTICS? Why? Sometimes, a personal section does not even address football (in most cases it does, people are often sons of brothers of another footballer, but not always - i.e. Henk Timmer (footballer)), so it should come in last position because first we must address all things football, no?

Attentively --AL (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

According to the WP:FOOTBALL manual of style for players, honours go after statistics. Not really sure if there was a logical reason but at least there should be some standardisation. Hack (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes i totally agree (with the standardisation). But how 'bout the PERSONAL sections? --AL (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The MOS suggests an early life section before the career and a post-football section at the end. Personally I would prefer the early life section be a general biography section. Hack (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
For personal life sections, do whatever makes sense for the subject concerned. If there's nothing about their early life but plenty of post-football, then put a section afterwards. If there's plenty about their early life but they're still playing or there's little or nothing known about their later life, put a section first. If there's both, either put two separate sections (pre- and post-football) or put one general bio section probably at the top.

Don't forget that although the subject gets an article because of their football career, the article itself should aim at being a biography of the whole person, not just a list of who they played for and what league it was in. And if an article's been stable in a reasonably sensible order for some time, please don't take anything said here as encouragement to change it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I try and put an 'Early and personal life' section before the career section(s). GiantSnowman 12:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Where the subject's personal life goes is dependent on the person. Our suggested layout works best for persons who are famous primarily or exclusively for their football careers. My preference in this case is for an "early life" section before the football stuff, and a "personal life" section before the stats blocks. If the person is notable outside of football then it may be that the article bears no resemblance to the suggested layout. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Look at the biographies in Category:FA-Class football articles. jnestorius(talk) 16:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please teammates,

can someone illustrate me on how to "rescue" old references? I know it's possible because i have seen it in numerous articles, and the assistance is now needed in Thiago Motta, his int'l goal was removed on the grounds of not being referenced.

The article on his goal against Slovenia stood proud for one year or more, but now ref has crashed. How do we go about bringing in back from the cyberdead? Attentively, thank you very much in advance --AL (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is a title, try Google. A search for "Motta makes his mark for Italy in Slovenia" returns a working URL. It's not a solution for a mass repair of URLs, though. --Jaellee (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
You should use the Wayback Machine. GiantSnowman 18:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Contents have been restored with said ref (many thanks JAELLEE!), I have thus removed the source, not needed anymore no? Thanks all for your inputs --AL (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

J. Murphy topscorer

Hi all, I have a question: this "J. Murphy", topscorer in 1896-97 Second Division, is Joe Murphy (footballer born 1873) or another Murphy? --Dimitrij Kasev (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I suppose it would be in a book such as "Brown, Tony (2010). The Football League Match by Match 1888-89 to 1892-93. SoccerData. ISBN 978-1-899468-44-7." but I don't have access to it I'm afraid. Perhaps someone else will be able to check it. Thanks, C679 00:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Simply going on stats present in the article, it would be rather unlikely for someone who scored 0 goals all season whilst playing in the Scottish leagues to have been that J. Murphy; particularly as he never played for Notts County. Also, C679, that book won't cover this particular thing anyway; it's the wrong years. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oops, too late! Sorry about that! Of course it should be a later edition covering the 1896/97 season. Thanks, C679 01:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
And, in the same link, "A. Swann" it's possible was Herbert Swann? He would have been, likely, topscorer at 19 years old. I'm trying to create this template on it.wikipedia including all topscorers. Thanks for the answers. --Dimitrij Kasev (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Going on this source of unknown reliability, we have J. Murphy as being "John Murphy". The player having this name is further reinforced by [6]. Now, he clearly isn't this guy, but could he be John Murphy (footballer born 1879)? That would make him quite young at the time, though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
And A. Swann is definitely not going to be Herbert Swann. He appears to be Andrew Swann. There's a little bit on him here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Dimitrij Kasev (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I found quite a reasonable amount of stuff on Andrew Swann, so I wrote this. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
ENFA suggests that John Murphy (footballer born 1874) was the top scorer for Notts County (born in 1872 though according to the website). J Mo 101 (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
This article has now been moved to John Murphy (footballer born 1872) and his goal-scoring "exploits" added. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Great job! --Dimitrij Kasev (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

New stadium in europe

Under costruction


Proposed stadium


[7]-- (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

There already is an article about the proposed Spurs development. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Guadiana Trophy

Do editors think the Guadiana Trophy is a notable competition that merits its own article? JMHamo (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is, but would suggest you open an AFD for wider discussion. GiantSnowman 14:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Done ... Guadiana Trophy AfD. Thanks JMHamo (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Cyprus' affiliation to UEFA

What is the precise date in 1962 that Cyprus got affiliated to UEFA? --Theurgist (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I assume the membership was approved during the Congress of 17.4.1962? --Theurgist (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be the likely date and a very good starting point, but it wouldn't be safe to assume anything without a source that explicitly states that was when Cyprus was admitted. – PeeJay 02:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
What I want to know is whether Cyprus could enter the Euro 1964 qualifying if they wished, or whether the admission took place too late for that to be possible. I need this piece of information for an article I've been developing and just submitted, UEFA European Championship qualifying. The new article has a few other concerns apart from that one. Most importantly, it is still unsourced, and I placed an {{unsourced}} tag at the top accordingly. In addition, the all-time records table I created already exists elsewhere (here), though mine provides a bit more detail than the other one does. I compared the two versions of the table, and some discrepancies in the numbers showed up. I made the necessary verifications and found out my table was wrong; I corrected it. However, there remains one discrepancy concerning a qualifying match of 1967 between Austria and Greece, which we previously discussed here. My table ignores that game (and so does the relevant article), while the other one accounts it. Input is welcome. --Theurgist (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification of a requested move

A user has requested that Australia national association football team be moved to Australia men's national association football team. If you are interested in sharing your thoughts on this, please comment at Talk:Australia national association football team. The-Pope (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:youth international footballers

Hello. I would like your opinion to the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 24#Algeria youth international footballers. Is about to have or not to have separate category for each of youth nation team and esceccially the main one (U21 or U20 for some countries). Xaris333 (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It makes absolutely no sense to combine all youth internationals into one category when we have separate categories for each article. Seriously, what is the point of having categories in that case? It's like combining Real Madrid and Barcelona players in one category because they both play in La Liga, it pretty much defeats the purpose of having a category .. and to be honest, it's pretty disappointing, and mind-boggling, to some people voting in favour. TonyStarks (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOOTY redirect at RFD

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 26#Wikipedia:FOOTY. GiantSnowman 10:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


The number of unrefenced footballer BLPs seems to be climbing again. It is difficult to compile them because there is no umbrella category for footballers, but please see this search [8], which returns 411 results, a significant fraction of the entire URBLP backlog. Gigs (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Can we get a bot to tag them all and then add them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Full list? Previous bit was blocked for malfunctioning and the owner seems to have stopped editing himself. GiantSnowman 19:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The last time I ran that manually I had to go to extraordinary lengths, writing custom code that would prune the category heirarchy to identify the thousands of footballer categories, and then process a DB dump to find members with the URBLP tag. I'm not sure if I still have the code, but I believe you pointed out last time that even doing that wound up identifying rugby as football. I sure wish our category system was more... systematic. Gigs (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Of the first ten results of that search, six aren't unsourced (the refs are in the external links section, not inline, but they are there), another had a ref once but it was removed presumably by accident when the player changed club, and one isn't a soccer player. (I'll fix those ones later, but not now, it's nearly my bedtime). So the genuine URBLP problem may not be as big as appears at first glance. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
This CatScan might be a little more accurate than the googlesearch, and it show that we have 133 URBLP's. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Mentoz, thanks for the catscan. If it ever loads I'll take a look at it. 133 is still a significant portion of the backlog. Struway, I agree, but that's the nature of the process, the ones so tagged need to be reviewed for both tag accuracy, and to add sources or delete the article as needed. Gigs (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

European Railways Cup

Can some of you check out whether European Railways Cup is real and notable, and if so perhaps source and expand it? I don't have the knowledge to do this, I presume I have to check under another name (in some Eastern European language) to find more about this. What I can find[9] is just enough not to delete it as a hoax, but it isn't really convincing either. Fram (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It did exist so is not a hoax but as you say little on it. Found this for Bucharest's involvement. The issue is, are this and Russian Railways Cup notable and not just more friendly tournaments?--Egghead06 (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I suspect they are non-notable friendly tournaments. Wikipedia is - unfortunately - full of them. GiantSnowman 18:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
If the clubs involved don't treat the matches as first-team appearances for the players, they shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Yet another friendly tournament has now appeared... Number 57 21:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm taking a bunch to PROD/AFD now... GiantSnowman 21:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

  • There are many football friendly tournaments. See Template:Friendly tournaments 2013. No reason to delete only some (Russian/Ukrainian) of them. Please start full AfD discussion if you want. NickSt (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Fram (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Alex Ferguson

Let's not carry on violating WP:POINT, please, OP. Non-admin closure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

And again, for the rest of the discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

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

  • Ferguson, Alex (2013). My Autobiography. Hodder & Stoughton Ltd. ISBN 0-340-91939-6. 

In light of the recent above discussion regarding "Ireland's First Real World Cup", should Alex Ferguson's autobiography be now removed as a reference. Any book containing 40 plus errors must be regarded as an "unreliable source", regardless of who wrote it or how it was published it. Djln--Djln (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Consider WP:POINT before posting. GiantSnowman 18:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Thats irrelavant, the same ruling should apply across the board regardless of who the author, who the publisher or how the book is published. This book has been widely reported in the media for containing mistakes, yet Wikipedia is happy to promote it as a reference. Why ? Djln
Not per WP:PRIMARY. GiantSnowman 20:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Again this is irrelavant, since the primary source in this case has been widely reported to be inaccurate and therefore this book must be deemed to be an "unreliable source". The fact that a person who purchased this book has been refunded their money on these grounds just proves the case. Djln --Djln (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
There are a few minor factual inaccuracies in Sir Alex Ferguson's autobiography, that is true, but that doesn't mean the entire book is unreliable. 45 errors out of thousands of factual claims do not an unreliable source make. And furthermore, at least Ferguson isn't on Wikipedia changing articles and linking to his own user page in the citation. – PeeJay 21:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Pretty sure it is against Wiki rules to remove edits from talk pages, even if don't like the views of the other editor. Removal of this edit just proves the point I am trying to make. "OMG, so nobody can express an opinion, is this North Korea's Wiki page I've stumbled upon here. Surprise, Surprise, freedom of speech has no place on Wikipedia. My book contains considerably less then then 45 "minor factual inaccuracies" yet it was deemed an "unreliable source" by some idiot admin. So I guest when it comes to writing, its one rule for Fergie and one rule for everybody else. Just like his footballing career I guess ! " Djln --Djln (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No edit has been removed, a discussion has been archived - a massive difference, an editor who has been here as long as you should know better. You might want to calm down before posting again - you also might not want to a) insult other editors and b) start throwing around nut-job conspiracy theories. GiantSnowman 18:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • GiantSnowman, with the greatest of respect, my edit was removed. Check the history and you will see for yourself. I would have thought an editor who has been around as long as me might be treated with respect. I have been treated with anything but in recent discussions. Respect is a two way street. In recent weeks other editors and administrators have been extremely abusive and offensive towards me. What nut job conspiracies have I throw about. I have just stated my opinion. Djln--Djln (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Start following policies then. That means you stop promoting your book every thirty seconds, it means you stop being WP:POINTY all of the time, it means you stop whining and lashing out like a three year old whose favorite toy car has been confiscated. If you keep up this bullshit, you'll end up at ANI, and I'm sure the folks there will be really supportive of a self-promoting spammer - so desperate for a little bit of attention that they linked their own userpage into articles... Also, it is categorically NOT against "Wiki rules" (which don't exist, for starters) to remove talk page comments. I closed the discussion to stop you Wiki-hanging yourself any further... instead, you've just gone ahead as you were before. Not smart. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Djln mate, we hear you but honestly, leave it.--Egghead06 (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Djln, either you have retired from Wikipedia or you haven't. Please stick to one option. – PeeJay 19:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Lukeno94 and PeeJay, your comments have just demonstrated the very point I just made. If I need to find an example of how editors should behave, I certainly will not be following yours. Luke, did you just enter a Wiki competition for trying to write the most offensive comments in one paragraph. If you have you will get my vote. Djln --Djln 19:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You're accusing others of poor behaviour, lack of respect and attacks? You responded to this simple request with this lovely personal attack and followed up with all the ranting we can see on this page and mine--Jac16888 Talk 19:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Jac, thought you might turn up here, another example of an editor I will not be taking lessons from. You should read back on some of your own comments / rants before having a go at me. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. talk --Djln (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
As expected you've chosen to completely ignore what I actually said, you are the one who had a massive over-reaction to a short note advising you not to link to your userpage. --Jac16888 Talk 20:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Diana Redman

Dear football experts: I had to read right to the bottom of this old Afc submission to find out that she was a soccer player. Can someone here tell me if she is a notable player? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

She has played international football, so yes. Number 57 17:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Looks like it's being worked on now. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
@Anne Delong is there an easy way to identify football articles (or for that matter any other genre) at AFC? It's not a particularly inviting interface for users or reviewers. Hack (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Hack: I have been trying to figure that out. There is definitely a way to see all of the articles that have the word "football" that are "Wikipedia talk" and begin with "Articles for creation" and have an AfC submit template - the regular search engine has features that do that. In fact Technical 13 has added a custom search based on this to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions page. Unfortunately, there appears to be no way to differentiate between active submissions and ones that were declined a long time ago. Apparently this is because they all use the same basic template. Adding "-#redirect" at least removes the ones that are already moved to mainspace, but there are still over 2,000 articles containing the word "football"! I thought of searching by creation date, but haven't been able to figure out how to do this with the main search engine. CatScan does it, but it doesn't let you search for text within the article. I have asked at VPT, and no one has come up with a solution right now, but apparently an improved search engine is in the works. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
@User:Anne Delong Why are pages with no hope of redemption not being deleted after being rejected? At a point where the number of regular users is declining, we should be working more efficiently. Hack (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
This is a good question, Hack, and the answer is: In the past at Afc only submissions that were copyvios, blatant advertising, hoaxes, etc., were deleted, and the others were left in the hopes that the submitters would improve them, and so as not to discourage new users. The submissions come in so fast that often no one checked on them after they were declined. However, recently there has been a consensus that there should be a time limit to this. Now, after six months, submissions that aren't being actively edited are deleted unless they are shown to be notable topics, in which case deletion is postponed and the Afc reviewers try to find someone interested in improving them so that they can be accepted. Unfortunately, by the time this was decided, there was a backlog of nearly 60,000 old submissions! They are being deleted, just as you suggested, starting with the oldest ones first, and after three months we are down to 36,000. We are trying to give them one more check before deleting; in the case of a few of the football articles it's not always obvious to a non-expert like me (I'm a mandolinist) whether the athlete is notable or not, so we ask here. Don't. worry, we won't be asking about all 2,000, just ones where we can't tell if the athlete is really non-notable or if the submission just needs improvement. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 Indonesian Premier League fixture and result

Is it consensus that league results pages like the above are too detailed and should not be kept? In any case, it has not been kept up to date.Eldumpo (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Also not sure if List of Indonesia Super League hat-tricks is encyclopedic? Eldumpo (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The results page should definitely be deleted, but there is precedent for a list of hat-tricks, as per List of Premier League hat-tricks. – PeeJay 02:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Club articles - structure and template

Apologies in advance for a lengthy post, but I want to put a proposal of several parts.

