Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Mohd

Please forgive me for intruding, but I feel I must ask this Project if it's certain about the names of some recently (in the last six months) created articles. These are articles that contain the name "Mohd." This is an abbreviation for "Mohammed." I'm a member of WP:CYC, and in writing some track cycling articles for this year's Olympics, I had linked to a Malaysian cyclist the official Olympic website named Mohd Azizulhasni Awang. This man's name is actually Mohammed Azizul Hasni Awang. While I see that there are references naming Mohd Aidil Zafuan Abdul Radzak, Mohd Amirul Hadi Zainal, Mohd Safee Mohd Sali, and more, they seem to be many of the same references. And to the point that even the official Beijing Olympics website used the abbreviation "Mohd" in a position where it might reasonably look like a man's name, the references used in those and other articles, such as the "National Football Team's website," might simply be giving wrong or misleading information. And that's something we don't want Wikipedia to do.

Thank you for your time. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 23:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with using the abbreviated version of a person's name if that is what they are genuinely known as. We don't have articles named Edward Sheringham, Anthony Cascarino or Robert Robson, because while those may technically be their given names, they aren't the names they're known by....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think what the user is saying is that "Mohd" is used as a convenience abbreviation in print of a very common given name, rather than being what the person is known as. Like print sources, and particularly business names, in days gone by used to put "Wm" for William or "Thos" for Thomas. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

2004–05 in English football

I'm new here, but is this page 2004–05 in English football showing up wonky for anyone else? I don't know how to fix it. --lyonspen | talk 21:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, never mind. It was me. --lyonspen | talk 21:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Appearance count

Can someone explain why our appearance counts for players limits to league competitions only? It seems odd, for instance, that we differ with [1] on the matter of how many appearances and goals Gerrard has - and to a fairly staggering degree. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox Football biography#Why only league appearances?. Secondly, I expect Gerrard has nearly as many Champions League appearances as he does Premier League appearances. Hence the difference. Peanut4 (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To say nothing of FA Cup and Carling cup, yes. Perhaps the most sensible thing to do would be to simply specify what we are counting on each infobox. i.e. "League appearances" or simply "Appearances." Thus removing the disparity between us and other published sources, and also removing the strangeness of someone like Pelé, where we have a player who is famous in part for scoring 1000 goals, but fail to have a goal total for him that actually reaches 1000. So when we only have league appearances we retain accuracy, but we also provide the best and most complete information when we have it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The note at the bottom of the infobox does say "Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only" Peanut4 (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is good, but if we can do better than that for a given player (as we often can) why not do so? i.e. why not use competitive appearances, and then adjust down to league appearances when that's all we have? Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxen are helpful for at-a-glance information and comparative purposes. Keeping everyone at the same base line / lowest common denominator seems sensible to me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that consistency is the key. You can also see Gerrard's full career data further down the page at Steven Gerrard#Club statistics. Peanut4 (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I just question the basic applicability and usefulness of league-only statistics as an infobox-level benchmark for, at the very least, top players in the Prem. They seem, for Gerrard or a similar player, a very artificial measure to put in an infobox. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that we could do better, but the pragmatic thing to do would seem to be to wait until such point as we can rely on most players having total appearance counts. Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with including total appearances in-article - it's just that changing the default infobox figure doesn't seem to have support right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As our friend EconomistBR loves to point out, there's over 30,000 articles on football players on WP - if it was decided to switch to "all apps" totals in the infobox, is someone going to volunteer to check that all 30,000 are amended? Thought not. All we'd end up with is infoboxes where you had no idea if the stats were "league only" or "all apps", which would render all infobox data inherently unreliable........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So long as the infobox on a given article clearly indicated which it was, I fail to see how the number of articles in question would matter. They would get changed at whatever pace they got changed, and so long as each one clearly flagged which state it was in we'd be fine. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympic football

Two issues,

What should be done about the flood of edits such as this one, that confuse the status of full international caps and Olympic appearances. The confusion that causes this type of editing is not helped by the fact that nearly all of the wikilinks on the Olympic articles point to full national team in this way; Argentina. My proposal is that we create overview articles such as Argentina at the Olympic football (or whatever better name is decided upon), then get someone with a bot to replace the team wikilinks links in Category:Football at the Olympics articles. The articles only need be stubs detailing the Olympic record of each nation, but their existence would give us something vaguely accurate to link to. If these articles are not made I suggest we bot replace links to Argentina with Argentina (as appropriate) in order to avoid confusion.
The size of this section compared to the one sentence devoted to the Hungary team 1952-1968 makes the article reek of anglocentrism and recentism. Improving the historical balance of this article should be a priority.

Any comments welcome. E P 00:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, since the Olympic tournament resulted from a chat between FIFA and the IOC to replace the U23 world cup - and it's the U23 teams + overage players, why not just create and link U23 team articles for the countries? Nanonic (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

These countries already have U23 articles (there may be more kicking around) - China, Australia, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), New Zealand, Iran, Hong Kong, Malaysia, El Salvador, USA, Thailand, Morocco and Indonesia. Nanonic (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is probably clearer to the passing user to keep the country's Olympic record together, rather than cover a part of it in U-23 articles and part of it in the National football team article as would be done with Argentina (2008/1928). It should all be done a lot more coherently than it is presently, that much is clear. E P 01:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Before anything drastic is done, it should be remembered that between 1908 and 1952, all football games at the Olympics were regarded as full internationals. I’m not sure U-23 articles would be appropriate either as these Olympic teams also contain players over 23. While linking the articles to full national teams is not perfect, it is better then either of the above two suggestions. Djln --Djln (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

When U23 games were much more frequent, and before it was the Olympic standard, a limited number of over age players was allowed, so the description never was a strict definition. If the objection persists, it can be resolved by calling it the Fooland Olympic football team. These teams have separate management, the games do not count towards the national teams statistics or FIFA rankings, and players' appearances and goals are not considered part of their national record. If any mention is made on the nft articles, it should be accompanied by notes about the limited selection. Kevin McE (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with Djln and with User:English peasant. It is much clearer to the user to keep the country's Olympic record together, rather than cover a part of it in U-23 articles and part of it in the National football team article. It´s very simple. For those who don´t kwnow, it should be remembered that between 1908 and 1952, all football games at the Olympics were regarded as full internationals. And betwen 1900 and 1928 they were cosiderated as a World Cup (it was created in Uruguay 1930). U-23 articles are totally unnecesary here... The articles of national teams should collate World cup records with regional and olympics records. The Argentina Olympic team was almost the senior team: Messi, Riquelme, Mascherano, Gago, Aguero, Ustari, Garay, Zabaleta, ALL of them players of the "senior" team... Brazil: Ronaldinho, Diego, Rafinha, Alex, Rafael Sobis, Anderson, Jo, ALL player of the "senior" team... The same example for all african teams. If in a part of Europe the torurnament has not interest is a problem of those countries. ALL the "Senior" and U-23 (with 3 players over 23 years...) records must be in the same article: the National team one... --Ultracanalla (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that not always "These teams have separate management", as Kevin McE says. Marcelo Bielsa (snior manager at this era) won with Argentina the Olympics at 2004. Daniel Passarella (senior manager as this era) was the Argentina´s coach in Atlanta 1996. Mario Zagallo (senior Brazil´s manager as this era) was the Brazil´s coach in Atlanta 1996. Dunga (current Brazil´s manager) was the Brazil´s manager in these Olympics, and I can follow with a lot of examples, as the polish manager in 1972, the nigerian manager in 1996, the manager of Cameroon in 2000, etc... ALL the "Senior" and U-23 (with 3 players over 23 years...) records must be in the same article: the National team one... --Ultracanalla (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the managers are often the managers of the senior international team, but the records need to be seperated because appearances and goals in the Olympics have not counted as full international appearances for some time. The national team article should mention Olympic acheivements in a seperate section, with a link to the more comprehensive Fooland Olympic football team article which would give Olympic statistics, selection criteria for the games etc. Linking Olympic articles to the full national team article is just asking well meaning editors to update player and team articles with appearances and goals that do not count in the official records. E P 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a different idea. I would support articles about national teams at the Olympic games, such as, for instance, Italian football at the Summer Olympics. This would cover a nation's whole history at the Olympic games, since Olympic teams happen to play a handful of times every four years, and considering that senior teams used to play at the Olympic games until some years ago. --Angelo (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I´m agree with the point of Angelo. I would support articles about national teams at the Olympic games too, but I have to say that the Olympics titles and medals must figure at the National Team article too, as it figures in the Argentina´s article. Then, in the specific article of the "XXX team at the Summer Olympics" (as Angelo propouses) we should include al lot of more information, as English peasant says, for example full statistics, selection criteria for the games, historical matches, top goalscorers, etc. What do you say? --Ultracanalla (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image media attachment to categories?

What are the rules on adding images into categories? For for all players associated with a club, should their images also be categorized to the club players category? Also is it okay to add the main images in the main club category like I have been doing for Category:Tottenham Hotspur F.C.? Govvy (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For free-use images (images created by users who allow the images to be re-used, e.g. photos of players) I strongly recommend uploading images to (or moving images to) Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. Uploading to Commons allows all Wikipedias (not just the English-language one) to use the images. Commons has a category system and I'd be happy to suggest categories for any particular image if you're not sure. Fair-use images such as Image:Tottenham Hotspur Badge.png, where the copyright is owned by someone else, cannot be moved to Commons. I'm not sure if these should be categorised alongside articles though, I'd have thought not. --Jameboy (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Placement. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Importence level

A player must have played on proffessional level for a articel to be made about him, wonder if swedish Division 1 is seen as proffesional or if its amature? --> Halmstad, Talk to me 23:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not fully professional; therefore I wouldn't create articles on players who have only played at that level. I don't believe the second level in Sweden is fully pro either. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Guideline: NOTED PLAYER

See Wikipedia:NOTED PLAYER. MickMacNee (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Criteria should be set on a club by club basis, in the same way that all of the featured list of ***** players seem to have different inclusion criteria to suit, including the use of "arbitrary data" (50/100 caps). If article specific criteria are O.K. for feutured lists, why do we need general inclusion criteria that discriminate against teams that may not have a hall of fame, have incomplete statistical records or that do not hold testimonials? Attempting to define a set of criteria that will work as well for Liverpool F.C and Matlock Town F.C., Argentina and Andorra, Boca Juniors or El Porvenir seems pretty futile. E P 15:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Try and keep comments on the guideline page please. I deliberately phrased it such that it is not proscriptive to a certain professional level, much of the criteria would have equivalents up and down the spectrum I'm sure, and if sourceing the claim is a problem, that's a separate issue to the application of the guideline. I am sure Matlock Town would have some equivalent of a hall of fame/testimonial system, even if it just amounts to a tin cup/plaque on the clubhouse wall. These aren't the only criteria either. MickMacNee (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need this policy. It's like taking a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Peanut4 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See above and at ANI/Rfc for all the drama that suggests we do. MickMacNee (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem has arisen by some editors getting annoyed with people removing these lists. A lot of them are unreferenced, and simply POV, the way they stand. While, I applaud your efforts to try come up with some central guideline, I would follow English peasant's advice. It is impossible to band all clubs with the same guidelines, and suggest a common-sense approach on a club-by-club basis. Peanut4 (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

EP is for some reason fixated on the hall of fame criteria, when there are others also, included precisely to cater for all levels of sport. It would be quite a waste of time to start the discussion from scratch on every single talk page without any starting framework whatsoever, this is a very broad guideline that does not in my opinion shut out any opportunity for refinement on individual pages, within reason. For example, you can argue on the Matlock Town page what constitutes meeting the club honour or media recognition criteria in the context of that team, but you wouldn't be able to just say, "I wan't to include X, Y, Z because (insert POV reason)". Chucking out the guideline out of hand doesn't help anybody wishing to guide someone away from that mentality, as any rebutall is going to be equally POV. MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Transfer deadline

Seeing as the transfer deadline has been put back by a day (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7568921.stm), does the transfer window now close on 1 September or 2 September? A large number of anons editing the List of English football transfers summer 2008 seem to think that midnight is part of the previous day, and so the deadline would be on 1 September. However, I'm sure that general consensus is that midnight is part of the following day (hence midnight being 12am, not 12pm), and so the deadline closes on 2 September. It would be really helpful for the stability of the article if this could be decided once and for all. – Pee Jay 15:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Transfers have to be in before midnight, ~~or else they turn into a pumpkin~~ so all of 1 September is before the deadline, and any of 2 September is too late. Consequently the transfer window closes before 2 September, so it must close on 1 September. In my opinion, anyway. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's right. The transfer window traditionally shuts at the end of August, i.e. midnight on August 31. This year it closes one day late, i.e. at the end of September 1. Peanut4 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Sports "revolt"

I don't know if anyone here is aware of this discussion, but there's currently a discussion going on at WT:NCP regarding the disambiguation practices of various sporting WikiProjects. Comments are obviously welcome. – Pee Jay 08:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fully professional leagues

Just a quick question: does anyone know of a definitive list of exactly which divisions in which league are fully pro? If there is, I just thought this might be a handy reference point for deciding whether any club/player articles should be deleted. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 13:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue was already discussed plenty of times before. Here is a list of fully professional leagues [2], in any case I am going to move it to Wikipedia space as soon as possible. Bye. --Angelo (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have listed all the fully professional leagues under Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, feel free to expand it if I am forgetting some league (sure I do). --Angelo (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice one. 'friad I missed those past discussions. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 14:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see it finally get moved over. Hopefully we can figure out the rest of the borderline ones and get them decided for sure soon. matt91486 (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Importance of football-related lists

I have been tagging football-related lists as "Low-importance", per the WPFOOTY assessment guidelines. However I think it may be time to reconsider this. Should Margate F.C. seasons (apologies to ChrisTheDude) really be considered as important as List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners? The quality of lists in general seems to have improved a great deal; certainly the bar for getting a list to featured status has been raised in recent times. Should we acknowledge this in some way and if so how? I still think that the main article on a topic must be seen as more important than any lists that support it, but we could increase the relative standing of lists in some way. Maybe we could assign Mid-importance to lists that have international significance for example? --Jameboy (talk) --Jameboy (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, for sure. Some lists form the very backbone of some of the topics covered by this Wikiproject, and I think that lists such as List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners and List of Manchester United F.C. managers are certainly deserving of Mid-importance status. Obviously this would only be for subjects with international significance, and I think that Mid-importance should be the highest importance level that can be given to a list. – Pee Jay 22:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I too agree. But according to WP:WikiProject Football/Assessment#Current status some lists do have more importance than others. Peanut4 (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

First-team squad numbers

There is an edit war going on at Arsenal F.C. as to whether the squad list from UEFA's website should be used as a source. As they are an official governing body and they have been given the numbers by Arsenal FC when the players were registered, I regard UEFA's site as a reliable source. The list on the UEFA website doesn't contradict the Arsenal one - it is just more extensive - and includes two players who have been named on the bench for first-team competitive matches (Randall and Gibbs) who do not appear on the Arsenal website list. However not everyone agrees - comments at Talk:Arsenal F.C. welcome. Qwghlm (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, although in some rare cases the numbers are different between UEFA and domestic football - i.e. a number can be held by two different players on the two lists. Where this doesn't happen, however, it should be taken as reliable. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

UEFA is surely a reliable source and hence the squad numbers can be added. Peanut4 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The main argument of those who don't want to include all players with a squad number is that Arsenal's official website has a page for the First Team squad and a page for the Reserves and Youths. I would counter this argument with 1) the section on Wikipedia states that it is the Current Squad not the "First Team" Squad; 2) the squad numbers are only worn in first team competitions, the reserves wear 1-11, which means that even if the Wikipedia page stated that it was the First Team Squad, any player with a squad number would be a first team player.--Goonerak (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

FIFA Club World Cup

Does participation in FIFA Club World Cup make someone notable if they have nothing else to their name? I only ask as typically the Oceania participant is a non-professional side full of non-professional players, many of whom have not played full internationals. If it does make them notable, on what grounds? FIFA competition? surely that would also make ~~all Olympic participants,~~(oops, I see that already is acceptable criteria) all U-17 participants (including the 200+ U-17 women about to contest the inaugural Womens' U-17 world cup) and all U-20 participants worthy of their own 1-line articles also?--ClubOranje^Talk 11:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can compare Under 17 games with World Cup games. Although some of the qualifiers are little more than poor standard kickabouts, they are the highest level internationally that you can get. Peanut4 (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The query was in relation to the FIFA Club World Cup, not the FIFA World Cup....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it does not make them notable because they have not played in a fully professional league, nor are they internationals. They would certainly fail WP:ATHLETE in the same way that a player from a Faroese club playing in the Champions league would. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference between the Club World Cup and the FIFA youth tournaments is that it's a top-level competition. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a player playing for a Faroese club in the group stage of the Champions League rather than just the 1st qualifying rund pass WP:ATHLETE though? The FIFA World Club Cup is the finals of a top-level competition. Peanut4 (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say it does make them notable - it's the highest level of international club competition after all, and the matches get a lot of international coverage, easily passing the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" criteria IMO. Qwghlm (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Number57. The club is notable for the achievement, but for a number of the players it is a bit WP:ONEEVENT and should cover the event not the person. For many of these players (not from the big professional clubs) this is all they have done and all they will ever do - notability speaking - and will spawn another batch of one line articles--ClubOranje^Talk 01:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability does not list club football as a criteria for notability except between fully professional clubs in fully professional leagues--ClubOranje^Talk 01:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Rhys Williams

