Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 15


Tottenham Hotspur - Rating upgrade?

The article is currently rated as B class but I think that the article is much better than a B rating. It's about time we re-rated this. So what shall we give it now? Govvy 13:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As I'm a Gooner feel free to take this with a pinch of salt - but I don't think it's beyond B-class right now. The quality scale says A-class demands "A fairly complete treatment of the subject" but there's not much detail about the stadium, crest or colours. And the history is a bit too recentist and lacking specific citations for it to reach GA status, in my opinion. Qwghlm 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Heh, you are right, it does need need details on the stadium, crest and colours. I feel it needs more photo's in the article also. Maybe it's not the rating but the importance of the article that needs upgrading!! I shall bring it up on the talk page. cheers. Govvy 14:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the article has too few information about the 1950s and 1960s, compared with the other decades. And that the history section should be divided in more sub-sections. The current season takes too much space and the article needs more notes. It's a very good article, but not beyond B-class. Fregonassi 06:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I still feel this is a GA class article. The history has been improved, there is sub article on the stadium, got some info on the crest and kit in the history section. Care to have a vote on improving the rating to GA? Govvy 12:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Good Articles have their own assessment process: Good Article Candidates. However, as it is now a nomination of the article would most likely fail due to scarcity of inline citations - lots of books are listed, but it is not clear where any of them are used. This could be remedied by using the {{cite book}} template in appropriate places. If you want help or more feedback, drop a note on my talk page or perhaps start up a peer review. Oldelpaso 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oldelpaso, what do you think of the standard of the article now? Govvy 12:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Football (soccer) in New South Wales Review Wanted:

Jus wanted someone to review, suggest ideas, check, etc {Santiago26 05:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)}

Swindon Town F.C.

I would be grateful if some kind soul would have a looksee at the Swindon article and give me a suggestion on layout and also possibly help improve the prose in the history section.

At the moment the layout is a bit haphazard, with prose here and there and the history section is a heavily snipped extract from the main History of Swindon Town F.C. article, and as such reads like someone hammering facts into your head.

Oh and if anyone wants to assess it as well, be my guest. Cheers - Foxhill 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats pretty good what you got so far, my suggestion would put the "Other teams" section in a new article titled "Swindon Town F.C. Reserves & Academy" Govvy 15:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the third request in a row. Perhaps people could post such requests at WP:PR instead? Punkmorten 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I considered placing it for Peer Review but with areas of the article such as History, Colours, Supporters and others all needing major re-work; decided against it especially as the article is not in a stable state yet. I also considered WP:FEED but felt the subject matter would be too narrow for a response. This is why I placed the request here - Foxhill 15:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Go for feedback if not PR. Articles are meant to be readable by both experts and non-experts alike. Narrowness of field is not a big issue. Btw it's not too bad, needs a some tweaks and changes but the core of it is a decent enough article. Qwghlm 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I've left some comments on the talk page. Looks sufficiently well-developed to go on peer review. Oldelpaso 20:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your comments, they are much appreciated. I hope to have the article at a stage I would feel comfortable with for Peer Review within the next couple of weeks or so. I will reply to comments on the talk page later today, again - Many many thanks - Foxhill 12:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Manager statistics, again

Forwarding a question from Forbsey on Talk:Rangers F.C., are manager statistics on club articles, e.g. Rangers F.C.#Team managers, domestic league matches only? Archibald99  19:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C.#Managers includes league, cup and European matches (inc. Charity Shield/Super Cup games) in the table. If the stats are available I don't see why they shouldn't. Qwghlm 23:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Move Norwegian Soccer League Champions (Men)

The article listing the winners of the Norwegian Premier League is currently named Norwegian Soccer League Champions (Men). I want to move this page to something resembling the two Featured Articles we have, English football champions and Swedish football champions. The problem is that, unlike in England and Sweden and probably most other countries, it is not the winners of the league in Norway but the winners of the cup who are "Norwegian football champions" and so using this name for an article about the league winners would be misleading. I'm leaning towards Norwegian Premier League champions; the article could also be named Norwegian football league champions, although I think this name is too similar to "Norwegian football champions" and might cause some confusion. Any thoughts on this matter? --Léman 00:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest having Norwegian football champions as a disambiguation page, explaining the situation in Norway, and linking to Norwegian football league champions and Norwegian football cup champions. Good or bad? – Elisson • T • C • 15:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Football in London

I've put some work into the Football in London article in recent days, any assitance would be appreciated. I'm hoping to 'wikify' all the clubs linked to from this article, so as to include the standard information table, and the link box at the bottom of the page to other teams in the division. Please come along and help! Grunners 15:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Average attendances

I was considering putting average league attendances for the 2006-7 season (calculated from Soccerbase) into an article (along with a percentage of the ground's capacity). Would you say there's enough value to make it worthwhile? If so, would you include it in the stadium article or the club article? (Preferably not both.) - Dudesleeper · Talk 23:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a worthwhile addition to a club's article when mentioning the fanbase/supporters to give figures, especially to show changing support over the years. I've found that the figures[1] are quite useful in that respect as they go back to 1992-93 for the four English Divisions and the SPL, although you may find the capacity is mis-reported and so have to recalculate from their figures. In my opinion I'd keep it in the club article unless it's a record attendance for the stadium as a lot of stadiums hold other events such as concerts, rallies and even double as Speedway or greyhound tracks. - Foxhill 00:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I'll bear in mind the possibly mis-reported capacities, though that site may have correctly stated Blackpool's as 9,612, whereas another source had it at 9,000 (and I find the chances of its being a round number unlikely). As such, I changed the stadium article accordingly. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject The Football League: Season-By-Season

This WikiProject has recently been created, so it probably should be inserted into the navbox alongside the A-League and Non-league projects. I have to say, I'm not entirely sure of it's purpose - until the Premiership split in 1992-93 all there was to professional football was the football league, so I don't understand why we need seperate articles for it alongside the present season articles. HornetMike 15:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The definition of UEFA Intertoto Cup winner

The definition of UEFA Intertoto Cup winner has not been defined, let's discuss about it. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 17:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

AFC Bournemouth

My attention has been drawn to the large number of articles referring to A.F.C. Bournemouth that link to Bournemouth F.C. an amateur club based at Victoria Park who have never been a league club. I have fixed a whole bunch of league seasons records but it would be helpful if editors could keep an eye open for others that should go to A.F.C. Bournemouth. BlueValour 02:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I think I have now tracked down and edited all the links that point to Bournemouth F.C. rather than A.F.C. Bournemouth. The problem comes when using the {{subst:fc|Bournemouth}} template which will automatically point to Bournemouth F.C.; using {{subst:afc|Bournemouth}} gets round the problem, albeit via a re-direct. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively, people could just type [[A.F.C. Bournemouth]], which is shorter then typing {{subst:afc|Bournemouth}} :) Gasheadsteve 12:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
subst:fc is good for tables, and nice if you want a piped link. Punkmorten 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Or you just do what I do and ignore the templates for Bournemouth and use [[A.F.C. Bournemouth|Bournemouth]].. WikiGull 16:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

List of football (soccer) teams sponsored by Nike

What do people think? Listcruft? A genuinely useful list? I've done a bit of cleanup and although inclined weakly to nom for deletion I thought I'd ask the opinion of people here first. Qwghlm 08:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Seems fairly pointless to me, also the title seems misleading. Presumably by "sponsored by" it means "kit manufactured by" - if you asked people to name Man Utd's sponsors, for instance, I'm sure everyone would say AIG..... ChrisTheDude 09:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's fairly pointless. HornetMike 09:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I could've sworn this had already been deleted following an AfD. Oldelpaso 21:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
near enough. {{db-repost}}? Oldelpaso 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the sucker. Timpcrk87 02:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Bhoys from Seville

What are the opinions on this article? I personally think it should be moved to 2003 UEFA Cup final and restructured to give a more universal view on the subject. Archibald99  20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out a mistake. It says that there was not one single arrest. I know there was at least one, one Celtic fan stabbed another Celtic fan. And I am sure that i've read that there were more.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allanmac9 (talkcontribs) 02:49, 8 April 2007.

Football article improvement drive

I want to bring up the decreasing activity at the football article improvement drive. The earlier success of the collaborations of this drive led to many featured articles. I encourage everyone to contribute to the current article, nominate articles, and vote on nominations in order to increase the activity and success of this article improvement drive back to its previous level. Timpcrk87 02:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the level of participation is poor. I admit I have ceased to vote and only recently worked on a collaboration, doing a bit of clean-up on Birmingham City. I wasn't really able to add new content, though. One problem is the sort of thing we're nominating. I have absolutely no clue how I could possibly contribute to Valdir Pereira (Didi) this week, other than to do clean-up. I see Liverpool and Coventry City are nominated at present - I could peer review them quite easily, but I'm not sure I could add much. HornetMike 13:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Liverpool F.C. is the new selection, which is a drive for FA level - peer review type comments are just what are needed. It is no coincidence that the three former collaborations which have since gained FA status are broad topics with wide appeal. Biographies rarely gain much attention, unless it is someone truly iconic internationally such as Pele or Ferenc Puskás. This week the selected article got less edits all week than it took to update the AID with a new selection. Oldelpaso 13:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Toulouse F.C. also had a poor level of participation. I think that the improvement drive should focus more on the international level articles, like major european clubs and famous players, because improvement drive is working fine for them. About the last week selected article, when I indicated Valdir Pereira (Didi) I thought some Fenerbahçe and Real Madrid fans would contribute more about his time playing/managing the clubs. About his carreer in Brazil, I think I can cover a good part of it (just need to have time and get my computer back to add some things I planned to add). Fregonassi 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nominations wanted - The article improvement drive is currently without a single nomination. Suggestions of needy articles are welcome. Oldelpaso 14:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

New category

I've created a category entitled People who died before the age of 50, and I think it would be useful in football-personnel articles. As I mentioned on the category's talk page, I perceive 50 as being a young age at which to pop your clogs, especially when, in the world of the beautiful game, some individuals (Stanley Matthews, for example) have played past that age. - Dudesleeper · Talk 07:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm up to Peter Dubovský in Footballers who died before retiring. There are still 46 others. - Dudesleeper · Talk 07:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC) - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Position of managers in infobox

I've noticed that some people put a former player's position to be Manager (former Midfielder), for example, in the infoboxes. My view is that position refers to the position they played in, and if they are currently a manager of a club, then that can go in the club number bit of the box. Am tempted to just change a couple that I've spotted just now, but thought this might be worth wider discussion and a consensus on how to deal with this. WikiGull 21:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely, and this is something I always try to fix. I think there needs to be a new, optional, 'job' field. Without that, it should go in the club field, with a br/ if necessary. ArtVandelay13 21:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Could this not be resolved by changing the field title in the infobox from Position to Playing position?
Also - discussions regarding the content/layout of the infobox should be on the infobox talkpage. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to put it there as well, just thought it better here so more people can see what I'm suggesting. WikiGull 08:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Youth Section concerning players from teams with B/C/youth teams

Really small (perhaps pointless?) thing, but some players (Cesc Fàbregas is a good example) who come from clubs such as Barcelona have Barça B/C under their youth section and in the main article, when of course they never actually played for the B team. So should under youth teams be either: A general "FC Barcelona Youth System", the actual youth section they got to at the club (for Cesc: "FC Barcelona Cadete A"), or something like "La Masia". The same applies for the Barça B/C pages, under famous players they mention players who have never (or not yet) played for B/C, should there be a general Barcelona (and other teams) Youth section which goes (in Barcelona's case) from Infantil A/B to Barça B. Cheers, Fran 5 March 2007

I'd say that if they did play for the B or C teams then leaving it as those would be fine. Otherwise simply stating "FC Barcelona" would make more sense. aLii 11:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Athletic Bilbao and Copa del Rey

There is an ongoing dispute at the above articles. The dispute centers around the first Copa del Rey in 1902 and whether it should be included as an Athletic Bilbao win. Myself and another editor User: Deibid believe that it should be. However a third editor User: BarcelonaMarc is constantly reediting the articles to reflect differently. The Copa was won by Club Vizcaya which is not disputed. However Club Vizcaya is not a separate club from Athletic, but rather an alternative name. Several clubs including FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, Real Sociedad and RCD Espanyol and Real Unión have won the Copa del Rey under different names. All trophies won under their various names are included in one list. So why should the Athletic record be different ?

Below is a timeline which explains the early history of Athletic. [2]

  • Early 1890s: Bilbao FC formed by British workers.
  • 1898: Basque students returning from UK form Athletic Club.
  • 1902: Above two teams enter combined team known as Club Vizcaya in Copa del Rey.
  • 1903: These two teams merge and form Athletic Club Bilbao
  • 1907: The Club Vizcaya name is revived as Athletic Club de Bilbao and Union Vizcaino entered another combined team in the Copa del Rey.

The 1902 Copa is included in Athletic’s own honours list [3] and the trophy is in their museum [4]. The eleven Club Vizcaya players who played in the final - L. Arana, E Careaga, P. Larranga, L. Silva, A. Arana, Goiri, Cazeaux, Astorquia, W. Dyer, R. Silva, W. Evans - are all included in an archive of former Athletic players [5].

I believe the above clearly shows that Club Vizcaya was simply a name used by Athletic Bilbao and is not a separate club. A similar situation occurred in 1909 when Real Sociedad used the name Club Ciclista. However User: BarcelonaMarc has chosen to ignore all this evidence. He argues that Club Vizcaya is a different club but offers no evidence to prove this. I do not believe BarcelonaMarc is acting objectively or that he can be considered as an independent. On his own user page he describes himself as an FC Barcelona fan. If the 1902 Copa is credited to Athletic then it would mean that Athletic and FC Barcelona share the amount of Copa wins. I believe that BarcelonaMarc must begrudge sharing and that is why he continues to revert edits. I would appreciate it if other editers could offer their opionions and/or help resolve this issue as it has been ongoing for sometime and BarcelonaMarc will not listen to reason. Djln--Djln --Djln 00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so certain that this is as cut and dried as you're trying to make out. In 1902 Vizcaya was not Athletic Bilbao, but two seperate teams. The change is not the same as a name change from Madrid to Real Madrid. I suggest listing 23 titles for Bilbao, as it is currently, and tidying up the note about Vizcaya. On the Bilbao page I think that you could use something along the lines of:
Copa del Rey:
  • As Club Vizcaya: 1902. 1
  • As Athletic Bilbao: 1903, 1904, 1910, 1911, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1921, 1923, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1950, 1955, 1956, 1958, 1969, 1973, 1984. 23
aLii 11:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
These two seperate clubs merged to become Athletic Bilbao. Can anybody explain why Athletic Bilbao include the 1902 Copa in their honours then.Djln--Djln 12:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably because it's something to list. Heck, Liverpool list their Lancashire League win and Reserve League victories. aLii 12:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you actually read the timeline above or the history of Athletic. Your not really helping resolve this situation. The Liverpool example is irrelevant, you cannot compare a local regional league to a national trophy. Djln 13:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, Liverpool didn't win those honours under a different name ChrisTheDude 13:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The point was because it's something to list. Nothing to do with names. Yes I have read the timeline. In 1902 there was no Athletic Bilbao. In 1903 there was. It was not "a change of name", but a merger of two seperate clubs, which later split again into two teams. I think it should all be listed in the history of Athletic Bilbao, but all of your argument is based upon what Bilbao claim for themselves. The Spanish FA apparently don't count it as a Bilbao victory, or at least I haven't seen you dispute BarcelonaMarc's claim. aLii 14:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Copa del Rey is administered by the RFEF, isn't it? Then it follows we should follow their official classification (or else we break WP:OR and WP:SOAP). The article states (though without a reference yet) that the RFEF do not consider Vizcaya and Athletic to be the same club.

To me, it seems ridiculous to me that a club can claim to have won a trophy before it was officially established, so unless the RFEF have retroactively awarded the 1902 title to Athletic Bilbao, then it should be considered that of Vizcaya. Qwghlm 14:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The club was officially established in 1898, being the second oldest in Spain, so it is NOT ridiculous. The cup is in the club's museum. What else is needed? David 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
All that's needed is an official acknowledgment from the authority in charge of the competition (i.e. RFEF) that Athletic Bilbao have been recognized as 1902 winners. Athletic Bilbao may claim it as a trophy but they as a unified club did not exist until 1903 (being two separate clubs before that), and in any case it's not up to them to decide who the official winner is. Qwghlm 16:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well if dates are going to be deciding the issue, why does the RFEF, not founded until 1909, get to decide who can claim a trophy played for in 1902, seven years before it was founded. All the RFEF has done is simply list the contemporary names of teams that won the competition. Nobody has shown me any evidence that the RFEF has declared Club Vizcaya a separate club. Why ? Because there is none. I’ve shown clear evidence that they have a common history. In addition Real Sociedad [6] claim the 1909 Copa which they won as Club Ciclista and Real Union claim the 1913 Copa which was won by a predecessor club [7]. So are all these clubs wrong ? I would have thought that one of competitions first participants and organisers would have a stronger say and should be given precedence over a body that was'nt even founded until seven years later. In this case I would argue that Athletic is a more official source then the RFEF. Also isn’t possession nine tenths of the law and Athletic have the trophy in their museum, and the RFEF does not seems to have challenged their right to include it on their honours list. Djln--Djln 22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Athletic Bilboa is the legitimate inheritor of the tradition of Club Vizcaya. They have a right to claim the title and a matching duty acknowledge their predecessor. aLii's solution, which clearly and simply lists the facts of the situation, works and is one that I've used more than once when writing about German clubs where this type of situation crops up frequently and is exacerbated by circumstance of traditional clubs playing under alternate identities in East Germany or under wartime conditions, for example. The irony is that this sort of thing adds colour to an article about a club and should go as an interesting tidbit rather than something to squabble over. Wiggy! 01:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Flagicon in templates

Is it part of the Project now? I've seen several anons and at least one user adding flags in players/managers templates. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This matter has recently, albeit inconclusively, been discussed here. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories for, say, Champions League winner

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I imagine those involved with this project will be most aware if the topic has come up for discussion before. Is there any reason why starting a category for players who have won the Champions League would be a bad idea? Personally I'd find it useful, but thought I'd double check first. KeithD 10:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This will lead to Category overcrowding. It would be far easier be handled as a list, which would also give additional information. Agathoclea 10:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I've made List of UEFA Champions League Winning Players KeithD 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely this is more appropriate for a category (as per your original suggestion) rather than a list, unless you can add more value than just a list of names? I'd expand to include those players who won the European Cup before it was renamed as well. - fchd 19:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I would include years won, club(s) won with, and number of wins, which it could also be grouped by. Adding European Cup winners is also essential. ArtVandelay13 20:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This list is not meant to include European Cup (pre-"Champions League") winners, correct? --ChaChaFut 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added the European Cup winners. That either means that the article needs to be renamed, or the European Cup winners split off to another list. I'd say it's probably best as a single list. Beyond that, I'm not sure what the best way to organise it is. KeithD 18:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I just thought i'd bring up this minor problem with managerial statistics in managers articles. Should the format be "Games Won Lost Drawn" or "Games Won Drawn Lost". The argument for the GWLD layout is that soccerbase, the main provider of managerial stats, gives it out like this, so it is easier to update the stats. The argument for the GWDL layout is that it is the conventional way that is usually used. What do you guys think? -- Mattythewhite 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