Many club articles (particularly English League clubs) seem primarily aimed at enthusiasts who want copious detail, rather than the general reader who wants key information. This can be hard to locate within the detailed chronological History that forms the bulk of many articles. IMO it would be useful to have a more structured format which will separate out key facts, while preserving the detailed chronicle which I guess many editors want.

Article structure is defined in the club template; since it bears a note asking for it not to be changed without consensus, I invite comments on the following proposals, with a view to achieving consensual change:

  • Rename the Honours section to Club Performance and Honours, place it more prominently and broaden its scope beyond major titles to include significant features of the club’s record, such as number of seasons in each league/tier, and best league position achieved for that majority of clubs which have never been league champions. If season-by-season records are available, they should be placed in this section, or linked to if they are held in separate articles. For clubs with very short league tenures, especially those which are long-defunct, the summary could be omitted if a season-by-season record exists.
  • Place the Records section more prominently, next to the Performance and Honours section.
  • Place the Colours and Badge section more prominently, and include an explanation of any nicknames that are not self-explanatory, notes on any club anthem, and similar.
  • Change Supporters to Supporters and Rivalries: rivalries are more often recorded than supporter details and culture.
  • Add sections for Notable Players, Managers, Ownership and Sponsors, including links where subjects have their own articles:
Notable players would be:
    • those who have set club records, e.g. appearances, goals
    • those who were noteworthy nationally or internationally
    • those who were noteworthy in a non-football sense,
have finished their careers, and had a significant association with the club (e.g. 50+ appearances). I would expect there to be no more than (say) 10 per club.
Managers would be a list or table, with dates of tenure. Owners, consortia and ownership regimes would be recorded similarly. The full legal name(s) of the club should be given, also dates of foundation, winding up (where applicable) and business-related events such as entering administration. It will be important to maintain NPOV in the Managers and Ownership sections, as they are subjects capable of rousing strong, often negative, passions among enthusiasts.
Sponsors would also be primarily a list.

These proposals would also partly address another issue I’ve noted, namely that information which is significant but does not fit into an existing heading is often placed in the lead section, unnecessarily inflating the lead.

A comparison of the formats (excluding See Also, Notes, References and External links which are standard for all articles):

Current Proposed
History Club Performance and Honours
Colours and badge Records
Stadium Colours and badge
Supporters History
Current squad Grounds and Stadia
Honours Supporters & rivalries
Records Current squad
Notable Players

Examples may be helpful, cf. the current template.

Club Performance: Template F.C. has been a member of the Football League since 190T, spending most seasons in its second tier.

  • First Division: 195T-196T (13 seasons, best placing 5th in 196T)
  • Second Division/Division 1/Championship: 190T-191T, 192T-194T (etc.) (43 seasons)
  • Third Divisions South: (etc.
  • FA Cup: semi-finalists, 193T, 195T, 200T

Details of the club’s playing record can be found in List of Template F.C. seasons.

Notable Players:

  • Y Z: made a club record of 603 first-team appearances (194T-196T)
  • W X: scored a club record of 197 first-team goals (192T-193T)
  • (etc.)


  • A B, 190T-191T


  • G H, 194T-196T - the club’s longest-serving manager
  • I J, 196T-196T, a player with the club, 195T-196T
  • etc.

Ownership: The club’s full name is Template Football, Cricket and Athletic Company, though it has had no involvement in cricket or other sports since 191T. The club’s shares are not publicly quoted. Owners:

  • 191T-199T, Temple family interests
  • 199T-date, Template City Property Company Ltd. The company built a new stadium in East Template (see Grounds and Stadia) and developed the former ground as a shopping centre.


If this proposal is acceptable, I shall add a performance summary where necessary for past and current English league clubs, using data I already have. While doing this, I would make straightforward changes to bring articles into line with the revised template, without wholesale restructuring or rewriting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismorey (talkcontribs) 23:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the current order is fine. GiantSnowman 12:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Some of the proposed new sections are rather pointless (sponsors). I really don't like the "club performance" proposal. Number 57 13:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
There's no reason why a brief summary of "notable" players shouldn't be included in the Players section (although I'm not sure if you've been around long enough to know quite how controversial the concept of "notable player" is). Where a separate list of players article exists, it's desirable to leave such a summary in the relevant section, rather than just a link to the players list. Likewise with managers. There's no reason why the honours section, which was for some time called Achievements in the club article template, couldn't be headed Honours and achievements and contain a brief upsum of how many seasons the club has spent at each level, if that's what people want. The better-developed club articles already tend to have an ownership section, but lists of names without any context help no-one. And the supporters section does and always has included rivalries; arguably including rivalries in the section heading might be a good idea.

But none of this requires disrupting an established structure, and we certainly shouldn't be prioritising copious detail in list form ahead of prose. Even something like a season article, as the notability criteria make clear, are intended to consist largely of sourced prose. If prose gets out of hand, that's an editing problem, not a structural one. I do wonder how much validity there is in your basic premise: that prose content appeals only to the enthusiast, and the general reader wants a quick-reference lookup. If I were to generalise, I might suggest the opposite: that an enthusiast has more interest in listy facts, where the general reader wants to read about something. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Notable players would be those who [.....] have finished their careers, and had a significant association with the club (e.g. 50+ appearances). I would expect there to be no more than (say) 10 per club." Should that 50 say 500? If not then I'd seriously question the assertion that only 10 or so players per club will have made over 50 appearances. I got bored counting the list here but would guesstimate there are at least 400 players on it with 50+ appearances for the club....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I think I misread that - is it actually a run-on from "those who were noteworthy in a non-football sense"? If so, it's veering towards OR territory......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd also agree that some of these proposed sections are not appropriate. I doubt that "the general reader who wants key information" will care whether or not the club's shares are publicly traded, or who their sponsors were in 1979...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I seem to have stirred up a hornets’ nest! I see that all responses are from very active editors, and it would be surprising if they didn't prefer the status quo which they presumably developed. Responses seem split between those that are altogether negative, and those that endorse some of my points. I would like to build on the latter.
    • Honours and Achievements: opinion is split as to whether a better summary of playing record is wanted. This was my main point. Presumably the past change from "Achievements" to "Honours" was deliberate - does anyone remember why? And can those expressing negative views explain clearly why articles should not show a summary of league and cup playing record, in a consistent position and format? I also don’t understand the objection (if objection it is) to my suggestion of linking List of Seasons articles to the main article, which is not done universally.
    • W.r.t. lists v. prose, the content should determine the format. My examples were meant to illustrate the type of facts to be given, not the details of writing style - though I’ve seen Wikilists used for Managers in existing articles. NB far from proposing “copious detail” in these sections, I would like to see more factual summaries, in contrast to the copious, often unstructured, (and dare I say it, often unsourced) detail of most History sections.
    • Rivalries, I beg to differ - most articles I've seen place them in the lead section, perhaps because few contain a Supporters section at all. To those expressing negative views - is naming them in the heading really a bridge too far?
    • Suggesting changes to the template seems to push some negative buttons. As some articles already contain Managers and Ownership sections, I don't see the objection to permitting them in the template too. But this seems to be a sore point, and in any case the template is more honoured in the breach than the observance.
    • Notable Players also appears to be a sore point. I’m sure I haven’t been editing as long as some, but I can appreciate that such sections could get out of hand. But to paraphrase one of the responses, that's an editing problem. I still believe that who has scored the most goals/made the most appearances for a club deserves to be recorded. It may be in the History section somewhere, but how does one find it? If the information is in a separate List of Players article, fine, but if it’s not linked to the main article, how will anyone find it?
On a related subject, you must all be aware that league clubs' official websites all contain up-to-date squad lists. Any differences between these and WP squad lists will be a result of editors' errors or failures to keep WP absolutely up-to-date. IMO the obvious solution would be to replace the WP tables of squad members with a link to the club website - or if this is too radical, add the link and let readers puzzle it out if the lists are different. But this is perhaps a separate debate.
This and many other discussions on this Talk page and archived Talk pages have left me with the impression that English football articles may be seen as the private preserve of a group of enthusiasts, writing primarily for other enthusiasts and imposing an unwritten set of standards which others question at their peril. If this is the case, please say so and I shall butt out.Chrismorey (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Players who scored the most goals or made the most apps would typically be listed in a "Records" section, or at least they usually are on articles I've worked on. The problem with having a section headed "notable players" is that it usually descends into a free-for-all of fans of that particular clubs adding players, invariably only from the last 20 years, whom they think are "notable" for no particularly quantifiable reason....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Player stats on goalkeepers' pages

Hello the stats on player pages have two columns one for appearances and one for goals scored, this makes sense for all players except the goal keepers, Could it perhaps be changed for goal keepers so it has appearances in one column and clean sheets in another column the amount of clean sheets a keeper has is a better way to judge their ability over the years then a goal column which is almost always empty94.174.99.231 (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Clean sheets are not typically recorded as stats in the same way though. Do you know where I could find clean sheet stats for the likes of Gordon Banks, Lev Yashin or Fatty Foulke without compiling them ourselves from match result archives (which would violate WP:OR)? – PeeJay 21:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
There are 298 goalkeepers in the category Association football goalkeepers who have scored and an article List of goalscoring goalkeepers. The goal column is not full of zeroes for these goalkeepers, so the column should stay. Any significant referenced accomplishments that a goalkeeper has accomplished can be detailed in prose in the article. EddieV2003 (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this would be impossible to source for any keeper who played more than 20 years ago, so we'd wind up with hundreds of articles where the clean sheets figure was shown as "?", which would look stupid -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Are clean sheet stats even reliably and uniformly documented for players who play now, in a way that would not involve trawling through individual match reports and a whole heap of OR? GiantSnowman 13:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
You'd be able to find it for the bigger leagues but it would be impossible for the vast majority of leagues. TonyStarks (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Eddie. Clean sheet statistics can be mentioned in prose. You could go as far as to say that a clean sheet doesn't say so much for a goalkeeper's "ability" if either the opposing team had a weak offense with few shots on target, or the defending team had a solid back four. Furthermore, would a goalkeeper who has only played for one or two minutes having come on as an injury time substitute get a clean sheet for stat purposes? Let's not debate about this idea in all too much detail. I think consensus, in the long run, would be against this proposal. Jared Preston (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

User:The Pirates Football Team

Could someone please handle this? Every time I touch football anything, I get it wrong. I don't know if this is notable and should got to AfC or what my guess is: delete it and softblock the editor for the username violation.

I'll leave it it your hands. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Not notable. Club plays in 2 non-professional nor national level leagues. Also the user should be deleted/blocked as it is obvious he/she is here just for the user page is nothing else. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: - delete? I would say yes, but under what CSD category? Better to blank it, and if they restore it take it to MFD. I'm also against a softblock, I see no real violation. If they continue to re-create the article in user space then we should hardblock. GiantSnowman 16:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
ArsenalFan700: Not notable, understood. Thank you. :)
GiantSnowman: Blank and no softblock. Fair. You are definitely among the least iron-fisted of the admins. I like that. :) Okay, I will follow your guidance. Best wishes to all. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


Hello, can someone keep an eye out for this guy. I have already had the pleasure of dealing with him in Indian football articles. My main problems with this user is his lack of knowledge and understanding on both Indian football and also probably the notablility of football articles here. He has added stadiums to club articles without sources, created random clubs which are clearly not notable and when I ask for a source he does not listen and instead adds them again. He also has done this with other country football articles but I don't have the time to look. Anyway, I just want an eye out for him or maybe someone more experienced and composed to talk to him (as you can see on his talk page, that is not me). I just want this to stop. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Phrasing of national team names

It has been brought up (here) that the phrasing of national team names are grammatically incorrect. In the example of England national football team, the use of "England" as a noun is grammatically incorrect, where "English" should be used in its stead as English national football team. "English" is the correct phrasing, with the implication of the national football team of England.

I understand the scope of this decision, effecting thousands of articles (tens of thousands outside of football), but that should not sway our decision. The current phrasing is grammatically incorrect and as such should not be used, especially as an article's title. I have no opinion of an acceptable replacement, I only want to open up discussion. If anyone could explain why the current phrasing is used, or their thoughts on the matter.--2nyte (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There's also a discussion around moving the article to 'mens national football team' that editors might want to contribute to. Particularly as individual editors are being name checked in it, potentially without their knowledge. Undue weight tag and This move request is part of a wider campaign.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
@2nyte:, you have been told that this issue goes beyond just soccer. It has direct implications for all national team articles across all sports and many, many countries. Any sort of RfC on this would have to border on a global one. Australia men's national goalball team article is not the domain of this project. You were told this, and it appears that by only posting here (no post to the Australian noticeboard, the sports notice board, the Paralympic Wikiproject, the Olympic Wikiproject, the basketball Wikiproject, the Spanish Wikiproject) that you are canvassing this group exclusively as you feel they would support your point of view. So if you wish to take this further, I would suggest a global RfC or targeting all the impacted communities. --LauraHale (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The name is not grammatically incorrect - in the case of sports article titles, England is not an adjective but a noun adjunct. It probably looks awkward because this would often be prefaced by a modifier such as "the" (i.e. "the England team"), but this is not included due to our WP:THE guideline. The title actually has two noun adjuncts (the second one is "football", which is also not an adjective"). You could also claim Emirates Stadium is inaccurate for the same reason. Number 57 10:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

And this is exactly the kind of problem I predicted when 2nyte proposed bringing this matter here. (With an obvious, bad faith, ulterior motive I believe. He wants this to fail because he hates my success on maintaining soccer as the name for the game in Australia on Wikipedia.) The issue wasn't about the England team. It was about the Australian team, which nobody (except Wikipedia) EVER calls the Australia team. (Even with "the" in front.) That is incorrect. And THAT is the issue. Can the issue I actually raised be discussed here, rather than a manipulative concoction of a bad faith editor? HiLo48 (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether it is Australia or England - both are still noun adjuncts, so it cannot be incorrect. I specifically modelled this answer to England, but on the talk page of the article in question I fitted it to Australia, and also pointed out that your claim is incorrect - examples of the use of "Australia team" can be found in the first paragraphs of this and this newspaper articles. I found plenty more when looking for examples if you would like further proof. Cheers, Number 57 11:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
LOL. I guess I should have avoided the absolute. I'll rephrase. Hardly anybody ever calls the team the Australia team. Why should Wikipedia use such an uncommon and clumsy construct? HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not uncommon or clumsy - it's perfectly good English. As I said above, further proof from a wide range of sources is easily forthcoming - you can find the phrase "Australian team" used in all these different media outlets: Fox Sports Australia, Reuters, AFP, Daily Mail, Wales Online, Daily Express, ESPN, Bleacher Report, Evening Standard, the Examiner as well as in quotes from players and coaches, including Michael Clarke and Glenn McGrath. Number 57 11:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Can we assume that you meant to say "Australia team" rather than "Australian team"? (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, rather an ironic mistake in the context of the conversation. Number 57 19:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
OK. I am of mature years. I have never consciously heard it, and would never use it. maybe I'm out of touch, but a lot of other people seemed to agree with me. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Probably because a lot of people don't understand grammar (in general, not just the people contributing to the various pages in question here). "It seems wrong so it must be wrong", seems to be the go-to phrase for a lot of people. – PeeJay 12:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The national cricket team is unique amongst major Australian representative teams in not having a nickname. Usually the go-to name for the general public is some sort of nickname like Socceroos, Wallabies, Kangaroos and it's immediately obvious to most people to which sport is being referred. Hack (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Only in Australia or to those already familiar with those sports. Socceroos is, of course, obvious, but ask anyone on the streets of New York City (or wherever) what team the "Wallabies" was, and I doubt that even a few of them could tell you that it was an Australia team, let alone rugby union. – PeeJay 12:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
That's obvious. It explains why someone in Australia would not be familiar with the use of Australia national team (or variations thereof). Hack (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you underestimate the intelligence of most Australians, who I think would be able to work out that "Australia national rugby league team" refers to the team they may know better as "the Kangaroos". These articles, and their titles, are not just for those who are familiar with the subject, which is why nicknames should not be used unless they are used universally. – PeeJay 13:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not contesting that, I'm commenting about the use of Australia vs Australian in the context of HiLo48's comment that he's never heard the formulation of the likes of "Australia national team". While I agree that Australia is correct in this context, it's not a usage I had heard before starting to edit here. Hack (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
A bit like Association football? HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yep. Hack (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

F.K Sukthi

Could anyone please take a look at the article F.K Sukthi that was very recently created by a user having problem following wikipedia guidelines (blocked three times in a month).