This poor guy - article at Rhys Williams (footballer) - has had his article deleted twice as he has only ever played for Wales at under-21 level, and never for Middlesbrough. However, Soccerbase now confirms he has played in the Carling Cup, and he has also been called up to the Welsh full national side, so can an admiin pretty please undelete the article? Cheers! Giant Snowman 15:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Giant Snowman 15:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Flags in football articles

User:BlackJack removed all the flags in Queens Park Rangers F.C. citing WP:FLAGS. I reverted this move, as I consider this to be way too radical, and against consensus (99.9% of our articles use flags with no harm whatsoever). In addition, WP:FLAGS is not policy. I just want to let you know, feel free to open a discussion if you agree/disagree with the one or the other opinion. --Angelo (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The flags should definitely stay. Footballing nationality is very clearly defined, and flags are generally used well on football articles. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

None of the flags in the article appear to be in violation of WP:FLAGS except maybe the ones in the infobox. So if continued removal happens they should explain exactly what is being violated in the guidline. Paul Bradbury 21:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the ones in the Queens Park Rangers F.C.#Notable players, past and present section are gratuitously decorative. The list is already ordered by country, and the players from each country are separated by a heading of country-name; the flags add nothing. Those in the managers and technical staff sections have the flags unaccompanied by the country name, which runs counter to WP:FLAGS#Accompany flags with country names. And some people might wonder whether we really need to know the nationality of the kitman and the assistant physio, even if those nationalities are accurate, given there are no sources. But I would agree that a blanket removal of all flags is a step too far. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

David Healy's International goals and caps

Anyone else think that this is a bit of an unnecessary content fork? – Pee Jay 08:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely - bin it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've prodded it, but I presume it will probably go to AfD in the end. – Pee Jay 08:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Blimey, I've never heard of a WHBC (would have been cap) before listed here. --Jimbo^[online] 12:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The PROD was obviously contested by the usual IP user, so I made it into an AFD. I know maybe I'm off topic, but I think a change in WP:PROD in order to forbid anonymous users from contesting proposed deletions is actually necessary. --Angelo (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-FIFA football teams

Should such teams as Jersey, Isle of Man, Guernsey, Brittany, Corsica, amongst others be renamed as they are not strictly nations? Other articles of a similar nature are named as xxx official football team, xxx autonomous football team or simply xxx football team. --Jimbo^[online] 13:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably not strictly, but I'd be surprised if it weren't the most common name for them, given that they're directly analogous to national squads. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Jersey & Guernsey teams are probably more analagous to County FA representative squads, competing annually in the South West Counties Championship along with the likes of Devon & Dorset, until it was abandoned this season. - fchd (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Overcategorisation

See the sub categories here Category:Expatriate footballers in Japan, I think they should all be deleted. E P 22:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just found this deletion debate. As I said there, these triple intersections give us nothing that can't easily be achieved using catscan. E P 22:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Expatriate footballers in England

I don't quite understand this category and the others. What exactly is this category doing? Why are these players expatriate from their homeland? Can someone explain it in simple terms for me. Govvy (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The category is for non-English footballers playing in England, and by non-English I mean their sporting nationality is not English. For example, although Owen Hargreaves was born in Canada and spent a large proportion of his life in Germany, since he plays for the England national team, he is considered English, and therefore is not an "Expatriate footballer in England". – Pee Jay 21:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So what kind of example can you give me for the use and purpose of this category? Govvy (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's used to identify players who play outside of their home country, i.e. non-English players playing in England. There should be ones for non-French players playing in France, non-Spanish players playing in Spain and non-Italian players playing in Italy too. – Pee Jay 22:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a current fashion to add expatriate to anybody who kicks a ball at the moment. With over 60%(?) of current Premiership players from outside England it seems to increase the editing load for minimal if any added value. If a player is categorized as expatriate from X country why do we also need a category alongside this that also says they are an expatriate from somewhere else but playing in England. In any case 'Expatriate footballers in England' is an oxymoron. Btw, the accurate but no more justified categorisation would be 'Inpatriate footballers in England', yuk! Tmol42 (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Inpatriate footballers in England" would mean English players playing in England, and there's tons more of them than foreigners in the English game as a whole. Of course, that's assuming that "inpatriate" is even a word. Do you guys even know what "expatriate" means? – Pee Jay 23:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't Hargreaves be a Canadian Expatriate footballer? He did grow up in Canada. Personally I don't think any of these categories are needed. Football is a global sport with players playing all over the world. There are probably a few hundred of these categories and they don't really do anything for a reader. I say delete them all. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3. No you are wrong Inpatriates is a word and is commonly used in business alongside expatriate. and your definition is 180 degrees incorrect it does mean what I described it as. For example I found the following definition with two clicks on Google just now '...expatriates who are citizens of a foreign country working in the home country of their multinational employer'.Check it out here and ditto in lots of other places. And sadly I do know what it means and what's worse catch myself using the word all to frequently.Tmol42 (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So wouldn't it be a good idea to add a description to this category to explain to those that use it what it is about. ect? Maybe do like a dictionary explanation on expatriate also? Govvy (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be just me but this seems a little like over-categorisation for a sport where "foreign" players are commonplace. Especially within the European Union. Is it actually useful? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has much of a use, but there may be a use to very very few people on there on this planet. When you goto the library I doubt you will find a category like this on footballers. Govvy (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Waste of time IMO. •Oranje•·Talk 10:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You see, I can understand it maybe in cricket where you can have the odd "overseas player" in the squad, I could almost see it in US soccer (for instance) where "foreign imports" are a little rarer, but in the EU? I just think it's overcategorisation. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Aren't List of foreign xxx players (e.g.) enough? --necronudist (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Not wishing to upset anyone, I'm considering taking these categories to WP:CFD, any thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would love to see these categories deleted. They are pointless considering half the footballers in the world play outside of their home country. I support CFD's for ALL of these categories. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Same, I would like to see them gone also. Waste of MBs if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated them all for {{cfd}} so feel free to add your opinions here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that this category in that deletion list for that day is the only one left! I think we need some more people to vote on there to get the points across. Govvy (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with undisclosed fees

This season Villa have decided to have all their fees at Undisclosed so trying to collate statistics is impossible without delving into the realms of conjecture. As such, how do I expand Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records#Record transfer fees? The latest signing was James Milner believed to be £10–12 million, so that cannot be put into the table as undisclosed: we don't know, they might have sold him for £6 million?

Also, is it deemed neccessary to have a Record Transfer Fees out section? I cannot find a single source that has this data. Woody (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it extremely annoying when clubs don't disclose the fees paid for players, especially when the club is a PLC, as then they have to disclose the value of a transfer for the benefit of shareholders. If Aston Villa is a PLC, then the transfer value should be available in the club's annual report. Otherwise, it will have to remain as undisclosed. When dealing with the Man Utd records and statistics page, I used a reliable third party website for the fees. One could say that the fees may not necessarily be 100% accurate, but at least they were reliably sourced. – Pee Jay 12:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

More and more transfers seem to be going down this route these days. PeeJay is right - you'd have to wait until the 2008/09 accounts are published, which will be well over a year yet :-( •Oranje•·Talk 12:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham Mail says £10 million, but how reliable that figure is I don't know. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I just formatted that in Milner's article. Villa isn't a PLC anymore I don't think, since Lerner bought all shares. And the transfers could simply be put as general liabilities, not showing specific amounts.

Now, what about the record transfer fees received section? Woody (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it probably should include the record transfer fees received. You could use soccerbase for this, which has been done on several featured statistics and records lists. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) My suggestion for the record section is to find the most reliable source or combination of sources, cite what you find the best figure you can quote, but also add a footnote to say the fee was "undisclosed" by the club but estimated to be £xm by Y news, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. Sources in the North-East, including local BBC stations, suggest the fee is £12m. Peanut4 (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Wimbleton

I created an article on a footballer named Paul Wimbleton several months ago and I noticed recently that it has been deleted. As he played over 200 times in the Football League I dont understand why it has been deleted. Can someone explain why? Kosack (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly because it's been edited by Paul wimbleton (talk · contribs) and someone thought it was a hoax or CoI? Either way it shouldn't have been deleted & I've now restored it. Might need a bit of work though. Qwghlm (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. It looks like the real Paul Wimbleton has been editing his own article so I will keep an eye on it. Kosack (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox questions?

When a youth player (who has never made an appearance) goes on loan to a club, should his parent club be above the loanee club in the senior clubs sector? Or should the first line be the loanee club? Basically, which one of the following infoboxes layout is right, Sam Sloma's or Clayton McDonald's? --Jimbo^[online] 12:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say Clayton McDonald, much more attractive. Giant Snowman 13:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Clayton McDonald's is best - in the other the loan is left hanging and it's unclear where it's from. As soon as someone makes their full debut, that's the start of their senior career, including at their parent club, regardless of the situation there. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed. Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 13:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Sloma even notable? - did he play for D&R while they were in playing in the Football League? Giant Snowman 13:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he made 29 appearances in League Two last season.[3] Mattythewhite (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah good, just checking! Giant Snowman 14:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Chedric Seedorf

Chedric Seedorf's article claims he is currently playing for AC Milan; is this correct? I have a suspicion that someone may have confused him with his brother Clarence Seedorf. Giant Snowman 16:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, anyway... [4]; [5] x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation again

I know that (although it appears to be being challenged) the standard form for disambiguating articles on past players is still to use ....(footballer), even if the person is arguably a million times better known for being a manager, but what about the case of someone who never played at a professional level and about whose playing career pretty much no concrete details are actually recorded? I'm thinking in particular of Robert Brown (football manager).......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Robert Brown (football manager) was the best place for the page. I'd suggest the disambiguation should concisely describe the person in question more than any other concerns. It looks like he's noted for a football manager more than a footballer. My guess there are lots of people who could have an abundance of disambiguations with none, but the most apt, taking precedence over the rest. Peanut4 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Use (football manager) - I have done so with Thomas Mitchell (football manager), who never played at any recognisable level. Qwghlm (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Black and white football clubs

A number of the club articles on my watchlist (e.g. Bamber Bridge F.C., Boreham Wood F.C.) have been added to this new category in the last 24 hours. Is this a useful categorisation or not (I think not)? - fchd (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think so. Peanut4 (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For starters, the football club itself isn't black and white, only the kit, so it is a badly named category. It should be deleted in any case, it doesn't add any value. Other than (for example) the Juve/Notts County link, it's trivial to asociate teams based on the colour of the kit. --Jameboy (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I noticed the category added to a few of my watched articles. The CfD can be found here. --Jimbo^[online] 12:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed it too in my watchlist. I don't think it adds any value. What is the point? What's next: green colored cat, red colored teams, category for teams with vertical stripes, etc. Worthless. -- Alexf⁴² 13:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of it - the confusion with other meanings of "black" and "white" are only the beginning, it is also over-categorisation. Qwghlm (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Superleague Formula

I've just discovered of another recent addition in a number of articles such as A.C. Milan, FC Porto, Liverpool F.C. and others. A Template:Superleague Formula was created and added, this thing being a car championship sponsored by a number of football clubs (as stated on the main article). Personally I don't think this thing should be covered in the related football club articles, it's just another game, and sponsorship is not enough to justify this addition. Opinions are welcome, of course. --Angelo (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be in the articles these templates. I just removed two from Tottenham Hotspur F.C.. Also that article has been tagged with the Football project on the talk page. Do we really need that under the football project banner? Govvy (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I just invited editors of all the club articles with these templates on to discuss the matter at Template talk:Superleague Formula. That's probably a better place to discuss that because the creator of the templates will presumably see it, whereas they probably won't here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Quadruple

Please consider contributing to Talk:The Quadruple, or else to improving the article's references. At the moment it looks awfully like original research and I am thinking of nominating it at AfD if it cannot be improved. Thanks for any time you can give to this. --John (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this. Perhaps it would be easier to combine all articles on The Double, The Treble and The Quadruple into one? Not entirely sure what it would be called ("Multiple simultaneous cup victories in football" sounds rather wordy), so maybe just "the Double" should cover that, the Treble and the Quadruple? The treble's not exactly happened many times (especially if you discount Mickey Mouse trebles like Liverpool's one) and the Quadruple has only happened once in men's football. I think a single article could cover all the eventualities. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Vitor Flora

According to BBC's Live transfer day news:

1155: LIVERPOOL SIGNING The Premier League club have signed Brazilian Vito Flora on a free transfer from Botafogo. The 18-year-old holds an Italian holds an Italian passport and the necessary international clearance has been received.

Only problem is that the guy has no article, and looks like he hasn't played a game for Botafogo. A lot of new good-faith users may create an article, but I think it may fail WP:ATHLETE. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything on Google which confirms he has played for Botafogo, so looks to be non-notable for now. Giant Snowman 12:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

His correct name might be Vitor Flora. The really weird thing is that his name isn't mentioned at all in Botafogo's website [6]. --Angelo (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, as Angelo said, there is no mention of Flora on the Botafogo squad list - either they are extremely good at updating, or he was never on it to begin with...very strange either way. Giant Snowman 12:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's Vitor. I've changed the header. I'm quite surprised that wikilink hasn't changed to blue yet... D.M.N. (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it will do soon enough ;) Giant Snowman 12:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to make it into a redirect to Liverpool F.C. if you all agree, as a way to prevent wise users from creating it. --Angelo (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking! If I were you I'd do the same for Vito Flora as well. Giant Snowman 13:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Angelo (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

People could still create it. At the top of the Liverpool article (if the user has typed in Vitor Flora in search), it would say "(Redirected from Vitor Flora)" - the user could click on the wikilink, then edit this page and start typing. It wouldn't make a difference IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But brand-new user with no knowledge of notability guidelines and little experience with Wikipedia tools would be discouraged to do so. At least, that's what I've noted in my long time around here. --Angelo (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

{edit-conflict) It's still better than nothing; at least if that happens we can revert the edits back to the redirect. Giant Snowman 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Guardian: The Knowledge

I noticed The Knowledge is cited on Kit (association football), a featured article. Since the content is derived from reader's letters, this is obviously an unreliable source. I enjoy reading The Knowledge and often learn from it, but I take it with a pinch of salt and have often noticed mistakes. I would have thought a cursory glance at the site would show its nature: is this just a once-off failure of the FAC review process? Or is there some list of unreliable sources that FAC reviewers can cross-check against? If so, The Knowledge should be on it. In either case, it might be worth mentioning on this project somewhere, since no doubt many contributors have learnt things from The Knowledge — not all of which are true. jnestorius^(talk) 15:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll find alternative sources for the two statements in that article referenced to The Knowledge in the next hour or so, but right now I can smell my dinner burning downstairs.............. :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect "The Knowledge" has simply slipped through the net of FAC reviewers because on first glance it looks like a reliable source because of its host. Peanut4 (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ack, I'm guilty of this as well (e.g. in Arsenal F.C.). Unless The Knowledge quotes its source for its claim it shouldn't really be used. Qwghlm (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This link and this link (thanks to Special:Linksearch) may help track down errant references - just search for the word "knowledge" in the URLs. Qwghlm (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

CONACAF football templates nominated for deletion

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 1#CONCACAF Gold Cup templates — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

English footballers in Italy, early 20th Century

Can anyone withb a good knowledge of Italian football (I'm looking at you Angelo...!) have a look at articles on a number of English players who helped to kickstar football in Italy (e.g. Samuel Richard Davies and his Italian son Carlo Davies), and improve if possible? Many thanks, Giant Snowman 13:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite a expert of ancient Italian football, User:Necronudist sure knows much more than me about that. In any case, I can try to have a look at these articles once I have enough time. --Angelo (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated! Giant Snowman 13:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I assume that this query should be headed "English footballers in Italy, early 20th Century"? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I'm an idiot sometimes! I've changed it before anyone else cottons on...Giant Snowman 11:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Carlos Tévez

Carlos Tévez is technically on a two year loan deal at Man Utd - this article confirms it - so why doesn't his infobox reflect that? Giant Snowman 13:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a typical loan as far as I'm informed - in fact, he's not on loan from a club, as his transfer rights are detained by Kia Joorabchian's MSI investment company. I think the should be left as it is, explaining his situation directly in the article content. --Angelo (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that it should not be mentioned in the infobox - apart from anything else, putting it in would make it look to the casual eye like he's on loan from West Ham....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he was 'on loan' at West Ham as well...Giant Snowman 13:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Showing them both as loans would make it look like he was on loan to both clubs from Corinthians, which again would be inaccurate..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but he WAS technically on loan at the two English clubs; this is a tricky one. Giant Snowman 13:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It definitely doesn't need to be mentioned. Man Utd have stated that they are going to make the deal permanent before the end of 2008 confirmed (Note: it does NOT need to be completed before the end of the transfer window). As already mentioned, putting that it is a loan would confuse matters DJDannyP//Talk2Me 13:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The key to this, I think, is who holds Tevez's registration. I think it's correct that Manchester United holds the player's registration, certainly West Ham did before them (as it became clear from their arbitration case), thus so far as the Premier League / FA rules are concerned, Tevez is not on loan, although there are certainly unusual financial arrangements between club, Tevez and Joorabchian, which are complex and confusing. It would be correct I think to show Tevez as not being on loan in the infobox and to note the financial arrangement in the main body of the text. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Further comment: When the BBC refers to a 'loan' here, they are referring to the financial arrangement between club, Tevez and Joorabchian. They are not referring to a loan between clubs. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Another Zárate?

