Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 58

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 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Mohammed Nuru Dini

I can't trace whether he has actually played for Liberty Professionals FC. Perhaps someone with better knowledge would check, please? The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

He has, but doesn't seem to now. I'll add refs in a minute. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for this prompt response. I see Dini in the first reference, which does the trick, but he doesn't seem to get a mention in the Rec.Sport.Soccer ref? The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The LBFC ref mentions Dini playing in a goalless draw against Tema Youth in Round 25 of the league, but is undated. The RSSSF ref verifies the season in which that match took place. I actually put a hiddden note in the article when adding the refs, to explain, but I suppose that isn't really much help unless the reader opens the edit window... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this patient explanation. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User:12Rolando

He's back, ignored my last warning about creating articles about himself, and so I've taken it to ANI for further discussion - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:12Rolando. Cheers, Giant Snowman 17:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Good job. I laughed out loud when I saw "PROD - Rolando (football born 1991)" appear on my watchlist. Unbelievable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Now indef blocked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any straight forward way to keep on an eye on new pages based on Caribbean football? I get the feeling he'll be back under a different name. He hasn't made one constructive edit since being a member of Wikipedia so I can't see his block being withdrawn. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Might be worth periodically checking to see if File:Wet in rain.jpg is showing up as used on any articles...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple of requests

Can someone with sufficient knowledge of Swedish football verify the creations of this user? They all appear to have played for Assyriska Föreningen. They played in the Allsvenskan in 2005, but that is where my knowledge pretty much stops, so I don't know whether Superettan is fully professional or not. It doesn't appear at WP:FPL anyway.

I had a look at Dani Hamzo. He was at an Allsvenskan club in 2003, and given he was not of youth age, he probably played for them, but does anyone have league stats? I added some text to the article, but am not sure about what was written about him being an 'ethnic Assyrian'. Eldumpo (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Swedish FA site gives stats for players appearing in the top 2 divisions via the search box at the top right: e.g. Dani Hamzo's page. If you/anyone were going to go through those players, might be an idea to replace the links to transfermarkt and the like with their Swedish FA page. Unless any of those non-RS links actually gave any useful information, which they don't usually. As to ethnicity, if it isn't reliably sourced it should be removed. Though best of luck explaining that to their creator... Incidentally, Assyriska reached the Swedish Cup Final in 2003, so I'd guess anyone who played in that was notable even if Superettan isn't fully-pro... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, is Category:Murdered footballers really necessary? It seems a bit morbid to me. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No category is "necessary", but this one is useful...I used it myself to look up Andrés Escobar when I during the recent Copa America.--ClubOranje^T 08:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Honours

(copied and pasted from the Cristiano Ronaldo talk page) "I have added, or at least tried to add, two national team achievements by Ronaldo which include runner-up at Euro 2004 and fourth place at the 2006 FIFA World Cup. Including national team achievements that aren't exclusively first place on a football player's article, is not out of the ordinary. To the contrary, I would say that this article not including these achievements is what's out of the ordinary. Adding that information does not violate the guidelines of WP:WPF and the only counterargument brought up thus far by user PeeJay2K3 on the revision history of Ronaldo, is that they're not first place accomplishments. Just to give you an idea of how common these national team, non-first place, mentions are, here are just some high profile articles which include just that."

From what I can see after viewing article after article, is that first place achievements are exclusive when it comes to club level but not national level. I would say this is the case because national level achievements (1st through 4th place in a tournament) are rarer than club level achievements in most cases, and thus the rarity makes them more notable and deserving of a mention. I don't see a problem with that standard and I support it, but if there are objections to that standard on here then I'd like to see the argument. If a consensus is reached on rejecting the standard of mentioning national level achievements that aren't exclusively first place, then I'd like that consensus to be applied to every article encountered, not merely the Cristiano Ronaldo one. Georgiamode01 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for copying the entire discussion and not just your argum– oh wait! >_>

Secondly, and on a serious note, thanks for finally providing a valid argument. I actually kind of agree with you that national team achievements are more notable than club achievements; however, apart from the fact that national team tournaments usually happen every two or four years, I don't believe they are rare enough to warrant listing second-, third- and fourth-place achievements. – Pee Jay 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I only pasted that part because it basically sums up the points I was going to make here either way. With regard to your second point, national level achievements are rare by default when compared to other achievements (club level) given that club level tournaments end within a year's span. Euro and World Cup tournaments end every four years, and thus awards are given every four years. Georgiamode01 (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

S.League

If anyone has time to kill then S.League is in a sorry state. I stumbled upon it while BLP referencing. It's mostly unsourced, poorly laid out and full of trivia. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Woah, that's terrible. I'm going to be bold and just completely gut the article, remove all unreferenced information so we can basically start again. I'll need help though, I don't have tons of time to be doing major edits. Giant Snowman 23:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

New criteria for WP:FOOTYN - Player notability ?

IMO the current formulation of "criteria 2" doesnt make sence, in regards of also declaring notability for "all footballers who played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic competition". For a start, I assume the term "domestic competition", should be understood as any "domestic competition being played in addition to the primary league matches of the club".

According to "criteria 1" it has however been decided, that only "footballers who played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure", are considered notable. My concern now goes, that when we both in criteria 1+4 demand footballers (playing in a pro-club OR amateur-club befor pro-era) to have played at the national level before being notable, I really can not understand why on earth criteria 2 is so generous to hand out notability for "footballers who played for a fully professional club at a low non national league level (ie. the sixth level in England -Conference North), and then just one time in their career managed to play a FA CUP match against another fully professional club from Conference North" ?!?!

I therefor now propose, that we delete the word "domestic" from "criteria 2". In regards of "continental/intercontinental competitions", I can understand and accept players can win some career notability, if they play for a fully professional club and compete against another fully professional club. In that case, the argument goes that continental/intercontinental competitions on the importance scala are viewed and followed by many people -having a significant coverage-, while a 1/128 FA CUP match between two "fully professional clubs" from Conference North rank very low on the importance scala, and really shouldnt merit a notability status for the player.

Plese post your opinion if you support/oppose the removal of the word "domestic" from criteria 2, so that the new formulation will be:

Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a ~~domestic,~~ Continental or Intercontinental club competition.

Two other important questions to solve:

Today Struway gently informed me, that WP:FOOTYN criteria aren't relevant at all, because it's an essay that was never accepted outside "Wikiproject Football", so now we should instead only decide player notability by WP:NFOOTY. My question is, if this opinion of Struway is generally accepted among the rest of you here at WP:FOOTY? And if Yes, why on earth noone yet decided to redirect WP:FOOTYN to WP:NFOOTY? And I also wonder why nobody went ahead to correct the link at our green WPFOOTY infobox? Please let me know, if you support/oppose the proposal to delete WP:FOOTYN and let it redirect to WP:NFOOTY. I think we need first to settle this discussion here at the talk page, before deciding such a radical move!
Today Eldumpo removed the following new sentence added to WP:FPL: "The term Fully Professional League is defined as A league contested only by fully professional clubs". He removed the sentence, as he felt this so far was a non-agreed definition. The reason why I wrote the sentence, was to highlight the meaning of the term, when someone reads it after consulting criteria 1 at WP:FOOTYN. I also consulted the previous archived discussions at the Fully Professional Leagues talk page, and found out that the majority of statements had agreed, that the term "fully professional league", should really be understood as "a league contested only by fully professional clubs". Do any of you disagree about this interpretation of the term?

Beside of posting your support/oppose to my "criteria 2 reformulation", your answer to the 2 questions above will also be highly appreciated.
Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOOTYN isn't the guideline we follow; WP:NFOOTY is. Neither say a player from the Conference North is notable. Giant Snowman 20:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you didnt understand my example above. The current formulation of Criteria 2 in WP:FOOTYN actually mean, that a footballer playing for a fully professional side in Conference North, can win notability if he play a 1/128 FA CUP match against another fully professional side. That is for sure!!! But if you say the essay anyway should be trashed -in favour of WP:NFOOTY, then I think we should really make that perfectly clear at WP:FOOTYN, and/or ASAP redirect WP:FOOTYN to WP:NFOOTY as I proposed above. Danish Expert (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well as I said, nobody uses WP:FOOTYN, and if they do, they certainly shouldn't. The wording needs changing immediately, to match WP:NFOOTY. Giant Snowman 21:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

To answer the two questions: 1) If nobody uses WP:FOOTYN, and it isn't relevant, what purpose does it serve? I would support deletion, but perhaps it only exists because there is nothing at WP:NFOOTY to clarify club notability (which I am aware is in any case under discussion elsewhere?)? 2) I am keen to clarify the meaning of "fully professional club" - according to some, it must be demonstrated that such a club will have a squad that entirely comprises full-time professionals (which can be highly difficult to reference); but to others, such a club need only be labelled 'professional' by the relevant national football association, even if many (or all) of the club's players are part-time or completely unpaid. I recently raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, where I contended that a number of leagues have been listed as "fully professional" but without proof that most (or indeed any) players in the league's member clubs are employed as professional footballers on a full-time basis. Deserter1 21:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As to WP:FOOTYN, no, I don't think it should be deleted and redirected to WP:NFOOTY. It was a set of criteria that resulted from lengthy discussion involving quite a lot of people, but when it wasn't accepted outside WP:FOOTY, it was retained as an essay that reflected the then views of the project. If people want to rename it to "/Notability essay", then fine, but its content should remain as is. Though I agree the wording in the header box that says "it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion or when considering creating a standalone article" is misleading and should be removed, and clear words added at the top to make clearer that WP:NFOOTY is what counts. I don't really see much point in copying the contents of WP:NFOOTY over here. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If WP:FOOTYN mainly serve a purpose of being a historical reference, then after implementing the changes suggested above by Struway, I also think it is appropriate to redirect the "notability criteria" link in our "green navigationbox" (also known as the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/navigation}} template), so that the official link points to WP:NFOOTY rather then the historical essay WP:FOOTYN. Another approach could also be, that as long as WP:NFOOTY doesnt include club notability, we could perhaps also keep the link in the template as it is (after adding the clarification improvemenets mentioned by Struway)?

BTW, I think the recently created Wikiproject Football working draft, with a proposal for a revised -more detailed- definition for Notability of footballers, would also be inappropriate to link for in the "green navigationbox". It would simply be inappropriate to add a link for a "working draft" or "unsettled policy proposal" in the "green navigationbox", dont you think? But instead we could perhabs add such a link at WP:FOOTYN, to illustrate that a new "working draft" currently is being worked on, in order to spur more editors to leave their comment for the ongoing debate at the new "working draft page"? Danish Expert (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there has ever been a concensus on what "fully-pro league" means. We've certainly talked about all clubs in the league having a full-time playing squad, but others have argued that it should include any league governed by an organization that requires each club to hold a professional license (such as LPFP in Portugal). While I prefer the former approach, it's far more difficult to document (usually one can find articles about US league players who are not really "full-time" because they run camps or other activities in order to make ends meet). Jogurney (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, there's never been an agreement relating to 'fully pro', but the key points are how do you source the definition, and why do you decide that the definition should result in a 'free pass' for footballers of that league. I don't think having 'fully' in the description helps, due to the sourcing issue. If that were done, then Jo Gurney's license proposal could have merit, although be aware that it would probably mean a massive reduction in the list. Eldumpo (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's completely ridiculous to define notability by how many hours a player trains per week or whether they are allowed to have another job. This has absolutely nothing to do with how many people will have heard of them or if people will write about them. We should decide which leagues are notable or not on a country by country basis rather than using this ridiculous, arbitrary rule which has nothing to do with notability. It is impossible to source and worst of all means that if a semi-professional team gets promoted to a league which was before fully-professional before then every player who has only played in that league suddenly becomes non-notable. Adam4267 (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. If a team were to play as semi-pros in League Two next season, we would presumably have to consider appearances in League Two in 2012-13 to be insufficient for NFOOTY, but it makes no difference to players who appeared in that division in pevious seasons. Kevin McE (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so if a team is promoted to League Two and has one semi-professional player does that make the entire league non-notable. For that season. Adam4267 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So how would we decide which leagues were notable? Surely that would be equally arbitrary. Although, given the level of success we had last time we tried to create a footy-specific notability guideline, it's probably not worth even instigating that debate...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could actually look at how notable that league is. How much coverage it gets in it's own country and global press. Doesn't seem arbitrary to me seems almost... logical. Adam4267 (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We have shortcuts named WP:NFOOTY and WP:FOOTYN, and they point to different things? That's Judean People's Front territory. Once this thread is archived the latter redirect should definitely be changed to point at Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Association_football, or deleted if changing the target would cause too much confusion from existing links. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC) :Yep, we definitely need WP:FONOTY too. Madcynic (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed again and again and never gets anywhere no matter how much we try. Its to big a minefield. Although i think looking how much coverage a league gets would be a good idea. Warburton1368 (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is very likely a strong correlation between coverage of a league and the players who making their living playing in it. I'm not sure how to objectively measure the amount of coverage, but we ought to be able to develop some guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Some draft guidelines on revised player notability criteria and sourcing issues were started a little while back, but did not get very far as a result of lack of editor input. See the talk page. Eldumpo (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

People here are forgetting the existence of WP:GNG, which renders WP:NFOOTBALL obsolete. A player in the sixth tier of the Guam league system with enough coverage would be considered as notable as Pele or Messi. Giant Snowman 22:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, meeting GNG automatically confers notability and you don't have to be from a 'fully pro' league, although I've found AfDs quite harsh when it comes to deciding if there's enough coverage to meet GNG, yet of course those players from leagues on the 'magic list' can sail by with minimal sourcing. Eldumpo (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Rooney

Is there any particular reason why Wayne Rooney's England U16 & England U17 stats have been excluded from his infobox, seems strange to me especially when the reference proving his Senior England stats also provides info for the U16 & U17 stats. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 13:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC))

I have a guess: VANDALISM? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Have they been excluded, or just not added? It's not an article I edit, so don't know its history. If you have a reliable source for them, then put them in. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I added them yesterday after this thread was opened. – Pee Jay 17:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Could have been my bad again, for not assuming GOOD FAITH. When the original report read "...stats have been excluded...", i immediately thought of "excluded" as in "removed", instead of "excluded" as in "not included". Not all of the editors here are vandals, pretty much the other way around...My apologies to anyone that might have felt affected in case it was not vandalism. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Jack McBean

From what I can tell, he has never played for the LA Galaxy at the professional level, just included on the bench for one game against the Columbus Crew. In the page's history, I noticed that the article was Pro'd but the prod was contested and removed because he received some coverage in Scotland (he's eligible to play for Scotland). Does that mean he is notable as per WP:GNG? If that is the case, I can think of tons of other youth players who will also be notable based on the coverage they have received.TonyStarks (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The BBC looks like a significant reference to me, the other newspaper one was a dead link, but I suggest he is likely to meet GNG. If youth players are receiving significant coverage then they can be regarded as notable; they don't get excluded from getting considered based on GNG.Eldumpo (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that age doesn't preclude a person passing WP:GNG. But WP:N defines notable topics as "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". Do you really think that the BBC/Sunday Mail articles, effectively two copies of the same very short story that a 16-year-old is eligible for two countries and both want him for their junior teams, qualify? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly Struway .. that was the point I was getting at. Sure, some articles were written about his international future .. but there's tons of dual citizenship players playing in the youth ranks of clubs all over the world that also have similar stories written about them. For example, off the top of my head, at the recent U17 World Cup in Mexico there was the 5-6 German players of Turkish descent, one Germany player of Tunisian descent (Khedira's young bother), two French players of Algerian descent, etc. All these players have had stories written about their international future and using the same logic could pass WP:GNG.TonyStarks (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Under footballing standards, I'm technically eligible to play for England, Wales or Canada - if I get one of my journalist mates to write a piece about me, do I get an article? No, course not - the same applies here. Giant Snowman 12:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw he played for the senior LA Galaxy team last week in their friendly against Manchester City; the LA Times produced an article on this under the headline No Landon Donovan means Newport Beach's Jack McBean gets in game [1]. Fox Sports West produced a similar piece entitled 16-year-old McBean makes debut for Galaxy [2], noting that he "immediately made an impact" after coming on as a second half substitute and including post-match quotes from the player. I am aware friendly match appearances don't make a difference under WP:NFOOTY guidelines but I think this counts towards demonstrating general notability for more than one event and in more than one country. Deserter1 13:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

((outdent)) I have nothing against Mr McBean, and hope he makes something of his future football career. And actually, because of his apparently being on the Galaxy first-team squad at age 16, I think he's rather closer to notability than most of the 16-year-olds that people write sub-stubs about as soon as they're mentioned in the same sentence as a big club. But it bothers me that people think a few weeks' media hype constitutes "significant attention ... over a period of time". If I wrote an article about a one-time youth footballer from the 1980s, say, who came close to making it in professional football but never did, and only included sources as trivial as those currently in the McBean article, it'd quite rightly be deleted in no time flat. What's the difference? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely accept your point with regard to almost all youth players being inappropriate for Wikipedia. I do think, however, that in some limited circumstances a player who has yet to make a senior first team appearance for club or country can qualify for inclusion under WP:GNG, and the WP:NFOOTY guidelines agree with this. I argued in favour of keeping an article on Lucas Piazon at a recent AfD. If a player in similar circumstances to Piazon existed in the 1980s - and was the subject of a high-profile international transfer move for a considerable fee to a major European club following significant achievements at youth international level for Brazil, and was the subject of in-depth feature articles in national media in South America and Europe discussing his future prospects - I think such a player would be notable even if he never went on to make a senior appearance for the purchasing club or the senior Brazil team. McBean is certainly a more marginal case, but I agree with the OP that he is at least worth debating. Deserter1 17:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well let's discuss him then .. personally, I don't think he passes WP:GNG. A few articles about his international future and his performance in a friendly are not enough to qualify as significant coverage in my humble opinion.