My first issue is notability, is the article notable? From what I can read in the article it is an albanian team in the lower leagues of albanian football and that the league is not fully proffessional. I am not sure it is notable.

The second issue is the name of the article. When clicking on the league the team plays in (supposed to be Albanian Second Division) you see two groups of teams playing in 2011-12 and F.K Sukthi is not one of those teams. But there is KF Sukthi that is a redirect back to the league Albanian Second Division. Is this the same team or different teams?

My third issue is the sourcing of the article. The main source is facebook, and that can not be a reliable source? Readers without a facebook account can not read the source.

I would appreciate if anyone with better knowledge about notability and new articles could take a look at it. Thanks. QED237 (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference #1 is to the club's page at the Albanian FA website, and confirms its Second Division (third tier) status. Soccerway calls it KF Sukhti, but it's definitely the same club: they have the same fixtures and results on both sites. The timeline on the Facebook page, which appears to be the club's official website, is viewable without an account, and the only thing it's exclusively verifying is the exact date the club was founded. Seems notable enough to me, just in need of a cleanup. As to the Albanian Second Division article, it's years out of date, sadly, like many pages that most people aren't interested in. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay so should we merge/redirect the pages? Redirect KF Sukthi to F.K Sukthi or the other way around? And shouldn't it be a dot behind the k so it is F.K. Sukthi as in many of other articles? QED237 (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Both the Albanian FA and the club itself have FK rather than KF, so it's KF Sukthi that needs redirecting. As to dots, the Facebook page uses F.K without a second dot, which is presumably why the article was created with the single dot, whereas the Albanian FA use FK with no dots at all. No other Albanian club articles have dots, so it ought to be consistent and go dotless. In my opinion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, great. Thanks for the answers. I will take a look and move F.K to FK (I guess page move is the best) and then redirect KF to FK when I have the time. If anyone else want to do it feel free to do so. Now it is dinner time. QED237 (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Qed237 Well done, FK Sukthi is a football club who currently play on Albanian Second Division and are different things each other, so it was a mistake created that "ridirected" from ""KF Sukthi"" cause the real club name it is currently page FK Sukthi and according to references I've created article, once again thanks for your contribut. --Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Eni.Sukthi.Durres: As I have told you so many times. Do not use my signature when writing on talkpages, it can be misinterpreted. QED237 (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The Eagles FC

Hello again footballers. Here's an article that may be of interest. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Now Prodded - clearly non-notable. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
G4ed and SALTed as a re-creation of The Eagles F.C.. GiantSnowman 11:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I had a feeling you wouldn't like it. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeni Salihlispor

It is proposed that this article be deleted

The article claims that the club previously played in the Turkish Second Division. Is there any way to prove this? Hack (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)RSSSF has league tables from 1984/85 onwards, and the club appears up until 2000/01 when they're relegated, which coincides with the Turkish league structure changing so that the Second Division is no longer the second tier. The TFF has league tables from 1991/92 onwards, and Turkish Wikipedia has season articles. Definitely played from 84/85 to 00/01 in the second tier. I've removed the prod. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

First league game under floodlights

Does anyone have a source for this, please? Currently there is a statement at the Portsmouth page saying it was on 22 February 1956 vs Newcastle. Thanks, C679 19:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

According to Inglis, there was an "experimental" floodlit game played at Celtic Park on Christmas Day 1893, using lamps on overhead strings. It didn't work for obvious reasons. He does confirm though that Portsmouth hosted the "very first League match played under lights", v Newcastle on 22 February 1956. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Great, could you please add the citation to the article? Thanks, C679 20:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Midfield maestro

Has anyone seen this one: midfield maestro? Probably not an appropriate article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Very under sourced and very POV or OR. If it belongs anywhere, it is as a single entry in List of sports clichés.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midfield maestro. GiantSnowman 21:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Friendly tournaments

There are a whole heap of friendly tournaments up for discussion at AFD, the list can be found here, input from members of this Project would be welcome. GiantSnowman 12:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Youth years

When does a player's career move from 'youth' to 'senior' in the infobox? And once his 'senior' career has begun, does the 'youth' career end? If I recall correctly there was consensus from the time Luke Freeman was first about that 'youth' years end as soon as the 'senior' years begin; PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs) disagrees. My concerns with carrying 'youth' years on after 'senior' years have begun are twofold - firstly it looks messy, and secondly in that situation when do we actually end the youth career? Perhaps when he becomes a first-team regular - but how do we define that? Perhaps once he has played X games for the club - but how do we decide how many games, and what about a player who stays with the club but never makes X appearances, are we really going to have a 25 year old still listed as having 'youth' years just because he hasn't made enough senior appearances? Perhaps once he has reached a certain age - but if we decide players stay as 'youth' until 21, then what about the player who has been playing 30 games a season since he was 16? etc. etc. GiantSnowman 21:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, either I wasn't aware of the Luke Freeman discussion or I'd forgotten it had happened, so sorry for the confusion. I think GS has summed up my position rather well, but I ought to clarify that I believe a player's "youth" career ends as soon as he makes his last appearance for a club's youth team (usually under-18s, although reserve teams in England appear to have been rebranded as under-21 teams now; should they be included as part of a youth career? I would say not, but we'll see). I don't actually see any problem with a player having a senior career that overlaps his youth career, as long as both are clearly defined. It's not a case of one finishing so that the other may begin. A player's senior career can start as soon as he is promoted to a club's first team or he makes his first-team debut, but his youth career may continue for another year or two or even three. So obviously this has to be treated on a case-by-case basis and will require a pretty good level of sourcing, but in the case of Giuseppe Rossi (whose article spawned this discussion), I think it's fair to say that his senior career started in November 2004, when he made his debut for Manchester United's first team in the League Cup, but his youth career didn't end until at least May 2005, when he made his final appearance for the club's youth team. – PeeJay 22:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
For players who were playing 20+ years ago do we know when the last youth team game was, to use that as an appropriate cut-off? What about a player who plays regularly for the senior team from 16 to 19 but then at 20 makes one appearance for the youth team, for whatever reason - do we need to include him in 'youth' years still? GiantSnowman 22:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I usually try to make a cut-off point once player is included in the senior squad. However smetimes occurs that a player plays a match or a couple of them for the senior squad and then returns to the youth team where he keeps playing for a while. For those cases I don´t see a problem in overlaping years in the infobox. FkpCascais (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
For players who played 20+ years ago, I think it's fair to carry on as we always have, i.e. making the best assumptions we can based on the sources at our disposal. In cases where we can make more than just assumptions, it would be foolhardy of us to ignore the sources and impose our own definitions of a "youth career", especially when there is a direct contradiction. – PeeJay 23:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
PeeJay could not have put it in a better way, with Rossi's example: his first SENIOR game was in the year 2004, that's what should appear in box, his YOUTH career ended in 2005, that's what should appear in box. Simple, i reckon, the storyline should clear any remaining doubts... --AL (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
But how do we determine when a player's 'youth' career actually ends? GiantSnowman 12:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say when he is no longer playing for the under-18s, but that's a pretty sweeping generalization. The other way of doing it would be to say that it ends when he signs his first professional contract; but that's not always easy to source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Two issues there Luke - firstly, youth teams now go up to U21, and what about a 16 year old player who has suddenly become a first-team regular? Secondly, players can sign a professional contract while still being a youth team member. GiantSnowman 12:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Duncan Edwards played for Man U's youth team when he was already a a first team regular and had been capped for the full England team! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


I just noticed an RM discussion regarding the use of the comma in Paul McCallum (footballer, born 1993). The RM raised an interesting issue that I have brought up in passing here before, that of the way in which we disambiguate the articles under our WikiProject. Many other areas of Wikipedia disambiguate by the field in which the subject operates, whereas we apparently disambiguate by the subject's occupation, i.e. "footballer", not "football". In my opinion, the latter form is preferable as it helps avoid issues where a subject may be equally notable for more than one occupation; players who become managers seem to continue to be disambiguated as "footballer" even when they are better known as managers. It would stand to reason, then, that use of the comma would logically follow, in order to separate disambiguators such as "born YYYY" which would not normally follow grammatically without the comma. Opinions? – PeeJay 00:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I remember having a brief discussion with User:Struway2, who pointed it out to me that the presence of a comma was part of the MOS. As to the disambiguator, that's not one I know how to resolve properly; I'd be inclined to go with "footballer" for most cases, simply because it flows better than "football manager" - and that's ignoring the coach/head coach/manager/director of football/god of all players tags that the role may have (or variations on the role). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
That's my point, Luke. We should be using "football" (or "association football" where necessary), not "footballer", "football manager" or anything like that. – PeeJay 00:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't sit well with me though. Racing drivers, golfers and rugby players are at those particular disambiguators. The same seems quite common with most sports articles in my experience. Typical of Wikipedia not to have a general MOS for this - maybe it should? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of the use of (rugby player), (golfer) or (racing driver) either, but I'm not a member of those Wikiprojects, so I'd rather not propose something so radical there as my first post on the matter. Furthermore, in the case of the article on The Joker, we use the disambiguator "comics" rather than "comics character", so there is precedent for this. – PeeJay 00:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, there's precedent; the problem comes in that we have precedent on both sides, and quite a lot of precedent as well for both. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
That's true. I was just trying to make sure everyone who sees this discussion has all the information they need. It's not just you and me here, you know? :P – PeeJay 00:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the MoS at WP:NCPDAB, which says "The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being" (my highlighting), and gives as examples (gunsmith), (chemist), (congressman), (actor), and (billiards player): what the subject is or was, not the field he works/worked in. The above-mentioned Mr McCallum is a footballer, not a football. If in years to come he becomes better known as a football manager (or as a cabinet minister or the chairman of a major public company), then rename him to (football manager) or (politician) or (businessman). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Jermaine Grandison Shrewsbury squad template

Could someone please take a look at Jermaine Grandison's Shrewsbury squad template at the bottom of the article and let me know why it appears the way it does and not as expected. I can't figure it out. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 19:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Football in Africa (New Page)

New page about african football:

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) 

Request for comment

Due to no consensus on a previous discussion re: article naming, there is a second discussion open about moving Australia national association football team to Australia men's national association football team. We are seeking outside input. Contributions to the discussion is much appreciated. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Templates order

Hi there teammates,

if there is any consensus on this i did not know, and i apologize, being the "free wiki-spirit" that i am, i tend to not read most of the discussions. I think, however, there isn't any, seeing all the articles i have seen with the "(supposed) lack of consensus" approach.

After another run-in with User:Gelu6 (which i have notified of this report, inviting him to drop his two cents), i say the following: in my opinion, the order of templates below should be: 1 - CURRENT SQUAD (for active players of course); 2 - NATIONAL TEAM stuff; 3 - AWARDS; 4 - MANAGER stuff. My reasoning: what can be more important than current affairs, that and also being that players spent most of their careers with their clubs not their national teams (most players in a league don't even get capped once internationally). So club stuff first, national team stuff second and awards third, awards are a "by product" of a player's domestic and international career.

Is the consensus on this matter AWARDS/NATIONAL TEAM/CLUB stuff (meaning precisely the OPPOSITE of what i champion - don't worry, i'm used to it)? If it is please do tell me, i'll abide by of course.

Attentively --AL (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, mate. What matters the most is what the player has done, not what he has been awarded for doing, and chief among the things he has done is the thing he is doing right now. Hence, I would support putting the current club squad template at the top, followed by national team squads, then playing awards. Then I would go for managerial navboxes, followed by managerial awards. Anything else (and there can't be much left) should go right at the bottom. – PeeJay 00:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input PJ! This "major" turnout to the discussion, it did convince of one thing, there is no consensus, it's just a matter of preference. But good to have someone rowing in the same direction as oneself from time to time. Thanks again --AL (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I understand these arguments, so I'll be editing articles' templates like that. Gelu6 (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

U-14 national teams

I am seeing a smattering of U-14 national team articles. All of the ones I've found thus far have been unsourced, and it doesn't appear that there's any real level of notability at the U-14/U-15 level. Does anyone else think that a mass deletion might be in order? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I would object to mass deletion; however, there is no way they should have squad lists without sources. I wouldn't object, however, if each country had under-16 and below national teams grouped together in one article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me that an AfD would be in order in this instance, Sven, so that this type of article can be discussed. Thanks, C679 12:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd actually support a deletion/redirect, and agree this needs raising at AFD. GiantSnowman 12:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Now at AfD. Thanks, C679 09:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"Women's national football [soccer] team"

Further to the discussion above about national B teams, would it not be more correct to have titles disambiguated by gender (such as Scotland women's national football team) at XYZ national women's football team? i.e. the team is a national team, which plays women's football. I appreciate that we need another discussion about gender and national team naming at the moment like a hole in the head. This would also affect the US and Canada men's teams. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

But women's football is not a separate sport. They are women who play football -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
While this is ultimately a rather philosophical point (are two codes which never mix really the same game), the term "women's football" is idiomatic. I'd agree with a move: the Scotland women's team refers to itself by the "Scotland women's football" construction. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

La Liga fixtures copyright?