I have recently created an article on Leandro Zárate; does anyone know if he another brother to Mauro, Rolando, Ariel and Sergio? Thanks, Giant Snowman 15:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reference to suggest that he is related. He was born in Córdoba and the Zárate brothers were born in Haedo, Buenos Aires and Zárate is a fairly common name for Argentine footballers. E P 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for looking anyway! Giant Snowman 11:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

John Akinde

Is this guy currently worthy of a page? I am fully aware that he has not played any games for a pro side, but he's just become the first player ever to have his transfer decided by an online vote. Would this be a case where WP:BIO overrides WP:ATHLETE? – Pee Jay 07:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No. He would he notable only for a series of circumstances that would maybe make him notable for only one event. He has done absolutely nothing to become notable as an athlete. --Angelo (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. He has been the subject of considerable independent coverage over the last week or so. - fchd (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

He's definitely more notable than some of the American college normal season games that I came across last night and are turning wikipedia into a sports almanac. I reckon Akinde will soon pass WP:ATHLETE but I think his transfer is notability for his creation, certainly it's worth a note on the two teams' respective pages. Peanut4 (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE is not absolute - if a player does not satisfy it, but through other means satisfies the basic rule in WP:NOTE i.e. that they have had non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, then they are notable. [7] [8] [9] seem to suggest extensive coverage. 10:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In a couple fo weeks it'll be immaterial as he'll play for Bristol City at some point soon and will then pass the criteria and so can have an article created DJDannyP//Talk2Me 10:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, if it's deleted it will just be validly re-created in a couple of weeks anyway. •Oranje•·Talk 11:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Akinde's article was delete, as a result of this AfD as he had not played in a fully pro comp. His transfer to Bristol City seems to have gathered quite a bit of press, after around 7,500 memebers of MyFootballClub voted if the club should sell him or not - which is quite a new revelation in the football industry (and possibly the first of a kind). There are quite a few pages on footballers who don't satisfy WP:ATHLETE but pass WP:BIO because of their transfers, and I'd put Akind in this bracket. I'd say he's definately notable. --Jimbo^[online] 13:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead photo on Kit (association football)

Earlier today User:Lucy-marie removed Pavel Nedved's name from the caption of this photo, stating "removed name of player to prevent the image from dating". I put it back in, stating "how could the image "date"? that photo's always going to be of the same person", at which point she took it out again, stating "It will date the kit as will age it when he retires and so on". I don't even understand what she means - any thoughts? Surely the only theoretical "dating" problem would be with the word "modern" in the caption, rather than the name of the player involved? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you. There's no earthly reason why naming Nedved dates the photo any more than not naming him. - fchd (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the word "modern" could be problematic, in that there's no indication in the caption of what time period modern refers to. Though removing the player's name only removes a clue as to when it was modern, and what the player's retirement has to do with it I've no idea. If you wanted to change it, you could say something like "Pavel Nedved pictured in 2007 wearing a typical football kit of the time". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Template problem

There is something wrong with {{Club_Atlético_Huracán_squad}}, according to the template tab at the top, it doesn't exist. Could somebody have a look at it, cheers E P 16:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have cured itself, perhaps a problem with é and á. E P 16:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD - Thomas Thunell

Can someone please add an AfD to Thomas Thunell - oddly, it's one of the few Wiki things I've never done, so I'm not sure exactly how to do it! Thanks. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has been prodded, so there's no need to add an AfD to it at this time. For future reference, instructions on how to take an article to AfD can be found at WP:AfD. – Pee Jay 17:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Football League Trophy

just to check, this is a fully professional competition so if a player debuts in this he passed notability standards, am I right in assuming that? Skitzo (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Peanut4 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I was just checking as i have moved the Luke O'Neill article i was working on in my sandbox over to the main space and didn't want it to be deleted without keeping a back up copy. Skitzo (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:The Football League players

This category should be renamed, for starters the category shouldn't start with The at the beginning of the name. Secondly what period is this for? Pre 1991? The description is not very explanatory. Govvy (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You need the definite article to distinguish it from Scottish Football League et al. It should refer to all players who have played in the league since it was formed, including players who played in the top division until 1992. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. Obviously this category is for players who have played in The Football League at any point during its existence from 1888 to the present day. – Pee Jay 19:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It needs the definite article to match the name of the respective page and match the name of the league. Secondly I don't see what's wrong with the description on the category page. Peanut4 (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am saying it shouldn't start with The should just be FA Football League Players and there should be a date range and the category to be split between, say 1888 to 1939 and 1946 to 1992. Govvy (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The division isn't known as the "FA Football League" though. The article name for the league is "The Football League" rather than "Football League", so surely the category should follow suit? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What would you do with players from 1992 onwards? Peanut4 (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be a separate category for FA Premier League players. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But there is... Mattythewhite (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is there any need to split the category into date ranges? The league has not changed in terms of structure since it was established, other than a new league being formed above it in 1992. – Pee Jay 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

When used as an adjective the "The" should be dropped - it's standard English grammar. We say e.g. "a Football League spokesman said..." not "a The Football League spokesman said...". Category:Football League players looks fine to me - there is only one Football League after all (all the others are prefixed by their nationality). Qwghlm (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jim Paterson

I removed a nickname. If it's notable, I'd be grateful if one of you would reinstate it, with sourcing. If not, I'd be glad for some other eyes watching the article too. --Dweller (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's rubbish. •Oranje•·Talk 11:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention

I've recently created the Ben Watson (footballer born December 1985) article, as there is already a footballer named Ben Watson (footballer), who has the Ben Watson (footballer born 1985) redirected to his article.

Should the Ben Watson (footballer) and Ben Watson (footballer born 1985) be set up as DAB pages, with Ben Watson (footballer) moved to Ben Watson (footballer born July 1985). Or leave it as it is as the current Ben Watson is probably a bit more notable? --Jimbo^[online] 12:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's quite conufsing with the year being the same, so they'd both need month and year in the titles. A dab page at (born 1985) for me.•Oranje•·Talk 12:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say both should redirect to Ben Watson, assuming that's a "general" dab page.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Studs

No, not praise for the male contributors to this WikiProject. (I avoided "members" quite nicely, I think.)

Anyway, anyone want to help out with this one? Cleat (shoe) is rather American-centric, with no bolded mention of "Studs", "soccer" prominent (ugh) etc. Stud doesn't include the usage "Studs", just "Cleat", which must mystify American visitors. Etc etc. --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

News - Phelan and Curbishley

Mike Phelan's been promoted to assistant manager and Alan Curbishley has resigned. Add those to the ongoing Kevin Keegan fiasco and there's quite a lot to update. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Scotland national football team - last 10 away games

I can't see the point of this article, The points system for the Scotland Supporters Club is notable but should probobly be included in the Tartan Army article or a Scotland Supporters Club article could be created. Darryl.matheson (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that even the points system is notable. It may be worth a brief mention, but is the average reader really going to care about how to get hold of tickets for Scotland games? – Pee Jay 14:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's worth a passing mention in an appropriate article (Tartan Army could do with a thorough re-working). I agree that this article fails for lots of reasons, including recentism, aggregation of random data and lack of notability outwith a stats section in the parent article. Merge kthx. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chris, merge and then DELETE!!! Giant Snowman 14:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki that and the forthcoming fixtures over to WikiNews, perhaps? The pages can then be turned both into redirects for Scotland national football team 2000–2009 results. Qwghlm (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Stevenage Borough F.C. and User:DestinyTrain

Can an admin please repair Stevenage Borough F.C. and ban User:DestinyTrain thanks. Govvy (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a month - also appears to be a sock of WtWtWtWtWt given that editors past move vandalism. Next time its indef. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Honduras template

I think that the template for the Honduran league is somewhat bloated and unwieldy. Tried trimming it down but was just undone. Could others have a look and comment on what they think about it? Dancarney (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Colin Kazim-Richards moved

Has recently been moved to Kâzım Kâzım. I don't recall any discussion with regards to this, and no reason was given for the move either. Can an admin undo the move, so the page history returns to Colin Kazim-Richards without me having to copying everything. Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 12:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Done it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisted AfD

Just so you know, there is a relisted AfD for Zainurin Kadir which has not yet had any input from WP:FOOTBALL members. Cheers, Giant Snowman 13:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish footballers

Are all Israeli footballers considered Jewish footballers aswell? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so. I'm sure that some Arab citizens of Israel have played for the Israel national football team. (eg Abbas Suan) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - Walid Badir, Salim Toama and Abbas Suan are Arab Israelis who have represented their country. It'd be very incorrect to call all Israelis of any profession all Jewish as well. Qwghlm (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think so. That said, 'Category:Jewish footballers' is pretty much based on the thought of all Israeli people being Jewish because there are no sources for many of these players being Jewish. Ex: Ya'akov Hodorov, Tomer Hemed and Kobi Hassan. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like over categorization again! Govvy (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been adamantly fighting, and reverting all these religious cats added to players, Catholic, Jewish, etc. Who cares? It is most of the time not supported by the article, not referenced, and it does not add anything to the player. These categories should only be added when religion plays an important part on the player's life (e.g. Kaká). -- Alexf⁴² 12:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Croatia national football team

Thought since this page is part of the Wikiproject on football, then I should attempt to resolve the ongoing issues at FAC. The Croatia national football team has failed 3 times now and it was acceptable on all three attempts, each one being better than the previous admittedly. However, the failing is due to a lack of support. Putting the clear racial preference aside, this page is a definite candidate for FA, I think its even better than the Scotland national football team page which is already an FA. The issues that were bought up at the last FAC nomination were quickly resolved, but some users continued to oppose the article on the grounds of fake problems which are not even satisfiable. For example, I was told to fix up an image tag that was said to be incorrect (even though it wasn't). I asked the user what he thought would be the most appropriate tag for the image, and he went on to immediately oppose in his response. Additionally, I was asked to provide author information for the soccer field image which is present on many pages. I provided author information and the user came back and opposed on further grounds of 'image problems' which was clearly wrong. Anyway, what I'm suggesting is that since this is a football article, then the users from this project should come and support this FAC so it rightfully gets promoted. Its only fair. A lot of work has gone into this page and it is being deliberately ignored due to racism. The simplest method would be to build a group of support from this project I think. Domiy (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I accept your frustration at this failing once again, I think this above post is a gross violation of WP:CANVASS. If we did block-vote as you suggest, Sandy would rightfully and correctly ignore it. Image copyrights are important as they open up Wikipedia to legal action, so they need to be accurate and correct. Saying this is down to racism is grossly unfair and putting me off even looking at the article for you. Woody (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think making accusations of racism is not helpful. I've had a look at the page, and I don't understand the copyright problems either, but then I'm no expert. However, I reckon that the line-up image created for the 1998 squad does need a reference. Dancarney (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, claiming that editors haven't supported the FAC because they're racist makes you look like an idiot and is close to a breach of WP:CIVIL. The football project does not exist to blindly support articles at FAC just because they're football related, if editors didn't support the article it's presumably because they didn't think it was of an appropriate standard, which is their prerogative - ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I really think you need to retract the racism comment, it will derail any future FAC. There are more outstanding problems other than the images. Image copyrights are important as they open up Wikipedia to legal action, so they need to be accurate and correct. It took me quite a while to look through that FAC as it is so broken up. The outstanding problems as I see it: some image copyright issues, some reliable sources issues and the 1940s issue. That is more than enough to fail its FAC. Saying this is down to racism is grossly unfair and misguided: it is putting me off even looking at the article for you. Woody (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Domiy, I've suggested this to you on a couple of occasions, but I would highly recommend you adopt a formal peer review at the very least to iron out any problems and try take the article to FAC in its best possible position for support. It's much easier than expecting lots of issues to be addressed at FAC. Peanut4 (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I just dont think you guys get the point. I'm not asking you to support the article because its football related. I'm asking you to support it because it is getting no neutral support from the active reviewers at FAC because they have little to no idea about football. They are asking ridiculous questions which makes the article look really bad, when indeed any knowledged football fan would know this article is of exceptional standards for FA. --- some image copyright issues, some reliable sources issues and the 1940s issue. --- This is precisely what I'm complaining about. The 1940s issue was made by a user who simply has it in for me because of our constant ongoing debates which end up in flames. He's arguing that the team that existed in 1940 should be referenced as being the same team as the current one. Kind of a dead question when you think about it. Any reference provided will clearly tells the reader that the 1940s team was Croatian and representing the state of Croatia. It was immediately fixed up anyway as I led him to the link that states such info. As for the image copyright issues, there are none. The soccer field image clearly states it is ineligible for copyright as it is a common project released into the domain by a user. Author information is provided, as is uploader information. All necessary links are on the image page itself which lead to the correct talk pages etc. The reference issues is by far the worst. They asked what makes some sources reliable, what they rightfully meant was 'these sources are not good enough'. They asked for the domain information to prove the sources are reliable, I gave them such information to all necessary pages which clearly show the domain to be reliable. They didn't even bother to check the links as there was no reply. They were all just going through the page and picking out the tiniest of issues and not giving me the ability to fix them up. Nothing is ever good enough by their 'standards' They wont support the article because of personal preference. Thats the end of it. Yet somehow the Scotland team passed FAC when it had numerous POV, image copyrights and prose issues. How can one honestly say that these two nominations were treated with the same fairness? Clearly they wont. I hate to sound controversial, but the truth is what kills people today. Domiy (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please factor in that the Scotland article passed a year ago; standards are generally getting continually tougher for FAC. And I'll second Peanut's recommendation of a formal Peer Review process - that should help you work out any extra kinks. matt91486 (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Domiy, stop being so belligerent about this. You weren't going for Football featured article, you were going for Wikipedia featured article, it is the reviews of those who don't know a lot about football that are important. They can highlight problems that we are blinded to, jargon etc. Image copyright issues are not little things, nor is reliable sourcing. You are not listening to the reviewers concerns. Frankly, they know best. You need to explain why they are reliable sources, who wrote them, where are they sourcing it from? Instead you write done, not actionable, please ignore which helps no-one, least of all Sandy who has the unenviable job of reading through that mammoth chronological mess. Please take the reviewers concerns on board and edit the article accordingly. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Stats from old Rothmans?

I was wondering if anyone had a pile of old Rothmans yearbooks and could help me with two small points on the Steve Bruce article. All I need is confirmation that the appropriate editions support the stats in the table for his last two seasons at Norwich and, if so, the page numbers to insert into the reference templates which I've already put in place? If anyone could assist with this it would really be hugely appreciated!!!!!! - ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We've got some at work but they are very tatty and difficult to use. Let me know what you need and I'll try my best to find it. Peanut4 (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving of these discussions

Maybe I'm not being very alert, and maybe there is a serious issue over the keeping of the archives of these pages.I had call this morning to look up discussion in August about the flag appropriate to AS Monaco, and it was in neither the current archive (No 20) nor the present discussion page. I was eventually able to find it by going back several pages of the history tag

Closer examination shows that the "Current archive" in fact has no content later than 17 June, while the current talk page (this one) has a one-note thread from 12 June, but otherwise is all dated from 20 August. So we have more than two months' worth of discussion that is not easily accessible. Even in the off-season, we have not all been estivating, so where is the evidence of our musings?

Without a complete archive, there can be little appeal to past consensus. Where has MiszaBot II hidden it? Kevin McE (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The pages are being archived OK, what isn't being updated is the box at the top containing the links to the archived pages. The current archive is really #24. I don't know if the box should be automatically updated, or whether a human being has to do it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the archive list needs to be updated by a human. There is an automated archive template at {{archives}} that doesn't need human intervention but if we use it, we lose the date info. What do others think? Qwghlm (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather keep the date info, and try and remember to update the box occasionally. Will do it in a minute (if no-one else has by then}. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Derek Gaudet

Can an admin please recreate the article for Derek Gaudet - he made his debut for Toronto FC today. Confirmation is here - [10]. Thanks! --JonBroxton (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Expatriate footballers

Do the Expatriate footballers categories only apply to active players, or to all footballers past and present? Should the category Canadian expatriate footballers in the Netherlands, to name one example, only contain Canadians who are playing in the Netherlands at the moment, or should it contain all Canadians who have ever played in the Netherlands? Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Expatriate footballers categories is just over-categorization if you ask me. I would love to know statistics for the number of people that actually use these types of categories. Govvy (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they're set for deletion. Peanut4 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. So we've got one group about to be deleted, and another group of exactly the same categories veering towards keep or no consensus. Time to get some clarity in this? Aecis·(away) ^talk 00:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Forest season article

Having a bit of an issue with a couple of over-eager fans at Nottingham Forest F.C. season 2008-09. They prefer the infobox to reflect the team's current position (even though the field name clearly states otherwise) and the "Current standings" section is just a copy-and-paste of the table from the Championship season article; as such, I thought a {{main}} link to the relevant section in the Championship season article would be more fitting. Apparently not, however. Some assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Tireless vandal

I would like to remind other Project members of User:Dapsv (talk · contribs) who tirelessly vandalizes articles about footballers by changing their birth information according to the current political situation, i.e. Soviet Union --> Russia, Czechoslovakia --> Slovakia etc. Some examples: Roman Pavlyuchenko, Thomas Hitzlsperger. He did not react on my notices on his talk page. Please watch his edits and don't hesitate to block him if he'll continue. - Darwinek (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Four questions in One

1) Are the Provincial flags really needed in the Famous Players section of Atlético Madrid? It makes it so confusing.