Clyde Best

There seem to be some edit warring at Clyde Best. Would someone have a look? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Page protection requested, and both editors warned and advised to move it to the talk page. Regards, Giant Snowman 21:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Spanish club names - "REAL" vs. "No REAL"

This is getting really tiresome (maybe my fault for not understanding the rules, i pay little attention to those unfortunately - or is it fortunately?), but i'll try it once again:

why not leave the "REAL" out in boxes (except for REAL MADRID and REAL SOCIEDAD), and leave the full name in storyline? No one is going to think the player plays for "Valladolid" the city if they see just that written in box, or that a player plays for the "Murcia" autonomous team.

Besides (and i have mentioned this over and over again, and i am not lying, believe me if you will), even Spanish broadcasters and newspapers tend to "lose" the "REAL" more often than not in their chronicles and/or game broadcasts. Examples like Real Betis are even more "mind-blowing": BETIS does not mean anything on its own (well, in the ancient Roman Empire it did), except being a football club, no one is going to mistake that for anything else, but some insist that the full name is written in box. Why?

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense to me. If the commonname of those clubs in English have the word "Real", it should be included in infoboxes, standings, and whatnot. The closest equivalent to my (geographic) area of expertise is if you were to say someone played for Cali, in reference to Deportivo Cali (or any club with Deportivo in their name in South America). Leaving "Deportivo" out every once in a while is ok, but for the most part it doesn't fly (like for tables or stat sheets). Digirami (talk)

The problem would be that people who don't know that much about football might get a bit confused it we start using two names for one club, best to stick to the full name tbh. doomgaze (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So... Use "Real"? Digirami (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't black and white. In Argentina some clubs leave out stuff like Atlético and Deportivo from the club name when referring to the club like Club Atlético Lanús is just Lanús or Club Atlético Independiente is commonly referred to as Independiente. On the other hand, in other countries clubs hold onto those words which are commonly omitted in Argentina such as Deportivo Cuenca, Atlético Huila, Atlético Grau, Deportes Tolima, and Deportivo Táchira. --MicroX (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Outside of Argentine clubs, I have noticed that Deportivo or Atletico is added to the commonname of a club if the other half of the name is the name of a geographic location (city or province). The same is true for Spanish clubs, it is commonplace to add "Real" when mentioning or talking about Real Betis, Real Zaragoza, Real Murcia, or Real Valladolid (among a few others I may have forgetten). Yes, in shorthand you may leave out the "Real" (as you would for Deportivo or Atletico), but shorthand isn't right for infoboxes and the like. Digirami (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion I would say that the 'Real' should be included since 'Real Betis', 'Real Zaragoza' etc. are the common names in the English-speaking world. Maybe it is becoming more and more common not to use the 'Real' in the Spanish-speaking world, but I do not think that is the case in the English-speaking part of the world. And since this is the English Wikipedia I would say that 'Real' should be kept. 62.50.175.31 (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

All-time English Football League 1st Division Table

Same exist for 2nd to 4th. Pretty colorful, only ref goes to rsssf's front page, non-sortable. Just noting, won't mess with that article. -Koppapa (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed these the other day and think they're horrendous. Apart from the fact they look like an explosion in a paint factory, they are at best original research and at worst blatant plagiarism. Big Dom 17:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone has been busy. Isthmian League Third Division table, anyone? Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Beyond useless. Unencylopedic OR unless they were pinched from somewhere else. Terrible colour schemes. Got to go, surely? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I love the initially linked one, if only because it lists the Tractor Boys five above the Budgies. But yeah, is this a table that's considered notable outside of Wikipedia? If so, keep and tidy up, if not, AFD is ------> that'a'way. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Lol at the Isthmian ones. A can understand a good sourced top-division one, but those 8th level or so are a joke. And the refs are dead too, of cause. No pages link to those anyway, they sure could be deleted. -Koppapa (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Guess who is top of the The Rochdale Division? heh.--Echetus Xe 18:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Watford have taken the Championship playoff promotion spot twice out of twenty-five times. But because we failed on two other occasions, we somehow end up as the 21st best team. —W F C— TFL notices 18:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've PRODded the article, and I suggest you do the same to any others you stumble across. Giant Snowman 19:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont see whats wrong with the article existing if the sources can be found to back it up. Warburton1368 (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The only acceptable source would be an exact replica - in which case it would be, as stated above, plagiarism. The article has no merit, simple as. Giant Snowman 19:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Now at AfD. Giant Snowman 21:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you'll need to AfD them all. Good luck to whoever does it and prepare for incoming. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thought I'd put the case for the defense (ie - me!) The colours were/are the club's 'normal' strip colours - if you believe they would look better as black/white or something similar, that's fine. Very few supporters of Isthmian, Northern Premier or Southern League teams would concider their competitions to be 'random', indeed the Isthmian 2nd/3rd Division tables could reasonably be considered 'historical documents'. The reason Rochdale is top of the 'Division 4' table is that they have scored more points than any other club in the Division - however, they don't dominate the Top & Tail tables; a similar story for Watford - the tables are based on points scored, as the only other possible way of sorting would really be by the methods shown in the Top & Tail tables. As for the sources - as well as using the RSSSF website, I also used the individual season pages on Wiki and collated the data accordingly; would it help if I listed all the season pages? Concidering the many weeks it took to put these together, it would be a real shame to see all that hard work removed at the push of a button - as a supporter of AFC Wimbledon, I know all about the 'long haul'! Geordiewomble 22:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geordiewomble (talk • contribs)

If you want to work on the articles, improving them & working on the issues raised here and at the AfD, then you could consider Wikipedia:Userfication. Regards, Giant Snowman 22:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Rochdale have scored more points than any other club in the division. So what? It's only because they were stuck there for decades while other clubs either got promoted or relegated or went bust. Where's the merit in that achievement? It's like saying racing driver A scored more points in his career than racing driver B, largely because he took part in three times as many races. It's apples and oranges - no reasonable comparison can be made with bare stats. Where's the statistical merit? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

also points per game makes no sense when. mixing two and three point rules. and everything else does neither. why would 4 wins early mean less than 3 today?

Interesting comparison with the racing drivers, as we have List of Formula One drivers as a featured list, which is sortable by points, among many other stats. And formula one certainly has changed its points system much more drastically then football has over the years. Precedent for such lists certainly exists and they seem resonably common outside of Wikipedia. The 2-point/3-point dilema is usually overcome by back-calculating everything with the 3-point rule. As long as they are no copyright violation, why should they be deleted? Just get rid of the horrible color scheme, source them proberly and wikilink the clubs! Calistemon (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The copyvio has already been pointed out above. Giant Snowman 23:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not the same thing - the list of F1 drivers is just a list of all the sport's participants. That's the point of it, and it just happens to be sortable. Personally I don't see the point in that list being sortable and I argued against it. The stats on that list are available all over the internet though, and crucially, they are not copyrighted. These football tables are, for no stated reason, divided into divisions, and they are copyrighted material. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As said, if its a copyright violation, it should go, probably as a speedy delete per G12. As for the other resons, the List of Formula One drivers would have to go as well as it is really just the same, just under a different name. Calistemon (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's well outside the scope of this discussion page, but it is obviously nothing like the same thing. First off, it's a featured list... Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but as you brought up the example of racing drivers, Bretonbanquet, I thought I throw that one in. Obviously, there is room to develop a similar layout of List of English First Division clubs into a featured list, for those who are interested, despite largely relying on stats. Its not part of this project, but there certainly is now way either of comparing Barrichelo's points total with Fangio's and the list is nevertheless still there = and featured. But enough about this subject now. As said, G12 if its just copied accross, no further discussion needed! Calistemon (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think there'd be no problem with a simple list of First Division clubs (or whichever division) with whatever details people want to add. But ranking them in a table is where the problems start, particularly if they're going to be taken wholesale from somewhere else. These are being deleted now in any case. I completely agree with you on the F1 points aspect, which is why I didn't want that column to be sortable, but I was outvoted :( Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

1989 FIFA U-16 World Championship Final

I would appreciate any thoughts on an issue relating to the attendance figures for the above match between the under-16 sides of Scotland and Saudi Arabia in Hampden Park, Glasgow, in 1989. On the match report on their website, FIFA states a 58,000 attendance [3], while The Scotsman quoted 51,764 in a 2009 feature article on the game [4]. As FIFA ran the tournament, is their figure the one that should be quoted? Or would The Scotsman, as a respected national broadsheet newspaper, be considered a more suitable secondary source for Wikipedia purposes?

This issue was raised in a DYK nomination for the Scotland national under-16 football team, where a compromise might be to state that 'over 50,000' fans attended the game in the article's introduction. FIFA's figure is currently used in that article and the one on the 1989 FIFA U-16 World Championship. Do others feel a change is necessary? Deserter1 11:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Scottish Fa's website claims the attendance was 50,956 see here & here. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 12:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Contemporary sources would support a figure of around 51,000: the Glasgow Herald preview mentions a 57,000 ground capacity, and the Evening Times match report mentions "over 51,000 Scots". And this 1999 feature from the Independent about Brian O'Neil says "O'Neil, who had missed a penalty against Saudi Arabia, then missed the decisive one in the shootout, to break his own young heart and 51,000 others inside Hampden Park." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work, many thanks. As these additional sources indicate around 51,000, I've amended the Scotland under-16s description to "over 50,000" and the 1989 FIFA U-16 World Championship attendance to 50,956 as per DUCKISJAMMY's SFA references. Deserter1 13:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Trésor Kandol

I'd appreciate some assistance here. I stumbled on it after hearing we were in discussions with the player and take a look at the Leeds United section. I'm tidying it up and adding some sources but I'm not sure what to do about the Leeds section. I guess it either needs to go or needs to be completely referenced (which I'm not going to do). Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as Mr Kandol's left Leeds, there's no point adopting the technique someone did at e.g. Luciano Becchio and Neil Kilkenny of tagging every sentence that particular editor added with citation needed tags... You could always ask them if they fancy adding sources, and if they don't, cut it back to him signing for Leeds and leaving again. Or alternatively, just cut it back to him signing for Leeds and leaving again. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

English Football first tier Top Scorers

Very curious article this one. Should it exist, and if so can anyone suggest a better title that isn't horribly mis-capitalised.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, it's WP:OR. And yes, it's crap caps. Please AFD at your leisure. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd redirect to English football champions, which already has a column for each season's top scorer. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

...aaaand I have done so. Giant Snowman 21:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Hearts" or full name?

I have been having my share of run-ins over this Scottish club's name in infoboxes, and it does not show sign of stopping...

In all my years of browsing English-speaking sites since i joined WP, i found that the vast, vast majority of those refer to the club as "HEARTS", not "HEART OF MIDLOTHIAN", so i think that "HEARTS" would suffice in box. Some users disagree with me, but of course they don't: write summaries in box; send me a message; start any discussion at WP:FOOTY, they only revert me, period!

Another (much more polite) user said, in a previous discussion, he wrote "HEART OF MIDLOTHIAN" in box to avoid confusion with the Ghanaian team Hearts of Oak. Well, there's your answer man, write "HEARTS" for the Scottish club, "HEARTS OF OAK" for the other, that pretty much covers it no?

Attentively, happy weekend y'all - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME would for me be the appropriate guideline. Celtic and Rangers are listed without the Glasgow prefix for example. I'd be very confident that English language sources refer to Hearts that way and not as Heart of Midlothian. Valenciano (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The "Glasgow" prefix is not added because it is not part of either clubs name. Adam4267 (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree, go with "Hearts". However, the situation with Rangers F.C. and Celtic F.C. is slightly different, as those are in fact the full names of those clubs; the word "Glasgow" doesn't appear in either and never has. – Pee Jay 22:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, calling them 'Glasgow Celtic' is the same as 'Inter Milan' or 'Sporting Lisbon' - in wide use, but not actually correct. As for 'Hearts', that is fine. Giant Snowman 23:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Adam/Peejay/GiantSnowman, thanks for correcting me about the Glasgow thing and you're right of course. I'm writing from a non-UK user based perspective where the Glasgow bit is often incorrectly added in either English or Spanish. AC Milan would be another example. Hearts, anywhere in the world has been just Hearts. Valenciano (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, in that club's name, the city is already part of the name - unlike their Portuguese counterparts. It'd be like having 'London Arsenal' etc. Giant Snowman 23:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I meant the A.C. part, which is along the lines of F.C. thought not the same, though I agree with you on the overall point. Valenciano (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. Putting Hearts instead of Heart of Midlothian is like putting Spurs instead of Tottenham Hotspur, or Wolves instead of Wolverhampton Wanderers. IMHO it should be the full name of the team, sans any FC/AC/SC initialisms. JonBroxton (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You would put Wolves instead of Wolverhapmton Wanderers but Tottenham not Spurs. It's the teams most common name. Adam4267 (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I would always put 'Wolverhampton Wanderers' for that team, but 'Hearts' for Scottish one - as per our old friend Neil Brown. Giant Snowman 23:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Every month one of this discussions appears. I have already seen several times disagreements on this matter even between established editors. I will also add the problem of several Arab world clubs with same name: Al-Ahli´s, Al-Ittihad´s, etc. where I have been adding the city name after clubs one in order to make it clear in the infobox (exemple: Al-Ittihad Jeddah) but I´ve seen several users reverting and adding different versions... Seems that one day we should really make a list for all clubs "short infobox name version", which perhaps want be such a bad idea as it seems initially. FkpCascais (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In the infobox, use whatever makes it clear at a glance to the casual reader (not the football expert) what team is meant. The infobox isn't the place for shorthand. In the text, once context is established, use short names. Thus Heart of Midlothian, Tottenham Hotspur, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Birmingham City in the infobox, Hearts, Tottenham, Wolves, Birmingham in the text. No needs for FCs or CDs or CFs anywhere except if needed for disambiguation or clarity. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Player name display on club season articles

There exists a large number of templates for squad information on club season pages. Most of them appear to use either a player's full name or professional name as the display. However, template:fb si header (and the associated template:fb si player), template:fb in2 header (template:fb in2 player), and template:fb out2 header (template:fb out2 player), used by Arsenal, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Rangers just to name a few, have all explicitly stated to using the name on the back of the jersey. Should these templates be modified to only use a full or professional name? A discussion on this topic has already ensued on Talk:2011–12_FC_Barcelona_season#Names. Vanadus (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Displaying what's on the back of a jersey creates weird circumstances. I'm sure that guideline was in place (in those FB templates created unilaterally by ClaudioMB) when players only put their last name on the back of the jersey; it made things rather simple. However, some players do not have their last names on the back of their jersey. It's better to list Javier Hernández by his name instead of by Chicharito (the name on the back of the jersey), or Christian Benítez as Chucho (the name on the back of his shirt, especially when he was at Birmingham), to list a few examples. It's even worse with a club that doesn't differentiate between two players with the same last name. Additionally, only pages who use those template follow that "guideline". Most pages are moving away from those templates and display the full name of the player. Digirami (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

UEFA.com

Can anyone tell me where the attendance for a match is shown on their website, here for example? It isn't obvious to me but they obviously list them or pages like this wouldn't include attendances. I'm not enthused with FIFA but at least their website is easy to navigate; UEFA's just makes me want to rage. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not obvious. Cant see it on the page at all. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What an awful website; I can't find it either. Giant Snowman 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

For the competition proper, they usually include the attendances in the press kit match reports, but I don't think they do that for the qualifying rounds. Probably should chase up a source for those. – Pee Jay 22:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's good to see that I'm not the only one struggling to get my head around UEFA's layout. Take last season's Champions League final; where is the attendance here? Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I know the problems we have encountered in the past with this site, but if UEFA.com is not reliable for football articles (as FIFA.com of course), then what is? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliability isn't the issue. I just want to know where the attendance for matches is included on their website since hundreds of Wikipedia articles use the site as a source. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes mate, from what i've seen it's nowhere to be found, thumbs down to UEFA.com on that one...but i don't think that (some) match attendances not being sourced is that big a deal, one wiki-headache less for us methinks :) Is www.rsssf.com not very reliable in the attendance department? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that thousands of unsourced figures is a significant breach of WP:V but it's not the reason I asked. I'm requiring sources for a potential featured list I'm working on and knowing where they're shown would give me peace of mind as well. RSSSF doesn't include Euro 2012 qualifers or recent friendlies yet. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

They seem to cover most of them eventually. THrough google i found http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Publications/uefa/UEFAMedia/73/99/34/739934_DOWNLOAD.pdf Page 23+ lists all UEFA CL and EL attendances for the 08/09 season. They may end up here: http://www.uefa.com/uefa/mediaservices/publications/uefapublications/index.html -Koppapa (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So where does one access the attendance for the Europa League games before this publication is released. In particular, in yesterday's game in Poltava between Vorskla and Glentoran the Sporting Life in results section had the attendance as 5,500. Now I've noticed that the attendance on the 2011–12_UEFA_Europa_League_qualifying_phase_and_play-off_round#Vorskla_Poltava_v_Glentoran game has been changed to 8,000. Where is the source for this? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I tried looking back through the editing history to see who is adding attendances but there are that many I can't keep up. Logic dictates that UEFA would put it at the top of the page where the details are, for example; Qualifying round (Group C) - 11/08/2010 - 19:00CET (20:00 local time) - A. Le Coq Arena - Tallinn - attendance. It's a small thing, but it's still annoying, especially for a completionist like me. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well its 3 days after the game and the "Report" link to the official UEFA report for the game does not have the attendance yet - so again if the attendance is being displayed in the page - Where is the reference? I think the task force group is sweeping this issue under the carpet. Or someone is using a third party source but is not too kean in revealing the source. How else could all the attendances be so correct for all the games? hmmmmmm Brudder Andrusha (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you always assume everything is a conspiracy? Your constant paranoia is becoming something of an irritant. Anyway, UEFA.com never puts the attendance figure on the match report, but they do put it on the official match documents when it is released. If there are no references to support these attendance figures, you should just remove them from the article. – Pee Jay 10:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't posted in over a year to this list and it's nice to know that your sensitivity hasn't changed much either. So much for consistancy! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said it if there wasn't some merit to it, and now your persecution complex has come to a fore. – Pee Jay 13:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Instead of playing your rue, you should be less irritated and delete the unreference attendances. Then again your bench warming tactics are highly prized around these neck of the woods. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you two stop with the petty bickering please? Not only is it inappropriate for civility reasons, but you're taking this massivly off topic. Cheers, Giant Snowman 14:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I merely asked (civilly) for where the attendance figures are coming from. Doesn't look I will get straightforward answer here. Ho-hum... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As per Pee Jay's suggestion I have opened an entry in the Talk:2011–12 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round as a start to the process of deleting attendance figures if they are not sourced. I am awaiting input for contributors to this thread. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

More discussion and resolution of this issue has been noted in User talk:Syjytg#Attendances. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You can find attendance figures in the reports under press kits, then FR. Hope this helps. Vanadus (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The press kits (pdf file) for the Europa League (and only the 2nd qualifying round is currently displayed) has no link and its not highlighted. I imagine that as the season progresses that these press kits will get published and be accessible but for the present that information is not there. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Juan Manuel Ortiz

Incredible! An obscure player (even for some people who followed La Liga on a regular basis) until now, he signs for Rangers, the idiotic vandalism begins. Also, one user vented his European frustrations here, saying the Champions League match was a "disappointing win for Malmö".