Does anyone know if La Liga fixtures are copyright like they are in the English Premier League, if so, should 2013–14 Real Madrid C.F. season#Matches list all future fixtures here? Does that violate copyright? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe fixtures can be copyrighted at all. Premier League lost a court case and abandoned the concept some time ago. (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd also be very surprised if fixtures could be copyrighted; but I wouldn't use an English league as a basis for a comment about a Spanish one, since copyright laws can vary wildly from country to country (hell, even region to region in some places) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
For the rules regarding Premier League fixtures, see here. I think this page gives a very good account of the current situation regarding football fixtures in the UK. As for La Liga, that will take further research; however, I believe that it is only England and Scotland (through the same organisation) that currently put restrictions on the reproduction of their fixtures. – PeeJay 14:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
It gives a very good account of the Premier League's position, but not of reality. Football DataCo may very well continue to extort license fees from parties who can't afford to lawyer up, but fixture lists aren't subject to copyright in the UK, and most assuredly aren't subject to copyright on Wikipedia (where we follow US copyright law, which rejects sweat-of-the-brow copyright entirely). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
We may follow US copyright law, but we're not exactly able to contest Football DataCo's position either. I'm led to believe that Wikipedia isn't in a position to lawyer up, especially over matters such as this, so it's best to err on the side of caution, not publish the lists and not risk having to pay a greater penalty for not acquiring a licence. – PeeJay 12:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
If you've concerns about WMF's legal strengths then you should take them up with WMF. As a project we deal with an enormous amount of compiled data and we'd be crippled if we simply gave in every time some rent seeker made a new absurdly maximalist copyright claim. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Toulouse Football Club and Toulouse Football Club (1937)

French wikipedia has fr:Toulouse Football Club and fr:Toulouse Football Club (1937). Why not to have separate articles and in English Wikipedia? I think are two separated, notable teams. Xaris333 (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Honours in club articles

Hello all. Two things have happened recently which makes me think we need to tighten up our approach to what "honours" should be listed for club articles. Currently, our pitiful manual of style says "Achievements of the club including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places.". So, the two things that have happened:

  • An IP has removed "second places" or "runners up" as "not honours" from a few club articles. The IP in question is a disgruntled oft-blocked vandal, but actually makes a reasonable point, is coming second actually an honour? Is a semi-final appearance in a playoff an "honour"?
  • User:PeeJay2K3 has mass reverted the inclusion of the Amsterdam Tournament (added by User:Cekli829) from dozens of pages claiming it to be a "friendly" and therefore not eligible to be an honour.

It would be helpful to get a suitable consensus here as to what should and what should not be included in the Honours section of a club. This discussion should also encompass the legitimacy of "invitational tournaments", and "local cups" and anything else that may appear in Honours sections. We can then amend our pitiful MOS to include the direction we wish to adopt. Thanks all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we should take guidance from what clubs themselves say. Most maintain honours pages on their websites and in match programmes. Some will consider runners-up an honour, others won't. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I can't see how anyone can consider getting to the semi-finals of anything to be an "honour".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe a friendly tournament is an honour, nor do I believe that finishing second (or below) in any competition except the Olympics is an honour for a team/club. Number 57 19:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, lads. I've even removed some quarter-final appearances from a couple of clubs' pages today, not to mention the plethora of friendly competitions one tends to find listed on pages of clubs who haven't won much else and are looking to puff out a rather meagre-looking honours section. – PeeJay 20:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Well for a club who hasn't won a cup trophy yet, appearing in a final certainly is a honorable achievement. Second places though aren't for teams like Barcelona, Manchester or Bayern. -Koppapa (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It's an achievement, but not "honours". It belongs in the "club records" section under "Best performance in competition X". Number 57 20:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Where second place also provides promotion to a higher league I'd consider that an achievement. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but an achievement is not an honour. Finishing 21st in the Championship would be an achievement for Yeovil Town this season, buit it's not an honour. Number 57 21:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I've suggested elsewhere that it would be helpful to include Achievements with Honours, but was heavily dumped on by some very opinionated editors. I still believe this is sensible, and it would remove the need to define an Honour in detail and allow recording of what is notable - this of course being different for different clubs, without nitpicking or quibbling. After all if WP can happily describe a FL club's 3rd place finish in Division 3 as "glory", it seems absurd not to record it as an achievement. Chrismorey (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Additional question: can we categorise tournaments into "friendly" and "competitive" please. After all, the Charity Shield/Community Shield etc is simply a season-opener which has no relevance at all to anything but somehow is being considered more relevant than other competitions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. Arguably it is competitive game, as it's effectively a "super cup" match, which seems a relatively common concept around the world (domestically and internationally e.g. the European Super Cup). Number 57 20:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
      • So the definition of "competitive" is what? Precisely....? What guidance do we include in our MOS about what should and should not be included in club honours sections?? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Very good question. Reliable sources such as Rothmans books would probably be a good starting point to see what they list as honours. Number 57 21:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Competitions organised by a national association, or at least a regional association in the case of the Brazilian State Championships, surely have to make the grade; however, I'm sure that someone could point me in the direction of a competition we traditionally consider to be a friendly tournament that is organised by a national association. My thinking on the Community Shield is that you have to win a competition the previous season to enter it, not just get invited because the club that organised the competition fancied having your club along as a marketing boost. – PeeJay 21:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
          • I think that's a very good starting point. Number 57 21:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Yep, but once again that's your personal opinion. Instead of mass reverting good faith editors, we need to come to an agreement on what should and shouldn't be included in the Honours section of a club article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
            • What do any of us have other than our own personal opinions? Technically, you are right that the Community Shield is just a glorified friendly and probably no better than the Amsterdam Tournament, but we both know that the clubs don't see them that way. I can find a plethora of sources that refer to the Community Shield as being of a higher standing and the Amsterdam Tournament as a simple friendly tournament, but again, those are just the impressions of a group at large. Still, would that be satisfactory? – PeeJay 21:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
              • The reason we have guidelines etc is to avoid personal opinion. You've attempted to enforce your own personal opinion during your mass reverts of a good faith editor. And without any discussion or explanation. Pretty piss-poor for someone who claims to be one of Wikipedia's top 200 contributors. By now I would have hoped you could help people rather than simply mass revert them without help. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • A source: Rothmans Sky Sports Annual 2010/11 has a shaded Honours box for each PL/FL club. It includes wins and runners-ups for Premier League, FL divisions, FA Cup, League Cup, FL Trophy, Texaco Cup, Anglo-Italian, Conference, possibly others but that's what I've spotted so far. For European competitions, it lists achievements for each season entered, even if all the club did was enter, including Intertoto Cup. Where clubs have never won much/anything major, it lists their best so far, e.g. Hereford United, best season 1976/77 22nd Second Division, and local cups, e.g. Macclesfield Town, Cheshire Senior Cup 20x winners, 11x runners-ups. It doesn't include Charity/Community Shield. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    • If that's the case, I'd be happy to see the Community Shield removed from all clubs' pages. For the record, UEFA's European Football Yearbook doesn't list the Community Shield either, but it does list the European Super Cup. – PeeJay 21:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Interesting, because about an hour ago the Community Shield was an example of what to keep. Sounds like there's a lot to discuss here before mass reversions are made. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Even I will change my mind in the face of evidence. That said, I would like to point out that Manchester United's online trophy room includes the Community Shield, but not any of the other minor trophies they have won over the years, including the Amsterdam Tournament. – PeeJay 22:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Since when did Man Utd's trophy room become the standard for Wikipedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
            • You have been especially prickly today. I'm just pointing it out, no need to bite my head off. – PeeJay 22:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
              • You have been especially bad faith today. I didn't bite your head off, at best I'd stick to ears and nose. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Stew jones

I just wanted to bring Stew jones (talk · contribs) to wider attention, based on a couple of long-term concerns regarding this user's contributions. He has contributed here in excess of seven years, and is predominantly a productive editor, dealing mostly with non-League players. However, the editor's attitude toward fellow contributors and his tendency to not source content is of concern. Recently, when warning the user over adding unsourced content I received these select responses: [10], [11], [12], [13]. In the last two responses he seems to imply his intention to carry on adding unsourced content. And this attitude not a recent problem, incivility has always been a given with this user, see these messages from March 2007, June 2009, March 2010, August 2010, August 2010, February 2011, March 2011, August 2011, January 2013, January 2013, April 2013. I thought it was high time this user was brought to the attention of this project. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Stew, we are all trying to improve Wikipedia, please try and take our advice. You need to add reliable sources in order to verify information - and that is especially important about living people. If you cannot abide by our rules and edit collaboratively and constructively then you should not be editing at all. GiantSnowman 22:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow, what an absolute, grade-A arsehole. I've seen this guy knocking about on the odd occasion and thought he was pretty benign, but that list of contributions is veritably vitriolic. This may be why I'm not an admin, but I think he's had enough chances. – PeeJay 22:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Sigh - PeeJay, please refrain from insulting other editors. GiantSnowman 22:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • A lot of the more recent diffs seem fairly benign, if not exactly polite - indeed, more so than your comment, PeeJay (not that I'm in any position to criticize, given the recent case we're all aware of; I'm just commenting). The third diff is the one that I would regard as being clearly problematic ("keyboard worrier"?), and several of those old diffs (notably the very first one chronologically) show that there is a definite, long-term problem. What concerns me a lot more than the issues with civility, however, is the clear history of creating unsourced BLPs, and of creating articles on non-notable people, teams and similar things, as well as the unsourced edits to BLPs. If they do make an unsourced edit to a BLP again, I suggest they get a block of a couple of months, to see if that'll correct their ways; they've only had one block, which was for violating 3RR and was a 6 hour block, so I think a straight-off indef wouldn't be the best idea. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Based on the above comments by said editor, surprised no one has had a word with him re civility. He also seems very defensive of his edits, regardless of whether they conform to that which is required. On a more general note, surely with BLPs good, reliable references are all we have and without them BLPs are worthless as encyclopedic articles?--Egghead06 (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, without good, reliable references, all articles are unencyclopaedic, but BLPs need to be even more heavily protected against false information. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree that his later responses weren't appropriate, but templating a seven-year veteran because he dared to fill in an infobox field without going to a guy's birth certificate to prove he didn't have a middle name was a bit much. If he continues to be needlessly hostile ping me and I'll apply the cluebat. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually appreciate what Chris Cunningham said, and believe his opinion to be a valid one, as for the rest of you are you for real, I surprised anyone bothers to edit on here, next Mattythewhite will be calling the police about me, also any chance of PeeJay can be blocked as I am deeply offended by him calling me an "grade-A arsehole", maybe a 12 year ban would be fine. Stew jones (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Stew, could you please contribute something that isn't clearly trolling to this discussion? Most of us here want to see you learn Wikipedia's policies (particularly WP:V and WP:NPA), and become a better editor. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You can't win on here can you, I am now not allowed to have an opinion, next you will tell me I can't breathe with asking you first Stew jones (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If this is how you treat people who try to help you, I think I was pretty justified in my opinion. OK, I went too far and I apologise, but you do really need to work on your attitude. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, not your own personal project, and we have rules you must abide by. – PeeJay 22:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but you need to refrain from saying very hurtful things like this in the future, I am young and just want to learn and don't feel I am appreciated on here for the effort I put in, everyone is too quick to want to block me or criticize my edits, and wind me up Stew jones (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Being wound up too easily is, in all honesty, your problem, not ours. If you take offence at other people making quite reasonable requests of you, then you need to take a look at yourself; youth is not an excuse. That said, your efforts are appreciated, but we'd appreciate them even more if you would put in a reference for all the information you bring to the table, even if it was just a bare URL. – PeeJay 22:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Your right it is my problem, similar to your tendencies to call people "grade-A arseholes" without knowing them personally, but the fact that you said you appreciate my efforts I must say "THANK YOU" Stew jones (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Too many unsourced articles and they need expanding on

There are too many mediocre football articles with no sources I discovered several such as the following Football in French Polynesia, Football in Cambodia,Football in Russia, Football in Sudan. Where they have been created with as little as one or two line sentences and no sources where added. Articles like these need more expansion of information and context and I would appreciate anyones help. There are many other articles I have edited you can check my edit trail for the others I added sources to.Dwanyewest (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I need help

Can you please take a look at CS Universitatea Craiova (football) article? The user Acornboy keeps removing the text that I am adding (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Courtney Meppen-Walter

Would it be possible to restore this article now that he made his senior debut for Carlisle United? [14]-- (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 11:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Name of section

First question : Is "Further reading" is the good name of section to write all the books about a subject ? I see that in Manchester United and I want to write the list of books about Olympique de Marseille. There is 50 books about OM in french.

Second question : In Manchester United, the list is an alphabetical author's name list. Can I do a date list like in french article (books of 70's, then 80's, then 90's, ...) ?

Thank you for answer. --Guiggz (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

First question, yes, per MOS:LAYOUT. To answer your second question, MOS:LAYOUT suggests you use alphabetical sorting by author. Thanks, C679 11:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Naming customs tag

No coherence again here as expected: in the SPANISH NAMES tag case (of the two existent, we only add that in Hispanic and Portuguese players if i'm not mistaken), even though the vast majority defines the tag as Spanish, some define it as CATALAN, or GALICIAN or BASQUE (separatism anoyne?).

Example: Carles Puyol is a Spanish person. Yes, is full name is 100% Catalan, but he's Spanish no? Hence the tag should read "This name uses Spanish naming customs...", etc, etc. Where i say there is absolutely no inconsistent is that, if people start changing the odd player here and there, some (example) Catalan-born players will have a SPANISH naming tag, and other Catalan-born players will have a CATALAN naming tag.

Inputs please, happy week --AL (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what naming conventions the family has used - some Catalans will have Catalan naming conventions, some will use Spanish. GiantSnowman 12:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Nigel Quashie record transfer - or not

So, delving into Portsmouth's record transfers, I found an article from the Daily Mail (1 Aug 2000, via highbeam), source text: "PORTSMOUTH have signed Nottingham Forest midfielder Nigel Quashie for a club record [pounds sterling]1.5million - [pounds sterling]500,000 more than former manager Alan Ball paid for Rory Allen last year." which seems to contradict the player article we have at Wikipedia, which has used a BBC reference (2 Aug 2000) , source text: "Former England under-21 star Nigel Quashie has signed for Portsmouth for £600,000. The former Nottingham Forest and Queens Park Rangers midfielder has signed a three-year deal." I did a little more digging and found Portsmouth News and The Guardian agreeing with the 600k figure. The Telegraph even puts it at just 200k.