I would say definitely NOT to this. Someone did the same thing to all the MLS team pages, adding state flags and so on - I deleted them saying they were unneccesary, and a violation of WP:FLAGS.--JonBroxton (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they need explanation, Category:Spanish autonomous football teams are not insignificant. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

2) Is Poland u-19 national football team really notable enough to have its own page? Considering the amount of info in the article I suggest merging it with the other Polish youth teams.

I'd say merge.•Oranje•·Talk 08:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd lean slightly in favour of merging them, but well done the editors who got the various Poland u-XX national football team articles up rather than having such data on the main nft article, as far too many teams have. Kevin McE (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

3) List of top association football goal scorers: Is this article even worth keeping? Continual edit warring by 2 or 3 ip's. I think the Proper version is the one i reverted to but it still looks bad.

Needs some sort of introduction at the very least, plus some more text. •Oranje•·Talk 08:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

4) Robert Enke: He got his first call up to the German national team in 1999 but never made his debut until 2007. In the infobox should years for him playing for Germany start at 1999 or 2007?

2007 – it's for playing years only. •Oranje•·Talk 08:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks! Hubschrauber729 (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Assigning nationality

I was looking at Linfield_F.C.#Notable_former_players, and every player has been assigned a nationality by vitue of using a flag beside their name. Players such as Dessie Gorman was born in England, played in Ireland North and South, but never played an international, but appears to be tagged as an RoI player. Thoughout his career Vinnie Jones claimed to be English, when they wouldnt give him a game, he claimed to be Irish(RoI) but couldnt prove it, then he became Welsh as they are the only team to give him a game. Is it appropriate to assign nationality to players who have not played an International match? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is. Everyone has a nationality, even if they haven't played for their national team. Lee Trundle, for example, hasn't played for either England or the Republic of Ireland (he is eligible for both), but he is considered English as he was born in England, and most reliable sources consider him English. In the case of Dessie Gorman, if most reliable sources consider him to be Irish despite being born in Manchester, then his nationality is Irish. – Pee Jay 11:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I had been composing, but abandoned, a similar thread, drawing attention to edits such as this, describing a German-born and raised player of (to judge by his name) Turkish lineage, now at a Turkish club, but wit no international appearances, as Turkish. By default, we assume place of birth as nationality, unless there is representative history to suggest otherwise (Terry Butcher, Steve Lomas etc), but that is precisely that, an assumption, and although it is verifiable that he is eligible for German nationality, there is no evidence that he ever actually took up that option. It is entirely plausible that he grew up in a Turkish cultural milieu, took out a Turkish passport on the basis of his parents' origins, and considers his move to Turkey to be some kind of return from exile: had Norman Tebbit been German, and Germany and Turkey were test cricket playingnations.... It is presumptuous of us to attribute place of birth as nationality: there are many factors that might determine somebody's national identity.

Of course, even international representation does not necessarily give a good description of nationality: Pat Van Den Hauwe was by no definition (birth, residence, inheritance, genetic, cultural, by nationality of spouse) Welsh, but played for them, as he could have done for any of the constituent countries as a non-UK born UK passport holder, but he still has a Welsh flag by his name in pages like this. Kevin McE (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is presumptuous to assume place of birth as nationality, which is why I then went on to say that we should use the nationality that is given in most reliable sources. Most reliable sources would give Pat Van Den Hauwe's nationality as Welsh, in sporting terms at least, and that is what we should use. Same goes for Terry Butcher (English), Kris Commons (Scottish) and Steve Lomas (Northern Irish). – Pee Jay 12:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Place of birth certainly isn't a given as regards nationality and PeeJay's example of Terry Butcher is one of the best you can get for that. However, in the absence of other source, verification or other identity, I suppose we have to go by place of birth. I would say it goes by;

the country a player has represented (for players who have played for two countries at different levels, the one he has represented at the highest level)
players who haven't played at any international level should be given nationality per "place of birth" unless sources can show they have adopted a different nationality. Peanut4 (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree pretty much with Peanut's approach where a nationality needs to be assigned, such as in the Current squad section of club articles. But I don't really see why "nationality" is an important attribute in the sort of notable player list referred to in the original question. I'd have thought that playing position, career years, or a brief note as to why the player was notable would be more relevant than nationality, even if there was a consensus definition of it. And illustrating that sort of list with flags runs counter to MOS:FLAG anyway. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. MOS:ICON#Use of flags for sportspeople does give an outline of how to assign sporting nationality to sportspeople. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But to talk of "where a nationality needs to be assigned" is beggaring the question that started this thread: "Is it appropriate to assign nationality to players who have not played an International match?". If it is presumption, it is not verifiable, and if it is not verifiable, why is its inclusion considered a necessary part of the current players' list. Kevin McE (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that "English", "Scottish" etc are not actually nationalities in the true sense of the word, attributing these tags to players by their place of birth is presumptuous, if not WP:OR. These adjectives aren't even necessary if the player has not played internationally., "British" would suffice in the case of British players. Any "nationality" should be able to be verified, or it can be removed as unsourced. I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent, but still. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To call those players British would be equally presumptuous. To wit, are you going to take players who are born in England, play their whole career in the English league system and describe them as British? England and Scotland are effectively separate nations as far as football is concerned. There are all sorts of rules which apply differently due to this separation. A player moving from England to Scotland has to get international clearance. A 23 year old free agent English player can move to Scotland on a free transfer, but an English club would have to pay compensation (see Clayton Donaldson or Chris Porter). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is clear difference between a Soccer nationality and a political one, and only the soccer one is relevant for this porject. Struway2 makes a valid point "..where a nationality needs to be assigned...", where does this need come from. The nationality is certainly relvant if they have played at international level....but where does the need arise for non-international players? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Football player infobox

Whilst idly browsing, I came upon Lucas Radebe, showing his 200 appearances and zero goals for Leeds. "Hang on a sec" I thought "I was there when Lucas scored at least two goals" (a quick check and it turns out to be three in total). Thus I dug into it and realised that it was only showing league appearances. Having read the conversation on the talkpage, I can see the point of this. However, I was thinking; I started Aidan White (footballer) recently, and have had to go back and change it to zero appearances. Whilst the text in this article makes it clear that White has indeed made a competitive start for his club, and is thus notable, this infobox makes it very difficult indeed to check whether a player is actually notable per WP:ATHLETE if they've only made cup appearances. With more recent players, where such data is available, would it not make sense to have a different infobox for all appearances, with the small text at the bottom noting that it does include all appearances? Black Kite 22:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You can add a statistics table at the bottom of the article to reflect total career appearances and goals, such as in evidence at Danny Swanson. It's not the most attractive of tables but contains the info you'd want. •Oranje•·Talk 08:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also an alternative style table, see Ben Smith, which I personally think is easier to read Bigmike (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both. Black Kite 15:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tommy Johnson (footballer born 1971)

A couple of IPs keep inserting the fact that this player has died, claiming that he is the subject of this news story. It is blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that they are not the same person, so I have to presume it is "humorous" vandalism. Keep an eye out...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sports diplomacy

The ever-present effects on sports and politics didn't have an article. I've just created Sports diplomacy which others may find a good read and to add more to. Lihaas (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, but needs major fixings. A little bit cricket-centric and, however, what about Basil D'Olivera? --necronudist (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, work in progress. just put up to help get it out. Not much linking in yet.

Bosman opened up the EU too. Wouldn't that work? Lihaas (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Who ate the World Cup?

Something weird is going on with Image:Fifa world cup org.jpg. It is bluelinked so it definitely hasn't been deleted, but it isn't showing up for me at all. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably something's up with the Commons server (again?) AR TYOM 08:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Famous playmakers"

Just to let you know, this list of famous playmakers is under discussion on the article's talk page. --Jimbo^[online] 12:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Germany national football team

this article is in a really bad state. I have no really persona interest on it but I am an occasional fan. I think that such a popular and common article like this German team one really needs attention. They are amongst the most popular and common national teams and their WP page is a disaster. It goes on and on about history etc, which is interesting as the team does have a lot of history to its name, but neither of the statements are referenced. The entire article lacks even a single reference and is generally badly layed out and written. Urgent attention needed. If anyone has any personal interest in the German team or some spare time, perhaps they could look at this article and possibly go towards improving it. Domiy (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Club status (copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/England task force)

Hi lads!
I'm from Project Football at ru-wiki. We try to work up Footballers' Notability criteria but there's a problem we can't resolve — may I ask for your help?
The idea is to regard a person as 'significant' enough if he (or she) have been played for pros in one league game. But how can we find out what is the status of the club the person played for (are they professional, semi-pros or amateur)? Is it correct to define League Two as division at pro level? What about old Division Three/Four? Are there any 'mixed' divisions in England where professional clubs and part-timers play together? Thank you! --Ingumsky (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A quick answer is that League Two and the old Division Three and before that Division Four are and were professional levels. The current Conference National division is a mix of professional and some semi-pro teams. However, you may be find it easier to ask at WP:FOOTY to get more input from other editors. Peanut4 (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And what about other so-called Major leagues (like in Italy, Spain etc)? Thanks in advance! --Ingumsky (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this page may help you. Regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers mate! --Ingumsky (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iago Falqué and notability of Spanish league football

I missed the AfD on this Barça Atlètic player a while back. Although I'm not going to argue the result (delete) I'm a bit confused about the rationale for the deletion.

The nomination is not entirely clear on this, but two contributors explicitly argues that only first team football is notable, which of course means that Spanish B-team football is not. Now, as you may know there are currently two B-teams in the Segunda A (2nd tier) Real Madrid Castilla and Sevilla Atlético. Castilla, Atlético Madrid B and Bilbao Athletic are all even former second division champions. Should a player with this in mind really fail notability just because he has happened to play in the Segunda Division for a B-team? I don't think so.

The explicit reason for failing the notability criteria according to the nomination is that appearances in the Tercera division (4th tier) or perhaps even the Segunda B (3rd tier) are not notable. Is this the consensus, that only games in the top two tiers in Spanish football are notable? You can argue which of the big three league systems are the best and most notable, but you have to be as daft as Harry Redknapp to think that the first five or six divisions of the English league system is notable but only the top two in Spain. Sebisthlm (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE is the guideline which applies here; whether or not the player is at a "B" side, playing in a fully professional league means that they are probably notable enough. Precedents have no effect upon policy, other than the consensus created on the policy pages - so a decision in an AfD has no direct effect upon the outcome of another - due to the randomness of who actually !votes, and the fact that there's no expert "judge" to rule - so this decision isn't the death sentence of all B-team players. Hope that helps. – Toon ^(talk) 23:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE says that players have to have played in a fully-professional league, i.e. a league where all the teams in that league engage all their first-team players on full-time professional contracts. I'm no expert on the Spanish league structure, but it has been said before that only the top two divisions are fully-professional. In England, it's the top four, i.e. the Premier League and Football League, not the top "five or six".

The Conference (fifth tier) is not a fully-pro league, even though the majority of the clubs in it are full-time pro clubs. So playing for a professional club in the Conference doesn't make a player notable because, per WP:ATHLETE, he isn't playing in a fully-pro league. The same would be the case for a player who had only appeared below the Segunda Division in Spain. Though if you can reliably show that the Segunda B is a fully-pro league, its players would pass WP:ATHLETE.

B-team players who have played in the fully-pro Segunda Div shouldn't get deleted; José María Callejón went to AfD sometime ago and was speedy-kept because he'd played for RM Castilla in the Segunda Division. A bunch of other Castilla players (Juanmi Callejón, Alberto Bueno and more) were PRODded, but kept for the same reason. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware/concerned, players in Spanish leagues are considered notable if they play in the Primera or Segunda Division. Club notability extends to the Tercera, where we've got a lot of clubs to add. matt91486 (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean just Segunda A or do you include Segunda B? I'm not sure about the professionality of the Segunda B teams but it's possible that there are some not fully professional teams. Now, my point is this: there are no objective reason to maintain that English 4th tier football is notable, when not Spanish 3rd tier football is. The professionality requirement for notability is entirely arbitrary and is, deliberately or not, giving a bias towards British football. What about Scottish football? How far down is Scottish football professional? Surely, Scottish 3rd tier football can't be notable if Spanish isn't? Sebisthlm (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Segunda B is not notable, I don't believe, because I don't think it's fully professional. If you can demonstrate that it is, it'd qualify, but I don't think it is. matt91486 (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"Surely, Scottish 3rd tier football can't be notable if Spanish isn't?" - The third tier of Scottish football is not fully pro, and many players who have never played higher than that level have in fact been deleted via AfD..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The fully-professional league criterion for athlete notability in any professional team sport, not just football, is specified at WP:ATHLETE. It may be arbitrary, but it is objective, whether we like it or not (and personally, I don't, much). A football-specific set of notability criteria was agreed here, which would have declared players notable if they had "played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure", but these criteria were never accepted outside the football project. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, judging if a club is professional or not is objective, but saying that professional football is a requirement for notability is entirely subjective. If I would make up a notability criteria that said that a player is notable if he is on a list I've created on my userpage called "players I like", such a criterion (inclusion on the list) would also be objective. That wouldn't make the underlying premises any less subjective though. Sebisthlm (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can't really do anything about it, unfortunately, barring exceptional sourcing for lower level players. The vast majority of us here would prefer use our project's notability criteria, but unless it is incorporated into WP:ATHLETE, we can't. Given that we've had some arguments lately about people trying to further restrict WP:ATHLETE, expanding it seems like it would be troublesome. matt91486 (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. The problem, as I see it, is that the criteria is to broad on one side of the spectrum (lower league English football) but too narrow on the other side (non-English and some areas of youth football). I think it was unfortunate that our work with a new criteria was shot down, since no-one seems very happy with the current one. On the other hand, It's probably impossible to come up with an objective criterion, since notability is a subjective concept. In conclusion, setting this little outbreak of principal discussion about notability aside, Segunda A is the lowest level of notable football in Spain, including B-team football. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The criteria are exactly the same for each country. The difference between England and Spain is that professionalism starts at different levels up the ladder. The notability criteria weren't designed to show special preference to England or to discriminate against any other country, but the development of football in England has meant that things have panned out this way. Granted, it doesn't help that the majority of contributors to football articles on en.wikipedia are from the UK, but of all the countries in the English-speaking world, the UK is where football is the most popular. Still, you are correct that under the current notability criteria, the Spanish Segunda División is the lowest level at which a player can have played in order to be considered notable. – Pee Jay 16:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me slightly. Of course the criteria is the same for every country. What I meant was just, exactly what you said, that it works differently on football from different countries. Since England was first with professionalism, and it's still most developed there, it's natural that an English person would come up with professionality as a seemingly objective translation of notability, but that doesn't make it any less biased towards English football. Remember that large parts of the football world was for a long time actively battling against it. Up until 1956 Swedish players were banned from the national team when they turned pro (one can't help but wonder what the Swedish team including Grenoli could have accomplished between the gold in the '48 Olympics and the silver in the '58 WC). The bottom line is that there are no objective reasons why English 4th tier football is notable when Spanish 3rd tier isn't.

Which players are squad?

Hi!

Recently there was some discussion on the Arsenal and Bayern talk pages, regarding who should be considered part of the squad. Is there some general consensus on the Wikipedia on that? (there is none outside btw; saw at least ten different squad listings for Bayern this season...) OdinFK (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the ones who are listed in the club website as being part of the first team squad. And, notably, squads should always feature a source to confirm them, and I think this is strict club information, so here is it. --Angelo (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you but there are several persons who argument strongly in favor of including every player with benches in some period or every player with a number.

Also one might want to include all players who have any caps in the current season. I've not yet fully made up my mind on this one, but tend to be in favor of it. OdinFK (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the extra numbers came from UEFA, having in turn been given to UEFA by the club, and thus satisfied WP:RS, but people objected as some of them were reserves had never played for the first team. Sometimes the club website list is incomplete - it certainly is in Arsenal's case with players such as Gibbs and Randall. The compromise reached was any player named in the squad for a first team match can be included in the Wikipedia list, with the UEFA list as a reference for their squad number. Qwghlm (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Squad meaning players on the field plus players on the bench? OdinFK (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not uncommon to see reserve and youth team players being promoted to the first team for just a week in order to comply with a lack of alternative choices (such as, for instance, in case of an injury crisis, or for League Cup and domestic cup matches). I don't really think these players are actually part of the first team. --Angelo (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I think but this is the point which led to much discussion. I found it surprising that there is no general rule on who is to be included. On the Bayern page, which doesn't see that many changes normally, this led to some back and forth and I imagine this will not get better over time. OdinFK (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't make too much difference how many changes the Bayern squad page undergoes. As long as you provide an "as of" date for the current squad, referencing the correct version of the official site's squad page, people can update it whenever they want. – Pee Jay 09:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should be more cautious with club squads from countries who actually have squad registration rules (i.e. Spain). Spanish registration rules only permit 25 players in a first team squad, with players with numbers 26 and onwards being registered with reserve or youth teams with their own registration rules (a limited number of U-23 players for example). We had this discussion at the start of last season, and I think there is a point in separating the actual 25-man first team squad from eventual reserve players playing for the first team. However, it turned out to be a lot of work tidying up the squad lists since editors gladly added reserve team players to the the lists, and in some instances separating regular first-teamers like Federico Fazio or Markel Susaeta seemed a bit construed. Any thoughts? Sebisthlm (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hellas S.C.