GWDL for me. I'm a traditionalist at heart! HornetMike 16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
GWDL, always. I've never understood how people reasoned when they created the GWLD layout. – Elisson • T • C • 16:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure many other sports commonly use WLD (usually T, not D, though). Lexicon (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
American Football and Baseball both use WLT because ties are so rare. Every league table I've ever seend has used WDL. Tompw (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In tables I've seen from before WW2, Pld-W-L-D-F-A-Pts seems to be the norm, but since then I haven't seen that used (at least in England) at all. As it's what I've grown up with, Pts as the last column always seems right to me as well. - fchd 16:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Should be W-D-L . I've only seen the other way in U.S. reports, but i'm curious, Where did you see those early tables, Richard? --ChaChaFut 16:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Mainly where the AFS Annuals reprinted tables from long-gone days, but I've just opened the Sunday Chronicle Football Annual for 1949-50, and all the league tables shown there (League, non-league & Scottish) go Pld-W-L-D-GF-GA-Pts. It's the same in the same publication for the following season, but the FA Yearbook for 50-51 uses what would now be the familiar format. - fchd 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
GWDL, simply because of the mass of information I've seen which places the information in that order, anything else just seems somewhat perverse to my head! Robotforaday 10:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bolding players with international caps in the squad list

A contributor to Liverpool F.C. recently added bold to the names of those players who have international caps in the squad list. My personal opinion is that the information is not particularly relevant, and that it makes the squad list look a mess, but it was suggested on the talk page maybe it could be taken here for discussion - I'd be interested in other people's opinions: perhaps this really is a desirable introduction into football team articles, communicating an important piece of information succinctly? Robotforaday 10:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone did it on Watford's page a while back. I think it's alright, and isn't especially ugly. HornetMike 11:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how important the information is, but it's certainly somewhat interesting. aLii 11:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the correlation between a domestic squad and its national-team representatives. An Internationals section, with a notation and footnote such as Current Liverpool player, would make more sense to me. - Dudesleeper · Talk 11:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd lean towards not including the information, but don't feel particularly strongly about it. For instance Robbie Fowler, while an international, hasn't been capped for five years. Bolding makes it look like it is of significant importance to the makeup of the squad. If it is to be included I'd rather it was something less in-your-face, such as an asterisk. Oldelpaso 11:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I must confess, it was me that did it for Watford, because only a few Watford players have international caps. I didn't do it for Liverpool/Arsenal/Chelsea/Man U because most of their players are capped, so please decide amongst yourselves what to do. My idea is to do it for clubs of second tier or lower. as they will be a significant few. Cheers, к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 12:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just spotted something. Coventry have an international section with current players, so maybe that should be utilised. It looks good, and doesn't clutter the article. I vouch for that. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 12:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And an editor added those beautiful flags to every name instead of just the nation heading. Always loved that. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Umm... a LOT of Liverpool players, past and present, have represented their country. We're talking a very long list... not sure how workable that is going to be at a time when the article is being made more streamline. Besides, the article is about Liverpool F.C., not about the international teams. Details about individual player's Liverpool careers are included on their player bios. Robotforaday 12:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks ugly in my opinion and not particularly useful, particularly given the Fowler example above. I'd get rid of it for consistency's sake. Qwghlm 12:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove it all. I don't really see the point in including it. – Elisson • T • C • 15:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Tinsley Lindley

The article on Tinsley Lindley states "he scored 15 international goals in just 13 games" which is supported by his profile at [8]

His profile at[9] credits him with 14 goals in 13 appearances.

Finally, gives his record as 13 goals from 13 games.[10]

Can anyone supply a definitive answer?

I have raised a similar query on the talk page for the article 1885-86 in English football about one of the "missing goals" Daemonic Kangaroo 14:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cris Freddi's "England Football Fact Book" from 1991, gives him 14 goals from the 13 games, but implies there is some doubt in his goalscoring record with the statement "He scored in 7 England matches without a break (probably not the 9 usually credited)". Several "facts" from individual games in the 19th century were reported differently in various publications of time with the result that, again quoting Cris, "The bottom line is that in the absence of film, there are times when we'll never know for sure" - fchd 15:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union/USSR

I have one question for you, as you are my fellow WikiProject colleagues :), shouldn't "USSR national football team" and related FIFA World Cup templates be renamed to "Soviet Union" form? We already use United States instead of U.S. or USA. I have alredy contacted native Russian users and they are rather in favour of "Soviet Union" form. Thank you. - Darwinek 20:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Move war" imminent at Football (soccer)

This morning the article was moved to association football, along with a few related articles, claiming "majority concensus". While I am involved in the conflict wanting the article to stay, I have failed to see any such consensus, and I moved those articles back just now. Either way, this needs much broader input from experienced football editors, so please, give your opinion on the matter at Talk:Football (soccer). – Elisson • T • C • 18:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

FA drive

Hello all. Having successfully driven three articles over at Wikiproject:Cricket to featured status over the past couple of months, Dweller and I are turning our attentions to our home clubs, starting with Ipswich Town F.C. and then onto Norwich City F.C..

Naturally, we don't own the pages so we'd like to encourage as many people as possible who have a passing interest in pushing an article to WP:FA or in the clubs themselves to get involved. Typically, this process will start with me slapping a few dozen [citation needed] tags on all uncited "facts". It will make the article appear unsightly in the interim, but it is a very useful way of picking off original research.

While I realise there is a Article Improvement Drive already in play here in the project, I'd still like to encourage others to join in on this mini-version.

Please feel free to contact me or Dweller if you'd like to contribute to the drive or, better still, just get in there. The Rambling Man 11:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Superga air disaster

There’s a degree of disagreement—nothing like an edit war: only reasonable editors are involved!—here over how much credence to give to to the theory that the root cause was diamond smuggling. The theory seems plausible but also surprising and surprisingly single-sourced and undebated elsewhere. All knowledgable contributions welcomed. (And I will be very happy to leave the debate to people better versed in football history!) —Ian Spackman 14:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

National squad template

Could people please give their thoughts on whether the hide option should be added to Template:National squad. There's been a lot of discussion on whether these cause clutter, particularly given that they're likely to increase (e.g. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_8#All_national_team_Squad_TP_other_than_World_Cup), and someone suggested the idea of adding the hide option. I had a go User:ArtVandelay13/squadstest which seems to work fairly well, it won't break the existing templates were it changed over, and the only visual changes are pretty minor. No-one objected when I mentioned it on the Tfd page, but when I tried to change it it was reverted and locked, so I'm putting it to the wider community. Any ideas?



ArtVandelay13 15:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to change the font colour of the show/hide on the France squad to white? I'm pretty clueless on that sort of thing. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that you can, unfortunately. ArtVandelay13 10:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with deleting them, as they are attractive and informative as well as providing links to a lot of other articles. I say keep and add the hide option. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 11:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't they default to hide, with a "show" option? Otherwise there seems little point having the functionality... aLii 12:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
They do if there are multiple templates. ArtVandelay13 12:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin request

This is rather process-wonkish of me, but can an admin move Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester United to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester United F.C. over the redirect? Thanks. Oldelpaso 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. – Elisson • T • C • 19:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
And beat me to listing it on the project page too. Oldelpaso 19:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

english editors

Why is it editors from england are so eager to add negative information, like diving, to articles of non-english players, but wont add any diving behaviour to the articles of english players. Steven Gerrard being an obvious example (diving in the champions leaugue final, several matches in the pl and against hungary come to mind). No mentioning of diving on Joe Cole and Wayne Rooney either. Yet I always see edits from english ip's adding diving behaviour to the articles of CRonaldo, Drogba or Robben regularly. 15:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you'll get an answer from any of the project's participants, since I equally doubt that they do such things. One thing I don't doubt though, is that non-English IP:s have done the same on English player articles. Either way, such information shall be removed unless a good source (or several good sources rather) is provided that says that the player is considered a diver. – Elisson • T • C • 15:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Diving is generally a subjective, rather than objective topic, and so it is generally not covered. I personally haven't seen a single instance of it being covered in a Wikipedia article, but perhaps I watch over the wrong ones. Your constant reverting of my wipe of your abusive language on Talk:Steven Gerrard is also not helpful.
Having said that I'll check the articles you mentioned and see what state they are in (I don't watch them). aLii 15:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
To continue, take Gerrard for instance. He did dive in the CL-final (youtube link...though you wont know from his article cause the editors are deliberately keeping the negative information out, which is vital information. After all, Liverpool would have lost the final had Gerrard not cheated. Leaving it out is unobjective and unencyclopeadic. Instead they say he "won" a penalty. And yes, edits made by english ip's do add diving behavior to non-english players all the time. English players "win" penalties when they dive and those bloody foreigners cheat when diving. 15:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Youtube isn't what we call a reliable source. It would be original research for anyone to say that Gerrard dived, and then source it with that video. It would be subjective and anyone could say "I don't see any diving in that video". Give a reliable source that says that Gerrard dived to get the penalty, and I have no objections to it being included in the article. – Elisson • T • C • 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I've looked over the three articles. I have removed a comment about having a reputation as a diver from Robben's article. Drogba's article is fine, as the "diving" part is actually a famous quote from himself. Ronaldo's article is the most in need of the WikiProject's attention. Some instances, backed up by large media coverage seem like they should stay, but there seems to be a tendency to write about every instance recently (Middlesborough, Fulham) which doesn't seem quite right.
As regards Gerrard's "dive" in the Champions League final, there was no controversy about it in Britain. If you can provide multiple Italian sources to back up controversy claims, then perhaps it could be covered in his article. Fan or personal POV is not encyclopedic though. aLii 15:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You figured I can't speak ialian. Lame. Well it's common knowledge he cheated anyway. Any member of football365 will tell you! Not surprisingly I can't find any english sources stating it as such. Suppose being biased isn't just the flaw of their editors, English media is blatantly one-sighted too. Did find this link though. Probably won't count. Still funny. 16:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I think your attribution of this kind of bias reeks of paranoia, and your characterisation of Liverpool supporters as "In-ger-lund" supporters (on the Steven Gerrard Talk page) is misguided. Anybody on football365 will tell me? Jesus, the day when we start accepting the opinions of football forum members (or God forbid, people who ring up phone-ins) as 'reliable' will be the day I head out of here. Anyway, I think you're missing the point, which is that if you can find reliable foreign language sources which show this is as a commonly represented view (newspapers and the like), then that's something that can be referenced (references don't just have to be in English)- I don't see where you got the impression that anybody "figured you can't speak ialian" (sic). Robotforaday 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I was, I don't know, facetious with the football365 comment. Anyway, English media is biased and Gerrard obviously dived. 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I would hate to ride to the defence of the English media, so I won't. But I think anybody who's played football at that pace and felt the effect of being knocked off balance would say differently- and that's exactly the point, it's completely POV- and posting the video evidence (which is copyright restricted anyway) doesn't make it any less POV, it can be interpreted in more than one way. Robotforaday 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul Benson

I realize that he isn't the biggest star of English football, but he is the current leading scorer in the Conference National, and his rise to the level he is at is quite remarkable. However, it's difficult for me to find much information regarding his career before Dagenham & Redbridge, and I can't find any biographical information either. If anyone could assist in making this article more complete, it would be appreciated. Che84 18:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a warning - if this player hasn't played a game at Football League Two level or above, he'd be a likely candidate to be nominated for AfD - fchd 20:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
If he remains on Dagenham & Redbridge, he'll be in League Two very shortly, defeating the purpose of deleting it. Che84 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Either way, I'd recommend copying his article (from its edit page) into a text file in case the motion is to give it the chop at this moment in time. - Dudesleeper · Talk 20:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted in the past in fact - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Benson. I just had a few of the players from that AFd speedied as they had been re-created. Whilst policy tells me to go for Benson as well, as Che84 says, with Dagenham all but up I'm not sure there's much point. HornetMike 21:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Euro Championship templates

Today, User:SndrAndrss10 added 2000 and 2004 Euro Championship squad templates for Boudewijn Zenden. Now, I'm sure I remember there being consensus to get rid of these things- are am I just being hopelessly optimistic? Robotforaday 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That user has done the same for several England players. There's a couple of TfD discussions going on at the moment. - fchd 20:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
As the result of the TfD[11] on the other templates was Keep, this presumably means that a precedent has now been created so there is nothing to prevent the re-creation of Template:England Squad 2000 European Championship & Template:England Squad 2004 European Championship which have only just been deleted, together with templates for every other international tournament there has ever been. What a mess! I'm off to create a template for the England squad for the 1884 British Home Championship. ;) Daemonic Kangaroo 07:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't bother voting because I knew that we'd never get a concensus to delete. The same happened the last time. I've personally stopped bothering to be annoyed by templates. aLii 09:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't help but wonder how much better the football articles would be if people put their effort into actually writing interesting and engaging text rather than making "cool looking templates". I suppose I'll just have to follow the lead of others and try and not notice them. Robotforaday 15:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
What an odd decision from the editor to declare it a consensus for "keep", when 9 people said to keep and 8 to delete. Surely this is a textbook case of "non consensus"? Robotforaday 15:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely they know consensus would be a landslide for one side? I believe it would be consensus if it was more than 75% for one side, no? CanbekEsen 15:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:FOOTBALL redirect keeps getting changed

An anonymous user constantly has been changing the WP:FOOTBALL redirect to point to the american football wikiproject. At this point, I'm not sure what do as it seems that the redirect was first used in this Wikiproject. // Laughing Man 16:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I just put it back with a note on my edit - it was originally established as an association football link. Maybe it needs to go to a disambiguation page that points at each of the existing football forms? Wiggy! 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Since all incoming links to that redirect is to this project, I say keep it as it is. – Elisson • T • C • 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Johan Cruijff

Hi. I'd be grateful for some input. User:Alii h has made some fairly radical edits which in my view helped the article. Unfortunately they have also annoyed a few previous contributors with their boldness, including I confess myself initially. An edit war is in danger; what we really need is some football-savvy input at Talk:Johan Cruijff#aLii's improvements to the article. Can you spare a few minutes to have a look? Thank you in advance. --Guinnog 20:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just thought that I'd note that my initial interest in this article came from the above discussion "'Greatest' claims". It was then that I first noted how poor the George Best article was. After working on that for a few days this conversation over Pelé's opinion of Best cropped up. There I noted how bad a state the Cruijff article was in.
I have made some initial tidying/rewriting efforts on both articles, but plenty more needs to be done. To that end, yesterday I nominated Johan Cruijff for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive.
My personal opinion is that the state of some a lot of the articles about our sport's greatest players is incredibly low.
  • Maradona's article for instance contains only five paragraphs about his club career.
  • Pelé only has a few paragraphs about his record-breaking club career.
  • Franz Beckenbauer has only a few paragraphs about his club career.
  • Alfredo Di Stéfano is better, but lacks detail about his international career.
  • Michel Platini is actually quite good, but could do with some editing/moving quotes to Wikiquote.
  • Eusébio has only three sentences about his 15 years with Benefica.
These are players from the top 10 of the IFFHS player of the century elections. Best and Cruijff now at least have a reasonable amount about their time with Man Utd/Ajax, but the rest of their careers need a lot of fleshing out. aLii 21:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ipswich Town F.C.

Article has no "importance" rating. I'd also invite a member to reconsider the current "B" quality rating. Finally, the article's almost finished at peer review and will shortly be heading to WP:FAC. Tweaks, criticisms and suggestions from you, the people who understand the game are most welcome. Thanks. --Dweller 18:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's now listed here so please, head over to support if you will, or provide comments, suggestions, etc. Thanks! The Rambling Man 20:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've given it an "A" rating, and given my support for it becoming a FA. I can't see there being a massive "Oppose" contingency, so the A rating indicates that it is nearly there (now we wait for the FAC to see if it goes to FA). Daniel Bryant 08:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Daniel. All contributions from this WikiProject gratefully received. --Dweller 12:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice article, well constructed, nice layout of images and decent prose. It would also be nice to have an FA of another team from below the top division (I think the only other one is Sheffield Wednesday), so I'll definately support it when the FAC comes round. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 16:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops... sorry, didn't mention it's at FAC now. And Norwich City F.C. is the next project for The Rambling Man and myself - in fact, we've already done quite a lot of work, but not sufficient to list yet at Peer Review, let alone FAC. --Dweller 20:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability of English soccer clubs

I am seeking assistance from people knowledgeable about the criteria used to determine whether English soccer clubs are notable. We are looking to develop something for for the various codes of football notable in Australia and we are looking to use that as a possible model. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find it tough to apply the English model to many other countries. As far as I'm aware it's simply a case of Tier-10 of the league system, and above is notable. However England does have 4 fully-professional, and 1 nearly-fully-professional tiers. Perhaps you could look at doubling the number of professional tiers to get your limit (Would that be 2)? Of course there are always exceptional cases of noteability too.. aLii 11:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The top-10 tier rule is based on the basis that that is the entry requirement (more or less) for clubs to enter the FA Cup, the senior national cup competition. I would suggest using that as a rule, except there is no national cup in Australia (according to this), though you could perhaps apply the same rule to the various state- or territory-based cups in the country. May not be the best yardstick but it is a suggestion. Qwghlm 12:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Folks, thank you for your comments. They should prove to be very useful. Capitalistroadster 03:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

SAFC and abbreviations in general

I'd like to discuss the abbreviation SAFC, which has wider implications for abbreviations of football teams in general. My opinion is that if a team is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, it is also notable to have its abbreviated form appear on a disambiguation page, assuming that the abbreviated form is actually used anywhere in the outside world. Surely a redirect should only be used where there is only one entity to take that abbreviated form?

To that end, I made SAFC a disambig page, pointing to both Sunderland A.F.C.. and Stirling Albion F.C.. But it keeps being reverted back to a redirect to Sunderland A.F.C. only. Having reverted it twice myself, I would rather get a consensus here than enter into an edit war. I did mention it on the Sunderland A.F.C. talk page but it only generated one response.

