Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 6

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 1

←

Archive 4

→

Vote now or forever hold your peace. WC Templates

I nominated the lot of them. Please vote, it took a looooong time. Dont make me have wasted it. I know some have already been nominated, but I dont know which, so if you have already nominated one, if you could remove yours from the list, or merge your nomination into the main one, that would be great. Thank you all. Philc _T^E_C^I 15:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Now one more favour, we need to add blasted deletion templates to EVERY SINGLE ONE. Stupid wiki rules. so heres a list of the lot. Anyone who feels like giving a hand put this at the top of all of them please. Philc _T^E_C^I 16:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate metadata plainlinks" id="tfd" style="background-color: transparent; padding: 0; font-size:xx-small; color:#000000; text-align: center; border-bottom:1px solid #AAAAAA; ">‹ The [[Wikipedia:Template messages|template]] below has been proposed for deletion. See [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#All FIFA World Cup squad templates|templates for deletion]] to help reach a consensus on what to do. ›</div>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Template|[[Category:Templates for deletion|{{PAGENAME}}]]}} to the template

{{subst:tfdnotice|TemplateName}} ~~~~ to the talk page

~~And then just strike the ones youve done off with a <s>...</s>~~

All done cheers. Philc _T^E_C^I 19:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The archive of the discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 11#All FIFA World Cup squad templates. --StuartBrady (Talk) 23:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Player infoboxes

While perusing many player articles, I have found a lot to be missing the Player infobox template. Is there any chance of people sticking it on the articles that need it, or alternatively listing the ones that need it here? I've done Watford players, about twenty or so, so there must be thousands that need it. Cheers! King fish erswift 17:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Players that need an infobox:

New contributions

Hello, I an Brazilian user and like to join this project to edit Brazilian championships. Thanks. Antidermis2319 02:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Match of the Day

The article at Match of the Day is (IMHO) a total mess; I have attempted a rewrite at User:Qwghlm/MoTD. Any UK-based Wikipedians who might be interested - please comment on Talk:Match of the Day (not here) if you think the rewrite is a good idea. Thanks. Qwghlm 14:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions and the League Cup

As mentioned here, there are competitions known as "(Insert country here) League Cup". Perhaps to avoid confusion League Cup should be moved to English League Cup, similar to the Scottish League Cup? - Pal 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't think the League Cup article should be exclusively about the English edition. See Template:National football (soccer) league cups for other editions. Perhaps the 'League Cup' article should be a disambigution page, with the English League Cup article moved to Football League Cup instead of the redirect that exists there. Dodge 13:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think there is quite a difference between the Scottish and English League Cups. The Scottish League Cup is generally known as the "Scottish League Cup", See Celtic F.C.#Honours or Rangers F.C.#Honours. The English cup is generally known as the "League Cup", hence the difference. Most countries don't actually have a League Cup, and I don't see the point in renaming the article for purely "politically correct" reasons. Do you think we should rename the FA Cup too? aLii 10:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  - You can see from the template above, there's a fair few League Cups about. In Ireland our version is known as the League Cup, I'm fairly certain in Scotland its referred to simply as the League Cup. Both have the country named in the official title though. What's wronmg with simply using the Football League Cup (its official name) and using the League Cup page for a brief outline of this type of competetion and links to the different countries League Cup. Its pure arrogance to say the English version is the only one deserving of the name Dodge 13:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    - Nothing really, but there's a good few thousand links to correct if you want to do it. There is also a good argument for the English League Cup to occupy the "League Cup" page, with a link to a disambiguation page at the top of the article (my preference). See Alan Smith as a good footballing example of this. aLii 16:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Liverpool Reserves edit conflict