Any ideas how to proceed with this? Thanks, C679 10:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I would trust the BBC, the Guardian and the Telegraph more than I would ever trust the Daily Mail Fail. However, it is possible that the Mail were incorporating potential add-ons into the fee (though this should not be given any credence without further evidence). – PeeJay 11:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The Mail is not really considered a reliable source - for anything - on Wikipedia or in real life. Go with the BBC and Guardian. GiantSnowman 12:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The only thing I would use the Daily Mail for would be as a firelighter. Even then, it would probably do something manipulative with the fire and make it burn the house down. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Craven Cottage as a tlachtli venue

An IP user in 2006 added a claim that tlachtli had been played at Craven Cottage.[15] Just wondering if there was some sort of reference for this claim or if it was vandalism. Hack (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Hmm. The only reference I can find at all is this, which makes it clear that it is alleged to have happened. So it's safe to leave it out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The text from that source is almost identical to the claim from the Craven Cottage article. It's possible their source was Wikipedia. Hack (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

2014 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup

I again wonder, why FIFA lists New Zealand as qualified to the above tournament. The qualification tournament is held only in January 2014. That must have been a mistake/mix-up, right? I find no other source for them securing the spot on whatever criteria. I asked on talk page, no replied received for weeks. -Koppapa (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Click and scroll down, mate. Andre666 (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
New Zealand appearing there is why they was put in the article. I however think that the FIFA website is wrong here. -Koppapa (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that the FIFA site is right, New Zealand won the OFC U17 Women's Championship in April. NZ's own website does not show them competing in any other U17 competition before the World Cup. Nanonic (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
That was the men's edition. I just think that if NZ were qualified one should find a news article about that, at least on a NZ soccer website. I guess we'll see shortly anyway. According to regulations the draw should happen three months before tourney start, so within next week. -Koppapa (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
German journalist has insider information (2nd comment to article): OFC suggests January 2014 for the qualification tourney, FIFA says "no, too late." (draw on 17 december). OFC asks can we just nominate New Zealand then. FIFA and noone in OFC has an objection against that. New Zealand in the World Cup (which would have happend if actually played anyway). So, now we change the qulification method to something like by default or OFC nominee? -Koppapa (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Match fixing in association football

Given the recent news in the UK, this article could do with more eyes on it please. GiantSnowman 13:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Watchlisted. Sodje is probably an open-and-shut case, but I'm surprised to see there's a few high-profile players potentially involved, like DJ Campbell. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't WP:BLPCRIME apply here? In Sodje's case his involvement is supported by a reference from the soaraway Sun "newspaper"! Why name Sodje and Campbell and not the others? Should anyone be named as there has been no conviction?--Egghead06 (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
BLPRCRIME refers mainly to "people who are relatively unknown" - but these are players who are famous, and their arrest made the front page of the BBC News website today - by name. GiantSnowman 18:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Nonetheless, tabloid scandal is still tabloid scandal. We should be careful here. I'm somewhat concerned that we're presently dragging this over too many separate pages out of some attempt not to be British-centric (and thus actually making that a bigger problem). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Steve Archibald

I've just reverted a well-intentioned but somewhat over-extensive removal of unsourced content here. The tone isn't great but it's not egregious, and we can't expect improvements from non-hardcore editors if material is pruned back so much for relatively minor problems. Nonetheless, this article needs a huge amount of work, and it'd be a nice writing challenge for anyone up for it (sources will be abundant and there's a lot to cover). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

While I understand why you re-added the (unsourced, BLP) content I removed, you could have at least trimmed the tone - a "popular figure", "instrumental", "nostalgic return" etc. etc. GiantSnowman 18:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Premier league table template


We had a recent discussion at The Village Pump where the editors modified the sandbox of {{2013–14 Premier League table/sandbox}} to have a truncated transclusion of the table for use on the pages for the current season of all the teams. The template and the relevant pages will be modified soon.

Just informing so any editors can weigh in should they want to discuss this.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Germany B

Germany national football B team was just moved to Germany B national football team, to be consistent with other articles. But the others are wrong, surely? The original name is a grammatically correct description of the team, there's no such country as "Germany B". ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your reason, I think it would be more better if the words "Germany national football B team" was used instead of the current name of the article because like you said, "Germany B" would be more confusing and not helpful to people who may be searching for a B team. I will admit that I am not experienced here on WikiFootball and other people can correct me if I'm wrong. Hisakiwa21 (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I also agree. "B team" is a compound noun that shouldn't be split up in the article title, hence Foo national football B team is the correct format, at least in my opinion. – PeeJay 20:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Should we not follow the format set by under-21 articles, so Foo national B football team? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
"B team" is much the more common phrase, and flows better. As PeeJay says, it's a compound noun, whereas "under-21" is an adjective. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── England C national football team, etc. can also be moved accordingly. If there are obstructive redirects in place for such targets, {{db-move}} can be used. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Next matchday scenarios

Well well well, we are approaching the final rounds of Champions League and Europa League group stages, and it is again time to discuss "next matchday scenarios": "on the next matchday, Team A will qualify for the next round if they defeat Team B and Team C do not defeat Team D". This has been discussed on numerous occasions, for instance here, here or here, and the summary of arguments is below. None of these discussions led to a proper conclusion, mostly because the respective tournament ended (making the / purposeless) before any signs of consensus were reached.

The issue was also subject to dispute resolution procedures at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and was "resolved against inclusion of the material" on the basis of an opinion by three "independent" users.

I have deep reservations with regard to that dispute resolution and its use as an evidence of consensus. All other discussions on the issue demonstrate an obvious lack of consensus, and a strong numerical majority in favour of scenarios. Further, that dispute resolution procedure is by definition non-binding and intended to help users to reach consensus, which in this case clearly was not achieved.

Therefore, I propose to hold a proper discussion on the matter. As a starting point, here is a summary of arguments produced during previous discussions. I hope to have accurately and neutrally rendered all arguments advanced so far (with tiny additions of my own). I believe it would be helpful for everyone if people do not repeat the same arguments, but I suggest people indicate whether they agree or disagree with any particular argument. We will then together see how to move forward. Ivan Volodin (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have removed your "all arguments" below per WP:TLDR and WP:NOTAVOTE and just general good practice - that's not how we operate here. A discussion more than is welcome, simply not in the format you are trying to impose upon us. GiantSnowman 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Very funny: first people delete scenarios from pages saying WP:NOR etc, and accusing others of violating 3RR, and now you delete an attempt at a proper discussion with all (or most) arguments set out so as to allow a reasoned debate. Meanwhile, the whole problem of this issue is that it has never been properly discussed. I believe you are in no position to delete what I have written as a discussion-starter. Deleting it is the same as to say: it is clearly OR, discussion over. However, the whole point is that what may be clear to you may raise objections from others. I take your point on "not a vote", so I have restored the collection of arguments without the "voting" element. Ivan Volodin (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
And I have re-removed them - Wikipedia does not work that way, and our discussions do not work that way. They serve no purpose whatsoever. GiantSnowman 21:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't you teach me what way Wikipedia does or does not work. You are removing content that I am placing here for the purposes of discussion. On a page dedicated to discussions! Removing it is certainly not the way Wikipedia works. And if you think you know Wiki's functioning better, please advise me where I can complain about your behaviour. Ivan Volodin (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to ignore me, who has been here for 8 years. And feel free to complain about/report me, bearing in mind WP:BOOMERANG. GiantSnowman 21:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I oppose the inclusion of "next matchday scenarios" on the basis that, while the calculations used to ascertain them are simple arithmetic and therefore not original research, to include them would be contrary to the practice of most reliable, third-party sources. I cannot think of one source off the top of my head that prints these scenarios, so for us to do it would be violating the spirit of WP:OR, albeit not its specific wording. – PeeJay 17:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, several soccer-specific media outlets do print these kinds of things, they just talk about it in article prose, instead of printing it as a list like we do/did. Ditto with the soccer commentary shows. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:CRYSTAL is absolutely clear and trumps any other argument, including WP:CONSENSUS. Leaky Caldron 17:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Except for the Wikimedia Foundation and site policies (and possibly the items at Category:Wikipedia legal policies, nothing trumps consensus. Obviously the strength of the consensus has to be weighed, but policies are not set in stone, and interpetations of what do and do not fall astray of policies are certainly not set in stone. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
      To be clear, I was referring to the typical footy 2 man and a dog, non-evidence based, WP:FANCRUFT type of consensus that frequently appears in these parochial discussions. Leaky Caldron 18:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in limited circumstances - I am okay with this if and only if each one is directly cited to a reliable, third party source. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - violates OR / CRYSTALBALL / RECENTISM etc. GiantSnowman 18:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Point of order: Unless the purpose of this discussion is to adopt a policy or guideline on this matter, and that intent is announced to the larger community in the manner set out in the Policy policy (not a typo), or unless this discussion is for the purpose of formulating such a policy or guideline proposal, then this discussion is pointless. Since multiple articles are likely to be involved, the only way to require uniformity between articles is via a policy or a guideline and discussions such as this, even if they reach a clear consensus, at a wiki-project are meaningless since projects do not own a topic area or the articles falling within a topic area. Having said that, for what it's worth I oppose for the reasons set out in the linked DRN discussion, mainly OR and V. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    There is no reason why this discussion shouldn't end with a policy proposal. However, we are too far from that at this stage. The more immediate purpose is to see where the football community stands on that and to identify ways to address the most important concerns. Something that you didn't even try to do when you were mediating the DRN discussion. Ivan Volodin (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
That is correct, we did not. Policy formation (or, in this particular case, local exception formation, since this is clearly prohibited by policy) is not within the brief of DRN or other content dispute resolution processes, and the opinion of the football community was irrelevant to attempting to resolve that particular dispute between those particular editors. If those disputants had wished to have the football community's participation, they could have filed a RFC and dropped a note about it here, which would have been a perfectly acceptable form of DR instead of, or after, the DRN listing. Policy is, per CONLIMITED, the established consensus of the community. No new consensus needed to be formed in regard to this matter unless either policy was to be changed or a local exception was to be made. The disputants were free to move on to the RFC, policy formation, or local exception formation stage if they cared to do so, as you may do here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Content like this is fanboy fodder. It is easily accessible from Google for that proportion of our readership who care. We need not waste the time of our own contributors duplicating such information. Moreover, we should not indulge that proportion of our editorship who care to contribute their own research into said topics here: if the content has not been lifted directly from someone else's writing, then it is most certainly original research: to argue otherwise would suppose that the entirety of that which could be computed counted as "basic facts", thus ruling out the achievements of a great deal of several centuries' worth of scientists. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Next day scenarios are just a matter of mathematical calculations where every step is verifiable and not based on opinions, so why is there a need for third-party citations as compared to other info? Do you require third-party citations when you put "1+1=2" in your articles? What I am seeing as I encountered a few years ago are rules nazis that tend to overrule the policy of consensus. Anyway, thanks to Ivan Volodin for inviting me to discuss in this matter. Kiwi8 (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    • But there is a difference between "1+1=2" and these matchday scenarios. The matchday scenarios often demands boolean algebra, which is not "routine calculations" (one exclusion from WP:OR, see WP:CALC). The next day scenarios has often been incorrect when added, which has led to edit warring and disputes on what the sceanario should be. There are no simple way to calculate these scenarios. QED237 (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
      • It is indeed routine calculations in my opinion. There is edit warring and disputes because some editors are not applying the tie-breaking criteria correctly, for example when head-to-head is ranked first or the goal difference is ranked first. So I wouldn't call that edit warring and disputes. It's just like you wouldn't call it edit warring when a small boy gets wrong "1+1=3", but instead you apply the correct mathematical rules and correct the boy. Kiwi8 (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
        • But that's just the point: if coming to the correct result is not so obvious that the little boy can do it without any chance of coming up with the wrong result, the routine calculation rule doesn't apply. If there is any need for interpreting rules to facts and coming to a conclusion, much less applying them correctly, as is implied by your statement that "not applying the tie-breaking criteria correctly, for example when head-to-head is ranked first or the goal difference is ranked first" and by Ivan's statement, below, that "Scenarios are routine calculations based on proper, verifiable sources: tournament regulations and the current teams standings", then this is prohibited synthesis and original research. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
          • This is not synthesis and original research. Kiwi8 (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
            • Except it definitely is OR. Sure, if the results were guaranteed, we could say "this is what will happen", but there are infinite potential scores and hence infinite potential outcomes. As noted above, this is an example of boolean algebra and therefore not covered by "simple arithmetic". – PeeJay 12:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
              • Don't exaggerate. The whole infiniteness of exact match scores is always described by a relatively simple formulation like "if A defeat B by more than X goals", or, at most, "if A defeat B, and C defeat D, with a combined goal difference of more than X". True, it is not 3+1=4, but still it is finite and it is a combination of multiple instances of routine calculations like 3+1=4. Hence my proposal (under "Conclusion?" below) to allow scenarios that refer to a source that would explain how the calculations were made. Ivan Volodin (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
                • Dont simplify. If Team A defeat Team B AND team C not defeat team D OR team A do not defeat team B AND..... That is what occured on CL this year before round three with four rounds left! That is definately bollean algebra and not simple or "routine calculations" by any means. QED237 (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Preference against, but stronger preference against over-legislation and edit warring on the matter. I see absolutely nothing in wp:crystal that is relevant, nor is it in any way wp:OR as many sites and publications do exactly the same thing. The issue as I see it is that it is of such temporary relevance that it is scarcely encyclopaedic, and that it often does not lend itself to clear concise prose. Its main drawback is the main reason why I wouldn't get too bothered about it: it will only be on the article for a short time. Few Wikipedia articles are at their best while the matter is of current short term interest: an encyclopaedia is best written on mature reflection of the events, and by that stage, these sections will have been long deleted. Kevin McE (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    • While I disagree with you about OR, I'd like to say that I agree that your argument about this being ephemeral and unencyclopedic is absolutely correct. While CRYSTAL has been mentioned here frequently, NOTNEWS especially numbered paragraphs 1 and 2 is more directly on point. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • On what grounds do you disagree with me in relation to OR? How does this comprise original research? Kevin McE (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Everything about it is WP:OR. The question is where you think matchday scenarios fails under WP:OR? QED237 (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @Kevin: See my 15:58 20 Nov, response to Kiwi8, just above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Such scenarios are routinely published in newspapers and major websites. It is patent nonsense to describe it as OR. Kevin McE (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @Kevin: I have never seen the scenarios that has been added had a reliable source, last time a freaking blog was used and then it is WP:OR. QED237 (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @Kevin: And as it is not routine calculations it is WP:OR. QED237 (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Unsourced ≠ Original research. Just because something is not referenced does not mean that it can't be. Oppose the practice by all means, but do so by reference to relevant criteria. Kevin McE (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Kevin, I agree with you that if the next gameday information is explicitly set out, without the need for any manipulation or interpretation, in a clearly reliable source that it's not subject to objection under V or OR and I wholly agree with you that under V that information which can be so sourced need not be actually sourced unless it is challenged or likely to be challenged. (Though I would, however, suggest that in light of (a) the number of demands for examples of such sources in this discussion and (b) the possibility that it may be result of improper calculation rather than explicit sourcing, that no editor can in good faith presume that it is not likely to be challenged if it is not actually sourced.) I only believe it to be OR if it must be figured out or calculated in order to be put into the article, rather than taken from an explicit reliable source. However, even if it is taken from a RS, I still believe it to be improper because of what you said in your edit of 23:24, 19 November 2013 and because of NOTNEWS. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • If lack of sourcing can be levelled as a criticism of any particular instance of posting a scenario, that is fine and valid in that instance. But it is entirely illogical to posit lack of verification as a reason to not allow future scenarios that could easily present verification. Thus whatever the arguments against these additions are, and I believe that valid ones exist, they cannot include WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OR. Kevin McE (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR and the DRN decision. Wikipedia is not for seeing in the future what could happen. And also it is not basic mathematics as it is boolean algebra and needs some serious math. A lot of times these scenarios has been added and they have not been hundred percent correct and edited back and forth just because they are not simple and people calculate differently. I could consider it if it is very well sourced (and not a blog by someone missing it on wikipedia), but I am as of this stage against inclusion of next day scenarios. QED237 (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Please cite the element of WP:CRYSTAL that you have in mind when you state that this practice is contrary to that policy. Kevin McE (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I am mainly thinking it violates WP:OR but I am especially thinking about three different sentences for WP:CRYSTAL:
  1. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation
  2. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included
  3. Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it.
The first one is obvious, we should not have speculations about the future. The second says it can be included if stated by reliable source, which I might be opened to, but I have yet failed to se reliable source when these scenarios has been included. The reason this thread started was when someone got reverted using a blog, which is not a reliable source. Thirdly is also quite clear, wait for evalution to happen, dont predict it. QED237 (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:CRYSTAL specifies unverifiable speculation: this information is entirely verifiable. If you have never seen such information in a reliable source, I can only conclude that you have avoided sports pages in any newspaper or relevant website at the apposite part of a season/tournament. These scenarios have nothing to do with predicting an evolution, they are a statement of what a team must do to achieve its goal. WP:CRYSTAL has nothing to do with this issue. Kevin McE (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes I have not read the big sports papers but how is that important? It is up to the editir adding the content to source it and I have never seen that. Unsourced it is not verifiable and it is just unverifiable and original research. QED237 (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • You fail to acknowledge the difference between 'unverified' and 'unverifiable'. Wikipedia content needs a reference only if it is "material challenged or likely to be challenged". If you see it and it is unsourced, and you don't consider it reliable, you have every right to ask for a source: it does not mean that it is verifiable. Check the definition of OR: "The phrase ... is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Four of the current England squad have dates of birth that are unreferenced: that does not mean that they are unverifiable or Original Research. Kevin McE (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Kevin, people keep talking about the sources existing that show these next-day scenarios, but many of us have yet to see one. Would you care to provide a sample link? – PeeJay 12:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Got a sample competition? -Koppapa (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
What a silly question. Any link with next matchday scenarios for any competition will do. – PeeJay 14:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
As noted in my comment below, here's one. Number 57 14:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
And as I said earlier, when having rteliable sources líke that I can consider scensarios, but last time on the Champions league the editor starting this discussion used a blog (that stated it missed the scenarios on wiki) was used. IF we should have next day scenarios they must be sourced by a reliable source and this is the first I have seen and I have never seen them on a article. QED237 (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
So you withdraw your objection to the inclusion of next match scenarios on grounds of OR? Kevin McE (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
No, I stand by my original vote. QED237 (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You are perfectly entitled to stand by your original opinion (which is not a vote). My question was whether you withdraw the justification of that opinion by appeal to WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR, both of which have been demonstrated to be fundamentally flawed. Kevin McE (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I still believe it is WP:OR. No idea to discuss this further, maybe my english is no good because you dont seem to understand me and I definately dont understand your arguments that WP:OR is flawed. I will not change my opinionQED237 (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't meant silly. More like, name any and i'll show you a source. It's mostly 4 team groups we are talking about and you really find those scenations easy. Here is an UEFA CL example. -Koppapa (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Scenarios are not original research. According to WP:NOR, Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations. Scenarios are routine calculations based on proper, verifiable sources: tournament regulations and the current teams standings. They can also be easily verified against those sources. Even if it may take some time to figure out all possible scenarios, they never go beyond basic arithmetics. And when there are mistakes, they are quickly corrected the same way as any other mistakes on Wikipedia, thus forming a consensus regarding the correctness of the result. Editors who post scenarios have no intention of promoting their own non-neutral research, but aim at providing the reader with useful and true information. There is also no violation of WP:CRYSTAL. According to WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable. Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. However, scenarios do not try to predict the future. They give an overview of consequences of one or another (of a given range) of possible outcomes of an event that is certain to take place in very near future. This is far from speculation or extrapolation. Further, it is not un-encyclopedic information any more than giving match scores and current teams standings. Scenarios supplement the information that is already there (match schedule, standings and tournament regulations), providing (in plain text) the information that many readers are actually seeking when they look at the standings and the schedule. And, finally, there clearly is no consensus on the issue. So I fail to understand why some say that there must be consensus in favour of scenarios for them to be there in articles. According to WP:CONSENSUS: in deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept. So there needs to be consensus against scenarios for them to be deleted on sight. Having said that, I acknowledge that there are issues to be addressed, and I propose to focus on the ways to do so. Ivan Volodin (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sven Manguard. These scenarios are sometimes printed in reliable sources, and in these cases we can cite them. I've noticed people have enough trouble understanding how teams on equal points are ranked in the groups (i.e. that head to head rankings trump overall goal difference), and in these cases we can just say "this is what UEFA have on their website, therefore that is what is correct" rather than going into some long mathematical discussion based on our own calculations. We need a similar source to fall back on when reporting next matchday scenarios. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 11:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All is said in the previous discussions. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose - They tend not to be sourced and generally don't add much. I wouldn't remove sourced ones if they aided the article though. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A fairly perennial proposal that contradicts long-standing consensus, guidelines and policy, as pointed out above. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I just think it's unencylopedic, and this is also certainly a case of forum shopping. However, I would take issue with the comments above stating that the scenarios are Original research - many media sources routinely publish scenarios - here's the BBC's last day scenario from the 2010–11 Premier League season. Number 57 13:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. WP:CRYSTAL states: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable [...]" The anticipated events we are talking about here are all verifiable by applying the (sourced) official tie-breaking criteria rules. Then calculations are used to determine the scenarios (most of the time it's about comparing differences of points between teams and the total of points they could potentially make), which I consider as basic math (which doesn't fall under WP:OR). Let's not forget that it is useful information to everyone interested in those competitions, and they have the right to be correctly informed on those meaningful possibilities prior important games. Schnapper (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I think, on grounds of transience and therefore unencyclopedic value. Though as long as anything added was verifiable from and cited to a reliable published source and not dependent on editors' interpretation of the tie-breaking criteria, I wouldn't remove them, on the basis they'd be redundant in a few days anyway.