I completely accept that Sunderland are more notable than Stirling Albion, but Stirling Albion can be abbreviated to SAFC - see here - so surely they should be included? Thoughts anyone? --Jameboy 09:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be kept as a disambig page in my view; it could also stand for South Adelaide FC, and of course it may not be used just for football clubs: a quick Google finds it can also stand for Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition, South Australian Film Corporation, and is the former stock exchange code for Safeco. Qwghlm 09:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and Sigma-Aldrich Fine Chemicals as well. Qwghlm 09:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with previous all comments. Should be a disambig page. aLii 12:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree too ChrisTheDude 12:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
And me WikiGull 12:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
And me. I'm not in the mood to edit-war, so I'll leave it to someone else. Daniel Bryant 12:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and made the change ChrisTheDude 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I've done a little bit of a cleanup, following the lead of CCM. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 12:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for all the comments and help so far. Just wondered if there is now a need to create the page S.A.F.C. as a redirect to SAFC? Thanks. --Jameboy 13:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Help! Hassle at Berliner FC Dynamo

I need some help in dealing with User:Nadia Kittel who persists in making poor edits to this page and various others. This has been an on-going problem that has included posting of spam external links, deletion of external English-language links, posting of unsourced images, posting of incorrect material, and one petty edit after another, all wrapped up in a refusal in anyway to respond to entries on his talk page or the talk pages of the articles he edits. He's also demonstrated a gift for bizarre formating turning simple lists into unmanageable columns and at one point he had the BFC page looking like this:[12] and its been an on-going struggle to keep the article from being turned into a fan page, hoolgan/Ultras central, or shrine to the former DDR. He won't respond to posts in English or his native German from any other editor and has often deleted or immediately archived talk items that don't suit him. Doesn't think twice about carrying on under various IPs. He's overwritten image files with his own inaccurate versions. He's dumped material copy edited for correct English for his own poorly translated stuff (if anyone can make out the caption to the Mielke picture currently posted, you deserve a prize).

I've posted looking for help elsewhere, but am not getting anywhere (i.e. no responses in general forums) so I'm hoping I can find other editors or an admin with an interest in football who may be better motivated to help bring this guy around or lay a block on him (he's been blocked before for his unfriendly approach). I'd rather be back at creating new articles or editing existing stuff to help improve things, but instead I'm sucked into a stupid edit war and will end up taking a bullet for it sooner or later. We're down now to stuff that's more trivial in nature than where it was weeks ago, but I'm tired of the guy's months-long pattern of obnoxious behavior. And frustrated. Help! Wiggy! 17:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep my eyes open. Note that both you and Nadia (isn't that a female name by the way?) have broken 3RR on that article, although I won't do anything about that right now. Just stop reverting for now (I'll do it if needed) and we'll handle this. I've had some problems myself with Nadia but haven't bothered to take any action. Now may be the time. – Elisson • T • C • 17:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm aware of my 3RR violation and that's why I said I figured I might take a bullet on this. Its just been extremely frustrating dealing with this guy (yeah, guy from the early history of his user page - I was corrected on this as well) and other attempts to get the thing straightened away in an appropriate manner have been an utter bust. I can see you've made some reverts and were immediately subject to a dose of the same nonsense. Part of my concern is that User:Nadia Kittel's ill conduct is consistent and fairly widespread, not just limited to this one article. The irony is that he's capable of some good contibutions when he can get past his POV and attitude.
In any case, any whining on my part aside, thanks profusely for your attention - its a relief already. I'll try to stick to more productive edits. Wiggy! 19:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm tempted to rename this section The Chronicles of Nadia, but I shall resist. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ha! You wouldn't be that far off! I dare ya ...  ;) Wiggy! 19:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It appears that Nadia has returned as User: and is gratuitously tagging articles as requiring sources. In many cases multiple tags are being added to the same article. While many of these articles do indeed require sources the only thing that ALL of these articles have in common is that they were edited by me at some point in time – there is not a single article on the user's contrib list that wasn't edited by me. This is a pretty clear case of bad faith editing and wikistalking. This IP needs to be warned or blocked. Wiggy! 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

New Featured Article

Hey, thanks to all who contributed and suggested, Ipswich Town F.C. is now a featured article, making it only the sixth English club article to reach this status, and only the second outside the top flight. Hurrah. The Rambling Man 07:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Football rivalries - duplication of info.

There appears to be significant crossover between the articles Local derbies in the United Kingdom and List of football (soccer) rivalries. Can these be merged or somehow restructured to prevent duplication? --Jameboy 11:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happens, the article Local derbies in the United Kingdom cannot just simply be merged with List of football (soccer) rivalries as the UK derbies list is about differing sports, such as football, rugby league, rugby union, cricket and hockey. And not just football. Tangerines 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing players

Should a player who was signed for some club, but have never played for it, categorized as a player of this club? MaxSem 08:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I presume you mean should we add, for example, Category:Arsenal F.C. players to a player who's in the squad but has never played a match for the club? I'd say no, personally.... ChrisTheDude 09:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd say yes. If a player has been part of the squad then others may have information on that player and if he's in a category would be able to spot him there and add the info. I see categories as an aid to expanding content rather than just a list of players. WikiGull 11:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes - if they have been under contract (loan or permanent) with a club and registered with them, then they are player with that club. Current first-team squad members who have not yet played a game would naturally be given the category so it makes sense to extend this to past ones as well. Qwghlm 12:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes per WikiGull and Qwghlm. – Elisson • T • C • 16:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The Category:Leeds United AFC players stats that "This page lists footballers who have played a 1st team match for Leeds United, of Leeds, England." This should be changed because this is the only category where you have to have played a 1st team game to get in so the likes of Folan and Seaman miss out.Kingjamie 16:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
But were Folan or Seaman ever full professional players for Leeds, or even included in match squads for official matches? If not, this is a different issue. Given that an appearance with a fully professional club is a notability criteria, it makes sense to leave out players who were neither a member of the first team squad or signed to a professional contract with a club. Ytny (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Both Folan and Seaman were professionals, Folan was still at Leeds into his 20s. ArtVandelay13 16:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No definition of x player requires the player to have actually played a first-team game, merely to have been part of the playing squad. To omit players who haven't played renders the category incomplete. The exceptions I'd make are for triallists (except those in countries where they can play for thr first-team), and players that have left clubs before the age of 16. ArtVandelay13 16:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The other exception that should be made, apart from trialists, is players who "guested" for other teams during wartime football - in England at least, this was a highly erratic and idiosyncratic arrangement on a match-by-match basis, not like the formal loans system of today. Qwghlm 23:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes - Andy Webster, for example, could rightly be described as a Rangers player - therefore players such as him should be included in these categories. Archibald99  16:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the precedent is yes. See Dietmar Hamann and category:Bolton Wanderers F.C. players. The players of nowadays should not be a problem, as they have to sign a contract and the club has to hold the registration (approved by FA or FIFA etc.), so trialists don't count. Not sure about those of yesteryears though. Chanheigeorge 09:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd say no. In my opinion, until he plays for club, he's not a "player". Seaman for example, might be a member of Category:Leeds United reserves players (if such a category ever existed), but not Category:Leeds United players. - fchd 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that if a player has had a professional contract with the club, they should be included in the category. I know it's a bit dodgy with people who didn't actually play, but seeing as they were a player for said club I think they should be included. HornetMike 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Champions" or "champions"?

I know this is a really minor point but I figured I'd bring it up anyway. I've noticed that on a lot of football pages, editors have put things like "So-And-So F.C. were Champions of the Such-And-Such League in 1983" - is there a reason for the use of a capital C on "Champions"? it's not like it's a proper noun..... ChrisTheDude 13:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably care if I wasn't too busy claiming ownership of the Jeanfield Swifts article. ;) Champions is one of the less irritating capitalisations I've seen - though, other than Footballer thrown into the middle of a sentence, they escape me at present. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I've always used a capital "C" for Champions, as I treat it as a sort-of honorific title. I do the same for "Cup Winners" but not for "runner-up" etc. I think I changed one article from a small c to a capital C earlier today. I wouldn't worry too much if consenus was for a small c though. - fchd 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It depends on the context, for example:
are both correct, IMHO, since the later can be seen as a title and a proper noun, although "Swedish champions" is correct as well if one choose to not treat the two words as a proper noun. I wouldn't say the same for "Cup Winners" though. – Elisson • T • C • 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I use "champions". Out of curiosity I looked in a few of my books, usage varies. Oldelpaso 19:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Same. Daniel Bryant 22:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I follow the same rule as Ellison. In general I think the small c is better, because champions isn't officially a proper noun. HornetMike 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

List of "D" Football Squads

Perhaps someone could take a look at this new article List of "D" Football Squads, please? Means nothing to me I'm afraid. (Though I see its just been put up for a speedy so you may have to be quick!) TerriersFan 03:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Obvious hoax, but hoaxes don't qualify for speedy deletion. I've changed the tag to prod. Oldelpaso 16:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

1951 Copa Rio

Would you guys please add your opinions in here? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

magic spray

I'm surprised we don't have an article on this already. Does anyone object?--Ioshus(talk) 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely there's a more proper name for it? "Magic spray" sounds like it should be a re-direct. aLii 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Magic sponge? Oldelpaso 19:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, yes magic sponge is a part of it. Maybe a bigger article like On field first aid in Football. Maybe you're right Magic spray and Magic sponge could both redirect. From what I have read, the magic sponge has gone out of fashion lately, and the spray has become more commonly used.--Ioshus(talk) 05:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Greatest" claims

Several articles, including Pele, Maradona and Johan Cruijff claim that they are "regarded by many as one of the greatest footballers of all time". The same claim has been in the George Best article. Recently a few editors (who I suspect are the same person) have been removing this from the Best article. The claim is well referenced in the Best article, with referenced quotes from Pele, Maradona and others.

What are people's opinions on this? Stu ’Bout ye! 12:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Stubacca I am afraid you are a bit biased. The 'references' you have are feeble at best and so is your allegation that one individual is haunting you. This label "regarded by many as one of the greatest footballers of all time" should be used very carefully. Pele, Maradona and Cruyff are worthy of that label + perhaps a few more (should be researched). Many other splinter groups may feel their favorite footballer deserves that accolade as well, but one should remain very careful. I believe Zinedine Zidane and Michel Platini belong there, but I want more evidence before I would edit. The Best fans are such a splinter group.

1. A British interviewer has recorded that Maradona has said that George Best was his idol. This may be true - only one source though and it was a quote embedded in a story. I have heard Maradona talk about Best, but more in a sense that he could identify himself with the maverick, self destruction, and absolute football talent (that Best certainly had) married into one. Also 2. Pele mentions George Best in his list of 125 greatest living footballers, a list that his received a lot criticism for politically correct picking etc (am not saying that Best shouldn't be on that list - I think he should be) 3. From time to time, exclusively in British media it seems, one sees this hearsay quote from Pele where he endorses Best as the greatest footballer ever. Not only is this a poorly sourced quote it is very probably not even true and he has never said words to that effect or meant it in that way - blown out of context. Pele mentions Best merely twice in his autobiography, both mentions are drink-related but he does describe him as a 'Latin footballer'. 4. In numerous all time polls FIFA, IFFHS, France Football etc etc Best consistently does not even make the top 10.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Professeur70 (talkcontribs)

(edit conflict with above)Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean about "haunting"? I agree the claim "regarded by many as one of the greatest footballers of all time" should be used carefully. But I believe the references given justify the insertion of the claim in Best article. If the claim was removed from all articles I wouldn't have a problem. It is the fact that it is included in some, and not in others where evidence to back up the claim is given, which I disagree with. Regarding your four points above:
  1. The interview states "Who was his own footballing hero? - 'George Best. He's my idol'". That is all it says, nothing about self destruction or anything else is mentioned, so you're assuming that.
  2. I'm not sure what point you're making?
  3. It sourced from the BBC. I'm not sure how this can be dismissed as poorly sourced?
  4. Yes, he is missing from some top ten polls as well, but that polls are only one issue.
My point is that enough evidence exists to make the claim. But making the claim in any article is expressing a point of view. Maybe the claim should be deleted from all articles.
By the way, some of your comments above could be seen as breaching WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My two cents on this:
  1. The phrase "regarded by many as..." should never be in any article about any footballer as they are weasel words. I think zero-tolerance is the best way forward, to avoid any of the subjective arguing here, so it should be taken out of all the articles - Pele, Maradona and Cruyff included - in favour of truly verifiable assertions.
  2. The Maradona quote is directly sourced from him in an interview, albeit one with a British journalist, which is dated and verifiable. As he is directly quoted and in context, I think the reference given is reliable enough.
  3. The Pele quote is a lot more dubious - although it is a BBC article it is only mentioned in passing, not directly quoted. Unless a direct and verifiable reference to the quote, and preferably the full interview in which Pele says so, can be provided, it should be excised. Qwghlm 14:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you support the claim being removed in all of the articles it is in? I disagree that the Pele quote should be removed. A link to the actual interview would be preferable, but the BBC has to be one of the most reliable sources available. Their editorial policy is published and explicitly mentions fact checking. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's perfect, and that applies to the BBC. The claim is uncited and does not give any detail as to when and to whom Pele said it, which makes it unverifiable. The George Best article as it stands implies, with its use of the quotation marks, that it was Pele's esact wording, when he isn't even directly quoted in the BBC article.
A little bit of Googling doesn't really bring anything more concrete up, apart from a couple of articles which quote Best as saying "Pele called me the greatest footballer in the world. That is the ultimate salute to my life" - but that's using Best as a primary source, not Pele. If it's true you'd think it would be easy to prove by finding the original quote. And surely Pele's own autobiography would mention Best more, if he really believed he was the best player in the world. Qwghlm 16:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

By that reasoning you could call any source unreliable! The BBC reference is reliable secondary source I feel. I can't see anything in the policy to say otherwise.

On the subject of stating anyone is the greatest, my feeling is all of these claims should be removed. Anyone else agree? Stu ’Bout ye! 09:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the BBC as a whole is unreliable, just that what it says cannot be taken as gospel or set in stone. The article is not a news article but a feature puff piece, and does not directly quote Pele or give in any way any information that we could verify the claim with. Incidentally, in this article from 2005 Pele compares himself to Di Stefano, Sivori and Maradona when considering the best player in the world, but not at all to Best.
In the absence of a direct quote I think the line should be "and it is reported that Pele considered him the greatest footballer in the world", rather than the misleading way it is printed now. Qwghlm 09:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, I've edited the article accordingly. Thanks for your advice. I'll wait to see if there is any further input on the other "greatest" claims. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing that this conversation has taught me is that the George Best article is in a very bad way. The section about his career has only 3 paragraphs about his time at Manchester Utd, with most of that prose being about Best being dubbed "the fifth Beatle". Why would anyone believe that he was one of the greatest footballers ever from reading that?! There is far more written about his alcoholism, illness, death and memorials!!! Are they really more important? Each of those should be reduced to a paragraph or so, and his footballing career needs expanding to at least 3 times the size.
The Wikiquote page is also woeful. aLii 11:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed these kind of claims from several different articles over the last few days. A rele vant section from WP:NPOV:

A simple formulation

Alternatively: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.

On the subjuct of Best's article, I don't think it is in that bad a shape. Certainly the section of his footballing career needs expanding though. His "celebrity", alcoholism, illness and death are - unfortunately - notable, and a big part of why he was so well known. One the footballing sections are expanded the focus/emphasis on the these sections won't be as strong. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My view is that anything Pele says about any player/team should be taken with a pinch of salt. Despite being an incrdible footballer, Pele seems to have praised almost every half-decent player in recent memory - remember this is the man who thought Paul Scholes would be the star player of the 2002 World Cup! Blogdroed 20:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Any quote should be taken with a pinch of salt. It's someone's opinion, not truth. But Pele's quotes are as relevant as any other player's.
Another relevant relevant policy to this in general is Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Pele, Maradona, Johan Cruijff, Best, etc are regarded by many as some of the greatest players of all time. If it can be vertified then keep the information in the article. It isn't POV for two reasons 1) the word "regarded" 2) the phrase "one of the".

None of the articles say for example; "X player is the greatest of all time" (as there is no way to really prove who is the #1 greatest of all time) but if they are widely regarded (and citations can be provided) to be one of the greatest, then keep it in there. - Deathrocker 12:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL? These policies prohibit these type of claims. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Stu, please stop your cruzade of removing what you consider POV until an agreement is met. Saying in your edits to look at this talk page doesn't give a good reason for them, since here there's not consensus on the subject. Please, leave things as they were until it is settled that those comments must be removed. --Mariano(t/c) 14:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Labelling my editing as a "crusade" is misrepresenting my actions. I'm following two important policies - WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you are following your own interpretation of those articles, against all voices calling you to talk before acting. --Mariano(t/c) 17:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am talking. I've fully explained my actions several times. And I have stopped editing the articles until an outcome is reached. Stu ’Bout ye! 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stubacca's changes. Claims are okay if and only if attributed. "John Doe is the best flute player<ref>[2007 FooBar internet poll]</ref>" is not acceptable, but "John Doe is the best flute player according to a 2007 FooBar internet poll" is. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-15 17:16Z

I'm copying Quarl's replies from the Maradona talk page here, they summarise the issue well:

There is constant reversion backwards and forwards between these or similar phrases in the opening paragraph. The article cited demonstrates that in an on-line poll to register preferences for the greatest player of the 20th century, Maradona received not only the greatest number of votes, but an absolute majority. Such a poll is unrepresentative, and open to block voting, and I would not be infavour of a comment saying that "most football fans consider him to be the greatest", but it does prove that many count him as the best. Although "many" is obviously non-specific, I would contend that it is less mealy-mouthed than "widely held". Likewise, it is verifiable that many have registered a preference for him as the best, wheras to say that he is "among the best" invites the question "the best what? The best 3? the best 20? the best 500?". Thus to say merely that he is "among the best" is to damn with faint praise, and to underestimate the esteem in which this player's ability is held. (I make no comment as to his character, except to suggest that it may have lead a significant number of people to be unwilling to give the recognition they might otherwise have done to his talent). Thus I propose that the first phrase in the heading of this section remain, but look forward to lively debate of the matter. Kevin McE 20:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion I started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"Greatest" claims in several football articles. and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"Greatest" claims. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Your position seems to be founded largely on WP:WEASEL: the top of that article reads This page in a nutshell: Avoid "some people say" statements without sources. My whole point is that here there is a source, and the source, an authoritative and relevant worldwide body, reports that a majority of those participating in a widely promoted poll say not only that he is "among the best" (which I would contend is a weasel phrase, for reasons stated above), but that he is "the best. Kevin McE 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stubacca's changes. Claims are okay if and only if attributed. "John Doe is the best flute player<ref>[2007 FooBar internet poll]</ref>" is not acceptable, but "John Doe is the best flute player according to a 2007 FooBar internet poll" is. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-15 17:16Z

I cannot see that a claim is any less attributed by virtue of being in the footnote than in the text, and the brevity desirable in a lead paragraph weighs against such detail in the opening sentence of an article. Kevin McE 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about whether it's in the footnote or not. The problem is an internet poll is not a reliable source. It's not even a secondary source. You can't say "Donatello is the world's favorite Ninja Turtle [13]". I'm not saying that Donatello isn't widely regarded as the best Ninja Turtle; I'm saying that an internet poll doesn't prove this, and if this claim is challenged, then it should be removed until it is supported by references. What is supported by the reference is "Readers of Slashdot voted that their favorite Ninja Turtle is Donatello [14]". Unfortunately for Donatello fans, that statement sounds wimpier; too bad, find a better reference to back up the original claim. That's WP:ATT for you - the onus is on the person trying to add/keep a statement, not the person challenging it. WP:ATT trumps concerns about the brevity of the lede paragraph. If "Foo says Bar is the best" is a crappy sentence, then remove it altogether; it doesn't mean you're free to write "Bar is the best." Can I give you more examples? "Americans prefer Rudy Giuliani to Hilary Clinton as 2008 president [15]" versus "According to a 2006 American Research Group poll, ..."; "Jeff Bezos was the most influential person of 1999" versus "TIME magazine considered Jeff Bezoes the most influential person of 1999." Quarl (talk) 2007-03-16 07:01Z

Stu ’Bout ye! 09:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The following site lists a cumulation of noteworthy "player of the century" lists created by media/expert polls. There are 11 total, and of those 11, 6 of them actually rank the players in order rather than listing them alphabetically or as a top 11 for a football side. In all 6 of the polls that actually rank the players, Pele is ranked #1. To me, this removes the POV element from the claim that Pele is "widely regarded" as the greatest football player of all-time. When you add in "athlete of the century" award from the IOC, player of the century from the BBC and L'Equipe, it is just about a consensus with the FIFA Internet fan poll the only contrary viewpoint. In any case, this claim is supported by a variety of media/expert rankings from around the world so I would argue that it is substantiated. I don't know if you feel that it should be attributed , e.g., "experts widely regard Pele as the greatest footballer of all-time" or "Pele is widely regarded as the greatest player of all-time", with a footnote to the rsssf page, but I think the evidence is there to move it out of the POV category. Oh yeah, here's the link: Ronnymexico 13:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
No, just the actual achievement/rank/quote should be stated. See above. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly following but I will try to conform an edit to what I think you're saying. Ronnymexico 14:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To give an example of what I mean, see this diff. The artice originally stated that Maradona is "widely regarded as one of the greatest footballers of all time". There were two references given for this claim, one was the FIFA Player of the Century poll and the other a quote from Eric Cantona. As you'll see from the diff I changed this to reflect what the references actually say. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I removed it from the heading and placed the statement and attribution under the "honors" section, which I think is probably more appropriate. I tend to question the worthiness of Cantona's opinion of Maradona v. Pele, particularly iat the top of the Maradona article, but that's neither here nor there. Ronnymexico 15:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the changes on the Pele article. I left some comments on the Pele talk page. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.png Relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Marlon.sahetapy

Defunct or not defunct?