Resolved

Can someone have a look at Hellas S.C. and decide whether it is notable or not. Someone associated with the club has complained about the page, with no clear reason what the problem actually is, at the Help Desk. If you think it's an A7 candidate, that would doubtless solve the problem. AndyJones (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. AndyJones (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Navbox dividers

Am I right in thinking that vertical lines are the standard dividers in navboxes these days? I ask because the football-venue navbox was changed to bulletpoints not too long ago, and an unsightly mis-match is now occurring when they are coupled with, say, club navboxes (see the end of the Goodison Park article, for example). - Dudesleeper / Talk 02:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that a single editor is going through all the pedia's navboxes and adding the {{nowrap begin}} {{·w}} to it. Personally I am leaning towards this as it does prevent line breaks in the most efficient way (I often find that IP editors add <br> functions to Navboxes to fit their screen size, but messing it up for others), but I'm not sure if there is a policy or guideline on it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nowrap should ideally be handled by the navbox code itself, and every new bit of cruft added to a hundred articles at once by a well-meaning editor using AutoWikiBrowser or whatever makes it harder to correct it for everyone at once. FWIW I'm certain that standardising on using · everywhere is a net win, and pipes are definitely in a minority. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

PEPE (footballer)

Hi all, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,

Regarding this person's article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A9pler_Laveran_Lima_Ferreira), there is a situation of a highly ridiculous nature by now, i will comment on it...NOW!!! (by the way, TY very much to user SATORI SON (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Satori_Son), who redirected me to this page)

First things first: PEPE, Brazilian defender for REAL MADRID, scored 0 goals during 2007-08, only an own goal against DEPORTIVO LA CORUÑA. User 202.75.80.182, starting in MAY 2008, kept adding he scored 1 goal during the season explaining brilliantly "Goals are included. Own goals are NOT excluded". For a couple of months, he and i reverted each other, until he left this "charmer" on my talk page:

Hello VASCO, this is user 202.75.80.182,
According to your reference, I like to apologize about my edits as you referred. But I just want to know. What is the meaning of adding 22 goals on Spanish cup? I only stated that he scored 1 goal for the league, but 0 for CUP. Are you trying to VANDALISE the article before saying I'm trying to add silly edits? If you say YES, I will forgive you, because you only put 22 goals on CUP section. If you say NO, FUCK off.
Anyway, I stated that he scored 1 goal, because I think that goal is a good goal. You are welcome to give me any comments on my talk section, but don't give me any nonsense, such as it's just an own goal, or OWN goals are BADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD. Thank You.
From China, a nice week,

If you see edit history on this footballer, you will see i did NOT insert that 22 goal tally, it was another user. For a while user 202.75.80.182 cooled with PEPE and me, until he started doing the same (1 goal scored for REAL MADRID) in September 2008.

I don't want any EDIT WARS, but will revert this "OWN GOALS are not excluded" nonsense everytime i see it. All for the good of WIKIPEDIA, i am anonymous, yes, when did it become synonym with reckless, uncompromising editor? Not in my book, at least...

Thank you all 4 listening, a nice weekend from PORTUGAL,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:SL Benfica CfR

Having a bit of a problem with the opinions being expressed at the Category:SL Benfica CfR. One person thinks that the categories should be renamed to read "S. L. Benfica managers", etc. while another thinks that they should all remain as "SL Benfica managers", etc. neither of which match the club's main article (S.L. Benfica). Can you guys please restore some sanity to the discussion? – Pee Jay 20:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

First Premier League match without shirt sponsorship?

A fairly trivial point, but does anyone know if tomorrow's match between West Bromwich Albion and West Ham United will be the first Premier League match where neither team has a sponsor's name on its shirts? The Independent calls it a "rare sight" ([11]) but I haven't yet found a source that says it is the first time it has happened in the Prem. --Jameboy (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't both teams in the Manchester derby at Old Trafford last season have special shirts without sponsors? Although that was for different reasons, a one-off to mark the 50th anniversary of Munich. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye, you just beat me to it, I suddenly remembered that one. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This will probably be the first time that neither team has been without a sponsor by choice though. In last season's Manchester derby at Old Trafford, both teams chose to go without sponsors, whereas in West Ham and West Brom's case, they just don't have sponsors to put on their shirts. – Pee Jay 22:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability clarification

I have noticed a couple of PROD's being contested and AfD's getting a few 'keep's for amateur players of late, normally along the lines of Surely playing for Canterbury United, a team in the top level of football in New Zealand is clearly notable. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability point 1 suggests the player must play for a fully professional club - which New Zealand football championship clubs are not - with a qualifier that if the club is but the league is not, front up with some reliable sources and they may pass. Point 4 suggests Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers to have played at the national level of league football are considered notable (no other level of amateur football confers notability) So the clarification required is: what is "Pre-professional (amateur era)"? New Zealand is arguably in a "Pre-professional (amateur era)" state within itself - do these amateur rules apply, or should they be considered by world standards - ie, football is now globally considered a professional sport. Remember the consensus here would also apply to other states big and small - Ireland, Wales, Fiji, Chad,...How far do we go, where is the cut-off? Examples of contests are Hue Frame (contested PROD), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Robertson (footballer) (AfD keep argument).--ClubOranje^Talk 00:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the term "Pre-professional (amateur era)" was used to define the anglo-centric time period around the turn of the 20th century and up to WWII when most players were amateurs and there are scant records available for them beyond their statistics. We do have a few NZ player bio's that whilst not meeting WP:ATHLETE do meet the overall guideline of WP:BIO, like Jack Pelter, purely on the strength of their sources. I note that stuff.co.nz has a large article on Bill Robertson and his background here but nothing on Hue Frame. So whilst, on the strength of that article at least, Robertson can at least be sourced to potentially resolve the AFD; even the NZ press doesn't seem to have heard of Frame so his likelihood of being saved is very remote. Hope that helps a little. Nanonic (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that didn't really help. What I am more querying is best described by this comment shamelessly plagiarised from a recent AfD... "The highest level of amateur sports" I take to mean to relate to sports where there is either no professional setup in that country, or where the amateur and professional sports are so different that they are viewed almost as different sports. Does this user's interpretation hold water, in the case of, eg, Ireland, New Zealand etc, where there is no professional league, for allowing a top level league (non-professional) to confer notability. I ask because I can dredge up hundreds of press articles about NZ footballers that I would not currently accept an article on, because the NZ herald is an Auckland paper that fills its pages with local sports news, ditto the dominion in Wellington, but at the end of the day it is only current technology that makes this so. There are plenty of more notable players with less easily findable coverage simply because they lived in the pre-electronic age--ClubOranje^Talk 12:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely the intent of the notability guidelines weren't to remove all the players from Ireland and New Zealand because some of the teams are only semi-professional. Surely not accept top players in smaller countries, even though they have plenty of media coverage, is the kind of systemic bias that Wikipedia tries to avoid. Nfitz (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

FAI League of Ireland players

Now that we've established beyond any doubt that the FAI League of Ireland is not a fully professional league,[12] I've started trying to delete articles on its players. Unfortunately one of them ended with a keep result (largely due to a lack of WP:FOOTY member contributions to the debate - all the members who !voted went for delete), and this is now being used to justify voting keep on other ones.

Do editors agree that we should be aiming to delete these articles, and if so, could we have a bit more participation in the AfD debates? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've contributed to these Irish AfD's with a 'delete' vote, but I'm starting to think that perhaps players who play for a professional team in a top-flight but semi-professional league should be kept. Any other thoughts? Giant Snowman 10:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree, it's unfair if one semi-pro team stopped articles in an otherwise fully professional league. What happens if a semi-pro team gets promoted to a professional league? Do a raft of articles suddenly get deleted? •Oranje•·Talk 11:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the League of Ireland only has two or three semi-pro teams - nothing really in the grand scheme of things - and they're trying to get these teams fully-pro as well methinks. Giant Snowman 11:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The source says 4-5 in a league of 22 teams, which is nearly a quarter. I'd call that a sizeable proportion. Do all these semi-pro clubs play in the First Division or are there some in the Premier League? If it's the former case then maybe just regard the Premier Division as fully-professional, as an acceptable compromise?

I wouldn't want a player for a pro team in a semi-pro second-division league to be considered notable, just those in the top division. Giant Snowman 13:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, it's actually 4 or 5 in the FAI Premier Division (12 clubs), which equates to 33% or 42% of the teams in the division. I would assume that far fewer in the First Division are fully pro. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's my view that players for fully professional clubs in a top flight nationwide league ought to be able to pass WP:ATHLETE. I worry that otherwise, most players for clubs like Standard Liege (which has significant coverage and accomplishments in Belgian and UEFA competitions) would be deleted. Perhaps we can think of a way to apply WP:ATHLETE to players for these types of clubs? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm equally in favor of conferring them notability. matt91486 (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what WP:FOOTYN would do, but it hasn't been accepted yet. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the notability guidelines should be changed to include fully professional teams in the top-flight of a country's league system. It doesn't really make much sense to exclude those teams on the basis that other teams in the league don't pay their players exclusively. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 12:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think if the league offers confederation competition places such as the UEFA cup or Champions league, then it should be considered equivalent to a fully professional league. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We have to be careful with these small countries that we don't create systemic bias against them. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias was created to avoid such things. Though how far does it go. It seems pretty straight-forward that countries like New Zealand and Ireland with mostly professional leagues should be notable - but at the other end of the food chain are the Isles of Scilly Football League which I can't imagine anyone would claim should have articles for their players. Nfitz (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Uh - hang on, if everyone here seemed to agree, why are we getting things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam Kearney where he played for Shelborne during their brief stay in the Premier Division getting nothing but Delete votes. Nfitz (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal image

I nominated another image to be featured on the portal, please comment @ Portal:Association football/Selected picture#Nominations. JACO PLANE • 2008-09-13 15:07

Anyone? Humour me :) JACO PLANE • 2008-09-14 17:57

Michael Ingham (footballer)

Could someone help out at the GA review for Michael Ingham (footballer) if they have any time, because I'm becoming stumped really with what to do. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Souter

Can an admin please recreate the article for Kevin Souter - he made his debut for Kansas City Wizards today. Confirmation is here - [13]. Thanks! --JonBroxton (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Fc

Should Template:Fc be used to represent clubs? Because I seem to remember typing [[Template F.C.|Template]] in full was preferred? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You should use {{subst:fc|Sheffield Wednesday}} which gives Sheffield Wednesday. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was deprecated, and that [[Template F.C.|Template]]-type links were the way to go. - fchd (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of the Template:Fc by itself is deprecated, but using "subst" converts the template permanently to the proper wiki-link. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my misunderstanding. - fchd (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Lancashire

Can someone recreate this article. Deleted here, he's made his debut for Southampton today.

Incidentally, I calculate that Southampton's line-up today of Davis, Wotton, Holmes, Surman, McGoldrick, Schneiderlin, Lallana, Gillett, James, Lancashire and Cork - have an average age of roughly 22. Take out Wotton and Davis and you have an average of a morsel over 20. And Mr Poortvliet dropped Michael Svensson (32) and Chris Perry (36) from their last game (although he has brought Wotton (31) in for Jamie White (18)). A man who certainly belives in youth. And relegation - they went one down within 34 seconds. HornetMike (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: And he's just been sent off 30 minutes in - to add to Saints' woes, Lee Holmes (21) has limped off, to be replaced by Nathan Dyer (20). Would he qualify for DYK if he's just been recreated, as that's a decent fact. HornetMike (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

History restored. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Carlos Queiroz

Evidently, someone has taken it upon themselves to change Carlos Queirós from a Carlos Queiroz redirect to a full-blown article about the man. Obviously, there was already an article about said subject, and Carlos Queiroz was changed to become a redirect to the new article. Now obviously the man's common name is Carlos Queiroz, despite the article's assertion that this is not an appropriate spelling of his name. Therefore, I would like an admin to please restore the article to the title of Carlos Queiroz, leaving Carlos Queirós as a redirect. – Pee Jay 19:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the article's content to Carlos Queiroz myself, and changed Carlos Queirós back to a redirect. The move was obviously performed incorrectly, and I have informed the editor that conducted of that fact. The only thing that remains is for the edit histories to be sorted out, so I will still require an admin's help for that. Cheers. – Pee Jay 19:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Carrickmacross Rovers

Is Carrickmacross Rovers notable or not? I doubt it, and although I don't even know what level of the Irish League confers notability, I'm not even sure what levels they have played at. Peanut4 (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Team Reputations section?

I have a large interest in such. I think a lot of teams, particularly national sides, have some unique or distinct reputations which are surely worth mentioning. Some teams are constantly known to score late goals, others are known to play better in certain stipulations, others have a name for being underdogs etc. Should this section be included in national team pages if applicable? Or is it too much a form of trivia or POV? Domiy (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Far too transient or relative. I suspect that your " known to score late goals" example is inspired by Turkey at Euro 2008. That "reputation" was built on a couple of games, and there is no evidence or reason to believe that it will continue: they were after al eliminated by a late goal. Cyprus might be said to "have a reputation as underdogs" when they play the likes of Italy and Germany, but not against San Marino or Liechtenstein. It is called a reputation largely because it cannot be said to be a subjective, verifiable fact. Kevin McE (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD Alex Nimo

Hi i'd like to draw the attention of the project members to the deletion debate above. It seems currently to be a test of your notability guidelines, specifically as to whether they mean that additional rules, above and beyond WP:N or WP:BIO, need to be applied to footballers due to the excessive coverage by all levels of media. I't may turn out that I have been misrepresenting the views of the project (as a non member) but I think it important that some editors who are familiar with the application of these guidelines give their views, both on this specific case and perhaps a more general scenario. If I have misinterpreted WP:FOOTY/N then i apologise. Cheers Basement12 (T.C) 20:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest none of the project regulars ever cite WP:FOOTYN, as it was comprehensively rejected when proposed to the wider WP community...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case then it needs to be made clear, as i've seen a lot of articles deleted per these guidelines despite coverage elsewhere, one example i've been using is Giuseppe Sole's deletion where there were for example references from the BBC. There may also be an issue with WP:ATHLETE being used to overrule general notability guidelines when it comes to footballers. Basement12 (T.C) 21:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that WP:ATHLETE is simply a redirect to a subsection of WP:BIO (a.k.a. WP:Notability (people)). The intro to that section reads as follows:

“

A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.

”

I think it's best to look at those sections as a "first pass," but when something is controversial, WP:N is the ultimate authority. Does that seem about right? -Pete (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not in terms of footballers - blanked media coverage mean that even postmen who play once and train twice a week can generate a large number of hits on media websites. A particular problem is that footballers are just often listed in the lineups or as goalscorers, and thus appear in the hits, even though there are actually almost no articles solely about them. It's quite clear that WP:N is not a barometer of notability for footballers, and WP:ATHLETE should be used in preference. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with this interpretation, I would say that WP:N trumps WP:ATHLETE. Remember, however, that listings in line-ups etc. would not be the necessary significant, non-trivial, third party coverage that would indicate notability. For the article covered by this particular AfD, there is at least two articles from FIFA where Nimo is the main focus, and there is plenty of coverage in a similar vain at a more local level. - fchd (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It does indeed trump it, but I don't think it necessarily should. Often people cite google news hits as evidence of meeting WP:N when the vast majority of hits are in fact non-trivial, but this seems to get overlooked on occasion. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we've reached an agreement on thie particular case that there is enough in the sum of all the articles to pass WP:N guidelines, despite the guy never having played a senior competetive game. The discussion is now more about a general case. I don't think that simple listings in teams etc would ever be enough to pass WP:N but the problem arises when these are placed together with the odd article from national media combined with any local media articles, a possible example being Giuseppe Sole. In that case there was a single article on him signing a new contract from the BBC and if that had been combined with a few local articles it would probably have been enough to allow under N despite a clear failure of WP:ATHLETE.

This is also a more general problem across all sports, particularly those in America with a strong college system, where failure of ATHLETE is used as a criteria for deletion with no consideration of the general rules of WP:BIO of which ATHLETE is a subsection. At the moment the general theme is editors coming to an AfD debate and voting delete simply on the basis of ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N with no consideration of more general notability guidelines. Basement12 (T.C) 10:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My attitude would be that WP:ATHLETE should apply unless the player has significant coverage by third party sources about himself specifically which means that he can then pass WP:N. Being mentioned in squad lists or as an unused sub in a match report shouldn't be enough. In other words, rely on WP:ATHLETE first and the basic assumption should be that rule applies, but if sources can be found discussing the person in question then WP:N applies. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Jmorrison's summary is accurate, and reflects the overall structure of WP:BIO. The more granular criteria like WP:ATHLETE are there so that you can make a quick determination to include certain individuals, without having to seek out and evaluate sources. But failing to meet those guidelines doesn't really mean anything; WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOTABILITY (People) are the ultimate authorities on whether something should be included. (This is how we've always interpreted, for instance, WP:POLITICIAN in Oregon -- all state legislators are presumed to be notable, and worthy of a stub, even if we haven't yet found extensive coverage of them.) -Pete (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"List of XXX players" requirements (again)

Hey there, as some of you know, Villa is up at FTC. One of the commenters has commented that List of Aston Villa F.C. players should be expanded from 125+ to 100+ in line with the majority of other similar articles. What do the members of this project think: should we go for a uniform number, or should it be more discretionary depending on the size of clubs and the number of players? I have no qualms about expanding it, just wondering whether it is neccessary. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to make the standards uniform across all lists of players, especially between English clubs. How many more players would be included in the list if the threshold was reduced from 125 appearances to 100 appearances? – Pee Jay 15:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the Gillingham lists? Wasn't there one for 100+ and another (or maybe another two) for all players? I'd like to see a list of all players, personally, though I agree it can get very large. Peanut4 (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Gillingham list includes all players but is split across two articles (50+ and <50). If I ever fill in all the red links on the latter, I may merge it onto the former to make one complete megalist.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a megalist would be unmanageably big - it's better as it is. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the megalist is too big. I currently can't compare differences between edits at List of Bradford City A.F.C. players since I downloaded a new version of Firefox (though I can't manage it on IE either), even with broadband. Though I still think a full comparable list has a place somewhere. Perhaps one megalist but with less details, i.e. just name, apps and goals?