    WP:CALC says that "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." It's clear, both from inspection of the tie-breaking criteria and from observation of how many edits it takes to update group tables correctly even when working with existing results, that there's more to it than "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age", which are the examples of routine calculations given at WP:CALC. So factoring in the need to account for every combination of future results takes us way beyond the "obvious, correct" results of a routine calculation.

    One could argue that the bit in WP:CRYSTAL that says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced" would be covered by their being explicitly published in RS. But without explicit verification in RS, WP:V fails, and so does the bit in WP:CRYSTAL that says "It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses." (my highlighting). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support, though I do not completely disagree that it is unencyclopediac. But to me the most important thing is that this is valuable information that a broad range of people interested in the competition seek. It is absolutely verifyable, even though a few edits are often needed before things ends up correctly. Interestingly though, sources would not be helpful as these are often only available when specific teams (such as England) are involved, and sports journalists do not tend to be better at these calculations than the Wiki editors. Finally, we are currently listing teams that have advanced or are ensured qualification to a later round, even though these listings suffer from the exact same problems as "on the next matchday"-scenarios, e. g. editing "wars", heavy on calculations to verify and lack of sources. In fact "on the next matchday"-scenarios can in most cases limit editing "wars" on subsequent listings. Most importantly these scenarios do little harm in most cases as they are only relevant for a limited amount of time, during which they are often exactly what people come to look for. So deleting them serves no other purpose than enforcing the Wiki-rules. And to be honest I do not feel the Wiki-rules are there to remove useful and sought after information. I agree that editor-time could be spend better than doing these calculations, but in most cases it will not anyway. And then editor-time can also be spent better than removing the combined work-effort of others. Lars Ransborg (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think that in a round-robin group there is a lot of situation that can not be analized a priori. Indeed you have a simple scenario (if the first team win then ...) or a very complex one, like this, here we have a cleary WP:OR. So you can not say "permit the simple one" but who define the simple? In this project there is a lot of IP and it is hard to handle the vandalism (how many pages are protect?) and if you add more discretionality it is more hard. Stigni (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when cited. That Arsenal wont reach the knock-out stage of the 2013–14 UEFA Champions League if they loose against Napoli with a three-goal margin tomorrow and Dortmund wins against Marseille is something that you can find in tons of reliable source out there (like this one in Norwegian). When this information is cited, I don't see why we should use our time on removing it from those articles, as it will only be present in the articlesfor a short period. And when it is sourced to a reliable source you cannot claim that it is WP:OR either. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support unequivocally. Most people on this site making these arguments don't seem interested in the content or understand its usefulness. Rather they are more interested in pushing these notional WP rules. Real football fans care about this, and would appreciate a reasonable self-regulating source like Wikipedia to provide it in some summarized form. Since, real football fans are the ones reading football articles, the content should be driven by that. Not Wikinerds intent on enforcing subjective and debatable rules at the cost of the pages' content. Furthermore, I would suggest that WP:CALC be employed to the extent a calculation can be seen to be accurate by someone with reasonable intelligence. Too many times, some idiot at Soccernet incorrectly asserts a tiebreaking scenario which can be disproven prima facie, and then some other idiot quotes it here calling it a reliable source. A fact is a fact based on the actual math behind it, and that's what WP;CALC tries to assert. However, with that in mind, there should be some style guidlines, (in terms of how much info we include). For instance, should first and second place be included for Champs League group articles. Nlsanand (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    • If real football fans care so much about this info, why are they looking for it on Wikipedia? If they really want it, surely they can find it on another website or do the maths themselves? – PeeJay 21:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


Question to the WP:CRYSTAL party: is it fair to say that you mostly rely on the verifiability element ("unverifiable speculation")? If yes, can we decide that the WP:CRYSTAL reasoning doesn't work independently of the Original Research / Verifiability reasoning, and focus on the latter? If no, please specify what other elements of CRYSTAL apply in this case, and why. In particular, how do these scenarios differ from statements like "After having lost 0-2 at Liverpool, Chelsea have to defeat them in London by at least three goals to qualify for the next round" or "At the next election, in order to achieve a majority in Parliament, Conservatives need to win X seats more than they presently have" (apart from the presence/absence of sources and from the simplicity/difficulty of calculations)? Ivan Volodin (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions to the WP:NOTNEWS party: References have been made to WP:NOTNEWS paragraphs 1 and 2. Do you agree that, in para 1, the only element applicable to scenarios is the issue of "primary source", i.e. again the OR/V problem? If not, what other elements of para 1 do you have in mind? In para 2, how do you define routine news reporting, and why do you think that scenarios fall under that definition? How do you balance this with the opening statement in WP:NOTNEWS: editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage? In particular, if scenarios are "journalism" and "routine news reporting", then why the Wikipedia coverage of Formula 1 is not? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and its sports articles offer the reader the most up-to-date information, including current standings, latest results and schedule of next events; scenarios are merely a further development of this information - do you disagree? Ivan Volodin (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions to the non-routine-calculations party: Do you recognize that determining teams' ranking on the basis of existing results is routine calculations? Is it then fair to say that you recognize that scenarios are based on multiple routine calculations, but the amount of calculations to be performed, and the logic under which they are performed, make it impossible to consider them routine? Where do you draw the line? As of 8 June 2012, the average age of the England squad for Euro 2012 was 9643 days, or 26.4 years - is this statement (unsourced) allowed under WP:OR? What about a table showing Evolution of average age of England squads at major tournaments? Do you recognize that there may be situations where scenarios are so easy to formulate that they do not violate the routine calculations rule? (Example: current situation in Asian Cup qualification Group C - with one matchday left, teams stand as follows: S.Arabia-13, China-8, Iraq-6, Indonesia-1, and China play vs. Iraq on the last day) Ivan Volodin (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


With the interest for the discussion dying out, I would like to suggest a conclusion:

  • Scenarios without a reference to a reliable external source violate the WP:NOR rule.
  • Exceptionally, a scenario may be posted without reference to an external source if the tournament situation allows to formulate a comprehensive scenario for a given round-robin group without recourse to tie-break criteria (e.g. if the leading team, in case of a victory in the next match, will be 7 points ahead of the second one with 2 games remaining, and no other team has a chance to secure qualification or risks losing chances to qualify after the next matchday) - in this case, the scenario is considered based on routine calculations allowed under WP:CALC.
  • No arguments have been advanced to justify the idea that scenarios violate WP:CRYSTAL or WP:NOTNEWS on grounds separate from the lack of reliable sources. Ivan Volodin (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The question that remains to be addressed is what may qualify as a reliable source. I believe that in this case, a compromise must be found between the need to provide reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:V) and the fact that we are dealing with a complex set of routine calculations, on which it is possible to achieve a consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources (WP:CALC). I would like to propose the following:

  • A source is reliable if:
    • it is a highly respected source of sport-related information (such as official websites of football governing bodies and football clubs, or news agencies, such as BBC Sport, ESPN, Eurosport etc.), and the publication in question is specifically aimed at providing a calculation of teams' mathematical chances (rather than containing statements like "Team A will hardly be able to qualify unless they win their next game"), or
    • even without being a highly respected source, it presents an explanation of how the scenarios have been calculated, so as to allow any reader to verify the multiple routine calculations performed. Editors who calculate scenarios are thus encouraged to accompany a publication on Wikipedia with a more detailed publication elsewhere, with comments explaining how each non-obvious conclusion was reached. Ivan Volodin (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Ivan, again, you are trying to direct the outcome of the discussion in order to suit your personal opinion. Please stop. GiantSnowman 12:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I am just suggesting an outcome. If this provokes further discussion, I would be just glad. Ivan Volodin (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't think there's anything in this discussion or any prior discussion on this subject that might justify bypassing Wikipedia's basic policies of verifiability and no original research by redefining the concept of reliable source, even if such an agreement at a purely local level would be in any way binding on anything. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not about redefining, it's about interpreting the rules as applied to a particular subject. There are plenty of such examples (e.g. notability of football players). Probably I am confusing the notion of reliable source with the notion of verifiability. I would be grateful if you answered any of the questions under "Discussion" above in order to see better where a compromise may be found. Ivan Volodin (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
And let me remind you that any decision made here — and there's nothing even close to one at this point — is meaningless unless you go on to propose a policy change. All of the opposes and supports above count against or for the proposal you've just made; all you've done is restate the position that started all of this. I see no room for compromise; WP policy, and the very nature of the kind of information upon which WP is based, makes this material inappropriate. There's noting approaching a consensus decision in favor of inclusion of this material in the !votes above, indeed, the trend is against inclusion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course, there will never be a decision if people keep saying "there is no room for compromise". But I believe we can move further than that. You and others say the material is inappropriate. Others, including myself, say it is appropriate. Yet others say it is appropriate under certain circumstances (or inappropriate except under certain circumstances). All the three (or four) groups are perfectly entitled to their opinions, but given the differences, none of these groups may claim with any authority that theirs is the only opinion that reflects WP rules. People keep deleting scenarios from pages, referring to rules and consensus, but you state yourself that there is no consensus regarding the application of the rules on this matter. There is also no WP policy on scenarios that I could propose to change. And there is no reason to require consensus in favour of inclusion of the material rather than to require consensus against it. I have now made an effort to formulate a compromise solution, which, among other things, directly addresses your opinion that scenarios might be appropriate "if the next gameday information is explicitly set out, without the need for any manipulation or interpretation, in a clearly reliable source that it's not subject to objection under V or OR". Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms. In dicsussions, editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution (WP:CONSENSUS). If you disagree with the solutions that I have proposed, please give reasons, replying to the reasons given by your opponents in the discussions above (this particularly concerns your position on NOTNEWS), or propose an alternative solution incorporating all editors' legitimate concerns. Sorry for the lengthy intervention. Ivan Volodin (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Framing this as some battle of acronyms isn't particularly useful. I think the person above who commented that this information is ephemeral and temporary made the strongest argument against inclusion, and he didn't even use a policy acronym! All our policies exist so that we can write an encyclopedia, and I'd venture to assert that one of the fundamental properties of an encyclopedia is that it documents enduring knowledge, not fleeting facts of the present situation that will necessarily be irrelevant in a very short time. Gigs (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's also point out that as with our enduring problem with transfer window activity, the simple matter is that with the exception of the most egregious cases this is only ever a temporary problem in a particular article. I don't think we need to codify anything here other than "don't think that stuff like this is mandatory". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Next matchday scenario insertions resumed