I already toned it down and sent him a polite to-the-point message about POV/WEASEL (and overlinking), expect to be reverted anytime soon! Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a couple of points. Firstly, considering that Rangers were the higher seed in the match up and also playing at home, I would say that a 1-0 loss at home is a "disappointing defeat". Secondly, and not to be negative or anything because I've seen your work and you do a great job, but .. you should consider toning down the edit summaries just a tad bit because it did not seem like idiotic vandalism to me (maybe a slightly overzealous fan). For example, "No OVERLINKING, no POV (disappointing defeat for who? YOU? MALMO?!)!! Maybe it's the last time i have to intervene here." and "Club known as POLI EJIDO, box compressed OK? Also, i see that not even the REF deterred the vandals in INTRO!!!" look very hostile. And finally, any player that plays for Rangers (or Celtic) stops being obscure given the size of each club's fan base. Take care.TonyStarks (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism i referred to was not the above, that was just, was you well point out, an overzealous fan. However, if this (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_Ortiz&diff=441851782&oldid=441623400), this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_Ortiz&diff=next&oldid=441851871), this (here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_Ortiz&diff=next&oldid=441868478 - certainly a Celtic fan who, bursting with joy after the hated team lost, replaced "disappointing" with "great") is not vandalism, i rest my case...The fact that the player ceased being obscure after signing with a top-notch team - again, good point from you - gives them the right to vandalize?! Again, yes, my summaries were exaggerated in some instancies, i have ZERO tolerance for vandalism and akin.

You take care as well - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you are absolutely right .. and like I said I wasn't trying to be negative or criticize (maybe just constructively :D). I checked the edit history of the page myself prior to posting my message and did not see the change from "disappointing" to "great". Had I seen that I would have definitely posted a different message (or maybe not posted one at all). Again, my apologies .. and keep up the great work. TonyStarks (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Stats Issue

I've run into a bit of an issue for the stats of a certain Mehdi Kerrouche. When he signed with Swindon Town this past summer, plenty of papers reported that he scored 12 goals in 18 games for his former club in the UAE second division. [5]. However, I know for a fact that the player only scored 1 league goal (in 3 games) before being released since I used to check his stats on a regular basis and he's a player I've been tracking for years (it's an Algerian thing). The problem is that the only source I have is a list of top scorers from a forum dedicated to UAE football (as random as it is, its the only place to find correct information for this league .. oh and its in Arabic): [6]. What do I do? The 18+12 is technically referenced by a source that is trusted .. but I know for a fact that they have it wrong this time. I should add that he's a player that embellishes his stats a lot thanks to certain contacts he has .. and I've provided links to prove him wrong for some of the stats (see the history of his article). Any help to the issue would be appreciated.TonyStarks (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

E-mail Sky/Soccerway with your information and see if they'll amend their stats - but you cannot use your own research on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. Giant Snowman 10:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably not worth going through all that trouble for an obscure League Two player. It's a shame that some players manage to get away with this. Thanks anyways.TonyStarks (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've heard this can be a common problem affecting players plying their trade in the more obscure global leagues. There is nothing to stop agencies from exaggerating in the hope of improving their chances of winning their client an international transfer with an improved contract. With no reliable sources indicating differently, the incorrect information can easily pass from an agent to the signing club to the media to Wikipedia. A positive counterpoint is the growth of statistics websites, e.g. soccerway.com now covers over 800 league/cup competitions in 134 countries (but not the UAE 2nd Div). Deserter1 14:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added a few references but couldn't find anything more about his Al-Oruba stats. Sorry. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for trying anyway. Like I told you, that Arabic forum I posted a link to is the only source for that information. I know that because I've searched for the goalscorers for that UAE 2nd division for many years and its the only one I've ever found .. and it's always consistent as well (based on news reports of games).TonyStarks (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"Under-21" or "under-21"?

Seems to be a bit of inconsistency between the two, which is correct? As an example, England national under-21 football team has lowercase in the title but uppercase everywhere else on the page, 2013 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship has uppercase everywhere and Portugal national under-21 football team has lowercase everywhere. I personally prefer the uppercase, but I don't know if there's a technical correct answer. doomgaze (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

For the teams, I'd say lowercase, for the competitions, uppercase - it's also why we don't have England National Football Team etc. Giant Snowman 12:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm a quick bit of 'research' seems to suggest that uppercase is the common name, but I don't know if that counts for much. (see [7]). doomgaze (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, think of it this way - would you refer to the Senior Squad of a National Team? Giant Snowman 13:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No. But reliable sources appear to refer to (for example) England senior squad, but England Under-21 team. doomgaze (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The name of a tournament is a proper noun, so the use of capitals is correct for these. As for international teams, they are consistently "Country X national football team" "under-21", "under-17" etc. in Wikipedia, and this seems sensible to me because my understanding is that the name of the team playing in competitions is the same as the name of the country. For example, if you look at the Uefa U-19 webpages [8], it is Czech Republic and Spain in the final of the recent 2011 U-19 tournament, not Czech Republic Under-19. So, for me, "under-19" is a descriptive addition and not a formal part of the team name. I agree there may be a 'common name' case as the likes of the BBC capitalise "Under-21" as standard, but for the reasons stated I am not in favour of changing the existing "under-21" norm. Deserter1 13:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Diego Ângelo de Oliveira

If anyone has time, i think this article needs some help, my "digging up" yielded nothing :(

This player, according to references #9 and #10, signed a permanent contract with Genoa (the Portuguese source says clearly "4 ÉPOCAS" (four seasons)). However, in #15, it is stated that the Turkish team bought him permanently after a one-year loan from...Naval 1º de Maio! No sense, the player should have been acquired from Genoa no?

Have already requested help from User:Matthew hk, he's "well known" in Italian football transfers circles. More inputs would be appreciated though...

Attentively, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Football In Scotland task force

A new Football In Scotland task force has been set up to improve articles on Scottish Football i would like to invite you to become a member if you wish. Warburton1368 (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Honours

Should runners-up/second place be listed in the Honours section? Adam4267 (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length, no consensus yet? For my money, it's no runner-up in leagues but in all the domestic and continental cups, and also third-places in all national team tournaments, expect UEFA European Football Championship (no third-place match there), medals are handed out on such occasions.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I always apply the same rule: where there's a medal, list the honour. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I do not include it in club articles. Using ArtVandelay13's method, it would mean listing runners-up for players (as they get medals), but not clubs (I don't believe clubs get any kind of trophy for coming second?). Number 5 7 20:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

As Vasco says, this has been discussed to death. Personally, I do include runners-ups. Not sure whether the original poster was on about clubs or players? with clubs, I might leave them out if the club had loads of wins, which is the approach suggested at WP:WikiProject Football/Clubs#Achievements, but I've never edited that sort of club... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about players. Generally I find if a player (or club) hasn't won much then they have runners-up listed and if they have lots of trophies/medals then runners-up tend not to be listed. Thanks for the help guys. Adam4267 (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Law Adam, inventor of the "scissors move"

Hi, I'm sorry, I'm new to editing text. I've edited both the page for "Law Adam" and the page for the "scissors move" to give Law Adam credit for inventing the move. Evidence for this can be found here: http://www.sportgeschiedenis.nl/2007/10/08/vergeten-sporthelden-law-adam.aspx (in Dutch). Perhaps someone else can make the correct links and credits and such as I'm not sure how to do that, sorry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Adam + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_over Please forgive me if I've not followed proper protocol in any way. Vincent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.141.225 (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Also, on the page for Law Adam, it is mentioned that he scored both goals in the 2-0 victory of Netherlands against Germany in 1932. There is a clip of this on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw2zCmtSdP0 perhaps this could somehow be added to the page... I'm still looking for a clip where you can see him do his scissors move

Is anyone good at brackets?

I'm terrible at them, and I'm having real trouble fixing 2011 PDL season#Bracket and 2011 NPSL season#Bracket. For the PDL one, it all needs moving around so that the semi finals are Laredo vs Long Island and Kitsap vs Thunder Bay, but I'm afraid I'll screw it up. For the NPSL one, the actual bracket is correct in terms of the flow, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to remove all the empty boxes. Any help would be enormously appreciated. JonBroxton (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

One seems like a lot of work. Second is not possible with that template or any template i know. -Koppapa (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Conditional information given for group drawings

Please take a look at these edits at 2011–12 UEFA Champions League – and comment. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I neither understand your point of view ("speculative information") nor you not fulling enforcing it: (1) As you correctly state in the header of this section it is about conditional information. This means there is a clear connection between the condition(s) and the outcome. This is not speculative. If you speculate there is no such clear connection. (2) If you consider conditional information as unwanted then it would have been consequent to remove all conditional information from this page; including e.g. the fact that Milan will be in Pot 1 or Pot 2 because this is conditional information as well. You did not do that, and I assume for a good reason (in any case, I support your not entirely removing conditional [not speculative] information, to be clear). Therefore, I'd ask you to revert your revert. Best regards. --EBB (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, should be "fully" of course. I do, after reviewing the history and your comment there, understand that my edits make the section (a bit) harder to read. Unfortunately, I see no way of (actually) removing information as this would make the section speculative indeed. If there is anyone who can make the section (after my edit) graphically a bit nicer I'd appreciate this. Best regards. --EBB (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ifs, buts and maybes aren't encyclopaedic. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Too much information with the ifs... with 42 teams left adding seeds (1 to 42 and not their actual rank of all teams) in brackets seems sufficient info for the draw. I'd also put pots 1-2,2-3 nad 3-4 under unknown seeding. Pretty obvious then i you are 10 or 18 and want to get in pot 1 or 2, 2 better teams have to lose their playoff. -Koppapa (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Would look like this:

Pot 1

Pot 2

Valencia (12)
CSKA Moscow (15)
Marseille (16)

Pot 3

Manchester City (23)
Lille (25)

Pot 4

Winners of Dinamo Zagreb (33) – Malmö FF (42)
Winners of APOEL (36) – Wisła (37)
Oţelul Galaţi (41)

Unknown Seeding

Milan (9)
Shakhtar Donetsk (11)
Zenit St. Petersburg (17)
Ajax (18)
Bayer Leverkusen (19)
Olympiacos (21)
Fenerbahçe (22)
Basel (26)
Borussia Dortmund (30)
Napoli (32)
Winners of Bayern Munich (4) – Zürich (34)
Winners of Arsenal (5) – Udinese (28)
Winners of Lyon (10) – Rubin (27)
Winners of Benfica (13) – Twente (24)
Winners of Villarreal (14) – Odense (35)
Winners of Copenhagen (20) – Viktoria Plzeň (40)
Winners of BATE Borisov (29) – Sturm Graz (38)
Winners of Maccabi Haifa (31) – Genk (39)

-Koppapa (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Staff lists

Pretty much every time I review an article about a club, I end up making a suggestion along the lines of For lists of staff, my rule of thumb is that those not notable enough for their own article should not be included. My rationale for this being WP:NOTDIR, that and the fact I've seen lists containing everyone down to the under 9's coach before. However, the frequency with which I make this suggestion makes me wonder if it is me, and not the articles, that is out of kilter with consensus. So, am I making a sensible suggestion in line with consensus, or I am I tilting at windmills? Oldelpaso (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be roughly the manager's first team coaching staff, plus the head of the academy, chief scout and director of football where applicable. I say "roughly" because the latter three positions can go by various titles. I don't see why whether or not the member of staff was notable as a footballer has a huge bearing on whether or not he should be listed, but I do agree that some lists of staff are ridiculously long. —W F C— TFL notices 15:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Key staff should be more enough for a club article. Assistant managers, coaches, scouts, physios and notable board members are fine, but anything other than that is pushing it. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Barr

Player today made an appearance in the Scottish first Division previously only appeared in semi pro leagues. Player previously had articles which were deleted as he was non notable. Anyway my query is can pages that were deleted be reinstated then updated or do i need to create a full new article. Warburton1368 (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A friendly admin can restore the article with the simple click of a button - I'm sure one will be along shortly. Giant Snowman 16:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the last set of edits from its previous creation. Keith D (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Tidied up. Giant Snowman 22:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just out of interest why is he notable. WP:FPL only specifies the Scottish Premier League as fully professional? Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Following on from a discussion over at FPL, an IP decided to remove the SFL1, even though no consensus was actually reaches - I will revert for now. Giant Snowman 23:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sorry, I don't want to cut across your discussions but is it wise to recreate articles at this stage when if we decide against then we will have a massive deletion job? I will add another source to that discussion suggesting it is semi-pro (my understanding). Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say keep the discussion in one place (i.e. over there) - and no more articles should be recreated until consensus is reached. Giant Snowman 23:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The first division is Fully pro. Fair enough second and third division but not the first. Total nonesense Warburton1368 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

List of prizes, medals, and awards

we should add football there, look like there is none--Feroang (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, they're currently under other games and sports. That could be expanded though and definitely warrants its own section. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 08:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why sucha broad article even exists. -Koppapa (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I added FIFA World Cup, FIFA Women's World Cup, UEFA European Football Championship, UEFA Champions League, Premier League, FA Cup, La Liga, Fußball-Bundesliga, Serie A, and Major League Soccer.--Echetus Xe 08:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The leagues and cups you added are neither prizes nor medals or awards. Doesn't really belong t the article. The Ballon dor is a good adition. Maybe add the world cup trophy instead of the world cup. -Koppapa (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I paste a lot in List of prizes, medals, and awards#Association football, but these need an explanation and an order, not a hard work to a real english speaker--Feroang (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuly professional cups

I've reverted this edit at Nsport, which added wording relating to fully pro cups. Given the amount of debate being generated by player notability issues I don't believe edits like this should be made without seeking consensus first. There needs to be a discussion about what cups can be regarded as 'fully pro', and any additions should be sourced, but is there any point in doing this. If people regard a fully pro cup as being one where only fully pro league teams play, we're not really adding many players to the eligibility, but we're creating a lot of work, and potential problems. Eldumpo (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You can say that again. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Under the current wording, playing in the FA Cup final wouldn't meet NFOOTY, would it? A definition of a fully-pro cup would be a match in said competition between two clubs from leagues mentioned in FPL. Giant Snowman 15:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Participation in the FA Cup final would fall under this seldomly invoked principle. —W F C— TFL notices 16:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Very true - but unfortunately that's something that's sadly used less and less here. Giant Snowman 16:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So to the counter the assumption that most people are idiots, we should adopt an idiotic rule purely on the basis that it is black and white?

The assumption of notability based on a cup match or two is flawed. In 99% of cases a player who only played in a cup match and never in the league was part of a weakened side in what one or both teams considered as a mickey mouse match. Sure, you'll get the odd case of someone who was good enough breaking his leg in three places on his professional debut, or who was only eligible to play in away European matches because of a passport issue; such is life (and the latter example might make him notable under the GNG anyway). Common sense is the way forward here. If we're lacking it, erring on the side of fewer very marginally notable biographies probably isn't the worst idea in the world anyway. —W F C— TFL notices 02:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Canadians playing in the UK

Simon Thomas (soccer) has just signed for Huddersfield Town. Now, the usage of 'soccer' grates on me. What is the practice when North American players move to the UK, please? Do we keep the soccer disambiguation or can he be renamed Simon Thomas (footballer born 1990)? Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

'Soccer' should remain, as that is the common useage in Canada, where he is from + spent all of his career so far. Giant Snowman 01:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What about the dates though, would you continue using the North American format of say August 7, 2011, rather than 7 August 2011? --Jimbo^[online] 14:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Retain the North American format (the same way I assume Beckham's article retains the dmy format even though he is playing for the Galaxy). Jenks24 (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Youth team templates

If I remember correctly, the consensus has been established that these templates (Template:France Squad 2011 U20 World Cup and Template:France U21 Squad Euro 2006) should not exist. However I'm having difficulty in finding the previous AFD or discussions about this. Anyone familiar with this issue here? — MT (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The point of these templates is to link related articles - which these do. If they were full of redlinks, the delete away - but these are fine IMO. Giant Snowman 11:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Romelu Lukaku

Can people keep an eye on Romelu Lukaku please. It's getting really petty over there. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Source

relocated from Template talk:Infobox football biography#Source in case others have other sources and to promote the source page
Hello! Could somebody tell me please where can I get the data for caps and goals for clubs and national teams?--Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 13:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Often differnt sources for different leagues and national teams..Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Links would be a starting point. --ClubOranje^T 20:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 10:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Pokkhao Anan and Surachart Sareepim

Could someone provide reliable sources for Pokkhao Anan and Surachart Sareepim? The places I use have no record of these two. I assumed that the appearance for Thailand would be straight forward to source but it isn't, whether that means it's false I'm sure. The link provided shows nothing more than personal information. No confirmation that they have played in the Thai Premier League. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I had a look, can't verify any of the claims in the article(s). Giant Snowman 16:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

1 and 2 played against Palestine. -Koppapa (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Good find, but they didn't actually play. Now that I know where to look FIFA says they were substitutes only. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Police United squad list at Thai Premier League website (in English). Click on player names confirms both of them have played during 2011 season. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran football

Should Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran football become a taskforce, per earlier discussions? Giant Snowman 17:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems inactive. -Koppapa (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Template:Football season start flawed and limited?