I've been doing some expansion work on Corinthian F.C., and I noticed that, although their adult side folded, they appear to still field teams at youth levels - should they therefore be included in Category:Defunct English football clubs? The club itself isn't technically defunct, but its adult 11-a-side team is. Any thoughts....? ChrisTheDude 08:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the senior team, and as the senior team is defunct, the category is appropriate. Oldelpaso 09:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd disagree - as the entity still operates at some level it is not a defunct club. Articles are about clubs not just their first teams - though obviously that dominates coverage within the articles, it doesn't have to be exclusively about the first team. Qwghlm 09:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with Oldelpaso here. The article is about the senior team, and the category should reflect that the senior team is defunct. Since the youth teams themselves are not notable enough on their own, then the categorisation should not have anything to do with the those. We don't include youth players in the player category of a club, and the same reasoning should be used here. My 2 öre. – Elisson • T • C • 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pelé's infobox (goals)

As one of the users that helped to piece together the readily available information about Pelé's total number of goals, it has come to my attention that there is a minor edit war brewing on the article over the number of goals that should be displayed in the infobox. On one hand there is a case for stating the games (goals) for his Santos career as 193 (119), which is the sum total for national league-based competitions. The other argument is that the regional league, the Campeonato Paulista, should be counted, bringing the total to 605 (589). Further details on his career stats breakdown can be seen at Pelé#Goalscoring and appearance record.

The infobox footnote states: Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only.

I doubt that Pelé's circumstances were in mind when the infobox footnote was formulated, so what does everyone think? aLii 13:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not especially "up" on Brazilian domestic football, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the state championships are considered to be of equal prestige with the national league....although maybe I imagined that..... ChrisTheDude 07:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Any opinions? Please? aLii 12:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The structure of Brazilian domestic competition is mindblowingly confusing. My understanding (which consists solely of having read the book Futebol: The Brazilian Way of Life) is that as ChrisTheDude says, state championships have more or less equal value. Bear in mind that the Campeonato Brasileiro Série A has only been going since 1971. Oldelpaso 17:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Before Campeonato Brasileiro (1971-on) there was Torneio Roberto Gomes Pedrosa (1967-1970) and Torneio Rio-São Paulo -- which from 1950 until 1966 had a national-level status. But Campeonato Paulista have never had a "national" status. It's merely a state-level competition. What if people begin adding every apps and gols from every domestic league in Brazil? The structure of Brazilian football is pretty much based on the English one (not THAT much divisions lol) as were English descendants Charles Miller and Oscar Box who brought football to Brazil. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What you fail to explain is that the Torneio Roberto Gomes Pedrosa was not a straight league competition, and that the Torneio Rio-São Paulo was a regional competition, as suggested by the name. There are plenty of Brazilian clubs that are not from either Rio or São Paulo, and as such were excluded from taking part. So are you suggesting that we should state that Pelé only played 84 domestic league games in 19 seasons while at Santos? (With zero appearances in his first 15 seasons!?) Even if we include these two that still only gives 193 appearances in 19 seasons, and then you have the dilemma of explaining why some regional competitions are included, but others are not.
Surely the only logical decision is to list all domestic league appearances including those from the league in which Pelé played most of his games? aLii 22:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't mention "logical" in here. We're trying to reach a common sense. If you really want to mention "logical", the "logical" thing to be done, would be removing Roberto Gomes Pedrosa's and Rio-SP's apps and goals as you have just said these are not "straight league competitions". So, please, don't mention "logical". The keyword here is reasonability. We should put in the infobox only one league by season. This is the reasonable thing to do. And to do so, we should pick the main league he's played, year by year: 1956 Campeonato Paulista, 1957-1961 Rio-SP, 1962 Campeonato Paulista, 1963-1966 Rio-SP, 1967-1970 Roberto Gomes Pedrosa and 1971-1974 Campeonato Brasileiro. This is reasonable and fair. Adding two leagues by season? Really not fair. Nor reasonable. Nor "logical". —Lesfer (t/c/@) 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd argue that the "main" league played in by Santos for Pelé's first 15 seasons was the Campeonato Paulista. I don't understand how you can argue that a regional league with only 8 games should be ranked higher than a regional league with 38 games. However picking and choosing which league to count in whichever specific season is obviously nonsense and original research. On that note you should read Wikipedia's policy about original research and why it should not be used. If we decide that only one league should be counted, then that league should obviously be the Campeonato Paulista because it is the only competition that had any kind of stability throughout Pelé's career. aLii 09:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
One thing that's obvious from this is that there's no quick, definitive answer for how many domestic league goals he scored. Perhaps the infobox should state "see below" for his Santos goals, linking to the section describing his complete goalscoring record. That way noone has to make a value judgement about the status of various Brazilian domestic competitions. Oldelpaso 09:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have to say that Oldelpaso have the smartest and most reasonable solution. I can agree with it, let's wait for aLii. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 14:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, the infobox was never designed to cope with such situations, so it sounds like a reasonable compromise. aLii 21:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hard breaks in infobox

I'd appreciate it if someone using a browser other than Firefox wouldn't mind comparing the appearances/goals section here and here and letting me know if the former looks right in their browser. I'm puzzled and slightly frustrated by the anonymous editor's ~3,000 contributions. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it makes the clubs 'rows' misaligned from the years and apps (in IE aswell). I've noticed it and fixed it a few times, I didn't realise it was so widespread. ArtVandelay13 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Weird indeed. The first one is messed up in Firefox, but the second one is messed up in IE6. I guess the moral of this story is "don't put flags in the infobox." aLii 21:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The flags issue is a losing battle, I'm sad to say. They'll soon be appearing in a managerial succession box near you. - Dudesleeper · Talk 00:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The second one looks terrible in IE6, the flags all run together to form what looks like a big stick of seaside rock! ChrisTheDude 07:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. It seems the editor had the right idea but went the wrong way about it. - Dudesleeper · Talk 11:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Racism in football

I created this article a while back now, but I seem to be the only one contributing to it. Just thought I'd make you guys aware of its existence, and hopefully get you to make some contributions. I feel it could be a featured article. Cheers. GiantSnowman 13:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving of talk page

I thinking of getting MiszaBot to archive this talk page automatically when topics have had no discussion for a while (two weeks? a month?). While I don't anticipate any objections, I thought I'd check first. Oldelpaso 09:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think putting discussion on proper pages is more important. Notability should be used. Matthew_hk tc 10:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Back Fc

Someone put a page I made about my local side up for speedy deletaion, and it got deleted. I however feel this was unfairly justified.

Clubs in the Scottish Amateur League(Lowland clubs usually) are allowed pages.

If I followed the criteria from here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability it says your club is "Probably Notable" if you have supplied a player to a national side, wait we have - Andy Gray, albeit that he didn't get chosen until he was at Dundee United. And alot of clubs in Scotland have never supplied a player to the National side, I ask how many players for East Stiringshire have gone on to supply a player for the national side, same with Gretna, same with Elgin.

Another point that is made is the 10+caps rule. 10+ Caps, nail on the head there, how many caps did Andy Gray win? 100+ appearence for a club? he made over 100 appearences for two top level clubs. He played for in all 7 premier divison sides of their respected nations, winning the Cup Winners Cup with one of them, Everton.

Oh another one, clubs, who don't normally charge an entrance fee for spectators, i'll have you know that you do need to pay to get in to a Back Fc game, who do you think we are, a school side?

Also why do England get to have pages for clubs from the first 8 divisons of football? I'm sure the Amateur seen is probably in the top 6 of the Scottish divisons.

Well since you deleted the page, I demand that these club pages should be deleted too since they play at the EXACT same level, except in a different region, but no, I don't see anyone rushing to delete these pages.

St Patrick's Former Pupils F.C. Oban Saints F.C. Eaglesham Amateur F.C.

And all the clubs playing in this league, Central Scottish Amateur Football League and this league Kingdom Caledonian Football League. They all play at the exact same level, and all the clubs are registered with the Scottish Amateur Football Association

Its discrimination against my club I reckon.

So can someone please explain to me why the page got deleted.

Allanmac9 02:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user talk. Oldelpaso 09:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Its difficult to tell without seeing the deleted revision (can't find it in the deletion log), but it sounds like a speedy that would perhaps have been better going to AfD. Oldelpaso 14:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Article title had quotation marks around it, possibly "Back F.C."? Archibald99  15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Found it - [16]. Archibald99  15:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
now on AfD. Oldelpaso 19:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Ratings garbage"

I thought members of the project might like to respond to this question on the Motherwell F.C. talk page. Archibald99  23:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ultras and List of ultras groups

Both these pages appear to be a bit of a mess with dead links, multiple links, numerous unverified sources and lists of unverified groups. Both pages are full of alleged ultras groups, many of which are not verified. And it just seems that groups keep getting added without being checked. For instance, in one of the list of groups, a German club - FC Berliner Dynamo has numerous entries. Yet when checked, they all just seem to be links to fan websites, and nothing to do with ultras.

Also, some of the content is more relevant to the pages about football hooliganism, which whilst a similar area is a different subject. I would like to try and work on both the pages to see if they can be made more appropriate for wikipedia and to also then maybe get the idea tp merge the List of ultras groups into the Ultras page finally sorted (At present it would probably make the pages even worse to merge them). It wouldn't be an overnight task as it would take a while to get everything sorted. Would it be in order to make a start on this? Thanks Tangerines 16:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The specific problem you cite related to Berliner FC Dynamo is the result of the misconduct of a particular user and (now) his sockpuppets. If you're curious about the mess you can review that article's history or the related material on this page. I wouldn't feel particularly constrained in patching that stuff up. As for the rest, fixing up articles is good! I say go for it and have fun. Wiggy! 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought that the example I gave of Berliner FC Dynamo would have been that very same user, having read about the user above! No surprises there really! I will have a go at sorting out both pages this weekend (I did a few days ago partly clean up the England section on the List of ultras groups page). And then, once done, see what everyone thinks. It might look completely different though as there are a lot of dead links on the pages! Thanks, Tangerines 17:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tidied up the Ultras article, including deleting all the groups listed that were not verified. The article Hooligan firm has clear guidelines for adding a firm - that there must be a reliable, verified source naming the firm, with a note included on the list stating as such. I have used this same guideline for the groups list on the Ultras page. There were also numerous links to discussion forums, dead links and completely irrelevant links. And especially on the list of German groups, much of the so called "Groups" were just links to Fan pages, news articles, hooligan articles - basically anything but Ultra groups. What will be needed now with that page though is to verify much of the content of the article. Which is what I propose to do next.

However, the article, List of ultras groups is also a total mess in a similar way. Groups just seem to be added without any thought. And it is further confused as the talk page for the article - Talk:List of ultras groups contains no discussion and only contains yet another a list of groups which just seems to have been transposed from the list (as it was previously) on the Ultras article. If this is left as it is, then no doubt some will continue to add to both the talk page and the main page. Which makes no sense then of having a talk page on that article. I am going through the same process again of deleting any unverified groups - this time on both the main page and the talk page. However, I also would suggest that the talk page has the list removed as it is redundant and is also not discussion. Then the talk page can be used for what it is intended, and discussion can take place about merging it into the Ultras article. I hope all this makes sense, but to be honest the pages are confusing and a mess anyway. Would this be in order? Tangerines 13:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly support the deletion of list of ultras groups, as an indiscriminate list turned total mess. I could provide a precedence, but as per WP:BEANS I won't. Punkmorten 20:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at the List of ultras groups article now it is no longer a total mess, andc certainly no longer indiscriminate. I have deleted every single group that was not verified on both the talk page and the main page. And over the course of the next few days I intend to amalgamate the two lists from that page into one. And then to see about merging that page into the Ultras page where it can also be regularly checked. Tangerines 21:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The trouble is that what you might call an ultras group, I might just call a fan club, and vice versa. There's no clearly defined criteria for membership of this list, and should it come to AfD, I woudl probably vote to delete as well. - fchd 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, which is why I deleted the vast majority of groups listed. Please bear in mind that, the only reason this is even being discussed is because the two articles Ultras and List of ultras groups had been virtually left unchecked for a long time and so I decided it was time to sort them out. I have gone through every single group listed and only retained those who from their websites call themselves an Ultra group (I May have made mistakes but I will also be checking them all again). It has nothing to do with what I call an ultra group, as personal opinion does not come into it. I am basing it solely on whether the site linked to mentions that the groups are ultras. Obviously I will have made mistakes as I have worked on it most of this weekend and checked probably over 100 websites. But I would also ask that you be patient and bear with me while I try to sort the mess out. The point being that once complete, the page List of ultras groups can be merged with into the Ultras article, and only contain groups who clearly identify themselves as Ultras or in the case of most South American groups - Torcidas etc. Tangerines 21:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A further point being that some groups can be moved to either of these pages - Torcida and here - Barra Brava with a note explaining that any South American groups go on those pages. Tangerines 22:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Over the last couple of weeks I have worked on these two articles. Both Ultras and List of ultras groups now contain exactly the same list of groups. Originally there were three lists (including one on the talk page of List of ultras groups) with all sorts of different groups. I have now gone through all three lists, removing the talk page list, leaving just the two lists which are now identical. I have removed all unsourced groups, and groups that either are clearly not Ultras, or who it seems are not ultras, that there is reasonable doubt as to them being ultras, such as general fan sites and some that were clearly only hooligan firms. I have moved all South American groups to Torcida (Brazilian groups) and Barra brava (all other South American groups). And a note added to state that all South American groups should be added to either of these two articles only. Also, where a country has a large number of groups (such as Germany), I have tidied the list up, so as not to be one very long list of groups for that country. Since doing this, I have maintained both articles and checked every single addition, and ensured that if a group is added to the ultras article, it is also added to the List of ultras groups article.

I have also started to work on the Ultras article to give it a more balanced look, to make it a NPOV article, to get sources and to expand discussion of how the ultra culture differs from country to country, with groups in some countries having a hooligan element and nature to the group, and ultras in other countries being officially recognised (by the club they support) fan groups who focus solely on tifo displays and match day support.

Looking at both articles now though, would it now be more appropriate for the the article List of ultras groups to be deleted as the list is identical to the list in the one article, Ultras? Especially bearing in mind that I have added a note stating that a group should only be added if it is referenced with a fully verifiable source, and so it should not fall back into a massive list of unverified groups as the three previous lists appeared to be. If it is thought that the List of ultras groups article should now be deleted now, perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me could look into how that process would begin? Thank you ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If material has been merged from one into the other, then it should be turned into a redirect, which you can do without a special process. Oldelpaso 16:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Cat rename

I thought you might like to know that I've nominated a Category for renaming. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12#Category:Wikipedians_who_support_F.C._Copenhagen. --Dweller 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Now correctly placed at WP:UCFD#Category:Wikipedians_who_support_F.C._Copenhagen --Dweller 13:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Andriy Shevchenko

An edit war has been taking place over the last few days, revolving around Shevvy's birthplace. Should it be the USSR, or the supposedly "generally accepted" Ukraine, even though it didn't exist as a country at the time of his birth? Any assistance would be appreciated. - Dudesleeper · Talk 10:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I proposed a compromise wording on its talk page. MaxSem 10:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You could use Ukrainian SSR. The problem with using Ukraine it that the entity he was born in was not called Ukraine at the time, thus constituting a case of systemic bias towards modern times. Punkmorten 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets standardize national team templates

There have been various TFD discussions regarding the national squad templates, and there has been no real consistency to the results either. I've listed them below (shamelessly swiped from a comment in the most recent discussion) for everyone's reference.

So, the results have been all over the place, tending towards keep recently, against precedents previously set. Personally, I think that a link to a team's roster page for a particular tournament on a player's page is sufficient for our purposes here. See Yoshikatsu Kawaguchi#National team for one example.

But regardless of my opinion on the outcome, I think we need to standardize the rules for inclusion of a national team template on a player's page first. AFAIK, World Cup teams are widely accepted, so I've left them off the list below. I'd like to see what kind of concensus is building towards the rest of these, though. So, please add keep or delete to each section. If concensus is to delete some of these, then, the next step is to work on a standard way to link to rosters from athlete pages. The Kawaguchi example is just one suggestion; but, there is no sense in clouding up the discussion on whether the templates belong or not with details on how to replace the information they contain. Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Types of national team squad templates

All squads from most recent federation championship (EURO, Asia Cup, etc)

  • Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all as clutter. Spend time on expanding the articles with text instead. Punkmorten 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete aLii 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete – Elisson • T • C • 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Champions from most recent federation championship

  • Weak keep Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Punkmorten 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete aLii 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete – Elisson • T • C • 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All squads from most recent Confederations Cup

  • Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Punkmorten 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete aLii 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete – Elisson • T • C • 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Champions from most recent Confederations Cup

  • Weak DeleteNeier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Punkmorten 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete aLii 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete – Elisson • T • C • 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All squads from all federations championships

  • Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Punkmorten 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete aLii 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete – Elisson • T • C • 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Champions from all federations championships

  • Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Punkmorten 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete aLii 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete – Elisson • T • C • 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All squads from all Confederations Cups

  • Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Punkmorten 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete aLii 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete – Elisson • T • C • 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Champions from all Confederations Cups

  • Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Punkmorten 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete aLii 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete – Elisson • T • C • 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


I would rather be rid of them all. At the very least, they should be reformatted so that we can combine multiple squads into a single box like I proposed some time ago. Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The TP do have good effect, but they clutter. My opinion is to slove the clutter, by hide option And limit the creation of TP by event. That's not reasonable to create TP for every match, so do some Cup just like friendly matches, eg. Lunar New Year Cup, Cyprus International Tournament, Kirin Cup.
I suggest only limit to top regional senior event by AFC, OFC , UEFA, CAN, all senior event by FIFA, and Olympic football before 1992 (before 1992 is a senior event).