My involvement with this issue has largely been theoretical as I don't edit sports articles and only became involved while doing dispute resolution. I've been watching the discussion here just to be involved in the discussion on that level. I thought that it had died away and have been watching Ivan Volodin's contribs as an indicator of that since there is so much other activity on this discussion page and I didn't want to have to keep coming back here or pulling up the history page just to see if it was continuing. I just noticed that Ivan has started adding scenarios to articles, four so far — diff, diff, diff, diff — sourced to a blog, which is clearly not a reliable source even if the scenarios are proper at all (which I do not believe that they are). I don't care to become involved in the editing of the articles, but thought that this community would like to know. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was afraid of and I do not support at all. It was also this that started the discussions after he used a blog to support his edits on UEFA Champions league. To me there is many votes on oppose and they should not be included. This discussion I think shows that they should not be included. Thank you for the info User:TransporterMan. What does everyone else say? QED237 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Sigh, if I wasn't INVOLVED I would block seeing as he is editing against consensus. I suggest taking this to AIV/ANI. GiantSnowman 18:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I have now opened ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive821#Next matchday scenario. QED237 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Replied on ANI (update: my reply was reverted by Qed237). In brief: rather than chasing my edits, why not try to reply to the questions that I formulated above under "Discussion" or to make constructive alternative proposals (reflecting the discussion) under "Conclusion"? It is utterly wrong to revert edits on basketball referring to a non-existent consensus here. Absence of admins' reaction on ANI is indicative. Ivan Volodin (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Want to add that the reason for my revert was that the edit was made to an archieve, and that IV should open a new thread on ANI if he has something to add. QED237 (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A-League team shortcut templates

Category:A-League team shortcut templates - thoughts? I think they're overkill, personally. GiantSnowman 21:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't see much purpose for them. It's not much more effort pipelinking. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Finally someone brings them to attention. And can we also do something about those little color boxes they have on articles like the 2013-14 A-League. They just seem very unneeded. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
{{ALeague WSW}} is much easier to type than [[Western Sydney Wanderers FC|Western Sydney Wanderers]]. Hack (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I hope you're being sarcastic? GiantSnowman 17:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
That's the reason for which they were initially created. I notice that the templates are automatically generated by some of the Fb templates under Category:Fb_templates eg {{Fb out player}}. Hack (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that these should be deleted. What's the point in having a template when a wikilink will do? – PeeJay 23:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Brevity. Hack (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
In many cases I've seen users replace whole articles of wikilinks with templates for no reason whatsoever [16]. Also I agree with ArsenalFan700 in removing the color boxes in season articles and also can we do something about Category:A-League venue shortcut templates and the league table, I would much rather use Template:Fb cl header.--2nyte (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The similar W-League templates has been up for TfD for a month now [17], and was closed yesterday as no consensus. I was planning on taking the A-League templates to TfD after the closure of the W-League TfD, but regardless of the outcomes these templates should be substituted when used in articles. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

RE: Germany B

Wow - this looks like a busy talk page! I'm just placing a note here linking back to my comment above, in case it gets missed. Common sense really, of course. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Dani Osvaldo

This article was originally at Pablo Daniel Osvaldo but was moved to Dani Osvaldo, following a discusssion on his talk page. User:Italia2006 has now taken it upon himself to move it back again, with the rationale (see his talk page): "Why on earth does "his name in England" matter? "Dani" is a nickname given him by the English media. Lionel Messi is often nicknamed Leo Messi, but what's the title of his article? Marco Materazzi was called The Matrix, but obviously it would be absurd to call him that. I'm reverting back to Pablo Daniel Osvaldo once again." This is despite the fact that Osvaldo himself tweets as "Dani". I don't want to waste time arguing with such arrogance from Italia2006. Can someone else revert him and have a word with him. Thanks. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not my best area (and I have not been editing a lot) but he is clearly editing against consensus. In my opinion it might be worth taking this to WP:ANI. QED237 (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Pardon me, I noticed the first discussion about his name but not the consensus below it. I apologize for this, and of course accept the consensus. Apologies also to DaemonicKangaroo. Italia2006 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Frauen DFB-Pokal

There is a move discussion at Talk:Frauen DFB Pokal. So far, there have only been two comments. I would be grateful if others would join the discussion. EddieV2003 (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

National football team results

Hi, do somebody want to complete those articles? .

No Germany national football team resuts?

It appear that exist only this article, but detailed results list does not exist. It's necessary to create it, like for ENG

Also for France, project is not finished - France national football team results (1921–59).

From 1959 to present are missing results.

And i think, more countries are in this situation. If somebody want a "job", you can check Category:National association football team results to view which team don't have yet article with results. XXN (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have a breakdown by decade if they are also listed by season in the summary of football for that country? 2013–14 in English football and 2012–13 in English football are two examples for England of season lists. The United States has matches for all levels of national team (men's and women's) listed in yearly articles (i.e. 2013 in American soccer) and an all time article with collapsible wikitables of decades for the senior men's team. I know not everybody is a fan of Germany, but I do not understand your happiness at the lack of an all time article for Germany. EddieV2003 (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
What concerns me is the apparently arbitrary dates chosen for the result time ranges.
Actually, the majority of those articles are strange. Why is it necessary to have so many results articles?
Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 18:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
If all results will be in a single article, this article will have over 200.000 bytes. XXN (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
To me, a decade by decade split is most logical and a convenient size -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
If there is enough support for results articles for Germany, I will start on them. EddieV2003 (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, just look up some stats at , there are maybe 2 or 3 viewers that stumble on those articles each day. I find them pretty boring. Why not just link to a good external source from the main national team article? -Koppapa (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC) shows only one visitor to 2013–14 FC Bayern Munich season‎ in the last 90 days. There have been more IP edits than that in that time frame. For the England and American articles listed above, it shows more traffic, but based on the Bayern article, I do not know how reliable it is. EddieV2003 (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Info Boxes

The main info boxes for many players ( I came across it on the Ian Wright page ) for no reason a sane person could fathom, includes only their domestic league record plus international. This is their MAIN info box - it should contain their career stats. An England B international is not more relevant than a Champions League or FA Cup Final. When I pointed this out to the apparent guardian of the Ian Wright page, I was directed to take it up here. So rather than engage in an edit war, here I am. It is ludicrous to the point of insanity to randomly select some of a players stats for their main career info box. Domestic League records can have their own box further down a page, if needed. This habit must be changed, because it is laughably random and makes not even a little sense. Cheers. Batchuba (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, because many non-league game stats are unknown/incomplete for early players. Having domestic league only in the infobox, with a sourced career statistics table elsewhere in the article, makes perfect sense. GiantSnowman 19:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's because stats for cup games are extremely hard to source for players who played more than about 30 years ago (how would you find out, for example, how many League Cup games John Burridge played for Workington in 1969?) and bordering on impossible for players who played prior to World War II. There is a book published which gives the league records of all players who played in the Football League between 1888 and 1939 but it's exactly that - just their league stats. You aren't going to find a source for their cup stats. To have league-only stats for early players and stats for all competitions for more recent players would be massively inconsistent and make WP much less useful to readers and thus would be more "insane" than the current system -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Your argument is specific to England. In many places, and many eras, all stats are incomplete and questionable. The Brazilian League up until very recently for example. There should be a standard for all players in the world, and that standard should be their career stats as far as we have evidence for. If one is providing an info box for perhaps, a historical general, we put down the engagements we have evidence for - for an ancient writer, the works we have evidence for and so on. Even scientific articles are subject to further change as we learn more. All information is only to the best of our knowledge. The present system is narrow and exists for your convenience. At most, one could use that system for players who's careers predate reliable statistic keeping. Players from the modern professional era have complete stats and should be reflected in their info box. However, I am getting the impression that I will come up against an arrogant pig-headed wall if I insist on trying to change things and I am ( I should admit ) feeling excessively combative for some reason, so I will refrain from becoming a raging troll and simply register my disagreement with this silly blanket policy. Cheers. Batchuba (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
By all means register your discontent - and by all means propose a viable alternative. But there isn't one, I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 20:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. If the sources exist, of course we should provide complete statistical records in a section further down the page, but for uniformity's sake, the infobox should be kept strictly to league stats. – PeeJay 17:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Batchuba, of course you can have a view but the correct way to change things is to formulate an alternative way and to gain consensus from fellow editors. References to an arrogant pig-headed wall might not the best first step!--Egghead06 (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Laughably random would be to include only Zenith Data Systems Cup games from months ending in 'r'. Club football has been centered around domestic leagues for the past 125 years, so it isn't random, it is consistent and logical. It is a system that has been agreed upon for some time, perhaps not perfect but a best fit. That's not to say it could never be improved upon or changed. I think it is absolutely valid to question and revisit the infobox criteria, I'm just not sure you will win over too many people if you call the existing criteria "silly" or "ludicrous to the point of insanity". --Jameboy (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For what it's worth, I'm not in principle opposed to a proper discussion about a transition to listing all competitive games. We'd need to add a flag to the infobox to keep track, but it's theoretically doable. We'd have to have a general agreement first, though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Not a reply to Chris, but I'd like to add that I agree with Batchuba. Including only league games is the best option for early English players, but it is easier to find the total appearances for e.g. early Scandinavian players than it is to find league-matches only. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Given the points made by others about the difficulty of sourcing cup games, the only thing that would be less random would be to remove stats from the infobox entirely. I'm not completely against that idea in principle, but in my experience the "rough numbers" that league games (and for attacking players league goals) provide give a good at-a-glance idea of the sort of impact the player made at each club. If we're talking about Ian Wright specifically, the Palace game he is probably best known for is the FA Cup final. So yes, in one sense it's unfortunate that the infobox stats don't reflect his cup games. But does 225 games and 90 goals mislead the reader about the sort of impact he had at that club? —WFCFL wishlist 10:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Please contribute to a discussion on amending MOS language with respect to date formats

Hello - there is currently a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Date range redux to come to a final resolution the way dates for club tenure in infoboxs are displayed (e.g. - with a club from 2001–2007 or 2001–07). If you have an opinion one way or the other, please take part. The value in coming to a final resolution (either having language added to allow 8 digit date spans for this purpose or expressly forbidding it) is that it would provide certainty to these cases and stop needless reverting of this format one way or the other. If you do take part, please be sure to ground your arguments/opinions in fact, Wikipedia precedent and real world examples as opposed to preference only as this will help the project make the right call. There are thousands of articles (touched by thousands of editors) that use summary club tenure information in infoboxes, so there is clearly an advantage to settling it in a clear manner so all can comply. Thanks! Rikster2 (talk)

I didn't see a lot of WP:FOOTY regulars involved in the discussion above. For what it's worth, the consensus vote (I'll justify that statement on request) is leaning towards mass-editing 99% of football biographies to adopt the shorter format. If that's your thing, now might be a good time to head over there and ensure a clearer consensus vote count. If that's not your thing, now might be a good time to head over there and ensure that the consensus vote count is representative of those who read and edit the affected articles. —WFCFL wishlist 10:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Rubén Rochina

Does anyone feel like wasting five minutes in this guy's article? Found the statistics chart in a sorry state and tried to arrange it, but it's still in very poor shape (not my area this one at all folks, clueless as they get here). Also, the 2008–09 Segunda División B season, his first as a professional, is absent from the chart (10 games and two goals from the player in the campaign, keep in mind he has no Copa del Rey games for FC Barcelona B because Spanish reserve teams cannot play in the tournament, so don't bother searching for those).

WP says "thank you". I say happy weekend all --AL (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

YesY done (ish) => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, both users. I also found out that, apparently, and are not reliable as well (thought was the only "enemy" here, what's next?), the latter being English and containing ALL his official appearances with Blackburn, both were summarily removed. I give up! --AL (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Soccerbase is the standard ref for English club stats, which is presumably why Spudgfsh used it. I used BDFutbol for the Spanish stats because it included stats for all his seasons in Spain. With all rows inline-ref'd, it's unnecessary and misleading to have extra links above the table that look like references but aren't actually being used for referencing.

Re your question at my talk, Transfermarkt (IMO, though not in everybody's) can be useful as an external link, but only if it adds value that isn't being supplied by existing references or more reliable external links. What did the Transfermarkt link add to Mr Rochina's article that wasn't available in existing content/sources/ELs? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

TBH I didn't look at anything other than the table of appearances and felt that each row deserved its own reference. I used what is a fairly standard reference. no sleight intended. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Struway, as a LINK (solely as that), offers what and don't, it offers a comprehensive career dateline, the second "concentrates" on Spanish football, the third on English one. Cheerio --AL (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. The content - like Wikipedia - can be edited by anyone and cannot therefore be trusted. GiantSnowman 18:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Transfermarkt is NOT a website editable by anyone. Even registered users can only submit corrections, unless they are assigned a league to work on by the admin. So please stop repeating that myth. (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

So, GS, i deduce we must dismiss it as both a link and a ref? Is that what you mean man? --AL (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Turnbull 1908–09 FA Cup's topscorer?

Hi all, it's possible that Jimmy Turnbull, Manchester United's forward, was the 1908-1909 FA Cup's topscorer with 5 goals (3 against Blackburn Rovers and 2 against Burnley)? --Dimitrij Kasev (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

A very quick look in my reference books shows that Arthur Ogden scored 7 goals for Burnley in the 1908-09 FA Cup. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Rippon of Bristol City and Wilson of Newcastle United both scored 5.Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Alf Bentley of Derby County scored 8, so that looks like he was that season's top scorer in the FA Cup. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it even possible to determine FA Cup topscorers if most scorers from the qualifying rounds are missing? The best you can do is to assign a topscorer title for the rounds proper. (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Dimitrij Kasev (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Joe Smith (footballer, 1889–1971)

Because of the existence of Joseph Enoch Smith (who was apparently known as Joe), we have had an article moved yesterday from Joe Smith (footballer born 1889) to Joe Smith (footballer, 1889–1971). The latter looks a bit awkward, and I'm pretty sure we never disambiguate by death date, so I'm wondering if there's any other way to differentiate between the two (especially since Joseph Enoch Smith should probably have its title changed to something involving the name "Joe". – PeeJay 00:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

  • An example could be used when one looks at the two Paul Robinsons born in 1978... except that JES is unfortunately lacking in a birth month. We can't even disambiguate by nationality. I suppose we could disambiguate by position (JES going to "football defender born 1889", or something like that) but that is very clunky indeed. I would still attempt to use the month for the article that was previously moved, but I don't think there is a "right" answer here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep the status quo for now and have one at 'Joseph Enoch Smith' and one at 'Joe Smith (footballer born 1889)' - with a hatnote between the two. The 'Joe Smith (footballer, 1889–1971)' dab is awful for a variety of reasons. GiantSnowman 21:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The status quo ante was one at Joe Smith (footballer born 1889) and one at Joseph Smith (footballer born 1889), and some of the Joe/Joseph Smiths had hatnotes to the dab page, which WP:NAMB may or may not advise against. The playing position/birth year combination is certainly longwinded, but I'd prefer Joe Smith (football forward, born 1889) and Joe Smith (football halfback, born 1889) to the current titles. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCP advise against middle names or initials in the title unless the subject is/was actually known by and recognisable from that format; the move of Joe Smith (footballer born 1886) to Joseph Edward Smith was reverted per COMMONNAME. Using the position isn't totally out of line with footy conventions – there's already a Joe Smith (winger) for whom we don't have a birth year – and it does keep football in the title, so the reader using the dropdown search can spot them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
For info: the editor who originally moved the pages has now moved Joe Enoch to Joe Smith (footballer, 1889–1916) to avoid the middle name thing and for consistency with the other 1889 birth. When I replied above, I should have linked my note on their talk page, which preceded this thread and has since became a short conversation between their talk page and mine, and should have linked them to this thread, which I now have (apologies to all). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with disambiguating by position. Is there concensus to move the articles accordingly? I'm more concerned about the hatnotes; because the titles are (or will) be unambiguous, I read our guidelines on disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous as saying that we ought not to include hatnotes in this case. I hear Struway's concerns about the wrong article possibly being selected by a user via the dropdown menu from the search bar, but I think this is a slippery slope; the guidelines draw the line at ambiguous titles, and attempting to draw the line beyond that is inherently arbitrary and prone to misuse. Neelix (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Struway's suggestion with disambiguating between "football forward" and "footbal halfback" seems reasonable. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 Done Neelix (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Millwall vs West Ham GA nom

Millwall F.C.–West Ham United F.C. rivalry has been sitting as a GA nom for two weeks, surely one of you will take this juicy one? It took a West Ham and Millwall fan to work together and get it into a neutral article. No missiles were thrown and no old bill were harmed while Egghead06 and myself polished it up. BillyBatty (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but surely the copyright club crests shouldn't be allowed in the infobox in the first place? VanguardScot 19:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Spot on, no way that passes WP:NFCC -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Replaced with free image.Egghead06 (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
BTW two weeks is no time at all at WP:GAN these days.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Stats at 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season‎

Hi. Tonight I have had a dispute with an IP editor at 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season‎ where I tried to discuss at Talk:2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season#Excessive stats which I also said in my edit summaries. I do regret that I did not go here faster (to tired to think which is not good) as I know realise I may not have handled the situation so well. To me he was bold, I reverted, he should discuss per WP:BRD.