Well? I was looking into it and I see that there is a possibility that someone just puts a FIFA country codes and then you get a header for results in domestic League, Cup and League cup. But here is the thing. The majority of FIFA member countries doesnt even have its own League cup. Sure, the template is great for lists of German, English or French clubs, but what about Italian, Spanish or the majority of other European clubs out there?

Here is the problem. Lets take example of the country I am from (Slovenia). If I want to use this template then I have a problem. The template will show League and Cup, but it will also show League cup as well, despite the fact that Slovenia doesnt have a League cup. The only other domestic cup out there is the Supercup, which isnt on the template if I use it.

So basicly, I am asking if there is a possibility to use this template but somehow change the header. So for my example, that I could be able to change the League Cup into Supercup or simply to remove it from the head of the table. As it is now, I cant use the template and neither does the most coutnries out there since there is no point in having a League cup in the table and empty spaces bellow.

Also, the countries that have League, Cup and League cup competitions can use this table, but have a problem since there isnt a Supercup section in the table, which is a competition played in virtualy every European country.Ratipok (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Template updated for ~~Serbia~~ oops, I mean Slovenia. ~~Do you have a wikilink for Supercup?~~ never mind, it has been done (by User:NapHit) ----ClubOranje^T 12:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Jacobo Sanz Ovejero

Teammates: i think i may be in need of some assistance in the next hours, an user, claiming to be the footballer's brother (must be true), has proceeded to fill his page with needless links (a glove brand amongst those) and POV/WEASEL in his history.

I have proceeded to rollback his stuff but, in a show of respect, will try to have a better look at his version and see if something can be an "upgrade" to the current version (please see the editor's last version here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacobo_Sanz_Ovejero&diff=443762491&oldid=443762108). I doubt it...

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A user with the same name (so it's the same person) has also created this in the SPANISH wiki (please see here http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacobo_Sanz&action=history). He is Spanish and has proceeded to "translate", VERBATIM, the article to the English Wiki. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Revert and, if you haven't already, point him here. Argyle 4 Life^talk 09:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Chris Bush (English footballer)

I'm at my 3RR limit, can someone else please step in at this article - we have an editor here who claims to be a relative, but who is removing wikilinks, removing references, changing referenced information, and adding unreferenced information. Regards, Giant Snowman 23:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Gerardo Bruna

His article has been created, but he hasn't made any appearances in a recognised competition. - Dudesleeper talk 00:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Previously deleted by AfD, so I've tagged it as WP:CSD#G4. Giant Snowman 00:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone should advise the user he can create Gerardo Bruna as a Userspace draft & move it to the mainspace when the player has made a first team appearance as this may stop article having to be deleted constantly. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 00:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC))

It can be restored with the click of a button by an admin, if/when make his pro debut. Giant Snowman 12:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That'll be a few minutes ago, then! - Dudesleeper talk 20:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues Time for change

An ip keeps changing the main page because of his own political agenda reading between the lines he feels hard done by because of something to do with the no where near fully pro league of ireland. He keeps removing the Scottish First division from the list he has been advised to go to the talkpage for a discussion around this as there has been no consensus and until there is he has no right to remove it. He is going around adding notability tags to players from that league He is becoming disruptive and just removes any warnings you put on his page. He keeps telling me the onus is on me well it on him as he is the one that keeps removing it i have directed him to the talkpage so that we can reach consensus but he just dosent care anyway i have reverted him four times as i see his edits as vandalism. if i am in abuse of the three revert rule then ban me as i no longer want to deal with someone like this. Put it this way he is putting me off contributing to the project you try and create articles and update things for the good of the project and this keeps happening.

Because of this and many other issues i feel it is time to get rid of the fully pro criteria it is totally wrong as discussed before it ways heavily towards the long line of french clubs and english clubs. How can a player in the 8th tier of english football be notable when someone is trying to say that a player in the second tier of scottish is not. We need to change or we are in danger of being in the dark ages. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again. Players who have been no higher than Conference National aren't notable so Northern/Southern/Isthmian League Division One players certainly aren't. I don't see why French clubs are being brought into a dispute over the Scottish First Division either. Under the current criteria, only Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 players are notable. The same number of leagues as Scotland. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

ok so players in the conference national are notable and now were trying to say the scottish First division players arent when they always have been in the past . Its wrong and is very heavily waited towards certain regions in the world hence above. Anyway if consensus is that then fine but the ip dosent care its a vendetta now. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No, players in the Conference are not notable - he said that "Players who have been no higher than Conference National aren't notable". The lowest "notable" level in England is League Two. This is not weighted towards any country in particular, but rather towards those where football is popular enough that leagues that low can be fully professional (of which England happens to be one). Number 5 7 23:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

the conference is still the fifth tier against the 2nd in scotland. there are plenty of leagues on that list as someone else said the Azerbaijan First Division and many more if we become very observing about it. There are far to many leagues deemed notable im not been funny but more people in scotland could chat to you about the first division team in scotland through press notable coverage than i am sure most can with the conference national. If a league is notable and passes GNG Then the players should to. I know what you will say next that if a player passed GNG then is beats us but half the time editors do not even take the time to check that. Wikipedia is all about notability we need to address this as to remove a league that has always been notable and till is to the general public just makes no sense. How dose how many hours a day or week if full pro indicate anything about a players or clubs notability they still field a team every week they still get the same volume of press coverage. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat it. Conference National players aren't notable. Only the top four leagues are fully professional. I've had my run-ins with people who are in denial about the League of Ireland being comparable to Northern/Southern/Isthmian League standard (I'd guess there are thousands that fail the current criteria). If the IP has been sufficiently warned and continues to disrupt then it needs to be reported. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Scottish football is popular fair enough second and third but the first is taking it to far a leauge that was always notable dosent change over night just because one if the ten clubs decides that it will have a mix of pro and non pro for just one season. You seem to think im picking on england no im picking on any league that really gets very little coverage on the whole scheme of things lets face it more than half the editors who contribute have a heavy allegiance to england which means there are more voices so who cares about scotland we are all one country. Even if you look at it notability dosent change over night we need a system that reflects that.

Anyway could somebody take a look at the ip. Consensus must be reached as he is disrupting the good work that the scottish football task force was created to do Warburton1368 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry want to make it clear I like english football in general i just think we need a system somewhere in between the current one so that we take in notability as well as fully pro we need to be fair to all leagues. The league of ireland isnt anywhere near fully pro and dosent really get a lot of coverage so is completely different. If all those leauges in england are deamed notable then at the very least the first to divisions in scotland are. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think that Scottish Division One should qualify as it is virtually fully-pro, with the occasional semi-pro club getting promoted to it now and then. However, if you really think there is some kind of bias, look at the attendances (surely the best way to check notability as you can see how many people actually go to the matches). The average attendance in League Two last season was 4,175. For the Scottish First Division it was 2,516 and for the Conference it was 1,867. SD1 is much closer to one than the other. Number 5 7 23:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok this this is get ridiculous now. The IP user clears feels aggrieved that the majority of League of Ireland players aren’t notable . However this doesn’t give him the right to act in a disruptive manner sabotaging many pages relating to the Scottish First Division as no consensus has been reached on very active & on-going debate, which he is fully aware of & has contributed to. Despite your opinions on whether the Scottish First Division players are notable I think all Wiki Football project members should help stop this users unhelpful actions which have an enormous negative impact on the recently set up Scottish taskforce. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 23:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC))

I have advised the IP user to stop persisting with making unwelcome edits as no consensus has yet been reached & not to abuse discussion pages by appearing reasonable & then doing whatever he likes. I also advised him that rather than taking his frustrations out on articles relating to Scottish First Division, that if he feels aggrieved about the league of Ireland or another league he should create a new section on the fully professional leagues discussion page discussing top division sides that players aren’t not considered notable due to leagues non fully professional status. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 05:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC))

I think we need to remember when you using average attendance figures as rational in our discussions that the population of the regions in which the club is located should be considered.

I would say that it is almost impossible to find sources for players who have done so much as to win a League of Ireland title recently. The same with the IFA Premiership. Players go there to these leagues and are never heard from again in terms of media coverage (WP:N). There is so little interest in the leagues that it is difficult enough maintaining a decent standard for players who have played in The Football League and then moved to Ireland. When I was working on the Unsourced BLP page I came across dozens of players with impressive sounding careers in Irish football that just could not be verified through Google. The idea of saying these players are notable just seems to me to a nightmare in terms of sourcing. I don't see what the issue is anyway; Derry City, Bohemian and Shamrock each have about 4 current players without articles. The project clearly seems to turn a blind eye to the issue as it is, therefore you have nothing to gain from drawing attention to it.--Echetus Xe 07:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait, you're complaining about the notability of Scottish football? I'll leave the above message for the anonymous IP then (who won't read it). I don't understand what you're asking of us Warburton. The SPL and Scottish First Division are considered notable right?--Echetus Xe 07:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason it was brought up is it's being considered that the Scottish first division is no longer notable as one club has decided to be semi pro. Anyway it's the ip that wa doing my head in if consensus is that it's not notable then Even though I don't agree I will back off. Warburton1368 (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue here with the IP (who's a hopper btw) is that he is adamant that SFL1 isn't fully-pro, even though we have explained time and time again that it is considered notable. He refuses to listen, and is ignoring consensus on the talk page by removing SFL1 from the list. GiantSnowman 11:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's pretty obvious. If a amateur team managed to get promoted to the English Premier League, the league itself would of cause not change it's player natability. -Koppapa (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats really the same as the SFL1 one team going semi pro dosent change the leagues players notability over night. If anyone would like to comment please do so on the discussion page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Warburton1368 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the point that Koppapa was trying to make... Giant Snowman 16:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it was just agreeing. Also just found a couple of articles the ip prodded for non notability based on his belief the SFL1 is non notable.Warburton1368 (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a very big difference between an amateur or semi pro team getting promoted and not going full time, and an established team in a division taking the decision that it cannot sustain professional football in that league. —W F C— TFL notices 21:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO the current rule is ridiculous, anglocentric and should be scrapped immediately and WP:GNG used until we come up with a new set of guidlines

Here is my proposed criteria;
1.Due to the large media coverage of football in this country a player can be assumed to automatically meet WP:GNG if they have played in one of these leagues: (EPL, SPL, La Liga, Bundesliga and so on)
2.The majority of players who play in these leagues are presumed to be notable, however they must be shown to meet WP:GNG: (Scottish First Division, Football League One, Bundesliga 2, MLS, A-League, League of Ireland and so on)
3.Players in all other leagues are not presumed to be notable and should only be included if they can be shown to strictly meet WP:GNG.

So for rule 1 any player to have played gets an article. For rule 2 players who have played must also have pieces written about them in secondary sources but these can be local media. For rule 3 the player must have had an article about them published in national media.

Which leagues go where will need to be researched and decided upon but what is important is that we have a rule which is, clear, concise and leaves no ambiguity. So we do not have to revisit this in future. Adam4267 (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is nonsense (equating the Scottish First Division and the League of Ireland with Bundesliga 2???). We have a fairly clear guideline in existence but a small number of editors are currently making a mountain out of a molehill on a technicality issue. There is no need for a change. Number 5 7 21:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

FFS!!!! I explicitly stated that which leagues go where should be decided upon later but it would have been to simple for you to actually read my post. Instead you completely ignore my entire post and focus on one trivial detail which I said was flexible. Adam4267 (talk)

I don't see the need to immediately scrap the FPL standard, but I agree that we ought to try to validate/justify that it reasonably predicts GNG-compliance (and failing that work to develop a standard that better predicts GNG-compliance). The FPL standard has served us pretty well (kept AfD battles to a minimum) over the years, so let's not ditch it immediately because we've run into a snag. Jogurney (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay but can someone explain what the link is between players not having a second job and notability. I have asked this many times but never recieved a proper answer. Adam4267 (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Basically, one or two editors on the newly formed Scottish Football Taskforce have decided to throw their toys out of the pram and demand sweeping changes to the established consensus. I've no doubt that the lads mean well, but let's get real. A zealot trying to force the Irish Premier League, Blue Square Premier or FA WSL onto the list then edit warring objections away and doling out vandalism templates would be blocked in short order. We may all agree that the law is an ass as far as the whole idea of "fully professional" goes. But in the case of SFL1, it's not a case of Ayr and Queen of the South in 2011/12 being an aberration. It has NEVER been anywhere near pro - last season Stirling and Cowden were part-time. Ayr squeaked through the play-offs against little Forfar Athletic and Brechin City. Rules is rules—swamping Wikipedia with dozens of ugly stub articles for Queen of the South modern apprentices (the pick of whom might be playing for Dalbeattie Star in a couple of years) will only harm the project IMO. 94.14.78.108 (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Who the fuck are you exactly? "The lads", "Toys out of the pram" you are the one vandalising pages, which is why vandalism templates have been "doled out" onto your third talk page. Adam4267 (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Remain civil - don't let him bait you into getting blocked, he's not worth it. I suspect he is somebody who has been previously blocked and is returning to continue their disruption. Giant Snowman 22:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok let’s be clear Mr. IP you have been warning by 3 users on your talk pages & by another user where you were reported that makes it 4 not 1 or 2 as you suggested. To compare us to Zealots is ridiculous as you are the one who has been acting in a rebellious manner using numerous ip address’s to avoid detection & appear as you have only been warned once. As I told you I’m not a Scottish editor so this is not some sort of Scottish conspiracy. You tried to appear reasonable by adding your opinions occasionally & then doing whatever you want applying non notability tags to Scottish division 1 articles. It should be extremely obvious to all that you are in fact a vandal & have been enormously disruptive to pages which fall under the Scottish taskforce. You have also been advised that you can start a new action discussing other top division’s sides that are considered non-professional status as you clearly have a negative agenda brought about by other pages being considered non-notable & are therefore targeting the scottish division 1. This IP user is a menace & needs to be stopped he has already made one editor who is immensely helpful & set up the Scottish taskforce consider quitting. Here is all his known address’s 94.2.38.154[9], 94.14.78.108.[10] & 94.2.51.78[11] so you can see for youself he has been warned plenty of times & is nothing but a vandal. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 23:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC))

Now at DRN

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, Ayr United F.C. Giant Snowman 13:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for change to WP:NFOOTBALL

I beleive that the current rule should be replaced because. NFOOTBALL is supposed to tell us which articles can be assumed to meet GNG. How can players in the Russian Second Division, Indonesian Premier League, Thai Premier League and ~~Algerian Second Division~~ all be assumed to meet WP:GNG ? I think the rule should be changed so leagues are included by notability rather than whether there players have second jobs. Only players in very notable leagues should have a "free pass".
Here is my proposed criteria;
1.Due to the large media coverage of football in this country a player can be assumed to automatically meet WP:GNG if they have played in one of these leagues: (EPL, SPL, La Liga, Bundesliga and so on)
2.The majority of players who play in these leagues are presumed to be notable, however they must be shown to meet WP:GNG: (Scottish First Division, Football League One, Bundesliga 2, MLS, A-League, League of Ireland and so on)
3.All other players are not presumed to be notable and should only be included if they can be shown to strictly meet WP:GNG.

So for rule 1 any player to have played in that league gets an article. For rule 2 players who have played in that league must also have pieces written about them in secondary sources but these can be local media. For rule 3 the player must have had an article about them published in national media.