That's is

Europe: UEFA – European Championship
FIFA World Cup
But no more TP for
So i put Template:Hong Kong Squad 2003 East Asian Cup into TFD, but fail by voting of my fellow citizen. Matthew_hk tc 04:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat my comments earlier at Euro_Championship_templates - the present situation is a mess, and the templates clutter up the articles they get attached to. Ultimately, however, I think this debate will never be resolved and these b####y templates are here to stay. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your last sentence, but, I haven't given up hope yet. As Matthew_hk alluded above, individual TFD discussions are usually blanketed by WP:ILIKEIT voting from people in whichever country is listed. If we can build a strong concensus which is free of individual nation bias here, then, our guideline can be moved to the project page, at which point we can cite it in future TFD discussions, and eventually clean up the articles. That's my goal here. Neier 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
True. Punkmorten 07:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I support this initiative. These templates are spreading like a rash; in many cases they overwhelm the (often very short and poor) articles to which they are added. Centralised discussion and centralised consensus are the way to go I think. --Guinnog 07:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
What are confederation competitions? If federations are Euros etc., then...the World Cup? I agree with this too, but if we were to have a mass Tfd drive we'd all need to turn up in order to counter those casual voters. HornetMike 11:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you wondering about the Confederations Cup? FIFA brings together the winners of the Euro and other regions every four years, between World Cups, for an 8-team tournament. Lately, it's been held in the upcoming World Cup host nation as a practice of sorts. If concensus here holds its current course over the next week or so, then I think the best thing to do after its inscribed into the project style-guideline is to follow the example used last year when many mast/antenna articles were deleted. They started with a policy, then nominated the shortest and least-notable masts for deletion. Working their way up to taller and taller masts, it snowballed to where concensus fully supported the deletion of most of them. Neier 12:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not have a "current squad" template (like we have for club teams) and delete the rest? Or has this been ruled out before? Kanaye 16:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be a huge pain to keep them up-to-date, that's why. Just think of all the players that will be missing this weekend due to injury, then all the ones that have been drafted in to replace them... and this happens every few months/weeks. You'd have to remove and add the templates to articles constantly. aLii 18:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd also definitely oppose that approach. National teams often go several months between fixtures - who's to say what would comprise the "current" squad during those periods? Also, for friendlies it isn't unknown for them to pick a squad of 30 or more players - would they all get added to the template and have it added to their articles for a few days? Sounds like an impossible task.... ChrisTheDude 07:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nighmare again, another youth football template. Template:Ghana squad 1991 FIFA U-17 Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Matthew_hk tc 09:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Macedonia squad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) a current squad TP. Matthew_hk tc 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I noticed Macedonia myself, and then when I came here to pick up the link for the deletion discussion, I also spotted your addition of the Ghana squad. Feel free to express your opinions on those discussions. Neier 08:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Football league template

Allo all, I may not be the only one in thinking that the current football league template lacks a bit of style and information and could do with a revamping, so, I was going to propose that something got under way to standardising it to a different one, I was going to suggest one like that here. Please get back to me with your thoughts.Cintrianex 11:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I presume you mean the infobox, as per our contact over talk pages. I'll repeat what I said there - I don't like infoboxes at all per se, but appreciate I'm in a small minority there. Therefore I'd like to keep them as compact as possible, for instance keep the levels on the pyramid out because that's shown in the text of the article and in the templates at the bottom. One thing for sure, I'd heavily argue against the inclusion of "px" sized text - that goes against all known accessibility guidelines - I know what sized text is comfortable for me, but only me. Therefore keep text where possible at 100% - the USER'S default size. - fchd 14:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Premier League players?

I was thinking about the idea of creating an article for a list of Premier League players. It could list players who have made 200+ appearences or something along those lines? Tell me what you guys think. Thanks, Mattythewhite 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but what would the entry criteria be? I think less than 200 games... GiantSnowman 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Name Date of birth Nat Apps Goals Teams Years
Gary Speed 8 September, 1969 Wales 516 78 Leeds
Newcastle United
Bolton Wanderers

I've just come up with this. Listing all of the teams takes up a lot of space, and should the years account for all their time at that club or just in the Premier League? Mattythewhite 18:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Comma separating the teams, and reducing them to one word (where appropriate), makes it fit a bit better:
Name Date of birth Nat Apps Goals Premier League Clubs Years
Gary Speed (1969-09-07) September 7, 1969 (age 46) Wales 516 78 Leeds, Everton, Newcastle, Bolton 1992-
I think you have to restrict it to their PL clubs only (clearly marked), anything else isn't really relevant and will swell the list too much. ArtVandelay13 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about it, you could lose the DOB/age field, most player lists don't include it, it's usually accepted as 'further reading' on the players' own articles. ArtVandelay13 18:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah drop the DoB. Otherwise it's fine-looking to me. Qwghlm 18:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So, is the years going by when they made their début? Mattythewhite 18:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Active years, I would've thought. So if there was an interruption, it would say 1992-94, 1996-2003 (for example). ArtVandelay13 19:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, maybe a position field would be useful, as per most player lists. Also, this would be a good use for {{Template:Sortname}} ArtVandelay13 19:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hows about this:

Name Nationality Position Appearences Goals Premier League Clubs Years
Gary Speed Wales Wales MF 516 78 Leeds, Everton, Newcastle, Bolton 1992-

Mattythewhite 19:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine. There is a flagcountry template for the nation field. ArtVandelay13 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to put forth the idea of not including a single flag in the hopefully 3,000-rows-long article and see who takes it upon themselves to start adding them. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe change the word "Appearances" to "Games" in the title, otherwise it is a wide column for pretty narrow data? - fchd 19:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Name Nationality Position Apps Goals Premier League Clubs Years
Gary Speed Wales Wales MF 516 78 Leeds, Everton, Newcastle, Bolton 1992-

Got it back to Apps, looks a lot better. Mattythewhite 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How about using TLAs for the teams, and then have a key at the top or bottom? The TLA could still be linked as well so people could see the full club name in the target link by hoovering the TLA. That way the club column won't get too wide. – Elisson • T • C • 21:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
And I'd suggest listing the players' names as [[Gary Speed|Speed, Gary]] (example) so that there's another sorting option. - Dudesleeper · Talk 09:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Aye, I'm using {{Template:Sortname}} for that. Mattythewhite 09:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
When I saw that this was being discussed my immediate reaction was "What a horrible idea," but with the sorting options it seems more worthwhile. I still see two main problems,
  1. It'll need a LOT of maintenance, and
  2. It'll be a huge list unless very strict criteria are applied - 200 appearances was suggested, but I'd be tempted to up it, and certainly not lower it as suggested above. 200 is over 5 full seasons though I suppose, so it should be ok.
aLii 09:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got the article created at List of Premier League players. I've got the criteria at 300+ apps - I think all the way down to 200 is possibly too many, and I couldn't really be bothered to do much more. Mattythewhite 12:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, should current Premier League players be put in bold? And maybe current no longer Premier League players put in italics? Mattythewhite 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Irish Football

I've created a WikiProject on Irish football for anyone who is interested in participating or helping out. Danny InvincibleTalk|Edits 18:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

More "footy-bio" types proposed

The Brazilian biographies have become very large, and I've proposed some sub-types. Please comment there if you've a view on the most useful way of doing this. Alai 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on AC Milan article

Could someone please back me up on the AC Milan article. An editor called Jadger has made a number of bias and unwaranted edits to the article. Basically he states that Milan are best known for Corruption. ANyways, the guy obviously has a bone to grind as he appears to be a Munich fan. Could someone please help me and keep an eye on this article ? Niall123 11:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd extend the above part about vandalism to most major European clubs. Being the English Wikipedia, there are of course less fans of these clubs to watch articles and vandalism regularly goes by unnoticed. I'd suggest more editors put some of these pages on their watchlists. Archibald99  15:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
From reading the responses Jadger gave you on your talk page, it does seem as though they have an axe to grind and that despite what they say, they are adding those specific comments about the AC Milan to try and prove a point, rather than to simply state facts. That much is evident by the style of their edits. "Me thinks the Jadger doth protest too much"!!! Perhaps though, as the bitter taste of defeat finally goes they might stop the edits!! You never know! ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Or not as the case may be, as Jadger continues to keep add the same thing over and over. I do think that there should be some mention of the 2006 Serie A scandal, but not in the manner in which Jadger was putting it over, which does not come across as NPOV one iota, more like someone trying to make a point. I have therefore re-edited it to read more neutral rather than using wording that shows clear bias. I have also added the 2006 Serie A scandal to the See also list on the AC Milan page,w hich only seems fair.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
On this basis I will remove his senitments "again" without fear of the three revert rule. I'll point him to this. Just to also say that the Match Fixing allegations are already mentioned with a paragraph in the History sub article of the AC Milan article. Is there really a need for providing the extra link considering the paragraph already present ?Niall123 08:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to say another user is now repeating the previous user by adding even more references to Milan's "Corruption" in the open article. It quite clearly shouldn't be there and has been mentioned in the History section already. Niall123 09:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I only went to look at the AC Milan article because of you bringing it up here. I disagree with your stance of whitewashing the club's history by removing anything vaguely negative from the main article. I also think that the club history should be covered more than see History of A.C. Milan. Obviously the user you initially complained about was in the wrong with his wording, but I think the general position was correct. Most other club articles deal with the negative as well as the positive, and I don't see why AC Milan should be any different. Surely the neutral point of view encompasses both?
I attempted to write the paragraph with the most neutral wording that I could. I seriously don't see any good reason for not including it within both the lead and the History section. The fact that no-one has ever written an article about the Totonero scandal is shocking to me. aLii 09:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. AC Milans involvement in the 2006 Serie A scandal should be in the main header in my opinion. Not in the manner in which it was originally added, but keeping removing any mention of it in there stating it is vandalizm is also wrong. I tried to appease both views by adding it in a neutral manner which is how it should be presented. Things like "Juventus led" scandal are also being added to make a point.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I was surprised when I read the AC Milan article had no mention of the scandal, so I decided to add it. I agree my wording wasn't exactly the nicest to AC Milan fans, but I agree with the rewording Tangerine used. I think it is a worthy thing to add to the article, after all, can anyone name another G-14 club that has been involved in as many match-fixing scandals?

--Jadger 17:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

1915 British football betting scandal? :-p I'll get my anorak. Oldelpaso 18:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
1964 British betting scandal ahem, my coat is ready too, though not an anorak it isn't the weather for one...... :-♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to add about the above, whilst the scandal is mentioned in more detail in the History section on AC Milan, that is a seperate page. And the main page as it was set out previously, had no mention at all of this. In my opinion there needs to be a short NPOV mention of this in the lead. There is surely a compromise between the two views on this, which is to have it more or less as it is now, with it mentioned briefly as I have tried to amend it to, in the lead.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think Totonero should be in the lead, but the one last season should be less prominent than Totonero (Relegation vs eight point penalty). Relegation for disciplinary reasons and several life bans is a far more noteworthy event than a points deduction. Oldelpaso 18:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point, as of the two events, the 1980 relegation is surely far more noteworthy than having 8 points deducted.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

oldelpaso, that is one occurence between those two teams, whereas AC Milan has been caught twice, God knows how many other times they have done it. I asked if there were any G-14 teams that had been caught as many times as AC Milan.

--Jadger 18:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was being facetious. Oldelpaso 18:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Even more facetious in light of the fact that it was players that were punished, not clubs. It would seem that the two clubs did, er, nothing wrong. It's an interesting and largely forgotten piece of history though. It should be mentioned in the two team's histories though I think. aLii 19:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the only problem on the match-fixing allegations in the history articles is that it should have a less colloquial style. I mean, Milan drew with many underdogs in matches the should have won, and before they realized it, they were out of the Serie A favourites to win the league title. is not really encyclopedical. CapPixel 09:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth in text

Hi all. I'm having a problem with an anon editor User: who keeps changing the placing of the place of birth in Roddy Collins. I don't understand the edit comments about as it's in the infobox it shouldn't be in the text, and then putting in the text next to date of birth. According to the template it should be outside of the date of birth bracket (I have tried pointing the editor to the template page and inviting discussion via my talk page, but s/he communicates via edit comments only), so that's what I've done - I know there are many pages that don't comply with the template, but I try to correct them as I edit for other reasons. Any thoughts on this problem appreciated. It's not a major issue, but what's the point in templates if we don't need to stick to them? WikiGull 09:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The anon. editor is stating that "Dublin" shouldn't be in the prose, but that's where he/she is putting it? - Dudesleeper · Talk 09:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It was (born XX/X/19XX in Dublin), so I followed the template and moved the place of birth to the prose, but the anon keeps moving it back. They are arguing that because it's in the infobox it is stupid that it is also in the text, but at the same time keep moving it back to the data of birth brackets. Two issues I guess, 1) the edit comments don't make any sense, and b) if we are to follow the template how to get this editor to stop making the changes. WikiGull 09:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally I prefer the anon's style, and it's what I always use, taking my inspiration from the Denis Law FA. The current version you've written is far more clunky in comparison. (born 7 August 1961 in Dublin) is surely better than (born 7 August 1961) He was born in Dublin. I understand that you have style guides on your side, but I don't see why you should make an edit war over such a minor matter. aLii 10:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. I think the template guidelines need a little tweaking. In its current guise, having the place of birth elsewhere in the article doesn't make much sense. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd actually agree with a change in the template guidelines as well (I'm not suggesting that the way I've written it is better). WikiGull 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

help required on schoolboy article

Can someone take a look at this? I originally DB-BIO'd it but on reflection I actually don't know enough about the criteria we place on notable sportsmen - do we find schoolboys notable even if they play for the under-15s side of a large club? --Fredrick day 11:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, player must be professional, e.g. play in the first team. Article should be deleted. Mattythewhite 11:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Any Club Articles that needs editing??

I know that I cleaning out my watchlist and started all over again, I add myself to the participants list, so I want to know what the club articles (or stubs) are needed to be contributed/editing, so contact me anytime and I will help improving the article... Rakuten06 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Take your pick from Category:English football club stubs - it's nearly down to 600 but there's still a loooooooooong way to go! ChrisTheDude 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
What do you think about A.F.C. Portchester?? Is it a good stub for me to work on or want me to pick another team?? Rakuten06 15:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


I reverted his absolutely bogus addition to FC Spartak Moscow, but I'm unfaminliar with subjects of other articles he edits as they're related to Iranian football. Could someone inspect his contribs for more factual errors? MaxSem 18:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Most wanted articles

There are currently 9 articles listed at WP:MWA#Football that might be of interest to this project. --Sapphic 20:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

... and even more in the "general" section. Such as Swedish football clubs. I'm looking at you, Elisson ;) Punkmorten 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
They get linked a lot from the tables of my seasons in Swedish football articles... The most commonly linked ones should have articles eventually, and I'll create them as time goes. I actually happened to create two new (of which one is on the list) just before I read your post. :) – Elisson • T • C • 20:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

David McNiven

There are two articles on seperate footballers called David McNiven - one original and one I created today. I think that David McNiven should be a disambig page, but I am stuck for rename titles: maybe David McNiven (footballer born 1978) and David McNiven (footballer born 1955). Any thoughts/help? Much appreciated, GiantSnowman 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I think they may be related - the elder one was playing for Leeds in 1978, and the younger one was born in Leeds in 1978...can anyone support this hunch? GiantSnowman 20:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved David McNiven (footballer)‎ to David McNiven (footballer born 1955)‎ and fixed what few pages linked to the old page GiantSnowman 20:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just moved the first page to David McNiven (footballer born 1978) and repaired the links and templates etc. GiantSnowman 01:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

List of England international footballers

I think this article should be expanded to include every player who has represented England, and not just, as is currently, players who have 25+ caps. Any thoughts/objections? GiantSnowman 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, should be expanded. Archibald99  20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. A complete "list" is better kept as a category. – Elisson • T • C • 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
But a category cannot give more information - for example, we could have date of first cap, age when first cap was won, opponents of first cap; date of last cap, age when last cap was won, opponents of last cap; number of goals, all in a sortable wikitable. GiantSnowman 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I quite like the idea of a football equilavent of List of English Test cricketers, with the information above. That said, the England players category currently contains 824 articles and is no doubt no fully populated. That's a big list, if done properly. So I'm ambivalent. HornetMike 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I second what HornetMike says - a list of players is a good idea, with caps and appearances etc. included, more than a category can include. Qwghlm 21:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
A list similar to that for the cricketers would be great. Much more information than can be given in a category, but a huge undertaking (would be happy to help with it though). WikiGull 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You could use this as a basis; might need to be wary of copyright issues but you cannot really copyright lists of statistics so as long as the format was different from that one it'd be fine, in my opinion. Qwghlm 13:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Great, I'll try and start doing something with this. Do we want to agree on the column headings?WikiGull 14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest:
Name Caps Goals Date of first cap Opponents of first cap Age at first cap Date of last cap Opponents of last cap Age at last cap

I also think the table should be organised by date of first cap.