The reason I go here is that I tried talking at article talkpage Talk:2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season#Excessive stats were no editor opposed exclusion of the section "overall summary" and it has also been discussed earlier at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 80#Out of hand Liverpool 2013-14 season article This IP editor say 2 users isn't consensus though. if you feel that the section should be removed you should open a support/oppose vote on the talk page to establish consensus even though WP:CONSENSUS say nor is it the result of a vote. No one opposing must be consensus?

The section in the dispute is 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season#Overall summary that contains two different tables. The one on the left I have seen in five of the other articles giving a summary of games played, top scorer and so on. The table on the right is for match results and I have only seen that in one of the other PL season articles. To me that section is totally unneccesary, the matchresults are listed above and no reason to list them again. The article is overfull of tables as is and should use some prose instead.

Please voice your opinions. QED237 (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Football Fan FC

Blakegrice12 (talk · contribs) who claims to be a head editor at has been adding external links to their website to a number of football articles. I have reverted per WP:EL#ADV and warned the user. Just thought I'd give a heads up to everyone before we have thousands of articles with these links. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

They should probably also be informed of WP:COI; seems relevant as he should not be adding links to a site he is so heavily involved in. – PeeJay 12:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The spam warning covers conflict of interest to a certain extent but I sent the editor a more detailed message about COI. So hopefully he doesn't persist with the addition of these links. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox football club season

Hello. Why does the average attendance section gets paraphrased as "Average home league attendance" in the infobox? Why not just let it be "Average home attendance", since you can add other competitions the clubs are the part of? Lots of editors of various club seasons use attendances from all competitions the clubs are participating in. Regards, Ratipok (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The mean figure for all competitive games can be skewed by playing cup ties against bigger clubs, with attendances well above average, or by playing ties against smaller clubs, with attendance well below average. It's more useful and reliable to compare league attendance. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, not all clubs in a league may play in cup competitions, so you would have to add information about the amount of home games as well. Madcynic (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Plus some editors would probably start including friendly attendances in the average... Number 57 16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Its impossible to source an average attendance for all competitive matches, without doing any WP:OR. Very easy to source average league attendance for most clubs. VanguardScot 10:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
There are arguments for not including it, but I wouldn't regard OR as one of them, as its a fairly trivial calculation. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


I have now hit my boiling point with User:Staafros1. He/She has been an abomination when it comes to Indian football articles... I am a lenient person on wikipedia. I dont mind mistakes or vandalism or shit like that. I will ask for improvements or sources but when I have to deal with it and do it a million times with a specific user then it starts to piss me off. He literally assumes... never gets it right. He does not understand Indian football at all! It is not as simple as it is in England! Not every team has their OWN stadium! Can someone talk to him because obviously I have no affect... I am nothing to him. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Sassuolo new stadium

Sassuolo Calcio is the new owner of Mapei Stadium - Città del Tricolore.

Sassuolo's owner Giorgio Squinzi has bought the stadium.

It has cost 3.750000 E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Neil Brown

FYI, the Post War English & Scottish Football League A - Z Player's Database site appears to be down... GiantSnowman 18:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Works fine for me. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh - I clicked on Bristol City and Bradford City and it just re-directed me to the webhost site. GiantSnowman 18:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The hastiness of it all...

Folks could not hold their breath one second, Carlos Ramos Blanco and Héctor Hernández Marrero made their debut with Atlético Madrid in the Copa del Rey...bam! They get an article hours later. Problem is the opposition, UE Sant Andreu, plays in non-professional football; the creator of both, User:Eden10Hazard, engages in this over and over again i'm afraid.

I have been tipped about this by a fellow football user, User:MYS77. Kindly propose them for deletion if you please. Attentively --AL (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/ Anon has been making a lot of edits to a lot of club articles. Some good. Some not so good. Would someone have the time to review them (and the notability of the clubs)? It might be good to be able to convert the editor from anon if they have this much energy and interest. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Any Brazilian Wikiproject Football members?


I'm looking for any members here at Wikiproject Football from Brazil because I'm looking for a collaboration to work on a player which represented Brazil in 1974 World Cup, and despite that his article is considered as a stub, it was classified as high-importance, so I'm looking to help clean the article up and improve it so it can be part of the important articles about the players who played for Brazil in 1974 World Cup, especially that they won fourth place too. If you're curious about the player, it's Ademir da Guia. If anyone is interested in working with me for that article, message me or comment below! :) Hisakiwa21 (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You could ask User:GNozaki directly pretty sure he's Brazilian. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Carioca (talk · contribs) is Brazilian. GiantSnowman 13:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Shamrock Rovers B

Would it be appropriate to create an article (not saying I'm going to) for Shamrock Rovers B who were today officially granted permission to play in the League of Ireland First Division as of 2014. They will not be able to compete in the FAI Cup or League of Ireland Cup so I would persume they would have to pass WP:GNG. The team's title is yet to be confirmed although it's most likely to be ‘B’. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not.. FC Barcelona B is similar. JMHamo (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Borussia Dortmund II and VfB Stuttgart II are playing in the 3. Liga currently. FC Bayern Munich II played in 3. Liga a few seasons ago. These teams are no longer allowed to compete in DFB-Pokal competitions. EddieV2003 (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
We have plenty of separate articles on 'B' teams which compete in the same league system as their parent club. GiantSnowman 11:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Given your comments I went ahead and created the article Shamrock Rovers B. Cheers ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

David Beckham's initiation ceremony

Over the last few days, I've removed some info from the David Beckham article about an initiation rite he had to go through at Manchester United, during which he had to masturbate to a calendar of Clayton Blackmore. Personally, I do not believe this is encyclopaedic information, which is why I have been keen to remove it from the article, but it has received a little coverage in the media recently (I assume it came up in Becks' autobiography, which I haven't read yet). I assume most footballers have to go through initiation ceremonies of a kind when they join a new club (I know I did), so what's so special about Beckham's that it deserves inclusion on Wikipedia? Is it just because it's Beckham, because that would not be a good reason to include it? – PeeJay 17:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree that this is pretty useless trivia. We don't have to report everything the media ever reports about him. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 17:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Peejay I explained to you why but you seem to be more interested in an edit war. Reverting me and another editor again and again does not help. Furthermore it seems you think you own the article. You don't. Caden cool 17:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but WP:BRD applies in cases like this. Number 57 17:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Definitely shouldn't be included. How does this information help anyone? Wikipedia is not a tabloid rag. JMHamo (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Peejay has been edit warring for days now. How does that help? Beckham admitted it happened and like i told peejay there are many sources to back it up. And peejay has serious owner issues. Caden cool 17:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Caden, there is a clear consensus here. I followed WP:BRD, I don't see how that makes me guilty of violating WP:OWN. – PeeJay 17:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
No there is no consenus Peejay. You are guilty of edit warring for several days and yes you do have ownership issues. I told you this all before. Caden cool 17:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
It takes two to edit war, and the more guilty party is usually the one violating BRD, which in this case is not PeeJay. Number 57 17:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Peejay has been edit warring for several days now with TWO editors. The only person who violated BRD was Peejay. He also violated OWN. Caden cool 17:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you understand how BRD works. Someone is bold, someone reverts, and then the person who was bold is expected to discuss and gain consensus for their addition. If that person reverts their addition back in, they are the one violating BRD. Number 57 18:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree it's unencyclopedic just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it warrants inclusion. Shall we add the songs Irish players sang upon their international debuts I don't think so. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Number57 i didnt revert my addition back in. Show me where I did that? I tried discussing things with peejay but he was more focused on edit warring with two editors instead. How come you are ok with that? Why are you ok with his ownership issues? And DuckJammy every soccer player has some initiation. But Beckham has talked about it and it was picked up in mainstream media with lots of sources to verify it. Caden cool 18:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes you did. You initially inserted the material in this revert, then added it back in in this revert. That you were discussing was good, but why were you still edit warring? Number 57 20:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
You are confusing verifiability with notability. not all information is both. this piece of information may be verifiable but is not notable to the wider audience of the article. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Spudgfsh pretty much summed up what a was going to say in response ↑↑↑. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Caden, you added the information back in twice after I had reverted User:RealDealBillMcNeal's addition. See here and here. – PeeJay 18:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a sordid tabloid newspaper. Caden, you would do well to stop treating it as one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Caden, I'd spend some time reading WP:V, WP:N and WP:NOT. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I did remove this salacious tripe before this discussion started on the grounds of poor sourcing for a BLP. It was sourced from the Daily Mail. It now has another tabloid ref and a blog from the Guardian. However my main issue with this is just how notable is this in the footballing career of Beckham? Very, very minor. It only serves to cheapen the rest of the content and is trivia. I also note this article was put up for GA status last month and failed miserably. Can't help but think the addition of him jerking-off in the changing rooms would not help it on its way to GA status!--Egghead06 (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Peejay it would of been nice if you had notified both me and User:RealDealBillMcNeal about this thread which you failed to do. Luke I never treated wiki as a tabloid. All I did was agree with RealDeal. Yall can spare me with all the wiki links. I'm not retarded and have been here for years. No need to offend me. I dont appreciate it. I do wish yall would tell me why its ok for peejay to edit war for days on end and why its ok that he violated OWN. Caden cool 18:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Because I have not edit warred and I have not violated WP:OWN. And you found your way here pretty easily for someone who wasn't informed of the discussion... – PeeJay 18:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Caden, you were helping to force in what is a very poorly sourced piece, which is so obviously unencyclopedic that I'd expect a drunken horse to be able to tell that. Stop trying to cover your own ass by deflecting things towards PeeJay, who actually did the right thing; poorly sourced things have absolutely no place on a BLP, and may be removed on sight; particularly contentious information. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Luke there is no need for you to personally attack me. You've been here long enough to know better. Accusing me of trying to cover my "ass" is not only a blatant lie but it's also unacceptable behavior and is a violation. Saying such things as, "I'd expect a drunken horse to be able to tell that" is not only rude but also a personal attack. If you can't be civil then maybe wikipedia is not the place for you. Caden cool 14:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
"I assume most footballers have to go through initiation ceremonies of a kind when they join a new club (I know I did), so what's so special about Beckham's that it deserves inclusion on Wikipedia?" - Most people's initiations are singing songs, or something embarrassing like Gary Neville having to chat up a mop, not something remotely as severe and demeaning as masturbating over calenders of teammates. The difference is clear.
Also, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE. It isn't WP:ROUTINE, and The Guardian isn't a tabloid, so it isn't [[WP:SENSATION]RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I still believe this is trivia, however... The Guardian (the only non-tabloid ref) does not mention masturbation. It says ""Everyone had an initiation that you had to go through on the youth team, that was one of the most uncomfortable ones! The fact that I had to look at Clayton Blackmore's calendar and do certain things, while looking at Clayton Blackmore …" --Egghead06 (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You have no idea what most initiations involve; most of them stay behind closed doors. And it doesn't matter who carried the story, it adds undue weight to an article and is an unencyclopedic passage that has no place in a BLP. If you can't see that, you're not competent enough to edit here, full stop. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Luke telling User:RealDealBillMcNeal :"If you can't see that, you're not competent enough to edit here" is a personal attack. Please stop doing that. You should know better. Caden cool 15:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── WP:BLP, y'all. GiantSnowman 18:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, this isn't remotely encyclopedic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
It could be included in an article about the club, allowing degrading activities such as this to occur, but definitely not Beckham's article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It definitely shouldn't be anywhere on Wikipedia, especially not an article on the club, as it would be giving undue weight to a relatively minor incident. Feel free to write a blog post about it though. – PeeJay 02:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Where I live such activity would be defined as illegal bullying. That's not minor. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hazing is not appropriate behaviour, but wikipedia discusses, with reliable sources, murder and other illegal activity. The question is whether it's either important to discuss and has reliable sources to support the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Unless you have a RS saying that "it was bad for Club Y to be doing activity X", that would be a synthesis of RS saying "Activity X is bad" and "Club Y did activity X". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Lukeno94 consider this a warning, the next time you attack me like you did twice on here I will be forced to take it to ANI. Caden cool 16:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jordan Edridge

Dear football experts: According to this article, the player was signed to a "premier" team last year. Is he a notable player? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

No, he has never played in a fully professional league. Number 57 21:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Does the 18,002 years he spent in Chesterfield's youth team make him notable? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, for a list. VanguardScot 21:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The fact that he is from the future should automatically make him notable... also how did he manage to stay a youth player for so long? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I get the point. Bye-bye Jordan. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


Is the following a hoax? Searches for the name and the teams he is supposed have played for only direct to Wikipedia. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liam Axbey Hack (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Even by what it stated on the article, the notability is based on 14 minutes of league cup football. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I realise that. The purpose of the question is to work out whether the submission is eligible for speedy deletion as a hoax. Hack (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Pretty blatant hoax. Nothing comes up in Google, and passages like "He also tried to distract the linesman by saying 'No that is not a correct decision I will get my Axbey family on you if you do it again' repeatedly." make it obvious - as does the state of the original draft. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. The name appears in searches only as the name of a high-school student in Ruislip, and the only time Brentford played Rotherham in the League Cup was 41 years ago, when according to the AfC, the subject would have been 12/13. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the contributions of the creator upports the theory of hoaxes. He has only edited 6 times in one day and one of those was page blanking and an other got tagged for vandalism. QED237 (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)