Which leagues go where will need to be researched and decided upon but what is important is that we have a rule which is, clear, concise and leaves no ambiguity. So we do not have to revisit this in future. Adam4267 (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

2 and 3 are idential, are they not - "must meet GNG." Giant Snowman 22:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

They are similar but articles for players in tier 2 are encouraged as long as there is some shred of secondary sourcing. Articles for players in Tier 3 are discouraged unless there is a large amount of secondary sources. Adam4267 (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Object: Transparent, lame attempt to get Scottish Division One in through the back door. Feel free to keep trying though. 94.14.78.108 (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

~~:::There's no attempt to get SFL1 in; it's already in! You're the one trying and failing to get it removed. Giant Snowman 22:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)~~

~~Unless the inclusion can be adequately sourced the list will revert to the previous stable version, per WP:BURDEN. 94.14.78.108 (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)~~

~~please stay on topic Adam4267 (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)~~
Ok adam i agree completely change is needed but the problem would be creating a way to determine notability rather than fully pro. We would need to look at a variety of changeable factors attendance, Tv showings, General media coverage. It could be very complicated and probably will take time to change. we would need to work out a way of covering it. For instance how would we work out the Thai Premier League notability there are very few of us who would even no where to start. I would also state that i dont think this is a knee jerk reaction to whats been happening the point that how does fully pro determine notability has always been lurking in the background but until another way is come up with its probably the best we have. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the Thai premier league would come under tier 3, but I again stress that which leagues go where would have to be decided upon by us at a later date. That is the only way to ensure there is no ambiguity. I think a week or two of deciding which leagues go where is better than this argument re-surfacing again and again and again. But this is just a proposal currently I would like to here more opinions on whether my proposal is good or bad. Adam4267 (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
You don't appear to live in Thailand. Most countries I've been to have large media coverage of football --ClubOranje^T 10:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
You're correct I don't live in Thailand but a quick look at several players from the Thai champions and none of them had references that were anything other than squad profiles, which doesn't confer WP:GNG notability. But I again stress that which leagues go in which tier would be decided by us later. Can people please stay on topic and stop commeting on my (clearly wrong) opinions of which leagues are notable. Adam4267 (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't oppose a change although I think there should only be two criteria - (a) demonstrate GNG-compliance; or (b) demonstrate play in a league that reasonably predicts GNG-compliance (criteria (b) is the real challenge - since right now it's demonstrate play in a FPL). What I don't want to see is an immediate change - a grandfathering system like BLPPROD would need to be used to allow articles that formerly passed NFOOTBALL to be checked for GNG-compliance. Take the example of the Russian Second Division - when it was first added to the FPL list I questioned it (the Russian-language media sources didn't appear to support that a person who never played at a higher level would meet GNG on a regular basis). However, editors have created hundreds (possibly thousands) of articles about footballers who never played at a higher level than the Russian Second Division. We should not summarily delete them all at once. Editors should be given time to see if they can be made GNG-compliant, and an orderly AfD process could accomplish this, rather than mass-PRODing of all of these articles. Jogurney (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
In reply to the original message .. What defines a "notable" league? You mentioned the Algerian Second Division in your little list. I'm sure you have no interest in Algerian football and the league is non-notable in your eyes. However, it's a professional league with professional clubs who play in front of tens of thousands of fans every weekend. Their players are professionals, receiving regular coverage in the Algerian press and media. How do the players meet WP:GNG you ask? Well the news world isn't limited to just BBC and other English media outlets, there's a whole other world out there. Long story short .. I'm sorry, and not to be rude, but your logic is flawed and not very well thought out.TonyStarks (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
A quick look at the stadium sizes of a few of those teams would suggest that they get very large crowds but if you look above you will see that was not the point. I clearly know that there are sources other than the BBC and if the Algerian second division recieves lots of media coverage in Algeria then it should go in tier 1 or 2. But if you actually listen to me which leagues go where will be decided upon later by us. Adam4267 (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we could do with establishing/agreeing what kinds of sources (from a football perspective) can establish notability via GNG. Does it have to be an in-depth article relating to the player directly, that does not fall under 'one event'. I think we ought to consider how many current player articles would potentially be under threat if everything reverted back to GNG, and whether that suggests that our interpretation of GNG for football is too strict. Eldumpo (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose As noted above, this is nonsense. We have a clearly-defined set of criteria that is WP:Verifiable (aside from the odd dispute, although this one has been taken far too far) and more or less works and has done so for years. On the other hand, this proposal relies entirely on WP:POV and WP:OR for editors to determine what is a "notable" league, and is simply unworkable. Number 5 7 07:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. This system works well, and has for years. Giant Snowman 21:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - as per the sensible comments by Number 57 and GiantSnowman. JonBroxton (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: NFOOTBALL is probably met by many who would find it hard to claim GNG qualification (this guy became notable in NFOOTBALL terms tonight, but when, if ever, he gets mention other than his name in a teamlist in any source with greater circulation than a local paper is anyone's guess), but it provides a clearly defined line, and that is useful. Kevin McE (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this issue has highlighted that the current system is by no means perfect unless we apply common-sense to it as well which most of us do. If a proposal is made that is workable then why not look at it no harm is done by it. I stress if a proposal that would work comes up as the current idea would need a hell of a lot of work to make robust. For now i oppose the change but if we can come up with a full proposal then i would be happy to change as we should always look to improve. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
While I agree that a workable alternative is needed, (and cannot yet support for that reason) I would advise you not to spend too much time on it Adam, as you will never, ever get change through WP:FOOTY. It's a numbers game: there are too many who are either too set in their ways to even contemplate change, lack the intellectual capacity to adapt to any change, or have a vested interest in marginally notable players. —W F C— TFL notices 01:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you withdraw your unfounded personal attack - claiming other editors "lack the intellectual capacity" is a very poor show. I would also suggest that you look a bit closer at why Adam is suggesting this change - it seems to me to be entirely because he is seeking to ensure that players from the Scottish First Division can have articles. Whilst I agree with its status, SD1 is perhaps the most marginal of all the leagues currently defined as fully professional, certainly given its attendances. Number 5 7 07:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I just want to clarify that a number of other leagues on the FP list have a lower average attendance than the SD1 - a few are referenced in the article on attendance figures by league. Deserter1 12:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no need for the name calling. I don't think most of the people here have any vested interest in any of the players, clubs or leagues they write articles about. Most of us are passionate fans who volunteer our time to do this. Secondly, the reason most people support the current system is because it's based on the definition of a professional league as defined by FIFA, the international governing body of association football. Yes, like others have stated, the definition is certainly not perfect but, like Number57 said, it provides a very clearly defined set of criteria to what is notable and what isn't. So unless can someone provide a better approach, and no one has yet aside from saying League X is notable and League Y isn't, I don't see the point of changing anything.TonyStarks (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no agreed definition of exactly what the 'fully pro' in our list is supposed to be tracking. The reality for most sources is a reference to a 'professional' league, although I believe most of the sources used in the list are reliable sites. Have you got a link to FIFA's definition of a 'professional league'. Eldumpo (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Just want to point out Adams proposal isn't really anything to do with keeping the sfl1. In Fact in all likelihood it would drop its standing further. Adam has being saying change is needed for some time. I would say there are weaker leagues on the list than the scottish first division. One question that's bothering me if a player has only played at a level that later we agree is no longer notable we wouldnt delete there articles just that no more should be create am I correct. Warburton1368 (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Nélson Oliveira~~
After his due share of warnings, he persists (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N%C3%A9lson_Oliveira&diff=443312080&oldid=441741374), only thing i'll add is i've seen people blocked for less!
Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I reported the user here WP:AIV he has been previously warned. Had to laugh at the following line he wrote "Young wizard was born and grew up in Ismailia in Ismailia until it reached 13" ? (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 05:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC))
Great news, the user recieved an indefinite block. Happy editing (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 05:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC))
Stuff like "Oliver Nelson by the Federation of Koura Portugal. After two years of Benfica and tested in non-acceptance tests before that in private" or "Ramy Ashraf 50 appearances with the national youth team and scored Balgrafh" also merits a mention, a WP article in riddles! "Balgrafh" must mean "the decisive goal" in Arabic...And what about "He played Bgeor Angel and Maria da under coach Jose Mourinho", keep in mind, we have "ANGEL" and we have "MARIA", so now Real Madrid apparently will play with 12 players everytime this guy steps on the pitch.
And why does the tag to "introduce" his block read "might be a good-faith attempt to create a new article"?! This is vandalism of the highest order, i refuse (although i am noone to refuse or accept the rules of the site) to AGF his actions!
Attentively, thanks for your cooperation and assistance (will we have a 2nd account?) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Africa(n) Cup of Nations~~
As previously discussed here: [12], I don't think any consensus was reached. Up until the 2004 edition of the tournament, it was known as the "African Cup of Nations" (emphasis on the n in African). In 2006, that was changed to "Africa Cup of Nations" (without the n). The main competition article should be named Africa Cup of Nations, that's pretty straightforward for me. However, how should the previous editions be named? For example, the 2004 edition was clearly called the "2004 African Cup of Nations" (as per the competition poster). It does not make sense to name it the "2004 Africa Cup of Nations". However, a user went ahead and changed all of them to "XXXX Africa Cup of Nations" .. but I don't think that's the right solution. Please let me know what you guys think, I'm trying to fix up some of these articles, so any help would be appreciated.TonyStarks (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Naming the old African is the right thing to do. Anyone got a news article why it was renamed? RSSSF still lists them as African today. WE should make sure there are redircts from the n-less to the n for old editions and from the n to the n-less for newer editions. -Koppapa (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree - the old name should be used on the old competitions - it makes no sense to use a name that was not in use at the time. Number 5 7 09:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, that's what I figured. Another question, should the individual tournaments be categorized under the main "Africa Cup of Nations" category or under the specific category for each competition (so 2002 ACN would be in the "2002 African Cup of Nations" category)? Since each specific competition category is a subcategory of the "Africa Cup of Nations", I figure there is no point of having them in both. I hope my message made any sense .. :D. TonyStarks (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it's always useful to have them in both. Personally I find it very annoying when people remove articles from parent categories because they have their own one (for instance, I would expect to find Ipswich Town in Category:English football clubs and not only in Category:Ipswich Town F.C.). Number 5 7 20:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'D say all articles should be in only one catergory, regardless if some are spelled wrong then. -Koppapa (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Danny Green~~
Anyone have any idea on this one. Danny Green (footballer) was at Dagenham & Redbridge. I thought he had moved to Charlton this summer and he has a profile on Charlton's website. If that's the case, then why does the BBC have him playing for D&R in a League Cup match BBC Sport on 9 August. Soccerbase seems equally confused having two entries. Anyone got an idea? Zanoni (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a different Danny Green - see D&R official website and Soccerway. Giant Snowman 20:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the confirmation Zanoni (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Gerardo Bruna~~
I mentioned it earlier, but it will probably get lost in the history. Bruna made his competitive debut this evening, so if a kind admin would undelete his article it would be appreciated. - Dudesleeper talk 21:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Done. Number 5 7 22:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~Swansea City~~
Is Swansea City a Welsh club (being from Wales) or an English club (being part of the English Premier League)? The reason I'm asking this is the listing of Michel Vorm at Netherlands national football team#Current squad. There are a few similar cases on Wikipedia. AS Monaco FC is usually listed as a French club (despite being from Monaco), but FC Vaduz is listed as a Liechtensteiner club (despite playing in the Swiss competition). 83.80.170.157 (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Swansea City A.F.C. are Welsh professional football club & should be represented Welsh flagicon despite playing in English Premiership. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 08:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC))
Not necessarily. Based on the case of Derry City, who are represented by the Irish tricolour in UEFA articles because they play in the Republic of Ireland's league, despite being from Northern Ireland, this would mean that Swansea should be represented by the English flag because they play in the English leagues. Monaco are represented by the French flag because they play in the French league system. Liechtenstein has no league but it does have a cup, in which Vaduz play (and qualify for Europe every year). I think the question really is about which FA the club is affiliated to, and in Swansea's case I believe that they are now regulated by the English FA following a rule change this summer. Number 5 7 09:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd go with Wales, Moncao and Liechtenstein. It's a field about the club, not the league of the club or its FA. -Koppapa (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
If flags must accompany the club names at all, I would opt for England, France and Liechtenstein, respectively, since that is the way these clubs woulde be able to qualify for any European club competition. But that being said... why do I have the feeling that a huge debate centering around WP:MOSFLAG is about to start? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Well then Swansea in this article should get the Welsh flag, as that is the League per which the qualify to Europe. ;) -Koppapa (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
And how about dropping flags at all from such tables and replacing it with the respective league of the club? That would avoid a lot of the controversy which usually arises in this context, plus would conform to MOSFLAG regarding the "do not emphasize nationality" part... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The question that needs to be answered is, does the flag represent 1) the country the club has its stadium in, 2) the country whose national association runs the league in which the club plays, or 3) the country whose national association operates the competition in which the club would qualify for European football in? If 1, the flags in the above example should indicate Wales, Monaco and Liechtenstein respectively; if 2, England, France and Switzerland; 3, England, France and Liechtenstein. Deserter1 12:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Surely the only justification for using the flag of England, Scotland , Wales or Northern Ireland (rather than that of the UK) is that we are determining nationalities, on football articles, as FIFA define them. Thus it seems logical that it is FA affiliation that is the appropriate designation for the nationality of clubs, if we feel obliged to continue doing so (which is certainly open to discussion). I believe (but am not certain) that that would render England, France, Liechtenstein for Swansea/Monaco/Vaduz, and Rep of Ireland for Derry City. Kevin McE (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Swansea can't qualify for Europe through the English league or cups, and they are registered with the Football Association of Wales, not The Football Association, so they should be represented by a Welsh flag. We came to the same conclusion when Cardiff were in the 2008 FA Cup Final. – Pee Jay 13:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
As noted above, there was a change this summer which means that Cardiff and Swansea are now under the English FA's jurisdiction. Number 5 7 14:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
You would certainly expect to see a French flag next to Monaco, a Scottish flag next to Berwick Rangers and obviously an Irish flag next to Derry. But a Liechstenstein flag for Vaduz, because that is how they qualify for europe. Also according to this Cardiff would have been allowed to represent England in Europe had they won. On Uefa.com they list Vaduz as a Liechtenstein club [13], Monaco as a French club [14], Swansea as a Welsh club [15] and Derry as an Irish club [16]. So it seems to all hinge on who they would represent in europe. IMO as Swansea and Cardiff have no way of representing Wales in europe they should have an English flag. Adam4267 (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Number 57, that article only says that The Football Association will now be responsible for disciplinary matters involving the two Welsh clubs. It also implies that Cardiff and Swansea are still members of the FAW but that because they play in the English leagues, their disciplinary procedures should (rightfully) be carried out by The FA. – Pee Jay 23:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Adam, that article from the Daily M**l surely indicates the complexity of the issue. The very fact that The FA had to state that Cardiff could compete as their representatives in Europe surely means that they are obviously a Welsh club playing in English leagues, not an English club located in Wales. – Pee Jay 23:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Very true but there is precedent for clubs playing in foreign leagues. If Swansea and Cardiff played in the Welsh Cup I would completely support them having a Welsh flag, same as Vaduz. However, my previous assertion saying it "all hinges on who they represent in europe" may be wrong. While other clubs have flags, according to that status. It may be more important as what FA they are registered with (FAW I believe). But I suppose who are we to attribute nationalities to them anyway. They clearly want to be known as Welsh as do their fans. So even if they are an English club, maybe they should have the Welsh flag. Adam4267 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree they should have a Welsh flag (if any) as that's where they are based and how they identify themselves. I don't see we should be confusing the issue with the technicalities of how they can qualify for Europe. Eldumpo (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG#Clarity: "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hence the proposal of including the name of the league a club plays in instead. The flag is in almost all cases a substitute for the league a club plays in, so why should that little bit of extra information not be added as text to a page? ––Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Struway2 your above statement only solves the problem in this list. But in such lists like the current Scottish & English transfers lists where only a flag is placed for a foreign flag, by not placing a flag for Swansea & Cardiff in the English list your giving the impression their English & by not placing a flag beside Berwick Rangers you’re giving impression they’re Scottish. Also if you have a transfer between Cardiff & a Scottish club & you don't place a flag for Cardiff as per your MOS quotation it gives the impression that Cardiff is Scottish which is total ridiculous. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 09:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC))
Flags shouldn't be used at all unless it's clear what they're being used for. I'm not acquainted with the transfers lists. If they state clearly that a flag against a club refers to the country in which the club physically sits, then it's obvious which one to use. If they state clearly that the flag refers to the country whose league the club plays in, likewise it's obvious which one to use. The problem arises from not deciding what the flag means before starting to use it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, let's think about it this way: if a player moves from Cardiff or Swansea to an English club (or vice-versa), do they need international clearance from FIFA? IIRC, players don't need international clearance to move from AS Monaco to another French club, but I'm not sure about the situation with Liechtensteiner clubs. – Pee Jay 13:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
While there are valid arguments on both sides. I think the main issue to be addressed is, What are the flags actually being used for? If it is to define which country the club plays in (I think it is) then it should be an England flag. If it is to define the nationality of the club, then a Welsh flag. Adam4267 (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
In that case, how do you deal with clubs like FC Barcelona and AS Monaco FC? Surely those clubs would self-identify as Catalonian and Monegasque? – Pee Jay 12:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. Adam is right, in articles with this problem there needs to be a sentence above stating what the flags are displying. -Koppapa (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean, 'it doesn't matter'? The issue is more complicated than "the country the club plays in" versus "the nationality of the club". In order to most accurately represent the correct country, the flag used should reflect the national association with which the club is registered. Cardiff and Swansea = Wales; Derry City = Republic of Ireland; Vaduz = Liechtenstein; AS Monaco = France. – Pee Jay 12:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Are Cardiff and Swansea still under Welsh FA jurisdiction? Number57 mentioned this Guardian article earlier, which seems to say that they are now registered with the English FA: Football Association breaks Welsh jurisdiction over Cardiff and Swansea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deserter1 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