Getting back to the original point though. I think a standard across the board would be a good idea. I'm sure someone started a discussion about this somewhere on the FLC subpages. Or am I dreaming that? Peanut4 (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The full list is served by the category. It doesn't have much information, but that's not a problem as it's on the smaller, detailed lists.

The thing about categories, is they are bare lists, without any information and unsortable. Peanut4 (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, if a minimum appearance figure is set, there should be no exemption for players who haven't achieved that figure. The Aston Villa list says that "some players who fell just short of the 125 total but made significant contributions to the club's history" are included. If they are to be included, I consider that an explanation should be given as to why each player is admitted; e.g. why is Thomas Hitzlsperger included as he has made only 99 appearances? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've always pondered about the exceptions. Surely they are either WP:POV or WP:OR, simply to add in a couple of our favourite players. Unless it is clearly stated what the exceptions are in the text, i.e. all captains, all players who played internationally while at a club, players of the season, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hitzs wasn't originally in there, he was added in later, I just didn't notice. The exemptions should all be noted with an explanation (or they fit under the general "time before modern amount of games" exclusion). To Peejay: I have checked my source and it would be 35 players that would need to be added to the list. To Peanut: Read the links that I supplied in reply to Rst, they are the only ones I could find. The Arsenal FLRC was the main talking point. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The "significant contributions to the club's history" criterion has never made sense to me. It is purely subjective and the degree of the siginificance of a player's contributions to a club will vary from user to user. The point of these lists was to eliminate subjectivity, but that's not the case when this criterion is present. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the "player of the season" was merely a non-subjective example, I'm not suggesting you add them into the Villa list. As for Hitzlsperger's inclusion, I think it demonstrates the problems about having extra criteria - it allows another editor to add a player he feels should be in the list. Having a defined cut-off point, eliminates such possibilities. Peanut4 (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If only 35 players would be added to the list, I think it may be worth adding them in, just to appease the FTC guys. Also, IIRC, in the list of Manchester United F.C. players, Liam Whelan is the only player who falls outside the 100 appearances criterion, but he is included because he was killed in the Munich air disaster; quite an exceptional circumstance. – Pee Jay 17:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have now removed two players and rewrote the inclusion criteria (and the lead). The list does only include those who are a club captain or were before the modern era of 50 season games. Woody (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a point that, I may be wrong but, as far as I am aware, the Aston Villa list is the only featured list with a threshold higher than 100. Most of the others are actually at 100 - rst20xx (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact let's check them all:

Arsenal = 100
Birmingham = 100
Gillingham = 50
Ipswich = 100
Liberpool = 100
Man Utd = 100
Sunderland = 100
York = 100

-- rst20xx (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So? It is still an FL. Wikipedia is not a courtroom where everything is run purely on precedent. The list is still complete in its current form, though, as I said above, it would only expand by 35 players so it is not really a big deal either way. I will try and do a table in my sandbox in the next few days, I suspect none of the 35 have articles. Woody (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Flynn

Could somebody take a look at Jonathan Flynn? Does he meet football notability requirements? Corvus cornix_talk 03:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not yet IMO - he has previously been deleted after an AfD - see here. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Football

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I know there's only a month's notice to do anything about the list of articles, which seems incredibly short notice, but does anyone have any plans about trying to improve the standard of some of the articles on the "Football" list. There's a couple on there, on my shortlist which I'll try improve, but there's scores on there which could do with various amounts of work. Peanut4 (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Player of the Year lists

This also arises from the Villa FTC, but I thought I'd start a separate discussion so that the two threads don't get snarled up in each other. At least one editor at the FTC is arguing that a Topic on a club is not complete without a list of Player of the Year winners - what do people think of this? As far as I can tell, at most clubs the PotY award is a fairly insignificant thing in the grand scheme of things. Even the local newspaper doesn't normally see fit to write anything about the awards. So is it really an integral part of the Topic of the club in the same way as a list of notable players, a list of managers and the stadium.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I don't think it's particularly notable. I doubt you could find many notable sources, apart from trawling through the archives of the local newspaper to find out how the player of the year for the X or Y season. Some local papers will report it, some won't, depending exactly how local they are. Peanut4 (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. The Player of the Year award is not an integral part of the topic. Obviously if the article exists then it could be included, but I wouldn't say the topic is incomplete without it. – Pee Jay 15:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have only found 7 seasons and those aren't from sources I could quote in an FAC. I have also trawled through old programmes and haven't been enlightened thus far. I simply don't think it is notable, the larger Premier League clubs tend to concentrate on actual trophies and PFA awards as far as I can see. Woody (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be an optional article for a featured topic as it isn't critical to the subject and the information can be hard to source. I'd love to compile such a list for the Baggies but I just can't find all the required information, and certainly not from a reliable source. I found a list on a fan site but even that was incomplete. It is further complicated by the fact that there is now the official club award as well as the long-standing supporters club award. --Jameboy (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on the club, and how notable the POTY is to the club in question. In Aston Villa's case, clearly the list cannot be fully sourced, hence the creation of a separate list is impossible. Though having said that the POTYs that ARE known should certainly still be mentioned somewhere in the body of Aston Villa articles on Wikipedia - I guess in the various season articles (if they exist).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rst20xx (talk • contribs) 22:24, 16 September 2008

Coincidentally, in creating Peter Litchfield tonight, I came across Preston North End Player of the Year Award Winners. Peanut4 (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My approach is to put player of the year winners (where sourceable) in italics in the appropriate List of X F.C. players article. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Curtis Woodhouse - York City and Eng U21 years?

Hi, does anybody know the year of Woodhouse's last England U21 cap? Also, would anyone know when Woodhouse joined York City's academy? Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 00:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All four U21 caps were in 1999 [14]. And this says he was in York's Centre of Excellence for three seasons before Sheff Utd poached him. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jimbo^[online] 13:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention for lists of stats

Do we have one? I can see List of York City F.C. statistics and records, Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records, Manchester United F.C. records and statistics, Fulham F.C. statistics and Gillingham F.C. records, none of which match each other...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For me it should be "records" as most of these pages' content consist of who was first/youngest/oldest/most prolific. Statistics would be detailed league tables, lists of every game who ever played, etc. Qwghlm (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SAL#Naming conventions states "The name or title of the list should simply be List of _ _ (for example list of Xs)." So by that criteria, it looks like "List of" should be at the start of the title. --Jimbo^[online] 13:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That style guideline needs updating, as there are plenty of Featured Lists that aren't called "List of...". I'd probably go for "records" for the reasons Qwghlm outlined. However we should also bear in mind that many such lists have an "Honours" section, so should that be reflected in the title as well? --Jameboy (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been a brief discussion of "List of..." at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Laziness/repetition in names, not sure it got anywhere... I'd go with just "records" as opposed to "records and statistics" or any other alternative. Among Chambers' definitions of record(s) are these, which between them cover pretty well everything we include in such a list: "information, facts, etc, collected usually over a fairly long period of time", "especially in sports: a performance which is officially recognized as the best of a particular kind or in a particular class", and "a description of the history and achievements of a person, institution, company, etc". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Honours for some of the bigger clubs are probably long enough to be split off into an article of their own - take care of all those useless pre-season friendly tournaments like the Makita Trophy or Amsterdam Tournament as well. Qwghlm (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Richard Hall (footballer centre forward)

I just deleted this as pure vandalism as it appeared to be a copy/paste from a different article with names and dates changed. Unfortunately some of the dates didn't agree, and some of the games never happened, so I'm 99% sure it's a hoax. There's a copy of this article in the editor's userspace - User_talk:Sport-football - just in case, before I delete that as well, does anyone know of a young footballer of this name who may have played a couple of games for Darlington or Hartlepool? (I can't find anything, but I'm just being double sure). Black Kite 18:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a copy of Richard Hall (footballer), with a really badly written bit tacked on the end claiming that a player who is currently 20 years old is the same person, which is obviously bollocks. Richard Hall (footballer) is the only Richard Hall ever to have played in the Football League, other than a Dick Hall who played 8 times in 1967 for AFC Bournemouth...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I spotted User talk:Sport-football a couple of days ago and wondered what on earth it was there for. Surely this isn't what user talk pages are for. Should it not be deleted too? Peanut4 (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep - I was just checking that this wasn't actually a really minorly notable player, and a new editor was trying to create an article by copying another one really badly. Which it's not, so *poof* gone.Black Kite 21:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

~

England hat-tricks

Following Theo Walcott's recent exploits, I'm thinking of drawing up a List of England international football team hat-tricks or similar title. (This would naturally include those few occasions when a player has scored 4 or more.) I have all the relevant details available, with player names, dates, opponents, scorelines etc. Before I get stuck in to drawing up the table, does anyone have any objections/comments? Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest List of England national football team hat-tricks rather than List of England international football team hat-tricks, to coincide with England national football team. Otherwise I would say go for it. Peanut4 (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, I think I may do something similar for Scotland, given that nobody's scored a hat-trick since 1969![15] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would do one for Wales but there just aren't any decent stats sites for us. Unfortunately, Wales are so terrible that websites like Northern Ireland Football Greats, London Hearts and England Football Online just don't exist for the Welsh national team :( – Pee Jay 17:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to it already DK! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely those stats should just be added to these articles; England national football team records, Scotland national football team records and perhaps articles for Wales and Northern ireland need to be created. Darryl.matheson (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, unless the content to be added is incredibly substantial. Adding them there and redirecting links to those sections should probably work. matt91486 (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see that article being AfD'd instantly. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have now created List of England national football team hat-tricks. I'm sure that the narrative aspects can be improved. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Arthur Gibbs notable?

Key sentence: "Joseph Arthur Gibbs is a 16 year old striker and mid-fielder for Manly United and Sydney FC Youth."

Caught Joseph Arthur Gibbs on WP:NPP, not familiar enough with the clubs and league structure to tell if he qualifies as playing professionally or at a high enough amateur level per your criteria for notability. Obviously the article needs major work if it is to remain, but should it exist at all? Thanks! TheMolecularMan (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell no, he isn't remotely notable for his on-pitch activities, however there are two sources included in the article, which means he technically passes WP:N..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't delete him out of hand, because the sources back up an assertion of notability, but if it went to AfD I couldn't see a local paper story picked up by one national about a 16-year-old getting trials at big clubs constituting "significant coverage" for WP:N purposes. 16-year-olds actually sitting on the bench for big clubs aren't notable till they step over the white line, pretty-well however much coverage they get, as Nathan Delfouneso's umpteen AfDs showed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has the Hugman PFA Players Records book

please could they see what it gives for the middle name of Jackie Lane (played for Birmingham and Notts Co in the 1950s) aka John George Lane or John Geoffrey Lane, depending on who you believe? Thanks in advance, Struway2 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The book gives his name as "LANE John (Jackie) George" on page 359. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Matt, Struway2 (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Iranian Football Club In Asian Tournaments

Would any project members care to comment on this AfD? So far we've had little project input and the AfD has been marred by a canvassing campaign by its creator (and has subsequently been relisted). Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

To categorise or not to categorise..........?

If Player X played for Club Y in pre-season friendlies but never in a competitive match, should he go in Category:Club Y players......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My POV would be no, but as even players who were once on the books of a club but never played have been included after past discussion, this will probably end up as a yes. - fchd (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It really goes down to whether they were contracted to that club, rather than if they played. So trallists in pre-season friendlies no, reserves yes. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep - Rami Shaaban played a pre-season friendly for Dundee United two or three years back. Rather than categorise it, I included it on his player page as he won a minor pre-season tournament. •Oranje•·Talk 17:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Same with Celestine Babayaro at Los Angeles Galaxy earlier this year.--JonBroxton (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Trialists, I'd be tempted with no. Anyone who gains a contract with a club and may or may not have played, then yes. Peanut4 (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Large number of AfD's in progress

There are (at present count) 58 pages up for deleletion in AfD Discussions at the College Football Project (American football). Since your project is listed as a related project, your project members may wish to participate. This large volume is really more than we can handle in such a short period of time and the project asks for your input. Please review Articles & Pages being considered for deletion immediately.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've appealed to the correct project here mate. – Pee Jay 20:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that this project is what we (foolish) Americans call "soccer" ... but this project is indeed listed as in the Family of WikiProjects on the college football project page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, their mistake then. Not sure why they'd think that a bunch of "soccer" fans would be interested in American football at all, let alone the version played by university students. – Pee Jay 20:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay. I would suggest trying WP:AMF for a more appropriate input. Peanut4 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, me either... ah well, you've been notified!--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Xian expatriate footballers in Y categories

Todays closure of this CfD as no consensus is at variance with one this one. I think we need to establish whether or not we want these triple intersections. I don't believe that we do need them for the following reasons.

Assuming that there are around 200 footballing nations my primitive maths tell me that this could lead to a potential 20,000 Xian expatriate footballers in Y categories.
Wikipedia policy advises against the creation of such categories (Wikipedia:Overcategorization).
Consensus has already been reached to delete this type of triple-intersection category here.
These categories offer us no information that cannot be achieved using either Catscan or the wikipedia version, type incategory: "Expatriate footballers in Argentina" incategory: "Uruguayan footballers" into the wikipedia search bar.
The argument that these categories are neccessary due to the need to break up large categories such as expatriate footballers in England into smaller chunks is not valid. Category:English footballers is much larger, and no-one would suggest breaking it up into footballers by town/city/county/whatever.
The argument that this type of category intersection massively reduces the number of categories per article (by a ratio of 3:1 as stated in the no-consensus discussion) is not true. Take Rubén Dario Larrosa as a example. He has played outside Argentina in 7 other counties. He would go into Category:Argentine expatriate footballers +7 Expatriate footballers in Uruguay/Brazil/China/Spain/Indonesia/England/Italy. total: 8 categories. Using triple intersectios you get 7 Argentine Expatriate footballers in Uruguay/Brazil/China/Spain/Indonesia/England/Italy categories, therefore the creation of potentially 20,000 categories reduces the number of categories per article by 1 which is only achieved by sub-dividing up the main Xian expatriate footballers category and reducing its utility.

We need to reach consensus on this issue, rather than CfDing them as we find them, which leads to confusing outcomes as shown aboveE P 17:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I say delete all of them. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain why? We can't get a consensus without a discussion, this is not a head count. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is just way too much over-categorization. A player who moves abroad instantly gets 3-5 categories added to their article and it doesn't even help a bit. Instead of the arguement to delete them, I would like to know the reason why they should stay because they really are useless. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion either way, but I'm willing to play the devil's advocate here to get the discussion going. The discussion about the 6+5 rule shows that foreign players in football leagues is a hot issue. A general category "Expatriate/foreign footballers in Y" would become massive, to the point of being unmanageable. Splitting it might be reasonable, and if it is to be split, it would be reasonable to split the category by nationality. Aecis·(away) ^talk 12:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:English footballers is always going to be bigger than Category:Expatriate footballers in England, using your argument, the English footballers category should be split (perhaps by town/city or year of birth?), as well as countless other much larger categories, Category:Living people into "living people by nationality", Category:Football (soccer) midfielders into "Football (soccer) midfielders by nationality", Category:1980 births into "1980 births by nationality" etc. E P 16:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see point 4 above, large categories are not unmanageable, we have the tools to determine virtually any triple intersection we can think of. Surely there is a better argument in favour than "expatriate footballers in Y" categories are too large, so we should chop them up into triple-intersections. E P 16:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, many Fooian footballers categories are already split by position. Aecis·(away) ^talk 18:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

John Smith (Gillingham F.C. player)

I don't suppose anybody has any sources that give any more concrete information about this player? None of the books on the club's history list his place or date of birth, with the result that I've had to give the article a rather stupid title in order to disambiguate himself from all the other John Smiths out there...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Joyce's Football League Players' Records has him playing as a right-half, but no birth information or middle name. Nothing wrong with using the team name as a dab, AFAIK, in the absence of anything better. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That article has to be renamed, surely...by position rather than club I'd say. Giant Snowman 17:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? In the absence of a nationality or birth date why would John Smith (right-half) be any better than the current name? Most modern fans don't even know what a wing-half was anyway......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Purely because he played for clubs other then Gillingham. However, as you righty point out, a position as a dab is not ideal; more research should be done to find a birth date or middle name, and use one of those instead. Giant Snowman 20:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

He didn't play professionally for any other clubs, though. And I'm not sure what further research could be done to establish birth date or middle name. As pointed out above, Football League Players' Records does not have it, nor does since1888.co.uk, Soccerbase doesn't even list him (funnily enough), I have four books on the history of the Gills none of which have it. Beyond that I'm really not sure what research, original or otherwise, could be undertaken....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Having such a common name, and playing briefly so long ago was always going to make research difficult, and if you've exhausted all possible avenues to find a more apt dab then I'm more than happy to keep it as it is then. Giant Snowman 20:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

MK Dons

I've been trying to improve the Milton Keynes Dons F.C. page so that it complies with the MoS, and is in line with other club articles, but the work just gets undone every time by anonymous users. I note from their talk pages that they have been repeatedly warned about various issues, so this doesn't seem to be working. The issues I have with the article are:

For on-loan players in the current squad I have been trying to use the "other" parameter to indicate this. The IP user wants to have a separate "Players In On Loan" section, that does not use the {{fs}} template. They also seem to insist on wikilinking Chelsea to the disambig page rather than to Chelsea F.C..
There is a list of, what appears to be, every single former MK Dons player, with a sentence about each player. This appears to be totally excessive and will get totally out of control with time.
An "International Dons" section, detailing all players and managers of the club who have ever been capped. For instance, Paul Ince's England career is noted. I believe that Ince's playing career has nothing to do with this article, and that the only players that should be listed in this section are those who have gained caps whilst MK Dons players (just 2 so far).