Any thoughts? GiantSnowman 15:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this (with first few lines)
Number Name Date of birth Caps Goals Date of first cap Opponents of first cap Venue of first cap Date of last cap Opponents of last cap
1 Robert Barker June 19, 1847 1 0 November 30, 1872 Scotland Scotland Hamilton Crescent
2 Ernest Greenhalgh August 22, 1848 2 0 November 30, 1872 Scotland Scotland Hamilton Crescent March 8, 1873 Scotland Scotland

WikiGull 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the venue and opposition of first/last caps is a bit much (especially for narrower screens) - just the dates will do for now. Also I would get rid of the number column as well; I would just have name, DoB, caps, goals, first cap date, last cap date. Qwghlm 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree - scrap number and venue. GiantSnowman 16:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How about using flags for the opposition then? Adds more information to the table without the wideness problem. Have done it for the first 20 players as below

Name Date of birth Caps Goals Date of first cap Date of last cap
Robert Barker June 19, 1847 1 0 Scotland November 30, 1872
Ernest Greenhalgh August 22, 1848 2 0 Scotland November 30, 1872 Scotland March 8, 1873
Reg Welch June 20, 1851 2 0 Scotland November 30, 1972 Scotland March 7, 1874
Fred Chappells 1850 1 0 Scotland November 30, 1872
William Maynard June 19, 1847 2 0 Scotland November 30, 1872 Scotland March 4, 1876
John Brockbank August 22, 1848 1 0 Scotland November 30, 1872
John Clegg April 21, 1852 1 0 Scotland November 30, 1872
Arnold Smith April 23, 1850 1 0 Scotland November 30, 1872
Cuthbert Ottaway July 20, 1850 2 0 Scotland November 30, 1872 Scotland March 7, 1874
Charles Chenery January 1, 1850 3 1 Scotland November 30, 1872 Scotland March 7, 1874
Charles Morice May 27, 1850 1 0 Scotland November 30, 1872
Alex Morten November 15, 1831 1 0 Scotland March 8, 1873
Leonard Howell August 6, 1848 1 0 Scotland March 8, 1873
Alfred Goodwyn March 13, 1850 1 0 Scotland March 8, 1873
Robert Vidal September 3, 1853 1 0 Scotland March 8, 1873
Pelham Von Donop April 28, 1851 2 0 Scotland March 8, 1873 Scotland March 6, 1875
William Clegg April 21, 1852 2 0 Scotland March 8, 1873 Wales January 18, 1879
Alex Bonsor 1852 2 0 Scotland March 8, 1873 Scotland March 6, 1875
Hubert Heron January 30, 1852 5 0 Scotland March 8, 1873 Scotland March 2, 1878
William Kenyon-Slaney August 24, 1847 1 0 Scotland March 8, 1873

Let me know what you think - have it stored on a subuser page at the minute. Am happy for that to be the working page until it's a bit more detailed if that helps. WikiGull 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me! GiantSnowman 17:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice work. However, whilst I see the reasons for just including flags, I think if you took this to FLC I think they'd automatically ask for full names. It's because not all flags are instantly recognisable. HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Football seasons - Style

Can we reach a consensus on how football seasons are styled in WP articles?

In the article on the British Home Championship I edited the table and text to show seasons in the format 1983-84 but this has been reverted back to the style 1983-1984.

I had thought that this was clearly stated somewhere in a Manual of Style but I must confess that these are inconsistent. Of the various style manuals listed on WikiProject_Football the only help given is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Clubs#Achievements which gives the seasons in the format 3332–33, whereas Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Competitions#Past_tournaments.2Fwinners uses the format 3332/33; so no consensus there!

I have therefore had a look at the pages for some of the national leagues which have produced the following results.







As you can see, the position in England and Italy is clear (fairly consistently using 2005-06) and Germany (2005/06), but in France, Scotland and Spain there is no consistency.

I know this subject has come up for discussion before here and briefly again here but neither debate was particularly conclusive nor were there exactly a large number of participants (6 in total over both discussions), so can we have a more lively debate so that a firm consensus can be arrived at and then incorporated into the manual of style?

My preference is clearly for the style 2005-06. Daemonic Kangaroo 18:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I've always been (both in and out of Wikipedia) a fan of the fuller format (2006-2007) as it leaves no room for ambiguity and there is no question about how to write seasons like 1999-2000, but I really don't lose any sleep over it. My velleity is not repeated when it comes to the hyphen versus slash argument, though: it has to be the hyphen. The hyphen, representing the word 'to', indicates that the season runs over both years. A slash is often used as an alternatives ('and/or') or for lists of non-linked units (a shop may list its address as '1/3 Wiki Street' (number 2, of course, is on the other side of the road)). I really don't understand why it has taken off when writing football seasons. - Green Tentacle 19:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rangers F.C. Reserves

In the same vein as Liverpool F.C. Reserves and Arsenal F.C. Reserves, would it be worth starting a Rangers version to trim some information from the main Rangers article? I feel I should ask for opinions on here first as there don't seem to be any similar articles outside the English Premiership. Archibald99  21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, don't see any reason why not GiantSnowman 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. Don't like reserve articles myself, but if Liverpool and Arsenal have them there's no reason why Rangers shouldn't. HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

New peer review - Italian football champions

Hey project dudes, a new page for you to critique if you'd be so kind. I have an open peer review for it here. As noted in the intro to the PR, I'd like this to be considered in a similar vein to English football champions, Danish football champions and Swedish football champions, all of which are already featured lists. Once again, thanks for you time. The Rambling Man 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if someone would be kind enough to re-classify it as I don't believe it's a Start kind of article any more! Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Various non-league articles

I think it's fairly clear by now that we're deleting any players who have only played at Conference level or lower. I just wondered what everyone thought about various articles that I've discovered relating to specific conference seasons. These are: Conference National 2006-07 and Conference National Playoff Final 2003 2004, 2005 and 2006. They're all well written articles, but I was wondering whether, having established a clear cut-off point for players, we should also do so for various other articles about the game at this level? Thoughts? HornetMike 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

problem with nationality/ethnicity

we have a problem with some slovak players

  • Koloman Gögh, he is dead and was citizen of czechoslovakia later slovak, he used only slovak form of his name Koloman and at his grave is this slovak name too, but another user say he is hungarian soccerplayer without sources ....
  • we have another player Balázs Borbély, Szilárd Németh ..., they play for slovak national team and they have names sounds hungarian, my question, is it possible to say they are hungarian or hungarians in slovakia without sources/living people? --Mt7 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If they were born in Slovakia and played for (Czecho)Slovakia, then they are Slovakian footballers, and unless they actually have dual nationality (and they don't seem to) then they don't belong in the Hungarian footballers category. There should be a category for Slovakians of Hungarian descent, to cover their ethnic background. ArtVandelay13 11:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thank you, another case Tamás Priskin, born in slovakia, he has slovak and hungarian passport, his youthyears in a slovak club, but play only for hungaran national team, in interview he said, I go once in week to home to Komarno/Slovakia (that time he played for Gyor), please correct category.--Mt7 13:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC) --Mt7 13:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Linfield F.C.

Is this article really a GA? I see no signs of it being reviewed and.. well... its not particularly that good. Mattythewhite 15:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Bah, GA with zero in-text references. Suspicious. MaxSem 17:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Failed FAC. Archibald99  17:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I'm going to de-list it right now as it obviously doesn't meet GA criteria. Thanks for bringing it to attention MaxSem Mattythewhite. A new rating is welcomed, maybe start class? Punkmorten 20:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, seems like a suitable rating. And I brought it up.. :p Mattythewhite 20:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah :) actually it seems it was never a GA in the first place, it was just some person who unanimously gave it the rating. Punkmorten 20:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This is when it was "promoted" to GA... August last year. How has it not been spotted in this length of time? Mattythewhite 20:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Listing F*C's on WP:WPF

Do we list current article/list candidates in that table? I couldn't find any, nor any spot to put them. Daniel Bryant 00:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do, just write "Current F*C" instead of "Failed F*C". I don't know whether they should have a brown background like the Current PR's do. Punkmorten 10:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Forward vs. striker

I was surprised to see that forward redirected to striker, because the players whose positions I have listed as the former in the past definitely aren't strikers, in my opinion. I thought I'd mention the somewhat dusty discussion here. - Dudesleeper · Talk 11:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

another related old discussion. The redirect should be the other way around IMHO. Strikers are a subset of forwards. Oldelpaso 11:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

New featured list candidate - Italian football champions

Hey, please, please add comments (and hopefully support!) to the nomination for promoting Italian football champions to featured list status. You can find the discussion here. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man 16:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just put this on the project page? Punkmorten 16:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, probably, I hadn't thought of that. I was just trying to get some interest. Cool, I'll do that too. Cheers! The Rambling Man 16:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh that project page.. yes, I've done that but in most cases changes there get ignored so I wanted to make sure it was publicised. Hope that's not a big problem. The Rambling Man 16:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Gillingham F.C. - please take a look

Hi gents

Inspired by our friends from East Anglia, I've spent the last couple of days working hard on the article on my club, Gillingham, adding references, editing the text, removing pointless stuff, and so on. I was wondering if people could take a look at it and see how close they think it now is to promotion to the dizzy heights of Good Article and beyond. I appreciate that I still need to correctly format all the refs with {{cite}} templates but I'll get to that shortly, I can't face it at the moment :-) But any other comments would be much appreciated!


ChrisTheDude 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"gents"? Is this only limited to male wikipedians then? (only kidding)♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you put it up for peer review. Looks like a very good job you've got done there so far. Mattythewhite 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a well done on that article, much better than a number of other English club articles in my opinion.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's now gone up for FAC - fingers crossed! ChrisTheDude 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Images of programme covers

This might be more of a village pump question, but I thought I'd try here first. What's the score with using programme covers to illustrate articles on clubs, etc? As far as I can tell from looking at the various image tags, if they were to be classed as magazines then they could only be used to illustrate an article on the magazine itself and, let's face it, nobody's going to create Manchester United's programme. Alternatively if you cheat a bit and class them as event "posters" then they could only be used for articles on the specific event i.e. the match itself, which only works for a notable match like a final. So as far as I can see they can't be used in articles on clubs - am I right.....? ChrisTheDude 22:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question. I'd also be interested in the answer to this. I would guess that they are classed as magazines from a legal standpoint, but I'm sure there must be someone out there who works in the trade, who could give a definitive answer. Football programmes contain a wealth of information which could be used to improve articles. I assume that one could "cite" a programme as per a magazine. Indeed some football programmes are now referred to as the "matchday magazine". --Jameboy 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify - the issue I'm concerned with is not using programmes as a source, that'd be fine as far as I know, but rather using an actual programme cover as an illustration within an article - in the example I was looking at, I was going to use the cover of the programme for Gillingham's first match in the Football League to illustrate the point that they got elected, but if classed as a magazine then the cover could only be used to illustrate an article on Gillingham's programme itself.... ChrisTheDude 10:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it can be allowed. Fair use allows usage when discussing the work itself, not what the work depicts. So an image of a programme cover to illustrate discussion of Gillingham FC's publications or fan culture (the work itself), but not promotion (which is what the work depicts). Looking at the examples of unacceptable use, points 2 and 6 seem to be quite relevant to this case. Qwghlm 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Standardisation of league tables

As the time approaches when we'll be making up end-of-season league tables, I thought I'd re-open this discussion from a few months back about creating a standard league table format. Any thoughts? HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for standardisation - the two main points I would have are - 1) Keep the points column to the right hand side, and 2) Keep use of colour to indicate things to a minimum. If it HAS to be used, give a clear indication alongside in text form as well. And, again if colour HAS to be used, keep it to pale pastel shades so that the underlying text can be read easily. - fchd 12:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-league cups

User:Cintrianex has created some articles on the cups run by various lowly leagues, such as the Northern Counties East Football League Wilkinson Sword Trophy and even the West Riding County Amateur Football League Division Two Cup - are competitions like this really notable.......? ChrisTheDude 20:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In a word - no. Archibald99  20:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Although the teams competing appear to me notable, so I may be wrong? Archibald99  20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The West Riding Amateur teams definitely aren't notable..... ChrisTheDude 20:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
So Meltham AFC should be deleted, non? WATP  20:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC) *Already been PRODed, think before typing* WATP  21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Do the cups need seperate pages? Could they not be merged into the main articles on each league bearing in mind the level of the leagues?♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
How about keeping Northern Counties Cup while delete West Riding Cup because they're amateur and not professional, so what about it?? Rakuten06 21:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, league and/or divisional cups are fairly minor competitions, best mentioned in league articles if at all. The same goes for individual divisions of leagues. There's nothing I can think of that would belong in an individual divisional article at this level that wouldn't be better off in the main league article. To that effect, I've turned the Premier and Division One pages for the Western League into re-directs to the main Western League page. I've not gone any further in case I get a consensus against. I've amended the templates at the bottom of the affected pages to remove the links, but not yet checked for other double redirects that I have inadvertently created. - fchd 12:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with fchd on this one - all divisions of any league below Conference level should be merged into the main league article - there is little to be said for them anyway. Qwghlm 16:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Youth footballers´notability

I disagree with the current criteria of notability of athletes; more specifically that of youth footballers.

Notability meriting an article in Wikipedia seem to stipulate first team appearences.

I would suggest that:

1. Being a member of a youth international team (such as Gavin Hoyte, Fran Mérida and Nacer Barazite of Arsenal) merits notability in it's own right, or at least under under the criteria of athlete notability p2: "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports" (or in analogy thereof).

2. Prominent members of important youth academies merits notability in the same way as above.

It can´t seriously be argued that a player who has made a couple of appearences for a League 2 team is more notable than a player such as Bojan Krkic, Giovani dos Santos, Fran Mérida etc wich most probably will be playing first team football (if not already be big stars) in just a few years. Look at the attention G. dos Santos' selection of national team or proposed transfer has attracted in the football community. Or look at Theo Walcott who was included in the english WC squad without having played for the Arsenal first team. He never played during the WC, so before his first team debut at Arsenal, was it only his appearences for Southampton in the Championship that merited an article about him? Surely not!

There are players in a youth international squad that may never turn professional, but at the same time there are players that with high probability (on the verge of certainty) will be first team players if not big stars. I'm not saying that membership of a youth national squad automatically constitutes notability. My point is that there are youth players that may haven't yet broken in to the first team at a big club such as Arsenal or Barcelona, but nevertheless still are more notable than a player that may have appeared for a low-level first team such as Accrington. The requirement of first team football shouldn't be carved in stone. BTW ""fran merida" arsenal" generated 44,100 hits on Google, ""robert grant" accrington" generated 294. Se [[==Prominent youth footballers==

I disagree with the current criteria of notability of athletes; more specifically that of youth footballers.

Notability meriting an article in Wikipedia seem to stipulate first team appearences.

I would suggest that:

1. Being a member of a youth international team (such as Gavin Hoyte, Fran Mérida and Nacer Barazite of Arsenal) merits notability in it's own right, or at least under under the criteria of athlete notability p2: "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports" (or in analogy thereof).

2. Prominent members of important youth academies merits notability in the same way as above.

It can´t seriously be argued that a player who has made a couple of appearences for a League 2 team is more notable than a player such as Bojan Krkic, Giovani dos Santos, Fran Mérida etc wich most probably will be playing first team football (if not already be big stars) in just a few years. Look at the attention G. dos Santos' selection of national team or proposed transfer has attracted in the football community. Or look at Theo Walcott who was included in the english WC squad without having played for the Arsenal first team. He never played during the WC, so before his first team debut at Arsenal, was it only his appearences for Southampton in the Championship that merited an article about him? Surely not!

There are players in a youth international squad that may never turn professional, but at the same time there are players that with high probability (on the verge of certainty) will be first team players if not big stars. I'm not saying that membership of a youth national squad automatically constitutes notability. My point is that there are youth players that may haven't yet broken in to the first team at a big club such as Arsenal or Barcelona, but nevertheless still are more notable than a player that may have appeared for a low-level first team such as Accrington. The requirement of first team football shouldn't be carved in stone. BTW ""fran merida" arsenal" generated 44,100 hits on Google, ""robert grant" accrington" generated 294. See [notability] talkpage for discussion.Sebisthlm 16:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nominees

Should we also consider including Good Article Candidates on the "Featured and good articles" section in the main WikiProject page? Currently on WP:GAC there are at least three football-related nominees (Arjen Robben, Liverpool F.C. and U.S. Città di Palermo). --Angelo 13:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Rangers vs Linfield - Most successful club?

There is a sourced statement on the Rangers F.C. article saying Rangers are the most successful club in the world in terms of trophies won, but apparently Linfield F.C. have a claim to this, although there are doubts about whether or not some of Linfield's trophies are "first-class". Could a consensus be reached as to which is correct? WATP  20:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it the sort of thing that might be on the FIFA website?♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rangers have won the most major trophies, phrasing it that way would work. Linfield have won more trophies in total, but that includes local competitions, using that metric Macclesfield Town have won 36. Perhaps some wording about national competitions? Oldelpaso 11:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
If one can get sniffy about the Irish FA cup then i'm sure Juve fans can get very sniffy indeed about the tennents sixes, the glasgow cup, the league cup and even league titles for that matter. If you want to create a debate whereby the threshold of worthiness is placed just below scottish competitions then you can't really make it a global statement that's ridiculous.Hermangelmet 09:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
In addition, Linfield have won the NI league trophy 46 times, The Irish FA cup 37 times, the league cup 28 times and the all ireland trophy 4 times there's the domestic major trophies. So that's linfield 115 vs Rangers 106.Hermangelmet 09:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Linfield's own article states that they have won the League Cup only 8 times, where did the other 20 wins come from? The current honour roll on their article gives a total of 92 "major" trophy wins, or 96 if the "all-Ireland" is included.... ChrisTheDude 09:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Alan Shearer image

I'd appreciate it if someone with knowledge about image-use on Wikipedia could take a look at this. Something doesn't sit right with me about its fair use (especially since the person who uploaded it kicked up a fuss about its non-inclusion in Shearer's article). Thanks. - Dudesleeper · Talk 09:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the rationale is specious at best. The image itself says nothing about the season or the record transfer or anything else about his time at Newcastle.
It looks like the typical misinterpretation/overreach of fair use on Wikipedia; fair use applies when the image itself is iconic (say, the Cantaona kung-fu kick, Maradona Hand of God or John Barnes kicking the banana, say) or shows something that possibly couldn't. As it is used in the article, it's just decoration. You need a picture of Mona Lisa to describe Mona Lisa. You don't need a picture of Alan Shearer to explain Alan Shearer. Anyway, I think I'll copy-and-pat this response on the image talk page. --Ytny (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance, and to Qwghlm too. I just wanted to double-check considering there was a copyright-violation image uploaded to Shearer's article yesterday. - Dudesleeper · Talk 14:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I went through the user's uploads, and it turns out that this is the new user name for User:Deathrocker, who has had his run-ins with other editors and is especially not a fan of Wikipedia's fair use policies. I've tagged Image:Camoranesi.JPG as a possibly unfree image, since it's a re-upload of a previously deleted fair use image, and Image:CamoranesiWorldCupWin.JPG as replaceable. He's lawyering to keep Image:Tevez-WestHamPalermo.jpg, and if anyone can explain the fair use policy better than I, please take a shot. Ytny (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Funny he should come up. He replaced a rather serviceable timeline in the West Ham Utd article on the grounds it was forcing text to one side (albeit in a uniform format) and replaced it with a jumble of pictures including the Tevez one. The problem with the fair use rationale is not so much with regards to how it is used by people, but more how it is vetted. Uploaders take the stance that if there is no 'free' image to hand, then it is "fair" use. On the other hand zealous editors take it that there probably is a free image, so this one should be deleted until it's found (which is a little unconstructive at times - though to be fair, a lot of the images are crap that clearly are copyrighted). Given legally that simply the download of an image constitutes 'creating' an image/copy (see child pornography cases in UK); screenshotting an interview is therefore doubly created which (in a twisted way) means it is no longer under copyright (though obviously it is as the original source should not have been used). Then there's the "lower quality" argument, "depiction" argument etc etc. Minefield, sometimes even influenced by POV particularly if you get someone such as User:Netscott with the bit between his teeth (see his dogged determination to use the "free" mugshot image of Mel Gibson over 'fair use' images of Mel).--Koncorde 00:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Member RfA

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Rambling Man (signed as a member of this Project under his previous name, Budgiekiller). Whichever way you choose to !vote, I would be glad if you would indicate your membership of this WikiProject. --Dweller 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

External links vs. References

Something I learned yesterday that I thought is worth mentioning here. If an article has no references but was written from information at Soccerbase, Neil Brown's site, etc. (see Ian Gore, for example), we're supposed to put that URL in the references section, not the external links, per WP:Cite (All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are not included in "Further reading" or "External links").