And as I noted earlier, that article says nothing about Cardiff and Swansea being registered with the English FA, only that the English FA will now be able to dole out disciplinary action to Cardiff and Swansea. As far as I can tell, Cardiff and Swansea are still registered with the Football Association of Wales, but because they play in England, their disciplinary matters are carried out by the English authorities. – Pee Jay 13:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
So the change only relates to disciplinary processes and nothing more? I'm not saying you're wrong, but the article seems to suggest a wider change: "English governing body to regulate two Welsh clubs... Cardiff City and Swansea City have historically been dealt with by the FA of Wales, which has different regulations and disciplinary processes to its English counterpart". If Swansea and Cardiff don't play in any Welsh FA competitions, are subject to English FA disciplinary procedures and regulations, and can qualify for European football through English competitions, what involvement do they continue to have with the Welsh FA? To be clear, I'm not saying they definitely don't have any links with the Welsh FA, I'm just curious as to what they are. Deserter1 14:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
My understanding of the situation stems from the quote given by the FAW spokesman: "All matters where the penalty can include sporting sanctions will be dealt with by the [English] FA, including doping and off-the-field issues." The author then notes that one solution to the matter would be to have an FAW representative sit in on any disciplinary panel involving Cardiff or Swansea. That is a definite indication of continued FAW membership by those clubs. – Pee Jay 15:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
So why complicate things. Just add a footnote, about it. Or add both flags. -Koppapa (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think it's complicated. The flag refers to the national association with which the club is registered. In most cases, it's obvious, but in other cases we could easily reference it. – Pee Jay 20:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
And for that purpose, here is a list of clubs affiliated to the Football Association of Wales. You will see from the list that Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham, Newport, Merthyr Tydfil and Colwyn Bay are all affiliated to the FAW despite playing in English leagues. – Pee Jay 22:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, here is a list of clubs affiliated to the Swiss FA, and here is AS Monaco's page on the French Football Federation website, giving their "N° d'affiliation" (Affiliation number). – Pee Jay 22:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
While it is in no doubt that Swansea and Cardiff (and others) are affiliated to both the FA and FAW. That does not help with deciding which flag to use. We have to decide what the flags purpose actually is, then choose the appropriate flag. Adam4267 (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
No no, the point is that Cardiff and Swansea are not affiliated to the English FA, they only submit to them for disciplinary sanctions. For proof, search this page for Cardiff, Swansea or any other Welsh club; I guarantee you won't find any. – Pee Jay 22:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, well both FA's have some level of control over the clubs, but that wasn't my point. We have to actually decide what the flag is being used for, if it is for league the club plays in then English flag. If it is for nationality of club then Welsh flag. There is no reason they can't have different flags in different lists providing the reason for having a flag is specified. Adam4267 (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Right. But why not leave out the flag and add a footnote: Welsh club playing in English pyramid. That way there is nothing to decide. -Koppapa (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Richard Horsburgh~~
Dundee signed the person above last week see here. At first I thought it was a regular transfer as the story gave that impression. After reading this however it appears Richard Horsburgh is a fan who has bought his way into the team. My problem is I have now Idea if he's English or Scottish. Can anyone find something that proves one way or the other. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 20:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC))
The only people named 'Richard Horsburgh' born in England were born in 1965, 1982, 1984, and 2000. None of those dates are correct for a 33-year-old. Make of that what you will. Giant Snowman 21:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Even do I knew he wasn't a player I double checked & he never played for York. So if you’re right about nobody been born in England with that name in that year. He must be a Scottish man who's a fan of Dundee who most recently lived in England. Snowy is there any way you can check similar type records for births in Scotland. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 21:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC))
I'd advise against making assumptions. Even if the likes of findmypast were infallible, which they're not, the fact that no-one with the original birth-name Richard Horsburgh was born in England in an appropriate year doesn't mean this man wasn't born in England. People are adopted, take a stepfather's surname, use a different given name, whatever. WP:BLP requires material to be "written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't made any assumptions, that’s why I avoided adding him to the transfer list & Dundee squad in their season page until I know 100% what his nationality is. I'm just leaning towards Scottish. If anyone I can find a source that proves definitively one way or the other it would be appreciated. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 11:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC))
~~Jimmy Corbett~~
~~I'm at a 3RR. Can someone please removed the unverifiable content/vandalism? I've already put a request in at WP:RPP for page protection. Thanks, --Jimbo^[online] 15:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~Player infobox question~~
Does anyone know how to reduce the width of infoboxes that are a bit big? Jack Jeffery's infobox contains a few clubs with long names and the result is that the infobox is half the width of the article, and looks a bit rubbish. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Have you tried shortening the names of the teams? – Pee Jay 23:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought it was consensus to always use full club names in infoboxes and the first mention in the prose. --Jimbo^[online] 00:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It is; and the infobox will remain as wide as it is thanks to a loan spell at Hampton & Richmond Borough, I'm afraid. Giant Snowman 00:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Can the longer names not be spread over two lines? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Ideally not, as we don't know the effect that would have on the numerous different browsers in use. Giant Snowman 01:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd shorten them. They are written in the text at full length. -Koppapa (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Unreferenced BLPs~~
~~For those active in this area of the Project, I stumbled across this page last night, which may be of interest. Cheers, Giant Snowman 18:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)~~
But first of all, a great big WELL DONE to all who've helped completely annihilate the list that was almost 8000 long 2 years ago and over 1600 a year ago. You got it to zero a couple of days ago and it will continue to see a few turn up every now and then, but it's a fantastic effort and one that I'm sure all at WP:URBLP and WP:URBLPR are very thankful for, and a couple of rouge admins thought would never, ever happen! Congrats... now enjoy the new season of EPL or whichever league you follow! The-Pope (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Ferenc Molnár (footballer) = Antal Molnár?~~
hi, on a new book about Napoli his name becomes Anton and I find him as Anton also on the web, as Napoli coach.. if somebody has a book about hungarian football and he controls if there was an Antal (hungarian form for Anton) Molnár at MTK it would be a big help for me.. Grazie! 93.56.51.228 (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure that will help: I find three Molnárs 1919-20 György Molnár ,1915 Frigyes Molnár, 1911-12 József Molnár Source: the squadlists in Fussballweltzeitschrift no.34 (3rd quarter 2000) (IFFHS) Cattivi (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Only 1 Ferenc (Ujpesti and Budapesti TC), the international (definitively not born in 1891), No Antal with other teams. Some Molnars are listed without first name (but not with MTK). The squads are probably not complete. Cattivi (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
okay, I think finding mister Molnar will be a very hard job.. 93.56.51.201 (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
~~User:Visit6745~~
~~Is there an appropriate XfD page to take this load of nonsense to.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)~~
Just delete and block. It's the several hundredth one of these: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JAT6634. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
It had been CSDed "because Userpages should not be used to store pages that look like articles, especially hoaxes like this", but there is no such grounds for CSD. But there is nothing in WP:CSD G3 that states that only articles are liable to that grounds. False info about living people is vandalism and breach of BLP, and is still being made available on the internet by wikipedia, even if it is in userspace. Kevin McE (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Template talk:Fb rbr header#"Round" or "Matchday" ?~~
~~Request comment of willing editors here. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~Duplicate article~~
There appear to be two articles for one season for Ayr United that i think are almost identical. see 1910-11 Ayr United F.C. season & 1910–11 Ayr United F.C. season. Do you tag one for deletion or should one be redirected. Warburton1368 (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Merge and redirect; the only article should be 1910–11 Ayr United F.C. season, per naming conventions. Giant Snowman 19:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~Was going to create a category...~~
~~...for Category:Wales youth international footballers. However, the option to start it isn't there. Could someone shed some light on this? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)~~
Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wales_youth_international_footballers&action=edit I get a warning that it has to be created by an Admin. Possibly salted. Nanonic (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, further checking - it's in the blacklist at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, well.. '*Wales.you.*' and variants are. Possibly to stop us disparaging our esteemed leader by creating 'Wales you berk' type pages. Nanonic (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
~~User:Alexanderalgrim again~~
Following on from this, a prolific creator of non-notable stubs called User:Alexanderalgrim is at it again. I PROD more articles than I care to count a few weeks ago and outlined what is and isn't acceptable on his talk page. Almost all of his edits since then were in his user space for a few weeks, but since the end of July he has been busy moving pages about non-notable footballers to main article space. Here are his most recent "contributions": Ricardo Viegas; Fábio Sturgeon; André Viana; Fábio Moura; Eduardo Marques Castro Silva; Filipe Daniel Mendes Barros; Aldair Adulai Djaló Baldé; Paulo Oliveira; Vítor Bruno Rodrigues Gonçalves. Whether he read the guidelines like I advised him to or not I don't know, but he is continuing to ignore them and didn't listen to anything that I said. He appears to have laid low for a few weeks in the hope that I would forget about this and then resume creating. If anyone has time to take this further it would be appreciated. I'm fed up with it, understandably I think, and really can't be bothered right now. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, I've taken it to ANI. Giant Snowman 14:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure you should have. According to their zerozerofootball pages, all those players have played in this year's Portuguese League Cup, which is open to clubs from the top two divisions only, which I'd have thought would make them notable, per WP:NFOOTY's "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league (as detailed here) or cup". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I checked Fora de Jogo (more comprehensive, more reliable) and there was nothing there... Giant Snowman 14:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Try LPFP page. They may not be particularly important in the general scheme of things, but they do pass WP:NFOOTY, and as such the creator shouldn't be warned for creating them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
And some people have complained in the past that notability criteria is too strict... A 17-year old who came off the bench in the 92nd minute of a League Cup match is notable. Okay then. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
notability related: Is Kyle Cherry notable then? An Irish player who appeared in the qualifying rounds of the Europa League? Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
No, qualification rounds in Europe generally aren't notable. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
For example, FÁBIO STURGEON (great name guys!) is still only a junior (17 years young), will be so for the vast majority of this season still. Has ONE minute in the league cup (see here http://www.zerozerofootball.com/jogo.php?id=1730345), how notable is he even per STRUWAY's approach? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just run across several articles created by this user (and proposed some for deletion). I'm going to ask that he demonstrate notability in each new article he creates because these are all one- or two-line stubs with no indication that the player has done anything of note. Jogurney (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Good luck with that JOGURNEY! You manage to get a response, then send me a message telling me in which city you leave, and i'll walk/swim there, a promise ;) --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
He never replied, but it was a small success as he added an indication of notability and reference to the article I had PROD'ed. :-) Jogurney (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
~~GA reviewers needed~~
There is currently a large backlog of football related articles awaiting review here. I think if we could try and review some of them that would be good. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Help (WP, not me)~~
Another run-in by yours truly which was met with ZERO words in feedback from the other end, only a summary REVERSION! However, this may "born" an interesting discussion here, because i found out something...
In Gerard Bordas, a Villarreal CF fan wrote in capitals in mid-sentence, about the player's position (the article has nothing, just INTRO and box, it's in the former), and changed the link from MIDFIELDER#WINGER to FORWARD (ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL)#WINGER. I sent him a polite message, his answer? Screw you (well not with those words, but silence often tells more than the biggest book) i'm reverting you! Of course i re-reverted him.
This is when the discussion at WP:FOOTY might come to fruition: after checking in his link and mine, i saw that there are both entries, that is to say, wingers are associated to both midfielders and forwards, that is not accurate is it? I believe that the stuff for wingers in "forwards" was recently created.
Inputs please - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Depending on your interpretation of the word a Winger could be a midfielder or a forward. Although personally I see a winger as a "forward" i.e Messi whereas someone like Beckham is a midfielder. There clearly is a lack of consistency here that needs to be addressed. Adam4267 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Honours~~
I know from several previous discussions that there is no real consensus as to how players' "Honours" should be shown, or what should be included, so I don't want to go over that again. My query now is that several players, mostly those with an Arsenal connection, have had the heading changed from "Honours" to "Career highlights" (see Robin van Persie, Alex Song and Cesc Fàbregas for examples). Is this an agreed change or an an aberration? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
HONOURS: whenever a medal is handed out, so that excludes a third-place in European Championships and, of course, runner-up positions in ALL leagues. Regarding your second query, i'd go with #2 (aberration! it's been "honours" since forever).
~~Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)~~
Definitely 'honours', as they can be referenced - 'career highlights' will leads to fans adding their favourite goal etc. Giant Snowman 12:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there was no discussion about this. Revert any that you see. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Greece stuff - HELP!!~~
After a couple of weeks, the anon user which is on my case returned in José Carlos Fernández Vázquez, with his POV/WEASEL and unreferenced stuff, even going as far as to remove the AEK ATHENS F.C. PLAYERS category (amongst others) even though the player is one!!
Also, nothing official between André Castro and Panathinaikos FC, but it keeps getting added. What can be done? Which reminds me, in Sergio Busquets, i was scolded - and severely! - for trying to protect the page, it was not. One month later, what happens? The vandalism CONTINUES, the page is protected? Yes, maybe my forms were less than admirable, but, "interesting" nonetheless...
Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
~~About André Castro, reverted and warned. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 15:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~José Carlos Fernández Vázquez~~
If a "user" removes THREE times the "AEK ATHENS F.C. PLAYERS" category (also sweeping the "SPANISH EXPATRIATE FOOTBALLERS" one) when a Spanish player plays for AEK Athens FC, would it be considered good faith or vandalism? Even after you talk to them?
Thank you, let's see how many replies (if i get one!) consider it's good faith... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Definitely vandalism, especially when they repeat it after you discuss it with them. Giant Snowman 00:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~Two birds in one stone~~
In Quique Sánchez Flores, the following:
1 - one user has changed the page again after extensive talkpage discussions in the opposite direction! People say chap's more known as QUIQUE FLORES, he could not care less. I offer to spend time in jail if it's not proven to be the Colombian anon user that kept reverting people and calling them vandals for correcting him (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quique_S%C3%A1nchez_Flores&diff=435871016&oldid=435866861 and here, in Hugo Rodallega http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugo_Rodallega&diff=435208977&oldid=435131893). How can this (if at all) be proven (see IP here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:190.84.23.35)? The account also wrote a serious unref'd sentence in the page of Ángel María Villar - president of the Royal Spanish Football Federation: "He is a FC Barcelona fan" - meaning IMO the refs are "instructed" to make Barça win.
In addition to that, also retrieved these Spanish media articles which show that the player/manager (not always though, but sometimes) is referred to as just QUIQUE FLORES: (http://www.elconfidencial.com/deportes/quique-flores-atletico-presentacion-20091026.html), (http://www.marca.com/2010/09/18/futbol/equipos/atletico/1284809578.html?a=a1350fcb6943f4494fde5801a0ac90f6&t=1313573836), (http://www.goal.com/es/news/21/fichajes/2011/05/17/2490357/mercado-quique-flores-y-el-sevilla-como-destino), (http://www.marca.com/2011/01/22/futbol/equipos/atletico/1295699107.html) and (http://www.elconfidencial.com/deportes/juande-ramos-elegido-sustituir-quique-flores-20100507.html). The pertinent discussion has started on the (new) talk page.
2 - also in Flores' piece, one guy started adding the ROMANI FOOTBALLERS category. How valid is this? Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Fenerbahçe S.K. (football team)~~
Hi. There has recently been a splitting off of the article Fenerbahçe S.K. (football team) from the main Fenerbahçe S.K. article which covers the whole multisport club. Unfortunately, one editor seems to be persistently trying to make the two articles identical. They are also including a lot of POV info, repeated details, infobox kit images with logos and no transparencies, and an entire section on one of the club's presidents. What is also unfortunate is that they don't use edit summaries and have refused to engage in discussion on their talk page. If any other editors would help in keeping an eye out for this, and maybe finding a way to solve this problem, it would be appreciated. Cheers. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe the problem here is that most of the links to Fenerbahçe S.K., the multi-sports team article, should be changed to Fenerbahçe S.K. (football team). I also added the hatnote on that article to lead readers who are looking for the football team article. Maybe by converting all football-related links to the correct football team article, would convince that editor that the football contents only belong to the football team article while the multi-sports contents belong to the main article. — NKRI1945 (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point. I'll get to fixing the major ones first. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I've already done fixing several of them, but there is still plenty more to go. — NKRI1945 (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Official club websites as sources~~
Please note that per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 102#Official websites of football clubs as exclusive sources in articles on said clubs, consensus is against forcing club websites to be the only sources for match reports, transfers, etc.
Sven Manguard Wha? 00:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
While I of course agree, it would have been nice for this Project to have been made aware of the discussion before it ended. Giant Snowman 02:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Keeping this project out of the loop on a matter that by your own admission was too broad for a specific talk page undermines the consensus in that thread. For the record, I agree with you about match reports, but not transfers. The likes of BBC and Sky routinely jump the gun on transfer deals, the press even more frequently. For that reason I wouldn't consider anyone other than the clubs themselves to be "reliable" in that regard. If forced to choose, I would go with reliablity over third party every time. —WFC— 03:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Quite; in actual fact, my club has recently spoken out against the rumours that many mainstream media outlets (especially Sky Sports) seem to enjoy churning out, as it seems they have nothing better to do than make up stories as opposed to reporting actual news. Ho hum. Giant Snowman 04:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised and disappointed that such a discussion was completed without inviting input from the relevant project. If editors are insisting on club websites being the only source for match reports, they should indeed be dissuaded. Similarly for player movements having happened some time ago. As to current transfers, I agree absolutely with WFC above. The only reason I'm aware of for insisting on a club source being used is for the completion of a current transfer. Online news organisations regularly report transfers as complete when they are not, and many inexperienced editors believe that "BBC Sport understands..." a transfer to have happened means it actually has. With respect, the only reliable source for a current transfer deal being completed is the club concerned, and insisting on confirmation by that club before adding a player to their squad is the only way we have of preventing inaccurate information being added to Wikipedia. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The first reliable announcement of a transfer being complete is, almost invariably, the club site of one party or other. Media are a long way short of precise in describing the status of a deal, and desire to be first to proclaim a transfer (both in "real world media" and on Wiki) lead many to jump the gun. I've lost count of the premature transfers that I have reverted, and the standard that I, and many other experienced, responsible editors here use, for confirmation of a transfer is announcement by the club. Maybe it is preferable that an independent source should later be added to the club announcement, but that is a matter of creating FAs rather than merely what is acceptable. Obviously club sites should not be used for value statements or to source subjective comments, but they are far more reliable than those seeking a scoop when it comes to first notification.