I'm pretty certain I'm making decent improvements here, so was hoping to get some advice on how to ensure the article stops regressing, or at least to bring these issues to the Project's attention. Dancarney (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of clean up on the article. I don't think the Former and International Dons section in their current form are quite necessary. We've had plenty of recent discussions on such sections. I suggest taking a look at featured articles on football clubs for some more suggestions. Peanut4 (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dan I agree with you on all points. Not only is this IP user is being unreasonable, reverting your edits without explanation or discussion, they are also plain wrong. Please don't be discouraged though - if they persist on a regular basis, consider adding the page to the WPFOOTY watchlist, so that others of us can help out with reverting/warning where necessary and help you avoid an edit war. I'll see if I can help out with the article as well. --Jameboy (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In case of continuous edits from IP users which are clearly disruptive, I might consider also to semi-protect the article for a limited period of time. I'm gonna add the article into my watchlist. --Angelo (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Due to the way MK Dons is viewed by a lot of football fans, still to this day, it might be worth leaving it on semi-protect permanently, TBH I think the Wikipedia its self should require registration before editing but that's a separate issue. Skitzo (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this article naming convention OK?

1. deild 1985, 1. deild 1984 etc. Is the naming ideal? --Commander Keane (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, Faroese equivalent of Premier League 2007-08 etc. May need some disambiguating if the Icelandic equivalents are similarly named though (don't know off the top of my head), or if there is a 1. deild in the Faroes in other sports. - fchd (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The full stop after a number is not a common convention in English, and deild will mean nothing to most readers. If the relevant principal is to use what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, then I would suggest Faroe Islands First Division season 1985 etc.

I would also suggest that, until the renaming in 2005, that first sentence should be piped thus Statistics of [[Faroe Islands Premier League football|first division of the Faroe Islands football league]] in season ...., because it was not the Premier League at that time. On which point, assuming that deild may be translated as league or division, it seems odd that Formula should translate as premier: are we certain that this is not just aping the naming convention of the English league system?

And while I'm at it, It was performed in 8 teams, and B68 Toftir won the championship (from the 1985 article) might read better in English as Eight teams competed in the league, with B68 Toftir emerging as champions. or something similar. Kevin McE (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Formula" is the name of the sponsor..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So is there any justification of the word "Premier"? Kevin McE (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that I can see. As far as I can tell, the most appropriate translation for "1. deild" is "First Division", especially since it wouldn't make too much sense to have a Premier Division and a Second Division (2. deild) but no First Division. – Pee Jay 17:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The words "premier" and "first" mean the same thing and translate to the same word in many languages, so there are a few countries that have a Premier Division directly above a Second Division, the most obvious being Primera División and Segunda División. MTC (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, its the English/Scottish way that is the illogical one. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of logic, Premier is the correct name in the English and Scottish systems, and possibly some others, because it is the name of the league. As to the suggestion that "premier" and "first" mean the same thing...in many languages, I woul suggest that this is true only for masculine gendered nouns in French (and, of course, la ligue and la division are female nouns, and so would be described as première); there might be cognates in other Romance languages that mean first, but that is no more relevant than the German, Norse or Swahili words that translate as first. No claim otherwise is to claim that the word premier, in English (and not only British English), has assumed a meaning of top division in sporting competition, especially in football: is there any lexicographical source supporting that? If not, I would suggest that an appropriate article name in the case of the Faroese top division, given that the second level now translates as division 1 would be Formuladeildin (Faroese football). Kevin McE (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

English Football League results

The full First Division results since he start of the Football League in 1888 used to be available at www.the-english-football-archive.com, but this site is no longer functioning. Does anyone know of an equivalent database on line? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Try the RSSSF. Not all seasons have dates of matches, but they have the results (I think). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this any good: [16]? You can select each English league division and then choose to show the season's final table or results grid with dates--Goonerak (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Conference National

Are we declaring it as fully professional yet? Govvy (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I just watched to know if I could recreate an article for David Button as he just played for Grays Athletic yesterday. Govvy (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, he still fails. He already played for them a couple of times last season anyway. --Jimbo^[online] 20:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Player Apps & Goals Templates

It looks like there a number of different templates for players' appearances and goals per season. Tony Adams only has columns for League & FA Cup whilst Nigel Winterburn has columns for League, FA Cup, League Cup & European games. Is there a standard that should be used? Also, does anyone know where Charity Shield details should be put in these tables?--Goonerak (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion some time ago (now archived here), which got nowhere. My main requirements would be for them to be

clear – as in easy to read and understand;

well-organised – so the reader knows what goes in each column, whether by heading or by footnote;

comprehensive – though if you can't find sources for everything the player played in, at least add a note to say what's been omitted;

sourced and dated – which most of the recently-added Nigel Winterburn-format ones aren't.

Personally, I prefer variations on the Steve Bruce#Playing statistics / Len Boyd#Career statistics style. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of that particularly template, but the Steve Bruce example answers the above question, with which I agree. I would rather see the template as at Thierry Henry though, but with the Steve Bruce-esque stats. Peanut4 (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

David Beckham

Resolved

– I assume that this is closed now, what with Caden having apologised. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:CadenS seems to have some severe ownership issues regarding this article. A perfectly valid edit was made to remove some POV and OR material from the article, and the aforementioned user reverted it with a warning not to "piss [them] off". They now claim that they do not "give a rat's ass" what other editors think. I have now reverted CadenS's edits, as they have clearly lost the plot. I would also appreciate it if I could get some backup regarding this matter, particularly as I am verging on breaking the three-revert rule. Cheers. – Pee Jay 22:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I resent you saying I have ownership to the article. I never told you I owned it. The edit is not POV. You're just being a complete goof about this. Caden S (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The very fact that you seem to believe that what you say goes indicates that you do believe, to a certain extent, that the article is yours. It has been explained to you why the statement is POV, and yet you ignore it. Finally, try to keep a civil tongue in your head. Your accusing me of being "a goof about this" may not be offensive, but it is certainly derogatory. – Pee Jay 23:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Look Peejay, I don't think the article is mine. Also, I didn't ignore anything. I don't think the statement is POV. Furthermore, I am being civil to you. Caden S (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You may not think the article is yours, but you are certainly exhibiting the behaviour of someone who does. And if "you're just being a complete goof about this" doesn't count as being uncivil then I don't know what does! – Pee Jay 23:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the edit is WP:OR. In fact, I don't see how it can be seen as anything else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think you're being a goof. And I don't give a crap if you think it's WP:OR. Caden S (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And that, undeniably, proves the point of the other editor here. If you can't understand what Wikipedia allows and doesn't allow, you might consider doing something a little less technical instead of wasting people's time on here. Rubbish like your edit will always get deleted out, and rightly so. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The edit is WP:OR (there is no proof that Becks's inclusion in the England squad means he'll be in 2010 - Fabio Cannavaro, I'm sure, will play some part in Italy's qualifying but he'll be 37 or something when the World Cup arrives - will he be in that squad? I don't think so). The onus is on the adder of information to provide proof in the form of citations, not for others to disprove it, and more so on BLPs. This statement you are trying to add is an uncited opinion. Also, please stay civil. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

American and Canadian "soccer pyramids"

I've started a discussion at Talk:American soccer pyramid#The term "pyramid" regarding the use of the term "pyramid" to refer to the disparate league systems in the US and Canada. Please add any comments there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom Hurst/Tom Hirst

York City signing Tom Hurst/Hirst, from what I gather, probably isn't the Tom Hurst who played for Boston in the Football League, and that the information from The Press is probably just assumptions or just taken from his Wikipedia article. They seem to backtrack about Hurst/Hirst and eventually say he's an 18 year old from Skipton, therefore not being the former Boston player. What do people think? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

AC Omonia

Just as a heads up, vandalism of this article (and subsequent repeat of the vandal-added info in the Daily Mirror) has featured in the B3ta newsletter, so the article is likely to be a focus of vandalism for a bit. I've semi-protected it, but it needs a lot of cleanup. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A link to the article mentioned, as it is fairly amusing... HornetMike (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

One editor keeps adding an entire section entitled "British media" regarding this. Personally I do not feel a single British journalist's mistake warrants a section on a Cypriot football club, and have removed the section (several times now), as has one other admin. Does anyone have an opinion on this, because I'm getting tired of removing it... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I really can't see how it's notable, and I'm sure there's a policy somewhere that says we should not include "self-referential" references to Wikipedia in Wikipedia articles..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Probable hoax: Nenad Todorovic

I believe this article is a hoax. The editors that have created/worked on it have only editing this article and the club articles they suggest he has played for. There is a player with this name who plays in the Serbian Superliga for Hajduk Kula and now OFK Beograd, but he is a defender and older. If there is a youth player with the same name at Red Star, I can't believe he has stats as good as shown in the article or otherwise he would have plenty of sources to support the stats and I can't find any. Does anyone follow the Serbian Superliga enough to know if this is a hoax? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming it is, can we just change the article to be about the real defender? matt91486 (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WOW, this is quite a predicament. I will offer some input in this and give my discussion. Firstly, no I do not follow the Serbian league at all. I'm Croatian, meaning I still hail from the related Balkan area. I take a big interest in Balkan footballers, particularly those who are young and have a bright future (just like this supposed Todorovic guy). However, if you say you have never heard of him, that adds to my suspicion as I have never heard of him either (and I most likely would have heard about him if he is this impressive). Those stats are absolute bogus. I'm pretty sure this is just a joke article which some fan(s) have put togethor about an unofficial or un-existing player. The day the world sees a 22 year old score 79 goals in 149 games will be a blitz of absolute glory from a supernatural force. Every club in Europe would be after such a player if he actually existed. I haven't heard anything about him yet, and he hasn't even been mentioned in the Serbian national squad at all; again, if he was this impressive then he would certainly have at least played for the youth national squads. Without references, this page is clear hoax and needs to be deleted/replaced with the real player. Domiy (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The defender looks different to the guy in the You-tube video. I suspect there may be a youth player or some such who does not yet meet notability, but if the defender does (which appears so), take matt91486's advice and be bold. Start here--ClubOranje^Talk 11:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've replaced the information in the article with sourced information about the Hajduk Kula defender who has played in the Serbian Superliga and CIS Cup, and appears to pass WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve Bruce

User:Tony1 has stated at the FAC for this article that the prose still needs a copy edit. Anyone with a ~~bit~~ lot of spare time on their hands want to see if they can pick up on anything I've apparently missed.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've given it some minor tweaks, mainly limiting details from linked matches and abridging some of the long sentences, but I cannot see any need for major adjustment. Yet another of CtD's excellent expansions of an article. Kevin McE (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Kev, much appreciated! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Danny Welbeck

This player made his Manchester United debut in the League Cup this evening. Could an admin please look back through the deleted versions of the article and reinstate the best of them? – Pee Jay 19:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of the previous version, and have made a request to the last admin to delete the article to allow to it to be recreated. Eddie6705 (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I myself have a copy of a previous version of the article. I can compare our two versions once the article is unprotected. – Pee Jay 19:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

< I have restored the article. Please revert it back to a suitable revision. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul (PJ) Roberts

Any views on this one? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The S-League is fully professional, so he's notable. matt91486 (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Glen Johnson

Something seems to have gone wrong with the image of Glen Johnson here (it wasn't a particularly good one). Can anyone sort it out? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Must of got wiped in the accidental image deletions on Commons a few weeks ago I think. D.M.N. (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd question the value to the encyclopedia of a shot of the back of his head anyway......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes!! There need be no rush to restore it! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Exeter City club logo seems to have disappeared too. Has this been accidentally deleted too? Would someone be able to restore it, or does a new one have to be uploaded? --Jimbo^[online] 07:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that a PNG version of the Exeter City logo be uploaded, rather than restoring a poor quality JPG version. – Pee Jay 07:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Emanuel Pogatetz-Rodrigo Possebon incident

Apparent leg-break, similar to the Martin Taylor-Eduardo incident. Could warrant some watchlisting. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Crumbs, I'm behind, I've never heard of either of them! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you haven't heard of Possebon, but Pogatetz has been around for years! – Pee Jay 21:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never paid much attention to Middlesbrough ... : ) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Austria? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Very tactful of The Guardian's website to put a picture of the incident right under the big heading "Breaking News" this morning, I thought..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any encyclopaedic value in describing a red card incident on Pogatetz' article? Every goal, every red card gets press coverage: I suspect that this inclusion is due more to the profile of the team offended against than any intrinsic notability of the incident, and that in a short time, there will be no apparent reason why this is being reported on when other events are not. Kevin McE (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You could be right there. However - and I may be biased in saying this - Pogatetz' tackle on Possebon could have ended the young lad's career. A red card for two bookable offences is certainly not worth mentioning, but this is a really big deal in both players' careers IMO. – Pee Jay 20:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't ended his career, though, and ultimately it will most likely prove to be a very minor incident. I don't believe it is a major incident in both players' careers. I'd say mention it on Possebon's article in the context of the lengthy interruption of his promising career, but there's really no need to mention it on Pogatetz's article. Currently (unless it's been vandalised again since I last looked) Pogatetz's article essentially says "in September 2008 he got sent off" - in ten years time people will read that and think "so what?" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 OFC Nations Cup

I have rearranged some sections of the article 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (OFC) to the 2008 OFC Nations Cup. However, I think there is something missing. Please help for expand. Thanks. Raymond "Giggs" K o 07:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The pages European football records and List of UEFA club competition winners ‎are similar (European club ranking for number of titles won). As only the second article is based in UEFA resolutions (the main source for an encyclopedia), IMHO the first must be deleted. --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The first article covers a different set of data from the second one, and includes data on top scorers in UEFA competitions, etc. In my opinion, both articles should be kept and the first article should be expanded to cover other records, such as top appearance makers in the various European competitions, etc. – Pee Jay 12:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The table for top goalscorers, apparances, and other list in UEFA club competitions are available in UEFA club competition records (Records and Statistics ACCORDING to UEFA resolutions in UEFA OFFICIAL tournaments). If exist a ranking for European competition won (in List of...) why exist another ranking with only UCL-UCWC-UC (In European competition...)? Is correct,for that, write and third European ranking including the Intercontinental Cup (football) as in the UEFA official website? --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of the existence of UEFA club competition records. In that case, European football records should be deleted. Feel free to take it to AfD. – Pee Jay 20:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the box/template for delection? --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow the instructions at WP:AfD. – Pee Jay 06:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely a merge & redirect is the easier (and quicker) solution? Qwghlm (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, please don't delete European football records, it is the only page which (correctly in my view) includes the Fairs Cup along with the UEFA Cup. the UEFA one was started as a content fork, but there's no reason not to have both articles covering similar, but different, ground. - fchd (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If exist a ranking for UEFA competitions, why exist a ranking only for UCL-UCWC-UC? --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed the article European football records for delection, thanks. --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Which I've removed. It's certainly most definitely not an uncontroversial deletion. - fchd (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