Some of you likely knew this. I didn't, however. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Me neither! Nor, I think, do most editors. For a random example see the article on Wayne Rooney. There's going to be a lot of articles to change. Daemonic Kangaroo 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
And many of the referee articles! I'm going to get to work on them soon, to correct this. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Old Wembley vs. New Wembley

Hi. I believe I have seen this problem commented on somewhere before, but just to heads-up and recruit if possible. There are currently countless articles with Wikilinks to the wrong Wembley (for instance, in [[1966]], [[England national football team|England]] won the [[FIFA World Cup 1966|World Cup]] at [[Wembley Stadium|Wembley]]. The correct reference is [[Wembley Stadium (1924)|Wembley]].

I have recently set about the task, and would urge those of you who don't get bored too easily to give us a hand! There are thousands to get through.

I go to this page, and click on one of the many links to articles supposedly to do with New Wembley. I then set up Internet Explorer to 'Find' [[Wembley Stadium, find next, and this shows me the reference. If it is retrospective (i.e. a record of what happened in the past at the old stadium), it needs changing to "(1924)". If it is predictive (i.e. a future event at the new stadium), it stays as 'New Wembley', if you see what I mean. I always leave an edit summary ("amend wembley reference") to guard against accusations of vandalism.

Any help would be appreciated. Best wishes. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. In the above, go to the Edit Page and 'find next' for it to work (and to edit it, obviously). Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 21:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced of two things - a) the need for two articles, in my opinion it is just a rebuild on the same site and should be covered within the same article, and b) the "1924" date. As the stadium opened at least in 1923, and the rationale for the 1924 date on the article in question is weak to say the least, if a split article is needed it should be entitled Wembley Stadium (1923). - fchd 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The pros and cons can be debated elsewhere, I am simply highlighting the need to protect Wikipedia from ridiculous linking. I don't intend to open up a debate by this, just take on board whoever wants to give it a go. I don't mind doing it on my own. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I had wondered why it was called 1924 when the first Cup Final took place there in 1923... That said I do see the need for two separate articles, as a merged article would probably be too big, and the two stadiums were completely different structures. To be honest though this sounds like a job for AWB rather than doing it by hand. Qwghlm 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
But until then..... :-) Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 21:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
See here for the (weak, IMO) justification for the 1924 date...... ChrisTheDude 22:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
How is an AWB going to differentiate between retrospective and predictive references (although if it can be done, hush my mouth)? Anyway, just cleared all the "Wembley stadium" redirects..... :-) Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Handbag image debate

Some input from other parties required at Talk:Argentina_and_England_football_rivalry#Mocking_Photo_removed. Jooler 07:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Football (soccer) hooliganism

Is it possible that the above article could be changed so that only registered users are allowed to edit? For a few days I have been working on the article as it has been a mess, and had clear bias, POV, weasel words etc. I have removed whole sections which were unsourced and replaced them with sourced information. I have also working on removing bias, POC etc. It is though a gradual process, but I am being hampered by what seems to be one anonymous user who keeps disrupting all this, and not be assisting, but by both adding vandalism (stating that Celtic FC fans are nazis for instance) and by deleting whole sections without reason and keeps adding words such as psychotic (spelt psycotic) to describe the English, Serbian and Germans, and also keeps adding stuff such as hyper-violent, manic, mentally unbalanced, pathetic etc etc to describe England.

I have tried to reason with the user to no avail. And each time I find the vandalism and change it, the user comes back again and does more. If the article is to be brought into some sort of order and be neutral then it would help if only registered users were allowed to edit. There are some sections which are bias and the user has my sympathy in that there in parts appears to be clear bias, but it is a work-in-progress. The user appears under a number of unregistered users -,,,,, - all of which appear to be the same user. Thanks ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Qwghlm 19:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the assistance. I realise the article is still not decent, with some sections now ok, and others still a mess. But I plan on keep working on it and now it should be easier not having to deal with seemingly mischievous edits.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Football (soccer) positions

I have recently been editing or creating articles about players or seasons from the Victorian era, when the concept of 4-4-2 etc. was unheard of. In those days, players played in positions such as "Centre-half" or "inside-left" and the standard formation was 2-3-5 i.e. 2 fullbacks (right and left), 3 half-backs (right, left and centre) and 5 forwards (inside & outside right & left, plus centre-forward).

The article on Football (soccer) positions describes modern positions, but when writing about a Victorian centre-half, should this be linked to midfielder or to defender? (It should be somewhere in the middle.) Ideally, there should be an article explaining former positions and formations to which articles about the early days of football can be linked. Is there anyone out there who feels competent/knowledgeable to create this? Daemonic Kangaroo 12:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As you point out, all teams (as far as I know) used the same formation in those days, so maybe an article could be created something like 2-3-5 formation, in which the positions could be outlined along with their differences from current positions.....? Just a thought..... ChrisTheDude 13:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Help (again) at Berliner FC Dynamo

User:Nadia Kittel has returned from his earlier ban as User:Fox53 to again agrandize his team's site, add fringe material, apply eccentric formatting, and insert poor quality or un-sourced images. He has removed informative image captions simply to make logo images bigger (also then taking them out of context), and continues to insert poor-quality unsourced images that don't really add anything to the article. As a matter of fact, he's taken to plastering the same poor quality image of the FDGB Pokal (East German Cup) all over any page representing a cup winner, despite the fact that historically there were multiple versions of the trophy - he can't be bothered to do any research or find anything better, even though its out there. He was also recently warned off using this approach in editing articles about the SS - but doesn't get it. Given his previous edit history this will likely shape up into another attempt to turn an encyclopedia article into a tribute page.

To his credit he did add a useful literature section and some other minor stuff, and did some decent work on German hockey teams, but still doesn't seem to understand that this is not a Dynamo/East Germany tribute site. And, oh yeah, check out his un-varnished opinion of me on his talk page. I'm tired of this guy's approach and have used up two R's at BFC today. Help, please! Wiggy! 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember the user well. He certainly can't deal with criticism to say the least, if that talk page is anything to go by resorting to childishly insulting you when criticised, rather than trying to deal with it reasonably. If it is the same user, Nadia Kittel, which I presume it is, it wasn't just the clubs article that he kept adding unsourced and irrelevant material as anything to do with German football and anything that mentioned that club were fair game. I suppose if some added that article to their watch list that would be start? ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
His fixation is this club, but ranges to anything with the word "Dynamo" in it, the glory of the former East Germany and anything vaguely connected, Marilyn Monroe, and sundry other things. He's capable of some good contribs, but doesn't get when enough is enough, and the importance of staying relevant and credible. I'm just looking to keep the BFC page and some other items from being turned into some sort of incoherent, irrelevant shambles. Anything anyone can do to help would be most welcome.
By the way, you were a brave soul to take on that Ultra's stuff to bash it into some sort of shape. That's sort of how I first bumped into this editor making a mess of the BFC page. Wiggy! 19:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hah yes indeed and thanks! It just bugged me that the page was such a mess and seemed to be a free-for-all for people like "Nadia" or whatever he calls himself now to constantly add biased content.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the user is now operating as Lucken, and has recently inserted the Dresden logo in two unrelated templates (see: [17] and [18]), and should be watched. Ytny (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
No real surprise! Should be fun!♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Having had a very quick look at just one page, it seems that he is going over the top (OTT) again. This article which he created - Sportvereinigung Dynamo is a fairly decent page, well constructed. But when I say he is going OTT again, the infobox just looks a complete mess it is way, way OTT. Also is there really any need for all the images on the page, they seem to serve no purpose, and have no relevance? And then there is a huge long list of so called references which aren't references but a list of external links, even though he has used them as references. That in itself should identify the user as Nadia Kittel as that was what he had a habit of constantly doing. Head banging on brick wall time again it would seem maybe. Also, if it is proven that this user is one and the same as before, what happens to the article he has created on Sportvereinigung Dynamo? If he has added it when blocked, should the article remain? It is just a question, I am not suggesting that it should be deleted, but this just made me think about the wider issue of articles created by blocked users, under different user names.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, since user talk messages aren't going to work, I think an extended block is warranted? At the very least, the following accounts need to be reported to WP:SSP, since he is violating the terms of the block, even if the edits weren't disruptive. It seem like an there's enough to block all three accounts. Ytny (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Some of the recent edits prove that all three users are one and the same person. And agree that at the very least those two accounts should be reported as he is clearly violating the block as you say.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

One-club man

Just wanted to bring the above article to the attention of a wider audience. I can't help but feel there are obvious inclusions missing. - Dudesleeper · Talk 02:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The list is surely POV. Either it includes all one-club men (which would be a gigantic list) or it depends on some subjective decisions about who's worth including and who isn't. --Dweller 10:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The article itself states that it lists all players who were at their club for 15 or more years, no subjective decision there unless you consider a 15 year limit to be a subjective decision. However it may be a better idea to just list all one-club men who have articles. - MTC 11:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


I don't know if any one else has mentioned/suggested this, but why not condense each team's season-by-season history into decades, in the style used by the Baseball WikiProject for an individual MLB season (example). Would perhaps make the pages more managable? Nightfreak 14:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand - the example you point to is of a single season, not a decade. Could you mock something up in a sandbox? --Dweller 11:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Break in template

This edit seems to have created a massive amount of whiteyellow-space in the template. I don't want to straight-out revert the edits, as that would actually break some of the templates with the irish=yes bit, but could someone try and rectify the situation to remove the big empty space in it? Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've solved the problem... the price is that {{football|Non-League=yes|Irish=yes}} causes things to break, but an article can't be about English non-League football and about Irish football at the same time, so it shouldn't be a problem. Tompw (talk) (review) 10:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Cheers! Daniel Bryant 12:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


some editor made a nonsense article about a hoax manager [here]. Please remove it. 14:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever deleted the article. You did well. Have a cookie. 17:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Kit colours, "traditional" vs. "current"

The recent actions by SPUJ (talk · contribs) raise an interesting question: should football articles list the current strip (with coloured shoulders etc. as appropriate for the current strip), or a general one with merely the colours (as shoulder designs etc. change frequently)? Thoughts appreciated. Daniel Bryant 12:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should show the current kit, without going into too much detail. So, somewhere between the two. WATP  12:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we should show the current kit, but maybe include a section on previous kit colours/designs GiantSnowman 13:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Please, note that Daniel.Bryant (talk · contribs) did not present the matter correctly: we are not talking about the article in itself, which could of course depict the current kit, but about the template. I think it should be the traditional kit, i.e. without the decorations inserted year-by-year by the kit designer. There is plenty of room to add the current or historical kist in the article body.--SPUJ 13:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
What's the traditional kit, though? Talking about my team Watford, our colours are broadly yellow, red and black. But do we have a "traditional" kit we could depict in the template? Sometimes we have the red on the shoulders, sometimes not. Sometimes red shorts, sometimes black. You'd have to depict the club's current away shirt, as many clubs at least change their away colours frequently - Watford certainly do. So how would that work? Depicting a vague notion of a traditional kit up against a very current one? I mean, you changed the CCM kit - they've only been in existence two years and have had two different kits. How can you say the old one is more traditional than the current one? Sure, removd any features kit manufacturers put on all their kits. I recall we removed blue stripes from the Ukraine kit because all the kits by their manufacturer had them. But otherwise, it has to be the current one. And SPUJ, you really should have brought this up here, rather than making changes on multiple articles asserting that traditional is what's supposed to be in the template. That's your opinion, not policy. Cheers, HornetMike 13:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly! Surely the point of an encyclopaedia is to be as accurate as possible and give as much information as possible. Therefore in the template box we should have the current kit, as accurate as possible, as well as a section on previous kit designs and colours, both home and away. GiantSnowman 13:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with the comments above. Many of the club in this encyclopedia do not really have a "classic" kit: for instance, Palermo played alternatively with an all-pink jersey, a pink-black vertically-striped version, another one with pink and black halves and a few others. Where a "classic" kit is present and it differs from the current one, include it in a "Colours and badge" paragraph, whose existance is suggested by this WikiProject. --Angelo 14:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Your example of Palermo has made other examples spring to mind - Wigan Athletic (blue & white stripes last season, a whole blue kit this season), Barcelona (blue and red halves this season, stripes last), Porto (degrees of blue & white, including stripes and halves), Werder Bremen (green & orange last season, green & white this)... GiantSnowman 14:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This thread is entitled "kit colours", not "kit design and colouring". On that basis, my opinion is that only the relevant current major colours should be described, and obviously which item of clothing was broadly which major colour could be included as relevant to "kit". So, to quote my team:
Swindon Town - red shirts, red shorts, white/red socks.
Even though they have a single thin white vertical stripe on the right side of the shirt, from the shoulder downwards, I wouldn't mention it because it's an 'embellishment'. However, the white tops to the socks are a definite recognised component in the garment traditionally, in the same way as regular patterned stripes and hoops are. Ref (chew)(do) 14:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, SPUJ has been banned as a sockpuppet of blocked user Panairjdde (who, along with other sockpuppets like Kwame Nkrumah some of you might remember). But to chime in, if there are people who are willing to show more accurate depictions of the current kits, and keep them up (and there are many who are doing just that), then there really is no good reason to keep attempting to cut back the designs to main colours. Lexicon (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that minor trim details are arguably non encyclopedic. Football reference works will give the club colours for a given team in simplified form. So should we. --Dweller 10:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally think the kits should be patterned to the nearest non-unique equivalent pattern in the template - and if a new pattern begins to be commonly used (i.e. the Reebok spikes), it too should be added to the template. I can kinda see the point of the reversions on, say, Adelaide United (which I would have changed to probably red with an existing Reebok spike pattern) but insisting on plain/ "main colour" kits is just silly. I kept a similar attitude to the A-League kits last year - some people would, say, insist the Melbourne Victory kit be an exact pictorial replica, others wanted it as plain navy blue - I kept it as navy blue with the kit template's _whitesides pattern. 12:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with HornetMike, it's very hard to categorically state what a club's "traditional" kit is. Look at his friends :-) at Luton Town, currently their kit is predominantly white and black, but in the 70s they wore orange and blue! So who's to say what's more "traditional"? Current consensus seems to be that the kit should represent the current kit in so far as major details like white sides should be represented but tiny details like that thin white curved "outline" on the current Liverpool kit should be avoided, and that works for me ChrisTheDude 13:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think showing the current kit without too much detail sounds good. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 14:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles on individual games

User:Doma-w has been creating a lot of articles on individual matches from the Olympic games like this one. What's the consensus on articles on individual games? I can understand articles for, say, World Cup Finals, but is this editor going to find their hard work removed if someone decides to AfD this lot? and if so, might it better to warn them now before s/he wastes any more effort? Cheers, EliminatorJR Talk 14:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes to pretty much all of that. Articles on major cup finals etc. are fine, run of the mill early-stage tournament matches such as this should not have their own article. Besides, those articles consist solely of statistical content which is non-encyclopedic in nature. Oldelpaso 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Left a message on the user's talk page. EliminatorJR Talk 17:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The standard WP:N criteria apply here, no? Though I assume simple match reports would fall under "trivial coverage", since every match these days get recaps in multiple sources. --Ytny (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the test should be some variant of the "will this be remembered in 100 years?" criterion. Cup finals, title deciders and major international tournament matches highly significant matches in international tournaments fall under that but not obscure Olympic matches. Am willing to nominate them all for deletion if no-one else fancies the leg-work. Qwghlm 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess the justification is that before the 1930 World Cup, the Olympic Games was the major international tournament. I still would support deletion of all but perhaps the games from the semi-finals onwards, provided of course that reliable sourcing can be found for those medal-deciding matches. - fchd 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I've rephrased what I said, as it did not convey what I meant. I would balk at most World Cup group matches being covered in the same detail to be honest. In any case the Olympics wasn't the major international tournament, as it was only an amateur contest, and professionalism was in full swing by 1912, in the UK and much of Europe at least. Qwghlm 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the deletion of these particular (non-)articles. Punkmorten 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nominate and burn (with fire). – Elisson • T • C • 21:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for deleting basically every single one. Daniel Bryant 10:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Club-article manual of style

I was looking at the above earlier today (nice work, Johan Elisson) and thought it might be time to bring it more in line with what's actually going into club articles, if that doesn't sound backwards. I've seen elements in several articles that I think would be worthwhile introducing into more articles (though, of course, I'm drawing a blank as I type). I'll refer to the relevant discussion page when they occur to me, and I'd urge others to do the same. With close-seasons almost upon us, it would be a good time to get club articles tidied up, but we'll always have our work cut out with player articles, of course (Eufa Cup, indeed). - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do something like that for some time (about the same amount of time I've been meaning to write a football club editing advice page), so sounds good to me. One example is that the notable players section is deprecated in many cases. Oldelpaso 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Almost all of the manual of styles are somewhat deprecated by this stage (most of the stuff was written by me in 2005... it's amazing to see how much has happened since :]), even though they provide a fairly good start, most of them are in need for some kind of update. I've been less active lately, and considering that the spring has finally arrived to Sweden, I'm not likely to increase my activity in the next few weeks, but I'll help out as good as I can. – Elisson • T • C • 15:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I've always tried to follow that manual of style. My last few articles, U.S. Città di Palermo and G.S. Mazara 1946, have been clearly written in that sense, so I guess it is still a valid source. A very short number of possible fixes might be considered for paragraphs such as "notable players" and "notable managers" (as lately I was thinking over about the notion of notability in itself) and some of Oldelpalo's considerations. --Angelo 15:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of manuals of style, perhaps we should create one for the club season articles which have been starting to appear lately. I've been working on Bristol Rovers F.C. season 2006-07, and I've noticed that the other articles at Category:English_football_club_seasons all seem to have different styles, content, and naming conventions. Perhaps some kind of standardisation needs to be agreed on? Gasheadsteve 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea. I've looked at the Bristol Rovers current season article, and it looks pretty, but it's full of lists and clearly misses of prose. A good idea would be to add a main paragraph where to describe how and what the club did in the related season. Following this paragraph, all the lists and the table graph (that looks really cute) are good to be included. --Angelo 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll have a go at that. I think it might be a good idea to write an introduction to each section as well, rather than going straight into each list. Gasheadsteve 20:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I actually think the club MOS has stood the test of time, which is a credit to Johan :) Although a lot of articles tweak it slightly, this is natural as no subject (club) is the same. Daniel Bryant 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Football teams per city