Aside from transfers, other issues can sometimes be more reliably sourced to club articles: other than in the top echelons, the only alternative to club sites if any more than a couple of lines is required is local papers, whose web sites are often not archived, or where journalistic standards can be rather low.

As to the consensus that the OP told us existed against that practice, I would point out that more people have disagreed with the proposal here than agreed with it in the discussion that he references. Kevin McE (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion should be re oponed. The club website is reliable especially for transfers. Warburton1368 (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I posted it where the experts on sourcing gather, I honestly forgot about you guys until Monday night when I posted here, so call off the angry mob please. Looking at the two threads, it's clear that there's a strong consensus for using club sources for transfers here, but a reaffirmation if anything that clubs sources should not be used exclusively for match reports. I'm willing to accept that compromise because the reasoning behind it is sound. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
~~"All-time" tables~~
Hi. I just saw this recently created article, All-time Ligue 1 table and was about to give it a PROD when I realised that it was in Category:All-time football league tables, which has a bunch of similar articles for different leagues. The article also appears to be reliably sourced, but I still don't think it's notable. Anyway, I'm a bit unsure and (to use an Aussie rules term) I thought it would be best for me to handball it over to the experts (i.e. you guys). Jenks24 (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Non-notable; take a look at this relevant AfD. Regards, Giant Snowman 15:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the link. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've just PRODed ~25 articles from Category:All-time football league tables and only left a couple that were more "records and statistics"-type articles. I also found two similar articles, Promotion and Relegation statistics in Peruvian Primera División and Promotion and Relegation statistics in Peruvian Segunda División, which look non-notable to me, but I thought I'd check here first before PRODing them. Jenks24 (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Similarly non-notable as well, I'd say. It's basically just copied RSSSF, which brings its own issues. Giant Snowman 13:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
~~2011-12 NextGen series notability question~~
Seeing as this kicks-off tomorrow I thought I would ask if people think players who compete in this are notable. I know u19 players are not normally notable but this is different to other u19 competitions. A quick google search shows that it is getting a fair amount of coverage, something that youth tournaments normally don't get. Thoughts? Adam4267 (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
No; but if you can demonstrate notability per WP:GNG then it'll be fine. Giant Snowman 18:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it gets more coverage than the U19 World Cup. So i wouldn't declare players notable. I never heard of this tourney so far. -Koppapa (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
First I'd heard of it too.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Even players who appear in the U19 World Cup aren't deemed sufficiently notable for articles (full internationals only), so this is a definite no. Number 5 7 20:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
There's an U19 World Cup? Omg † osh 21:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
A friendly tournament for U19 teams, a definite no.TonyStarks (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a friendly tournament, but anyway thanks for your feedback. At least those of you who had heard of it!! 18:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Wayne Rooney international stats~~
I'm looking for information about Wayne Rooney appearances and goals for England U16—U19 teams. Stats from here are not complete. For instance, in 2002 UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship Rooney scored 5 goals for England U-17. So the stats from the article Wayne Rooney are incorrect. Can anybody find more reliable sources for this topic? Any sites, archives, newspapers? —Corwin of Amber (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
You can find them in Rothmans (Skysports) football yearbook, but you'll have to count them yourself. 2000-01 England U-15 (not U-16!) 4-2 nothing for other age categories (Rothmans 2001-2002 pages 882-884) 2001-02 England U-17 12-7 (Rothmans 2002-2003 pages 902-904) 2002-03 England U-19 1-0 is correct (Skysports FY 2003-2004 pages 901-904) Cattivi (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Are this yearbooks available online? —Corwin of Amber (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
A download you mean? That wouldn't be legal, but it's very easy to buy a copy on e-bay and many other online shops. Cattivi (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I think my bookcollection is worth a lot more than what I paid for it.. Sometimes I see books on e-bay selling for 10 times the amount I once paid.. Cattivi (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The guy who wrote the Port Vale books used to mail them to you for £1 each. Now they are sold at £50 on Amazon. Well, I say sold. Probably no one buys any.--Echetus Xe 20:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Cattivi, can you tell the exact years when Rooney played for U15, U17 and U19? I mean did he play for U15 in 2000 and 2001 or just in 2001? The same about U17 and U19. Thanks a lot. —Corwin of Amber (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
U-15 in 2000 and 2001 U-17 in 2001 and 2002 U-19 in 2002 Cattivi (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
~~DEFAULTSORT~~
Regarding this past discussion (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_56#DEFAULTSORT), i thought this was pretty much decided: for instance, Benjamín Zarandona is known as BENJAMÍN, not ZARANDONA, so he'll be sorted in the letter "B" not "Z". Rovérsio Rodrigues de Barros is known by his FIRST NAME, sortkey should be "R" not "B", i reckon.
Yet, some people keep changing this stuff in players, just what is what? Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I share this problem with you as I often fix the defaultsort for many players from my watchlist, however they keep on being changed in cases of many Portuguese, Spanish and Latin American footballers who´s defaultsort doesn´t follow the usual surname, name formula. We shold try to make this somehow clearer to other editors, but not sure how. FkpCascais (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
~~AFC Rushden & Diamonds~~
This club has been formed as a phoenix club following the demise of Rushden & Diamonds. The club don't have a senior team in a league this season, and so haven't played in a league of eligible for The FA Cup. Is this club deemed notable or is it a bit WP:CRYSTALy until they actaully field a senior side? --Jimbo^[online] 17:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
There was a very small discussion about it before as it had two articles one of which was redirected. My personal opinion is it meets GNG but obviously not WP:Footy although i am not sure everyone will see it that way. The article has had 2866 views since it was created. Warburton1368 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I think GNG trumps everything here as the references in the article clearly come from reliable sources such as the BBC. I say keep it for now. JonBroxton (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I did have GNG in mind, but there's not really anything with real substance to it and only a few sources with reference to the new club. --Jimbo^[online] 18:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Englandstats~~
I see that the www.englandstats.co.uk website is being moved to www.england.com. Unfortunately, the move is not complete and the website homepage says "Coming late summer". Hopefully, it will be back before too long as IMHO it was the best of the England national team databases. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, that's gonna me a massive pain for us (fixing links etc.) as well as changing {{Englandstats}}. Giant Snowman 22:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
There are currently 290 links to the englandstats.co.uk site: see Special:LinkSearch/englandstats.co.uk. Jenks24 (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Notable?~~
Hello!
I would like to ask if the Talent Cup article and its subarticles 2010 Talent Cup and 2011 Talent Cup reach the level of notability. Generally speaking, I don't think so that a U17 friendly tournament notable enough to be listed on Wiki. There are hundreds of youth tournaments across the globe and these 15-16-17 years old guys far from producing any notable, most of them don't even make to the top of the business.
Taking concretely the above listed articles, it looks like for me like a routine coverage of the event, which does not meet WP:GNG (no or only one source; lacks independent citations – the reference is the organizer itself; lacks significant coverage – it is mentioned in few lines of a summary article only).
It may well fit the criteria of deletion in my opinion, however, I'm not that familiar with the treatment of the football related articles, and rather asked here to find a proper solution.
Regards, Thehoboclown (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks to be non-notable; a quick Google search only brings up links to betting sites and streaming sites, which says it all really. The "host club" Gheorghe Hagi football academy could also do with going tbh, ideally merging back into Gheorghe Hagi. Giant Snowman 14:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Thanks for the answer! Done as suggested! Thehoboclown (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~Hector John Eastwood, West Ham, Pilgrims and Ilford~~
~~on italian wikipedia we have this pioneer, do you have books we can't have where there is something about him, news, statistics, personal datas? 93.56.34.11 (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)~~
His West Ham statistics are here. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
grazie mille, this can help! 93.56.58.154 (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Romani footballers category~~
~~Oh, and in an unrelated matter (but already addressed): is ROMANI FOOTBALLERS a notable category or not? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)~~
I think it's OK for the Romani footballers to remain, as there is a Romani people article, but I have added some explanation text to the category page stating that any inclusions in the category should be sourced.Eldumpo (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
~~User:Maxi1992~~
Hate to accuse a user on just a hunch but this "new" user has an interesting and somewhat familiar editing pattern. Could it be the new account of a certain banned user (a certain Zombie..) ? I apologize if I'm wrong on this, but just looks too similar.TonyStarks (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, just to add to my original message, he created an article for Koffi Mechac, stating that he has 5 caps for Ivory Coast. However, I can't find anything confirming that, and looking at the history, looks like he just copied Ibrahim Amada's page and just changed a couple of details.TonyStarks (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep an eye on him.--Echetus Xe 09:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
~~False info removed...but do we have a professional status of the Moroccan Botola?--ClubOranje^T 09:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)~~
Off the top of my head (quite familiar with North African football), Botola has been pro since 2003 if I'm not mistaken. Of course, that still needs to be referenced but I wouldn't doubt its professionalism.TonyStarks (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Judging from his user page, it does not seem like him (it could be a dead hearing though). However, if you say the edit pattern is similar, then i guess we'll have to keep a close eye on it, won't we? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Red herring, not dead herring.--Echetus Xe 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~LOL! My bad (kind of reminded me of this guy), in one of the episodes of the last season... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~If that means I'm Blackadder then cool.--Echetus Xe 20:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~No man, more like i'm a bit of a Baldrick! But you can be Blackadder as well :) --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)~~
OK now I'm pretty sure it's him. He's edited both Lassana Diallo and Effosa Eguakon, two pages that Zombie433 edited a lot (and one he even created). All his edits involve African footballers without focusing any specific nationality. Also, most of his edits involve adding the name of "his" players to the notable section of other clubs, something he has done a lot previously.TonyStarks (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless Zombie433 is an account shared by more than one person (not impossible) it's not him. Look at the times Zombie editted on German wikipedia: [17] Did you explain the meaning of the word notable to him? Cattivi (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Despite being on Wikipedia for 3-4 days, he's edited the pages of 4 players that Zombie created .. and edited other pages that Zombie worked on regularly. Pretty obvious it's him. I've left GiantSnowman a message on his talk page, hopefully he can help me out with this one.TonyStarks (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Times in match reports?~~
On european competitions there appears to be some slow edit conflict going on as to whether we should have GMT or CET times. Personally I don't see the need for the time of the match on wikipedia, anyway, it seems like the use of CET is currently prevailing, [18], [19]. I think it would seem more logical to write the "local" time of kick-off and then the time zone, as there are at least 5 time zones under UEFA jurisdiction and to only use CET seems odd. Although maybe there is already a precedent for this sort of thing? Adam4267 (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
They shouldn't be mixed. And i guess UEFA uses CET. -Koppapa (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
UEFA consistently uses both CET and local time on the individual match pages. CET is preferred, IMO, as it provides a uniform time zone for all matches to use and it's the time zone of the location of UEFA headquarters. – Pee Jay 21:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
In general, I would say local time. That's how we do it when it comes to South American club articles since there isn't a main, prevailing time zone used. But, if there is one and it is frequently used, use it (for example, CET in Europe and EST in North America). Or you can do both with local time in parenthesis if it differs from CET. Digirami (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
~~I need help for uploading a club badge~~
In this season a Serbian top league club FK Hajduk Kula has slightly modified its crest and the official club website administrator has asked me if I could replace it in the article, as he knows I am long-standing footy editor. However, in all these years I never uploaded any images into WP and I´m not sure if I would do it properly. Should I replace it by editing the current crest, or create a new one? Could someone with experience on this please help me, couse seems to be a straight forward issue as the official website admin is offering himself to provide all necessary copyright documentation so it is just a matter of doing it. The article is FK Hajduk Kula, the crest is the one in place in the article, and it should be replaced by a new one found on clubs official website, fkhajduk.rs. FkpCascais (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I keep starting to answer this, but I'm not 100% sure. I think probably creating a new file would be best. Camw (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Ideally, you would need a clean stand-alone image, rather than one cut out of the website. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Notability question which may have been asked before~~
but I'm not aware of it. If a player makes his debut in tonight's Europa League play-off round, would he be presumed notable? and would it make a difference if the match is between two fully-pro clubs from fully-pro leagues? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
As far as I recall, players who play for a club that plays in a fully professional league are notable as soon as they make a competitive appearance for the club, even if it is against non-professional opposition in a cup match. However, players playing for clubs from semi-pro leagues are not notable by virtue of playing against a professional club in a cup match. Hope that makes sense! Number 5 7 12:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, thanks, Struway2 (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You'll be surprised to know that I err on the side of inclusionism when it comes to UEFA competitions (at least in comparison to my stance on domestic one or two timers). But I truly cannot grasp why different criteria should apply to two players participating in the very same game. Could someone explain the thinking behind that? —WFC— 03:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
If, for instance, someone makes their Liverpool debut in an FA Cup match against a non-League team, they are then a "capped" Liverpool player. On the other hand, the players playing for the non-League team remain non-notable (obviously this is ignoring the effect of the GNG). Number 5 7 08:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand how it works, just not why. If a league/league cup/paint pot match between two league clubs confers notability (I don't agree with this but concede that it's de facto practise), obviously the same standard should apply to FA Cup matches between the same clubs.
Liverpool is probably a bad example because the GNG would almost always apply to a young pro at such a massive club, so let's put Swindon in their place. If in the fullness of time the FA Cup appearance(s) against non-league opposition prove(s) to be the player's sole claim to notability, he has presumably either drifted into non-league after failing to be picked against a professional club, or his career has been tragically cut short by injury. Either way, that Swindon player has never participated in a match that a non-league player couldn't have appeared in. —WFC— 17:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree; if we say that playing in a type of match confers notability, then it shouldn't matter which team you play for. That is why I have always held the belief that in a match between a professional and semi-professional team, or two semi-professional teams, then you are not notable, even if you're playing for Arsenal or whoever. Giant Snowman 17:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
~~A coaching question~~
Someone keeps changing the Carlos Carvalhal situation at Besiktas to "caretaker manager" (i am surprised i still have not been insulted with my reversions), whereas i think "coach" is more accurate. Sure, the club is threatened with relegation due to the match-fixing scandal and he may have a clause allowing him to leave in that case but, for now, he is the DE FACTO manager.
I mean, he's even doing what most coaches do nowadays and have been doing since forever, which is: i go to a new club, i'm not gonna bother to learn the language and customs, i just bring all my buddies (still remember Louis van Gaal and his Dutch armada at FC Barcelona, i think there were as many as EIGHT or NINE!), you English folks might know one thing or two on that with Arsenal, especially odd when Arsène Wenger speaks English like an English person...For now, Carvalhal already has another compatriot, Bebé, more Portuguese players on that squad than F.C. Porto or S.L. Benfica!
Again, i got my train of thought all lost with my ranting, i just would like to ask, should it be "coach" or "caretaker manager"? I feel that the FORMER should definitely read in his box. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
~~What do the sources say? At the moment, there are no words or sources in the Carlos Carvalhal article that say he's at Besiktas in any capacity. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~I'll arrange a source today (can't promise that it'll not be in Portuguese though). --Vasco Amaral (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)~~
I've just had a look for sources. Besiktas' English-language website piece is titled Beşiktaş JK picks Carlos Carvalhal as new manager and the words say "until Tayfur Havutçu is back on duty". These Turkish English-language newspaper articles say the same: that coach Carvalhal is acting or caretaker head coach until the return of the previous head coach/manager. As the club website uses the term "manager" and the Besiktas J.K. article does the same, I'd say Mr Carvalhal is at the moment caretaker-manager, but will revert to coach if and when Mr Havutçu returns. hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Apologies are in order to the Turkish anon user(s), i jumped into conclusions without knowing the whole situation, and thought: "Well, the squad is full of Portuguese players, he's Portuguese, he's got to be permanent!" WRONG Vasco, he is caretaker! I managed a reference (and in English, better still), added to the article as well as one of yours Struway, many thanks for the assistance, cheers! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Player clubs on national team articles~~
Hello, was wanting to seek clarification of 'best practice' on something here. Over the summer, User:Quentin X has been reverting changes to player's clubs at England national football team on the grounds that the clubs listed should be as on the date of the last squad. I think this seems sensible and is a good practice to follow, even if it isn't always standard practice, and it's something I've occasionally helped enforce, though largely I've just been watching the edits/reverts happen. However, Quentin X has now been reverting changes to the clubs of players in the 'recent call ups', maintaining the club as per the 'last call up' eg so that Scott Carson is listed at West Bromwich Albion F.C. rather than Bursaspor. I actually don't think this is needed: the value is in having the club at the time of the last squad, not at the time of the player's last selection. The point of the 'recent call ups' section is to include players who are part of the active international set-up, but may not have been involved in the last squad due to injury/suspension etc. So, two questions:
1. Is it better on national team articles, in between squad selections, to list players' clubs as per the date of the last squad? (I'm inclined towards yes)
2. Is it better on national team articles to give the clubs of players in the 'recent call ups' section as the club on the date of the last squad, or the club on the date of any given player's last selection. (I'm inclined towards the date of the last squad)
CheersPretty Green (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, for the most recent squad, I agree with Pretty Green, that it is best to have the players club at the time of his call up. This will, obviously, only become a problem during the summer and January windows, but I feel it is more factually correct. However, whilst I understand Pretty Green's argument over recent call ups as well, I also feel that to remain factually correct, for recent call ups, the club that the player was at at the time of that call up should also be used, and not his position at the time of the most recent squad. This leaves us with someone like Matthew Upson having free agent alongside his club, which makes it look like he was a free agent during the 2010 World Cup. Quentin X (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Barnes Rugby Football Club~~
This article currently appears in both Category:English football clubs and Category:English rugby union teams. Given that they gave up playing by association rules over 100 years ago, should the former be replaced with Category:Defunct English football clubs....? It looks very strange that a club with "rugby football club" in its name should appear in the football clubs cat..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure. -Koppapa (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree, it no longer plays association football, so in that sense it is defunct. Giant Snowman 13:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
~~FC Anzhi Makhachkala imaginary transfers~~
There seems to have been a bit of a frenzy on the FC Anzhi Makhachkala article in regards to adding imaginary transfers to the club page and even editing the player pages, too. Dani Alves, Samuel Eto'o and Arjen Robben have all joined the club without letting the club management know! Its worth keeping a bit of an eye on it as it comes from a wide range of IP addresses. Calistemon (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
~~2011-12 Olympique Lyonnais season~~
As Ligue 1 started 2 weeks ago & Lyon has already played in the Champions League Qualifying Play-off round, I think this page needs creating. Not a big fan of French football myself, So thought I'd make the suggestion as I'm sure one of you would be more than delighted to make this page. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 17:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC))
Go ahead. I made the articles of the past seasons, but I have simply grown tired constantly having to update that, as well as the French league season pages going all the way down to the fifth division. — JS^{Rant Away} 01:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
There is so much more to do. Just look at this article 3 days ago http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Viktoria_Plze%C5%88&oldid=445393420 , the play the UEFA CL Play-off round and article has basically nothing more than a squad. -Koppapa (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
~~2011–12 Cymru Alliance~~
This new article 2011–12 Cymru Alliance is a complete mess. I stuck a short lead on it to prevent its Speedy Deletion for context, but it is in bad shape and needs a lot of work. Safiel (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I've tidied it up but it's still very much a work-in-progress. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I have expanded the article a bit earlier today. The only item that is still missing is the standard "Teams" section as per the MoS for league seasons; unless someone beats me to it, I will add that tonight... *hustles off to work a doubleheader as a referee* --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...}
Looks completely better, thanks. Safiel (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
~~WWW.BDFUTBOL.COM~~
This site is getting more and more reliable and complete, now it even has detailed stats for European games (see Mauro Silva example here http://www.bdfutbol.com/en/j/j1956.html): right before the stats begin being listed, check the top right-corner of the chart and there are the options (LEAGUE, CHAMPIONS LEAGUE, UEFA CUP). Either that or it's been there since forever and i never noticed it :) but the case is that the site is evermore a reliable source for Spanish footballers and/or imports that have played in the country for several seasons.
Attentively, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Women's season articles~~
When are these deemed notable? Germany, France, Norway, England, the USA have those. Then there are stubs like these Kyrgyzstan League Women 2006 which are unlikely to get more info and just copied from RSSSF. The 2005 article was prodded and deleted some time ago. I myself created 2010–11 Welsh Premier League (women) which has some more info and refs but is for a pretty small league. -Koppapa (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I would say that if there is detail from reliable sources, the top level leagues in countries are definitely worthy of articles (especially Germany which I believe has some professional clubs). Given that we have season article leagus as low as level 9-10 in English men's football, it would be very harsh to delete these. Number 5 7 11:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Number 57. If there are reliable sources for a league season (such as Soccerway for league tables and results), there is no reason to not have articles. However, any articles created should follow the general content guidelines for league seasons; that 2006 Kyrgyzstan article should thus either be significantly expanded or, if this not possible, be prodded. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I doubt the article can be expanded easily. I didn't even found a list of champions for the league after lots of googling. -Koppapa (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Just saw RSSSF names Wikipedia as source for 2010. see here. Also standings are correctly sourced in the article. -Koppapa (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Nor Alden Antar~~
Perhaps one of the experts on here could take a look at this new page, please? Putting on one side the horrible state of the page, we don't seem to have a position on the Sudanese league at WP:FPL. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
User created five of those. -Koppapa (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
As written, they are all WP:BLPPROD candidates. If cleaned up some of them might be keepers irrespective of the status of the Sudanese league. Joseph Kabagambe is a full international [20]. One of the clubs Antar played for reached the final of the 2007 CAF Confederation Cup, but I have been unable to determine the lineup.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldelpaso (talk • contribs) 22:33, 21 August 2011
Three referenced, two BLPPRODed. Giant Snowman 21:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Honours.....again~~
I am currently in a discussion with a user who has decided to insert France's fourth place finish at the 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup into player articles citing it as an honour. He uses this source as his reason why stating "Taking away the fourth place award is essentially like taking away the award for winning the tournament or being the top goalscorer". I disagree citing this discussion that took place over a year and a half ago, which many of the frequent contributors engaged in. I don't know if there has been another discussion about this, but that is the most recent I've found. — JS^{Rant Away} 04:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd say include, as it is their best finsih. Had they won it 4 times then it shouldn't be included. By the way, does the results section belong there? -Koppapa (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion you linked to didn't appear to reach a consensus, and if the FIFA website states that fourth place is one of the tournament awards, I think it seems reasonable to include that in the article. For comparison, Bulgaria include fourth place at the 1994 World Cup among their honours. Deserter1 11:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
That is not an honour i believe. Are medals handed out to the players/staff of the team that finishes in said position? If not, discard it as an accolade - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Page moves for Mata and Suarez~~
~~Where did these discussions take place? Since I don't remember seeing them anywhere. User:Unreal7 has been busy. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)~~
I've moved back to Luis Alberto Suárez, purely because the new page name was spelt incorrectly (!) and not out of any preference or anything. Giant Snowman 18:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought the players were refereed to as Juan Manuel Mata and Luis Suarez respectively. Certainly people shouldn't be moving these pages without discussion. Adam4267 (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Juan Manuel Mata was correct (I'd been keeping an eye on it for quite a while). Non-controversial moves are fine, but how the editor in question thinks that moving those two pages without discussion puzzles me. I didn't realise that Uruguayan had been spelt wrong, funny. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
This editor seems to think that doing anything without discussion is prefectly acceptable. Adam4267 (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Could someone move Mata's back as well? Thanks to Unreal7 we currently have two articles about the same person. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
As a temporary solution to the duplication problem, I have changed Juan Manuel Mata to a redirect to Juan Mata. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yep, Unreal is that kind of guy (and User:Roslagen another!)...regarding the players' names, i think LUIS ALBERTO SUÁREZ is more accurate, as LUIS SUÁREZ should be quite common even just taking footballers into consideration. As per the Spaniard, both JUAN MATA or JUAN MANUEL MATA are accurate/correct. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
~~User:Xxxx693 is User:Lombriz de Aguapuerca - account-hopping and vandalizing userpages~~
After i had (had? HAVE!) several run-ins with a Colombian anon user regarding Quique Flores, the page was moved after a discussion was started, and the anon user refused to engage in it.
One month after, he returned with the account XXXX693 and started the same procedure, even moving the page again to QUIQUE SÁNCHEZ FLORES. An admin moved the page back. Now, the new account, LOMBRIZ AGUAPUERCA, has emerged, and (for no reason) started vandalizing my user page (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VascoAmaral&diff=446252605&oldid=446252541), whilst still engaging in no talkpage conversation and replying to no messages, what on earth is this?! User:Scoelho86's page was also vandalized, but his was a bit upgraded, he was not called a PORTUGUESE VANDAL like i was (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scoelho86&diff=446251704&oldid=357665830)!!
Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
~~WP:SPI to confirm these are the same accounts, and to deal with them if they are. Giant Snowman 16:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~This guy is also "full" of anon IP (example here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.84.61.67). Sorry for bothering you, again... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~For anyone who is interested - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xxxx693. Giant Snowman 20:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~With the anon IP shown above, he reverted User:Warburton1368 saying "reverted vandalism", what's the matter with this person?! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~Tony Stevenson's phantom games~~
In March 2010, Tony Stevenson joined Alloa on loan, per the BBC. His infobox claims he scored 1 game in 10 SFL games, which is not backed up by his soccerbase page, and he does not appear by any other name on Alloa's 2009-10 season page either, as far as I can see. Can anyone else locate these phantom games? Giant Snowman 19:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Soccerway only shows 6 apperances to soccerbase's 12. Ive noticed recently that both Soccerbase a lot and to a lesser extent soccerway are really unreliable for first division or lower players. Never had problems with them for spl or english leagues.Warburton1368 (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Soccerbase, in their infinite wisdom, have allocated Tony Stevenson's six appearances (no goals) for Alloa in 2009/10 to Jamie Stevenson. Neil Brown and the 2010/11 Sky Sports annual will confirm. The ten games in Tony's infobox are either a typo or someone taking a figure from an equally reliable source..... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
PS. Not sure whose date of birth Soccerbase've given to Jamie Stevenson, but it's certainly not his own... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Right, cheers guys. Giant Snowman 20:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Match reports for UEFA competitions~~
There is now a discussion and vote on the matter of whether we should always use official UEFA match reports for UEFA competitions, or that any reliable third-party source is acceptable, at Talk:2011–12 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round#Match reports. Chanheigeorge (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Common name for football leagues.~~
Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to have some sort of common name or phrase for every football league for example maybe Highest league, Second highest league and so on. I was recently editing a Bulgarian players article and realised I did not know the actual name of the Bulgarian top flight (A PFG) so I had to open a new page and after a few clicks I had found it. But the point is that most people do not know the official name of every league in the world so when editing a players page in these leagues you have to take some time to find out the name. Obviously the leagues name should not be changed but say Bulgarian top division or Bulgarian highest league or Bulgarian top flight links to the Bulgarian A PFG it would just make it a little bit easier to edit players in unfamiliar leagues and obviously that would be uniform for every league in the world so whatever league the player plays in you know you just have to link to, say, Colombian top flight rather than having to find out the official name of the league (Categoría Primera A). Adam4267 (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
So be bold and create the redirects. It would not, however, be a good idea to move leagues to names that they do not have. Number 5 7 18:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Well I think it would be best to decide on a name first, not sure what but I put several suggestions up above. There are probably too many leagues for me to do all by myself but if we establish a name I am happy to do many of them. Obviously I agree with you about moving, I meant creating redirects but I don't think I said that above. Adam4267 (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It's pointless deciding on a name because, as you point out, there are so many ways of saying it - just create redirects for all of the options. Number 5 7 18:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
So you think there should be three or four redirects for every league? Adam4267 (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd imagine there are already at least that many for most leagues, so more won't do any harm. Number 5 7 19:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
While I don't think there is anything wrong with that, my idea was that there would be one common term for each league which us learned people at wikiproject football could use. Your idea would require a lot more effort and I don't like effort it's too much hard work! Adam4267 (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Surely us learned people should know what the proper names of the leagues are anyway? I suppose that may also require effort though. Number 5 7 19:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly surely the least efforteous thing to do is to have one commmonname that every league has a redirect for. So if you are editing a Slovakian player. You can just type Slovakian top flight into the redirect thingamajiggy and then your done. Adam4267 (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I would second what Number 57 suggested; by all means create redirects to aid readers finding the correct articles, but pages should not be moved. We have the Premier League, not England's highest division, with a team from Wales in it! Giant Snowman 18:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I would third what Number 57 said, in fact I beleive I firsted it! It seems like this is a not bad idea so if we could come up with some names then I will start implementing them. Adam4267 (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, when you say 'we could come up with some names' you mean redirect names? The article names should remain as they are i.e. as per the sources. Eldumpo (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Adam4267 (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I used names like Venezuelan women's football championship for like 20 women's top leagues i created.-Koppapa (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd advise against creating redirects like Slovakian top flight that don't mention football. Slovakia is a case in point; Slovakia's national sport is ice hockey. But in general, yes, Redirects are cheap. There are 32 pointing to Premier League for example (there were 34, but I just deleted the bizarre and inappropriate redirects league titles and N/A F.C.). Oldelpaso (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
My point was that we come up with one generic phrase which every football league has a redirect to. i.e Colombian highest football division, Colombian second highest football division and so on. That way if you don't know the official name of the league you want to create a link for. You can just type in the country name and generic phrase and then you have it. Adam4267 (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I just use the templates at the top of Category:National association football premier leagues. Jared Preston (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
So would anyone object if I started making redirect pages for (country name) highest football division? Adam4267 (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay I have started this now. I have been using the Demonym of each country. Is that the right way to do it? Adam4267 (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
~~George John~~
So there are reports that George John is close to a move to Blackburn Rovers from FC Dallas. Now this guy is from Shoreline, Washington but he's eligible to play for the Greek national football team. I don't know if having a work permit depends on nationality. One of the sources I read said that he didn't need a work permit because he was eligible to play for Greece, and I thought that was a false statement. I know somebody out there knows how this works, does he need a work permit? – Michael (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
If he holds a Greek passport, then he is an EU national, and so will not need a work permit. Giant Snowman 20:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
He does hold a Greek passport, and he is an EU national, so does not need a work permit. There are a lot of frantic attempts to get him capped by the US right now so that the Greeks don't lure him away. JonBroxton (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
~~National cups~~
Most of the national cups are totally unreferenced and tagged so since 2007. See Maldives FA Cup for example or most of AFC or CAFs. I fixed some, but a lot of helping hands are needed. Any every one should have at least an official site linked and/or any website covering results like soccerway. -Koppapa (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Loans~~
My last input before i go on a couple-of-days-wikibreak,
Some folks regard the insertion of a final date in loans, in the players' infoboxes, as WP:CRYSTAL. I beg to differ: if two teams agree on a season-long loan, then the box should read (for example this season) "2011-2012", not "2011-". In the case of Sergio Canales, it should read "2011-2013", the kid has been loaned for two years. When the stuff is referenced, it can hardly be labelled as speculation (crystal-based or not) :)
If the loan deal suffers any alterations for whatever reasons, then and only then should we correct/update the box, much like we do for national team years (for example, Nuno Gomes had "1996-2009" in his Portugal career, now that he's been summoned again - even though he did not play against Luxembourg - the "2009" has been removed, simple edit).
Attentively, don't cry for me when i'm absent ;) --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding why the date range should be left open. If the date range is closed, it implies the stay at that club has finished. Leaving it open shows the player is still there. Have a good break. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
~~I think i finally got it, thanks! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~international women and men football connection~~
Can we put a "*" asterisk a "see also" in the templates Template:International women's football and Template:International football to navigate to the others sex edition? in some way comparable to Fifa#FIFA structured tournaments; men and women are diferent? yes, but we still should show that both exist --Feroang (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
~~done, in a unperfect way maybe, "See also International men's football" and "See also International women's football", you can always upgrade it--Feroang (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~Featured list removal candidates~~
I have nominated List of Aston Villa F.C. seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)~~
I have nominated List of FC Barcelona seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)~~
I have nominated List of Manchester United F.C. seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Nomination now withdrawn.--Echetus Xe 21:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)~~
I have nominated List of Manchester City F.C. seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~Troy Hewitt~~
~~Can an admin restore Troy Hewitt please, he made his debut in the League Cup on Tuesday night. Thanks, --Jimbo^[online] 19:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~Done. Number 5 7 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)~~
~~FLC List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances)~~
Hi everyone, There is a Featured list candidates of List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances). People with experience in WP, please have a look and apply your concerns, Support, or Oppose. Thank you. Please note: have you say before it closes with Stale nomination again.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Names in club season articles~~
~~Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#2011–12 FC Barcelona season. Digirami (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)~~
Since the above went dead (formally), take a look here. It concerns the display of names within club season articles in squad information tables, transfer lists, footballboxes, and anything similar. Digirami (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Wanderers F.C.~~
The secretary of the new/re-formed Wanderers F.C. has been active on the article's talk page, stating that in his opinion there was information missing from the article. I suggested that he put together his own version, which he did at User:Ukmarkwilson/Wanderers F.C. Could I get some second opinions on this version.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
While the 2009 reincarnation may have the "endorsement" of the descendants of the original founders, the present club is a totally different one from the original club. If the present club is sufficiently notable, it should be kept separate from that for the original club, or be a mere "footnote". Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
That, I think, is the main point to consider...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree - not the same club, mention (briefly!) on the original page and nothing more until this new club becomes notable in their own right. Giant Snowman 19:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The new/re-formed club is mentioned briefly in the current version of the actual article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how or who decides whether or not the reformation of a club is authentic / genuine / acceptable but there are numerous examples of clubs that have folded and another separate entity has formed taking on the previous club's mantle. Good examples I can recall are Newport County (folded 1989; reformed 1994), Weston-Super-Mare (folded 1939; reformed 1948) and Gateshead (folded 1973; reformed 1977). There are no hard and fast rules that the FA sets to determine legitimacy and we have done everything in our powers to ensure our claim is justified; endorsement of the founders' descendants, ensuring no other claims on the identity of the club, checked that there are no outstanding debts owed, played our matches in the same catchment area as the original club, continued using the identity of the club (i.e. colours, badges, name, etc). Until there is an official declaration of what is and what is not permitted, I cannot see there being any hindrance to our claims that we are a reformation of the original Wanderers. Nonetheless, I do appreciate the time all of you have taken to look over this entry and provide useful and valid feedback.