F o o t b o.com

Can someone explain to me what this site is? It has player profiles on it and those are being added to the external links of various articles here. Some of them only tell the birthdate, nationality and the club the player plays for. Is that useful at all? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's crap. It's a Social Football Network, and therefore not acceptable as per WP:EL. -- Alexf⁴² 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, remove links to player profiles as they serve no point. This is a list of offending articles. Qwghlm (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What, if anything, do we do about people adding player profiles to that site that are unattributed copy-and-pastes of the corresponding Wikipedia article? e.g. Pedro Pelé http://f o o t b o.com/Players/Pedro_Pele/Wiki/Current_Revision --Jameboy (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You can report it at WP:GFDLC. ~~I'm about to~~ I've requested the site be blacklisted at WP:SBL for both that and the spamming. Qwghlm (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that two German links are added to an English profile doesnt make much sense to me (all i see are words i don't understand with numbers next to them), nor the fact that fussballdaten.de is adding links to player profiles. In fact, there are lots of football sites adding links to football player profiles. The Footbo page gives much more information than just birthdate, nationality and the club the player plays for, and there is also a community rating, viewers can get a feel for how the player has been performing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiredminds (talk • contribs) 06:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I put some links to Footbo as the site is gaining much traction in the football community. According to Alexa.com and compete it is growing very fast. Also some stars are involved. I put the links to some player profiles, because the content is like Wikipedia very much driven by users. I was not aware of WP:EL and social networks as an unaccptable source for citation. In any case it is a great site and I think we will hear about it much more in the near future. Soccerbabe23 (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggest to keep the references within Michael Ballack and Alexandre Song, because they are valuable. These players actually blog on Footbo. In general there are worse external links than Footbo, so I tend to agree with Inspiredminds. I saw some articles on Footbo recently, so I assume there community is expanding and this is why we saw many external links in the last days. Striker2008 (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious what is happening here. These three users that support footbo.com have no idea how to use Wikipedia and are probably the same person, or at least some types of sponsors of the site (All three posts are within 15 mins of eachother). What is this called? Sock-puppetry or something? I don't know if you've noticed but all the links to Fussballdaten.de have (in German) beside it so if you don't understand German, don't click the link. Pretty basic stuff here. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious what is happening here. I get up in the morning, log into my wikipedia account and get accused of posting with different aliases. The fact is Hubschrauber729 that I tried adding a profile page for Footbo after I started using the site. I will admit, I'm no wikipedia expert. But i found that the laws that bind your little virtual world together are being enforced with some kind of corruption. I have one person who patrols the profile and tells me there is nothing wrong with it, and another who doesnt like it, so just deletes it. What is this called? Do you really want me to say "sock-puppetry"?? You, who posts for some German soccer site, are clearly not wanting another football site that might actually be better than Fussballdaten, to be mentioned on relevant pages. So tell me Im wrong. You see, you are not the only one who can make splendid accusations. Oh, and its great to have a (in German) next to it...but i think it is of relevance on the german page, not the english one. That's why there is a seperation of languages no? Inspiredminds (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I do speak some German and the links to Fussballdaten.de are really useless. Much deeper information is for example given by Kicker.de , but it seems the real interest in it comes from Hubschrauber in having them. Also I did not know one is not allowed to contribute in less than 15 minutes after someone else without being accused of being the same person. Soccerbabe23 (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking of dates

As I understand it, there has been a movement of late to avoid the overlinking of dates. This got me thinking, therefore, about which dates it would be OK to link to from a player/club article. From a player's article, I would say that their dates of birth/death ought to be linked, but nothing else, while the date of a club's formation/dissolution should be linked too. Opinions? – Pee Jay 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSLINK#Dates says that "The use of full date formatting is now deprecated." As I understand it, dates should hardly ever be linked any more. I wouldn't even link the date of birth or date of formation. You'll notice that templates such as Template:birth date and age no longer produce links for example. There are still some templates that have yet to catch up with this (e.g. some citation templates still have linked dates) but I believe they are being worked on. WP:MOSLINK also advises on how and when to use "year in (subject)" links, e.g. "1966 in football (soccer)". --Jameboy (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I just think that the player's date of birth is vital information and it can be quite useful to be able to click on the link to the article about that date to see what else has happened on that date. – Pee Jay 22:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you, but not sure what could be done. Someone made a similar point to yours at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Wikilinked_dates, i.e. saying that it would be useful to link birth and death dates only, but it appears that _all_ dates are now unlinked. I'm trying to locate any discussion that led up to the change. --Jameboy (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:MOSNUM - scroll right to the bottom where there is a footnote containing two relevant links: the archived discussion leading to the change and a more recent proposal. Both threads are great for curing insomnia. --Jameboy (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Update - there is now a request for consensus re: wikilinking birth and death dates in bios at: Wikipedia talk:MOSNUM#RfC: Linking of dates of birth and death. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Name change people

Does anyone know offhand what we do in the case of a player who changes their name after they become notable? Case in point Simone Ferrara who married and is now Simone Carmichael, as evidenced (more or less) by this link. I have created the page under her original name as that is what she used when 1st notable and FIFA records only show that. I figured on making a Simone Carmichael as a redirect, but should something also be included in the article?--ClubOranje^Talk 01:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Unfortunately I don't have a good answer. Actually I don't have any kind of answer. Why did I even write this? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Gökçek Vederson and Kaan Dobra are two I ran across recently. Jogurney (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If the name by which a person is most commonly known changes permanently then I think the page should be moved to the new name. Obviously mention should be made of the former name and the change -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd change "Simone Ferrara also known as Simone Carmichael" to..."Simone Carmichael, née Ferrara...", as it sounds almost like a pseudonym. In the infobox, keep her player name as Simone Ferrara, but change the fullname to her married name, and mention the fact she kept her maiden name for her football career in the main article. --Jimbo^[online] 09:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Colin Miles and Gary Taylor-Fletcher are a couple more examples of this. Using the current name works best, with the former name mentioned and with a redirect. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Using the current name is best as long as that's what the person is commonly/publicly known by. We don't have an article entitled Katie Cruise, hence if the female player mentioned above has chosen to continue to publicly use her maiden name, that's what the article should stay as, albeit with mention made of her married name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It should definitely be "Simone Carmichael, née Ferrara", "... born Ferrara" etc. Punkmorten (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Another question is what name should be in squad listings and templates if a player changes his/hers name during his/hers career. I think I prefer to use the name used during the tournament and not retro-actively change squads, as in the Tomas Antonelius article. Sebisthlm (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you would old names in historical articles, just as you would use former nationalities. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Another example - Rune Berger, formerly known as Rune Johansen. Giant Snowman 14:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CONCACAF Gold Cup navboxes

User:BlueRed has unilaterally removed all CONCACAF Gold Cup navboxes from player articles going against recent community consensus not to delete the templates (TfD). Perhaps someone could roll back the disruptive edits? E P 10:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Another notability question...

Are players who've played in the Football League Trophy, whilst their team was in the Conference notable? Example being, Martin Rice. Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 12:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say no. Under WP:ATHLETE, a player must have played in a fully professional league to be considered notable, but we usually extend this to cover cup competitions. It is my understanding that, in cup competitions, both teams must play in a fully professional league for the match to confer notability upon a player, so players from the Conference would not count. – Pee Jay 12:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Which just goes to show how daft the current situation is - a game between two teams, a player making his debut for the home side can become notable by stepping over the white line, but a player for the away side will remain un-notable despite performing the same act. - fchd (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This bizarre situation would not be possible if WP:BIO folk accepted WP:FOOTYN, which clearly states that to be notable for his cup exploits a player must have "played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional national level clubs". E P 16:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would, it would just shift to be a debating point in FA Cup matches instead. WP:FOOTYN is as flawed, if not more so, than WP:ATHLETE, and no, I haven't got any better ideas to hand. I'd certainly be less inclusive than either of the above criteria though. - fchd (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A team in the conference doesn't play in the Football League Trophy it is a fully professional competition, you may be thinking of the F.A. Trophy. Skitzo (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

They did, for several years quite recently. See Football League Trophy#History. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not under the current format, so it wasn't fully professional back then and so for notability POV was a different competition. Skitzo (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

MarshallN20

It seems MarshallN20 is pushing a very dubious point of view that Lima Cricket and Football Club is the oldest football club in the world (predating Sheffield F.C. by 12 years) using sources in an extremely dubious way to support his POV (he has also hijacked Bicycle Kick adding a huge rambling section full of irrelevant and misleading sources claiming it was invented in Callao, Peru. The Peruvian claim certainly deserves a mention, but 7.5 kb is a bit much) This is a dangerous development for two reasons:

Lazy journalism, some idiot journalist will come along read Marshalls POV that the bicycle Kick and even the concept of the football club were invented in Peru, publish it in a newspaper without citing Wikipedia, then it will become a reliable source to support the minority POV that modern football was invented in Peru.
Credibility - Everyone who knows the slightest bit about the history of football knows that the game in its current form was invented in the U.K. Claims that suggest it was invented in Peru damage the credability of Wikipedia.

-E P 14:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's User:MarshalN20 (one l, not two). x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Made some further fixes - the sources look sound but clearly state the first game of football in Peru wasn't until 1892. Qwghlm (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I never wrote that the Lima Cricket and Football Club was the oldest club in the world. I wrote that in 1845 a club under the name of "Salon de Comercio" was formed, and that in 1859 the Lima Cricket Club was founded from that past club. Everybody who knows about football knows that Sheffield F.C. is the oldest football club, because that's what FIFA certifies as the oldest club. Next, about the bicycle kick, the section is supposed to promote the idea that the kick was invented in Peru; just like the sections related to Chile, Brazil, and Italy also mean to promote the same idea. Nations such as Ecuador, Colombia, and Panama also call the move in the same way Peruvians call it; in other words, it's not something I'm making up. Please do not post lies about me or misleading things related to what I write English Peasant.--MarshalN20 (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Current squad

According to the manual of style regarding club articels, squad list are suppost to look like

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


No.	Pos.	Player
30	GK	Tom Templateo
31	DF	Tim Template
32	DF	Tommy Templatius (on loan to Template City FC)


No.	Pos.	Player
33	MF	Tom Template senior
34	FW	Templaldo (on loan from MediaWiki AFC)
35	MF	Timmy Templaton

However some pages uses

No.	Nat.	Player name	DoB	With PSV	Former club	Fee	Detailed position	Notes	Deal until
Goalkeepers
1	`{{flagicon\|Earth}}`	Tom Templateo	October 3 3333	July 33333	Wikipedia City	€2,800,000	GK	European Union player	July 44444
Defenders
1	`{{flagicon\|Earth}}`	Tim Template	October 3 3333	July 33333	Wikipedia City	€100	DF	European Union player	July 44444
Midfielders
1	`{{flagicon\|Earth}}`	Tom Template senior	October 3 3333	July 33333	Wikipedia FC	€100,800,000	MF	European Union player	July 44444
Forwards
1	`{{flagicon\|Earth}}`	Templaldo	October 3 3333	July 33333	Wikipedia United	free transfer	FW	European Union player	July 44444

I added the second one to Halmstads BK, with some changes to fite the club, however it was later changed back to the first one by another user, wonder if the first one is the only to be used or if the second one can be used or if there is something else i have missed ? --> Halmstad, Talk to me 20:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have only seen the 1st 1 used for club sides and something similar to the second for internationals. Skitzo (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the second one is awful and should be avoided. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is a popularity contest, I must say I prefer the second one since it can show basic information on players that don't merit their own article (as shown above), something that can be useful for clubs where there are a lot of talk about players that haven't débuted yet. It's also more similar to the way the squad is presented on most official club sites. However, I recognize that the first template is used in the MoS, so I maybe wouldn't advise people to use it, or use it myself. Sebisthlm (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Did first see the second one on PSV Eindhoven and recently on AIK Fotboll, was mostly wonder if second one wasnt allowed or similar. --> Halmstad, Talk to me 21:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs for the manual of style on club articles - the first one is used. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditch the second, it's properly fugly. Qwghlm (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea with the second, but far too much information to hold, and verify. The first is simple, works and although looks a little on the amateur side, it does the job. No reason to stop trying to take a step forwards though. I'd recommend to any creative template editors out there 'keep it simple' as a motto or directive. Anything too radical or remotely complicated will immediately be shot down. I'd say fine-tune the current standard, look elsewhere with those proposed at other projects such as rugby union. Look at those in place for rugby league, AFL, American Football, NHL, cricket, etc to see how they are doing things. There is a way forwards, sadly this option does not appear to be the solution. Fronsdorf (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:FC X players

Are categories like [[Category:Chemnitzer FC players]] for anyone that has played at any level of the club or just for the first team? Asking this question because this cat was added to Ralf Fährmann, who only played for their youth system. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think if should be there for people who were only at the club as children. Remove it. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd disagree. If the player had a formal association with the club as a junior, then I would categorise them as that club's player. Though whatever the merits of including kids, there's certainly no requirement for them to have played first-team football. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

How about including if they were full-time players but never played, e.g., on a full-time youth contract in the under-19s or something? I don't think including players who played for a club's under-14 side is worth including. •Oranje•·Talk 09:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I certainly don't think they have to have played first-team football. But I think there is a difference between young players who play in reserve and under-18 teams, and are under contract, who are considered part of the (wider) playing staff, and kids, who aren't particularly tied to the club, and don't play in the usual competitve competition structures. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Romani Footballers

I have recently come across the category [[Category:Romani footballers]]. I don't really understand why this is a category since there is no Romani nation that these players were born in, nor is there a FIFA recognized national team. Apparently there is a Romani national team but there is no evidence that most of the players in the category have played for it. I'm thinking of nominating it for a CfD. Any thoughts? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Romani people is a subcat of Category:People by race or ethnicity, not related to any particular country of birth, like Arab or Jewish, and it's pretty normal to then sub-categorise by occupation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's a valid subcategory. On the national team, I would say that the more prominent footballer, the smaller chance that he/she has ever played for a non-FIFA national team, since they're usually made up of amateurs. The notable exceptions are of course the regional Spanish "National teams". Sebisthlm (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Joe Kinnear

Not sure how to go about getting an article protected but Joe Kinnear is being vandelised following appointment at Newcastle Natcong (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of vandalism going on. I've removed a load and semi-protected. If logged-in editors can't behave, I'll put it up to full protection. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you protect Dennis Wise as well for a short time until tempers cool down? Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, you should go to RFPP to request page protection. -- Alexf⁴² 00:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Eugene Killoran

Can an admin please delete this article, I created it back when he was playing professionally in Japan but he has since left without making a first-team appearance, and doesn't look to have signed for a new club - especially a notable one - since. As the author (but not only contributor) I'm unsure if it passes Wikipedia:CSD#G7...either way he fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

AfDed Kevin McE (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

General notability discussion

I'm not sure if you guys have looked at the general request for comment on notability yet. It seems as though the second section of discussion will have significant implications on this, and other WP:ATHLETE based, WikiProjects. It would be worth taking a look at. I'm pretty sure this can't fall under WP:CANVASS since Wikipedia is posting the heading to every member! matt91486 (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking or where specifically you are asking us to read. Fronsdorf (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) this, specifically this, it is one of the two messages at the top of your watchlist. E P 13:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a link to the discussion would be helpful - unfortunately I dismissed the note when it arrived, without too much thought. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, EP's link is correct: Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise is the issue at hand, specifically issue B, dealing with (not explicitly, but really) WP:ATHLETE and other sub guidelines. matt91486 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a standard we can push all those who believe in the status quo to go along. Fronsdorf (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Neil Ruddock

Decent free-use images might be difficult to come by, but surely we can do better than the distinctly unflattering one used in Neil Ruddock. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that definitely him? You're right though, it is hard to get decent free photos. Emanuel Pogatetz blinked when I snapped him yesterday and therefore looks like he is asleep, but I figured it was better than nothing. --Jameboy (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely Razor Ruddock. Football isn't one for openly accepting people taking pictures during games, so the best we can hope for on a large scale is warm-up pictures, pre-game pics and truly big-game pics where real fans want to take a picture to say I was there. Fronsdorf (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Blimey. Better to have no photo than that photo. Beve (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it, sums him up to a T. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In most cases, any picture is better than no picture, but I really doubt that is the case with Ruddock. Peanut4 (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Joe Mattock

Resolved

– I have moved it accross as per WP:MOSNAME Skitzo (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

when i 1st created this article i moved it to Joseph Mattock, how ever he usually just goes by Joe, in fact I have never heard him being referred to as Joseph, so I'm looking to get a consensus on weather I should revert it back to the original title... Skitzo (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To me, per WP:MOSNAME, it should be Joe Mattock, with Joseph Mattock redirecting to Joe Mattock. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox dates

Just a quick question; if a player signed for a club at the start of the 2007–2008 season, and made his first-team debut at the end of that same season (i.e. in the year 2008), how should his infobox be represented as his pro career starting in 2007 or 2008? Many thanks in advance, Giant Snowman 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Others may disagree, but I would say that his pro career began in 2008. – Pee Jay 22:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur - that's how I've always done it. matt91486 (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree too. -- Alexf⁴² 00:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. His pro career started when he signed pro for the club, therefore 2007. If you do it the other way, the infobox would be misleading, making it look like he was without a club between leaving a previous one in 2007 and playing again in 2008. Take reserve keepers, who often move around without playing much. You could get several apparent gaps in their infobox, so it'd look like they had no club, but where they would in fact have been sat on the new club's bench every match since signing.

The documentation for {{Infobox Football biography}} says the years are "A <br /> delimited list of years that the player has been contracted at each professional club." (my italics) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his wikipedia notability may start with his first game, but his pro career started when he signed his first contract. Beve (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Struway. Jason Brown left Gillingham in 2006, but made only one sub appearance for Blackburn Rovers between then and the start of this season. If he hadn't made that one brief cameo and we gave 2008 in the infobox as the start of his Blackburn career, it would look like he was unattached for two years -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the infobox only for actual appearances though? If he didn't appear in 2007, why should it show up under that year? We can include contract length in prose. matt91486 (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is a breakdown of a player's career, the appearances info is just a part of that. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all, I'll update the article I was thinking about (Sean Morrison) as starting in 2007. Cheers, Giant Snowman 11:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about a players first game of their career aren't we, not first game for every new club? GarethHolteDavies (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)