What do people think about creating a list of football teams in cities e.g. London, Rio de Janiero, Buenos Airies etc. This woule be especially relevant for South American countries, as teams are rarely named after their home city. GiantSnowman 19:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the likes of List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries cover this. There is also an article Football in London.  Sʟυмgυм • т  c  19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not sure what additional information this would add beyond the list of football clubs in country/continent articles, which list (or ought to list) the towns and cities that clubs hail from, such as List of top-division football clubs in CONMEBOL countries is a featured list (List of football clubs in Argentina etc. could easily use the same format, and probably should). Oldelpaso 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Was already aware of Football in London (I started it!) but wasn't aware of articles such as List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries etc....thanks. I suppose that covers Europe, but what about South America? GiantSnowman 19:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Haha silly me, just checked that CONMEBOL link, thats what I ws looking for, thanks! GiantSnowman 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If a single, European or South-American, city provides a very high number of notable pro teams, as it happens with London (very good article by the way, I found it really useful), in my opinion it should be eligible for a standalone article. For instance Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires would be, but Rome not, as the latter is home to only three professional teams. --Angelo 15:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Would there be any value in converting the tables within the lists of top division clubs in each confederation into sortable tables? That way users could sort the list by city to see which cities have multiple clubs. Just a thought.... ChrisTheDude 07:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Relatives in football

This forum thread got me thinking: should we perhaps start an article with a list of relatives involved in football? We could include the Schmiechels, Nevilles, Davids, Seerdorfs, Terrys etc. GiantSnowman 19:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a very, very rough draft here; ignore the page title, was used for a previous project of mine GiantSnowman 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know - is there any encyclopaedic value to lists like this, or is it just trivia? - fchd 04:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's borderline cruft of little real value. Also it's not actually that rare - many footballers have relatives who play, as it's often part of family tradition. Qwghlm 07:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this list will be far too big to manage. Without really trying I can think of Xabi Alonso, Pepe Reina, Paul Anderson, Scott Carson and John Arne Riise who all have next-of-kin footballer relations, and that's just from one team. aLii 22:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Templates oddity

I recently added Template:Football League Championship, Template:Football League One and Template:Football League Two teamlist to my watchlist, anticipating people adding teams to their promoted/relegated league in advance, as happened last year. Now, they're quite patently getting edited, but they're not showing up on my watchlist and their history shows no record of the edits. Am I going mad? HornetMike 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Football League Championship template, which was last modified on late January, is made up as composition of at least two other templates, Template:Football League Championship teamlist (which was modified today) and Template:Football in England table cells (last change on March). Are they on your watchlist? --Angelo 20:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahhh, I see. The first two are composites of the standard English template and the specific league list to be stuck on all team pages to save space. The latter is one part of the League Two composite! That does get changed, whilst the former two don't. I'll change my watchlist accordingly. HornetMike 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ed g2s and his edits on Template:Football squad start

This user returned changing the header style on the football squad template set, now removing at all every single colour from the table. The result was terribly ugly at my eyes, and as this is not the first time he acts this way I reverted all his edits. Please look in particular at the Fs start and Fs mid templates.--Angelo 17:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. – Elisson • T • C • 20:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think User:Ed g2s's version is better. The amount of pointless, quite often bright and dark, colour that is creeping in to articles and templates is making them more difficult to read. In my opinion of course. - fchd 21:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it'd be great if the blue was changed. It hardly befits a Liverpool or Manchester United article. aLii 22:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
We already discussed the matter, and a consensus emerged not to personalize colours according to the teams' official colours. In addition, I firmly believe a fully-transparent header would appear quite ugly. We might instead think about changing the blue to a better colour, but possibly to be unique for all articles. --Angelo 22:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
We? We who? I've never discussed it before. aLii 22:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I like having the light blue colour as some kind of "football article theme". Not only is the colour used for the teamlist, it is also used for the headers in most football navboxes. Saying it hardly befits a "red team" article is, IMHO, pretty much nonsense, as those articles usually are full of blue links giving the article a "blue theme" more than anything else. – Elisson • T • C • 22:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It's merely an argument as to why it isn't a particularly neutral colour. It's not something I'd ever put much thought into before, past thinking "German and French Wikipedia articles look better". I think it'd be better if the blue was removed, I'd always thought it as rather ugly. Zero colour would be better — I'm certainly not advocating that each team article should use the team's colours everywhere. aLii 22:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Reopened discussion here. Please state your opinion there. – Elisson • T • C • 16:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable teams - a helpful tool

One of the most irritating things is the number of minor five-a-side, student or pub teams (especially from the UK) who add vanity articles about themselves in. Sometimes it's a case of luck in finding them, but I've come up with a way of spotting most of them and thought I should pass it on. Special:Whatlinkshere sorts articles by their addition date, and as most authors of these articles mimic the big clubs' articles by using the {{Infobox Football club}} template, by checking the end of the list of articles that transclude it (e.g. with this link) any recently-added articles about non-notable teams can be picked up. I have the above link as a bookmark and check once a day to identify any non-notable teams from the UK and speedy tag them with {{db-club}} for deletion (aside - this should always be used as the first option with pages like these - AfDs should only be used as a last resort. I'm getting tired of patently non-notable teams going to AfD without speedy or prod tried first so please bear this in mind, thanks).

Anyway, I stay clear of most other countries other than the UK though as I am not sure what counts as notable there, but other members of the Wikiproject will know better than I and might be able to use it for non-notable teams from their respective countries. Hope this proves useful to some of you. Qwghlm 10:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried it, and the team second to bottom was in fact speediable! Great. Another tip is searching for the string User: to uncover this type of entries masquerading as user pages. Punkmorten 12:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Another method to catch a lot of non-notable clubs as well as other non-notable articles is to check Category:Football (soccer) and a few of its main subcategories regularly. Newcomers usually can't handle the categorisation very well and often add their article to the top of the category tree, or do not add a category at all, after which someone doing cleanup drops the article in the top of the category tree for further categorization by us.
On to another thing I noticed, the notability criteria for English football clubs was removed from WP:CORP a few months ago in this edit. I believe we need to have a thorough discussion on notability and establish consensus for a few more cases and then create something useful on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. – Elisson • T • C • 15:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. And by the way, it's not just a UK issue ;) Excluding a few cases (smaller countries, for instance), the dilemma is about (semi-)professionism. --Angelo 16:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well spotted - I have replaced it and would appreciate assistance in defending it - this was thoroughly discussed and agreed and cannot be unilaterally removed. BlueValour 23:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above, there is a discussion ongoing on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) with respect to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_5#Regarding_notability_of_Football_.28soccer.29_players. Please feel free to add your input 17:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

2 Werner Roth's?

The disambiguation page for the name "Werner" lists three men named "Werner Roth", and two of them are associated with football (soccer):

The American player is Serbian-born, and notable on several levels, according to the page on him (above) and the List of American soccer players with dual nationality, though that page seems lacking. Isn't there a soccer infobox?.

Also, does anyone know anything about the German coach? He's listed on Karlsruher SC's page, but is he notable enough to have his own page? If so, please add biographical and other info to his page. I just created it as a stub. Fredwerner 03:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Fredwerner 03:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tim Howard controversy

Should we add that controversy which nearly affected Man United? KyleRGiggs 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To where? For Tim Howard it would be reasonable. For Manchester United or Everton it would be excess detail for a minor incident. Oldelpaso 15:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Add to Howard's article GiantSnowman 16:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity fan sections

Hi, following concerns raised on the talk page of Huddersfield Town I thought I'd start a new conversation on celebrity fans. I've had discussions with a couple of Wikipedians in the past, and there's bits and pieces against it on various pages across the WikiProject. But it'd be healthy to get a new consensus. As far as I'm concerned, lists of celebrity fans should be removed from club articles as it's information more about the person than the club. That Watford is supported by Brian Conolly or whoever is not the sort of stuff for a main page article. In my view they should go even if they are sourced, as they are on Huddersfield, but especially if they're not. Anyway, thoughts? HornetMike 09:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The list at Southampton F.C. is totally unsourced and, without sources, any user can add anyone he/she likes. Best to get rid of them entirely. Daemonic Kangaroo 10:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree, get rid of them. Apart from the fact that the vast majority are unsourced, a lot of people, particularly politicians, claim to support a club for PR purposes, despite not having any real interest in football (Does Lucy Pinder go to many Saints games?!). Gasheadsteve 10:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I can understand the concerns if there is a long list of unsourced notable fans, the case in point, Huddersfield Town, had a small, fully verified source from what the editors of that article stated in the talk page. They seem to maintain the article well and the concerns raised on the talk page, as mentioned above, were not about the section being there, but about the removal of the notable fans section without any discussion or consensus being reached on the talk page. Having looked though at other club articles, I looked at Watford F.C. (sorry HornetMike) an article which I was surprised to see that whilst it doesn't have a list of notable fans, yet neither does it have any sources, other than one in the rivalry section, about fans fighting, but that is not linked to a Notes or References section in what is quite a comprehensive article. Surely we should be dealing with matters such as this where a whole article has no sources before dealing with small sections of articles on n ontable fans? And the only reason I looked at Watford was simply because of HornetMikes username.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Some very good sense there. Provided that the 'notable fans' are sourced they should remain. I would add that most editors of club articles will not be aware of these discussions - their interest is in their club article not with WP politics. The authority for the detail of an article (and frankly this is a detail) lies with the article talk page; this project should guide but not dictate. I would add that going around making substantial, unilateral deletions not only upsets and deters editors who we should be encouraging but is against WP policies. I have separately asked HornetMike to amend his approach in that regard. BlueValour 17:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to address that - I was taking the chance to do quick clean-up whilst doing league placings in infoboxes. I was mostly remove massive links sections per WP:EL, the other stuff I removed was mainly stuff coming under WP:NOT (not a collection of indiscriminate information) which is what I'd regard celebrities fans under. In retrospect, it was impolite to remove sourced material on Huddersfield page, and I apologize for that. Otherwise I don't think removing stuff like that requires talk page discussion. Regarding Watford - it's a long project involving lots of books, it'll get done eventually, summer hopefully. And I don't think we should rank sourcing Watford over removing a small section from Huddersfield or wherever. The goial is betterment of Wikipedia, be it through big or small tasks. Cheers, HornetMike 22:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't realize how a list of "notable" fans could possibly add some interesting content for a football club article. If a man with an article on Wikipedia is a very well-known supporter of that football club, such as in Noel Gallagher's case for instance, it is better to include this information in his (the man's) article. --Angelo 15:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Neither can I. Punkmorten 16:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Since notable supporters play no significant part in a club's history unlike notable players or managers—unless of course the supporter did something notable for the club such as saving it from bankrupcy of similar (which then would merit a mention in the prose)—I see no reason whatsoever for a list of that kind, no matter how well-sourced it is. – Elisson • T • C • 16:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with these lists if they are well sourced and the celebrities are notable, however, it has to be said, a lot of these lists are unsourced.Dave101talkcontributions • 17:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Even a sourced list in uncyclopaedic, in my opinion. Whatever next, celebrity fans of TV series, or authors? - fchd 18:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Its such a trivial piece of information - and what denotes a "famous" person or a "celebrity" anyway? We should get rid of 'em. Mattythewhite 18:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Some seem to have the term "notable fans" rather than "Celebrity fans".♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
'Notability' means a Wikipedia article, which is objective, whereas 'famous' or 'celebrity' is not. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create articles that others want to read. If Mattythewhite doesn't want a list of notable fans that's fine provided he doesn't try to impose his views on the editors of club articles. I have tagged Watford F.C. as completely unsourced and that is more important - apart from easily verifiable factual parts most of that article can, and in accordance with Wikipedia policy should, be deleted, and that is important - sourced notable notable fans lists are not. BlueValour 22:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You miss the point. No matter how well sourced a notable fans list is, it fails WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. There are hundreds of thousands of pieces of information that could be added to Wikipedia accompanied with a reliable source, but that doesn't mean we want all those pieces. Just like we don't write on Sticky toffee pudding that it is David Beckham's favourite dessert, even though it can be sourced. And if that piece of information would actually be notable in some kind of way, it should be included in Beckham's article and not in the pudding article. – Elisson • T • C • 22:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Agree with Angelo and Elisson. I think lists of famous fans are awful, worse than "trivia" sections and a classic example of indiscriminate information. Oldelpaso 22:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
What is awful is:
  • Removing unilaterally sourced material over the heads of editors who spend many hours on their club articles;
  • Having wholly unsourced articles that breach WP policies;
  • Lists of 'Notable players' - a wholly POV concept. BlueValour 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
My two cents on "what is awful to you":
  • To me, removing unilaterally sourced material is fine when that material, even if sourced in the best way possible in this small world, does not add any kind of significance or to the article itself, such as in the case we're discussing;
  • Unsourced articles is awful, I agree; in fact, we are here to find reliable sources for all those articles;
  • Lists of notable players (and managers) are fine when they satisfy a few reliable prerequisites; for instance, club records holders, players of the years elected directly by the fanbase (in the UK it happens), and players with a very high number of caps for that club are all fine at my eyes. Otherwise, they fail a Wikipedia basic policy such as WP:NOT, as they would be an indiscriminate collection of information.
That's all. Some of your doubts are normal, they aren't just yours. --Angelo 00:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Good - I think that we are making progress but unilaterally removing sourced material is never justified - whether it is significant to the article is a matter for the editors of the article and not susceptible to central determination. However, where lists of 'Notable fans', 'Notable players' or other lists are not sourced then they should come out and we are all agreed on this. Statements like "No matter how well sourced a notable fans list is, it fails WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE" are not helpful since this is simply a POV. It is clear from this discussion that some consider 'notable fans' significant and others don't but, frankly, it is a small point and one on which we have spent too much time. What is more important is the acknowledgement that too many articles are unsourced, or poorly sourced, and it is a much more profitable use of time fixing this. I also appreciate your agreement that 'Notable players' need to be subject to criteria - as I say below these do not need to be centrally determined but they do need to exist. BlueValour 01:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
BlueValour, as you agree that notable players should be subject to criteria, you must also agree that notable fans should always be removed, as there can be no good criteria for including them. Just wanted to clear this up so that a clear consensus can be found. aLii 12:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope; 'Notable fans' should be subject to two criteria:
  • They should have a Wikipedia article.
  • Their support for the team should be sourced. BlueValour 15:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) By that logic a "notable players" list would consist of every player in Category:Example F.C. players. For a lot of clubs such a supporters list would be huge (given that in many cases "support" is merely them once being referred to as a supporter in a printed publication or on TV), which would end up something like this. See also the likes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arsenal F.C. Supporters. Sure, Elissons sticky toffee pudding example was reductio ad absurdium, but I doubt you'd see a section listing famous fans of, say, Coldplay. Oldelpaso 16:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The verifiability argument here is a red herring; all things in Wikipedia must be verifiable but this does not mean all verifiable facts should be included. Even "verification" is tricky here - many webpages asserting x is a fan of y FC are based on rumour & hearsay (e.g. the Queen Mother or Osama bin Laden supporting Arsenal are probably both urban legends). I do not think the quality of club articles is enhanced by lists "notable" or "celebrity" fans - it distorts the picture, privileging coverage of a few dozen people as supporters of the club just because they are celebrities instead of discussion about the many thousands of a club's fans as a whole, those who actually attend games, and their shared background and culture.
BlueValour's proposal is better served by a category but they have been deleted (e.g. #1, #2) in the past. My advice is do neither, it just fills pages with unencyclopaedic trivia and cruft when there are far more interesting aspects of a club to engage with. Qwghlm 19:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sunderland A.F.C.

I just had a look at Sunderland A.F.C. and I think it needs a clean up, it's slightly different to the normal norm we have. Just thought a few people might be interested in bring it up to scratch. Regards, Govvy 13:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable players

I see that all club articles have lists of 'Notable players'. This is entirely POV and fails WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE- one person's list of notable players will be different to another person's. What is needed to comply with WP policy is some clear criteria. I suggest that 'Notable players' is replaced by 'Full and u-21 internationals' but am receptive to argument as to different criteria. BlueValour 23:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to have one of these lists that doesn't appear POV or indiscriminate - to use a definitive criteria like internationals or x number of games will be unrepresentative and will be full omissions. ArtVandelay13 23:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed the same thing at Fenerbahçe S.K. I don't think renaming it to "Full and u-21 internationals" would be better, but instead make it policy that players in the "Notable players" section be full and u-21 internationals. Or players who have made a significant impact at the club (e.g. Helped win titles, 100+ games, 50+ goals) or something like that. CAN 23:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Great ideas and I appreciate the difficulty in having centralised criteria since the editors of clubs who never have had internationals will still want a list of Notable Players. By instinct, as you will see above, I am a devolutionist, and have no problem with editors shaping their own criteria for the 'Notable Players' list in their articles. However it is done, though, there must be criteria otherwise it will simply be POV which is not acceptable. BlueValour 00:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I led a call to remove the notable players list the Liverpool F.C. article in July 2006 where we came to a consensus to do it. Later, the section was replaced with its current form, which is a few paragraphs of prose about various record holders — much better in my eyes. aLii 12:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not, under 'Notable Players', provide a link to the category of that teams's players (who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entry) or to a list of notable players? See Manchester United#Former players as an example GiantSnowman 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that does sound good. However, I still think that players who have had a large impact at the club based on a few parameters should be listed, along with prose paragraphs as used on the Liverpool article. The rest would, as you suggested, be listed at a different page. CAN 14:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
CAN's made a point. Some players really do have a larger impact at clubs than others. Based on honours, empathy with fans, whatever parameter it is. And this is what make him "notable" to the club's history. This is fact. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Do clubs have Team of the Decade, honor roll, hall of fame or equivalent? Listing players who are officially recognized by clubs or supporters would be preferable to trying to decide who's notable or not. --Ytny (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good. But surely it would have to be sourced. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I kinda like what I did with the section at the Central Coast Mariners FC article. Basically, I clearly stated that the list included international representatives only, but did this in the prose rather than a footnote or header change. I agree that this can be a problem section, and that the CCM style won't work for all teams (imagine a section, with details in prose, like for Man U!), but I felt it worked well in the situation. Daniel Bryant 09:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


I've started to notice an increasing prevalence of assist columns appearing in player's stats boxes. I was wondering if anyone could point to any sites that had reliable data on them? I just deleted the assist stats from the Steven Gerrard article, because I wanted to update them, but had no idea where to find the relevent info. I'm not against having such info in articles, but I'd like to know where it's coming from. aLii 12:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm instead clearly against, because make an assist is not like a goal and its assignation to a player can be highly subjective. To me, it's better to delete all these trivias, this is an encyclopedia and not a repository for football statistics. --Angelo 14:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Angelo GiantSnowman 14:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Also fully agree with Angelo. "assists" is not a commonly used term in football, nor as in the likes of Ice hockey an officially recognised on the pitch action.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. Assist stats are not widely available and which produces problems with making them verifiable. There is also the problem of indiscrepencies, as what defines an "assist" can be debatable. Dave101talk  20:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it depends on the league. In MLS, for example, assist stats are readily available. If the information is extremely difficult to find, however, then I say yes, get rid of it. Che84 00:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)