Ukmarkwilson (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the point is that the current incarnation are so non-notable, that they shouldn't be mentioned beyond a sentence or two in the article, and are definitely not notable enough for their own - all the existing reformed clubs now play at a level sufficient to make them notable. They Surrey South East Combination (or whatever league it is) is not this level. Number 5 7 08:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of it boils down to the ability to source articles using references independent of the clubs themselves. The usual convention for ongoing coverage of English clubs (the notability that Number 57 refers to) is to go down to level 10, the lowest at which teams can enter the FA Cup, as independent sourcing becomes nigh-on impossible any lower than this. For Surrey and around this would be the Combined Counties League, six promotions away for the current Wanderers. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
That all makes perfect sense and, in fact, having read ChrisTheDude's comments, I would agree that the reformed club does perhaps get too much coverage versus the original club considering their achievements. His suggestions (if you haven't read them) include removing the Squad List as lower league clubs tend to chop and change players more frequently than professional teams, along with some suitable copy and formatting fixes. The SSEC is at Step 17 in the Football League Pyramid, by the way. Only 16 promotions to the Premier League...
~~Ukmarkwilson (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)~~
All done - Squad List removed, punctuation around references tidied up, 2009 kit removed and superfluous reference to reformed club have been removed.Ukmarkwilson (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd also advise removing the list of "notable" players. We tend to avoid such lists where is no specific selection criteria, as the decision as to who to include or exclude is original research. There's also a few sentences which are not supported by references, e.g. the bit about the rivalries of the original club...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
As the existing article was brought up to its present standard by Chris, and is currently rated as a "Good article", I think that he should be the arbiter as to how much of the proposed re-write is incorporated into the article. I would certainly endorse his most recent comments. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Happy to trim down the 'Notable Players' section - their notability has only been chosen as they have been deemed notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages as individuals. Rivalries are down to geographic location and frequency of encounters between teams. Is it best to detail this or is that too much informaion? Ukmarkwilson (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
~~Isthmian League Cup season articles~~
Is the Isthmian League Cup notable enough to deserve its own season articles [21]? I remember the Northern Premier League Challenge/President's Cup and Southern League Cup season articles having to be merged with their respective league season articles. I'm guessing this should be done for the Isthmian League too. Delusion23 (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they should be merged into the league season articles, and then the template deleted. Number 5 7 13:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, just come accross a problem. The earliest three cup season articles can't be merged as there are not yet Isthmian League season articles for them to be merged into (i.e. 2004–05, 2005–06 and 2006–07). I'll propose the merger of the later three but not sure what to do with the earlier ones as it would be quite a bit of work creating three league season articles just to merge the cup articles into them. Kind of highlights the lack of Isthmian league season articles (11, ~11%) compared to NPL (all 44, 100%) and SL (86, ~79%). Delusion23 (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed; I've created a few of the early years (see {{Isthmian League}}), but there are huge gaps. For those seasons without league articles, you could just move the cup ones. Number 5 7 13:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)