A minor edit skirmish is in place over at Liverpool F.C. Reserves. As there are only two of us involved, it's possible that it could reach an impasse quite easily. A fresh pair of eyes who might give some advice on compromise would be very useful. Thanks. Robotforaday 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see the point of these reserve team articles. Wikipedia:Notability (people) says that only first-team squad members are considered notable. Reserve players who have first-team squad numbers are already included n the main Liverpool F.C. article, and those that are not are not notable enough (yet) for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thus the reserve squad list is effectively redundant. After that, what's left in the article is details of what league they play in and the ground they play, which could easily be incorporated as a paragraph in the main Liverpool F.C. article. Qwghlm 13:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the reserve team itself is notable enough to have a article, and it allows one to remove a lot of clutter from the main page. The real notability question is whether each player in the reserve squad is notable enough to have their own article? aLii 11:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the main point in having the article was simply to remove clutter from the Liverpool F.C. article, which everybody agrees is too long and has too many lists. Robotforaday 20:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've been looking at FC Barcelona and I'm extremely surprised at the level of vandalism, I think this page really needs some sort of protection that doesn't allow some one without an account to edit. Just my opinion, though. Concerned user, Abreuzinho 00:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to back up the above view and support a request for protection on FC Barcelona. As well as vandalism some of these edits are very poor. These anonymous contributers also have little or no respect for article size and they become aggressive and abusive when their edits are questioned Djln--Djln 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

vote on FIFA ranking data in national team infobox

A vote is being held on the national football team infobox talk page about whether to delete or keep these:

1st ranking date (date the team was first shown on FIFA rankings)
FIFA max (highest FIFA ranking the team has reached)
FIFA max date (date of the highest FIFA ranking)
FIFA min (lowest FIFA ranking the team has reached)
FIFA min date (date of the lowest FIFA ranking)

If you are interested, please vote there (not here). -- Wantok 07:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

moving European Football Championship to UEFA European Football Championship

I initiated a discussion on this earlier this summer, but it seems very few were interrested back then (or AWOL, what do I know?), so I'll try to start it up again by proposing the following:

Move European Football Championship and all related pages/templates/categories to UEFA European Football Championship or corresponding names. This includes Under-XX tournaments and similar.
Move Asian Cup to AFC Asian Cup (and related material as above).
Move Oceania Nations Cup to OFC Nations Cup (and related material as above).

Comments? – Elisson • Talk 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I just checked your link and I was the only one to comment then too! haha. Anyway, if you get no comments this time either then I'd say just go ahead and change them. The names you propose are more correct. aLii 16:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been bold and made the moves. – Elisson • Talk 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

F.C. or FC?

I've noticed that a lot of British clubs are located at Example F.C. with redirects from Example FC even though the use of full stops in initialisms like this is uncommon in the UK and the Club manual of style uses the example Template FC (not Template F.C.). F.C. also looks very odd when a club is linked art the end of a sentence, for example Doncaster Rovers F.C.. I've browsed the project's pages and can't see anything saying that it is policy to use F.C. rather than FC. Could anyone advise me whether there is such a policy? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about a hard and fast "policy" as such, but the general rule seems to be to use F.C. which i disagree with as it has causes a lot of destandardisation. I think that FC, AFC, etc should be used as suffixes, therefore eliminating confusion about fullstops and spaces, etc. It would require a lot of editing and re-directions and stuff, but it might be good to agree on a uniform way of doing it? Djdannyp 10:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the elephant in the room - I much prefer FC, not least as it looks nicer in sentences - for example:

"x has played for Arsenal F.C. since 1999"

has the flow of the sentence broken up by the full stops, while:

"x has played for Arsenal FC since 1999"

does not. Also it would fit in with Wikipedia policy on other article titles (e.g. article about the space agency is called NASA not N.A.S.A.). But the work involved in changing it would be immense - all the page moves plus redirect fixing has made me forget about ever doing it. Does anyone know if there are any bots or applications that could help in the work? Qwghlm 10:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'd also like to see a move to "FC".

It would standardise suffixes and prefixes across world clubs. Only British and Italian clubs seem to use periods. Around the world it seems common not to; Valencia CF, IFK Göteborg, FC Bayern Munich, AS Monaco FC, etc. Interestingly South American clubs seem to use their full names, e.g. Santos Futebol Clube, Club Atlético River Plate.
For the aesthetic reasons listed above.

I doubt a complete standardisation will ever happen because most editors will profess that there is no need for us to impose a change on "their" league. They are of course correct, but perhaps we could change the British leagues? aLii 10:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and IIRC, there was consensus for moving all articles with full stops in the abbreviations (English, Italian, and let's not forget, Norwegian clubs, and some other) to names without full stops. The problem was, as Qwghlm says above, the immense work of doing this, which stopped it from happening. And as said, if someone has the possibility of using a bot, feel free to help, and then we can start a poll, or something. – Elisson • Talk 11:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

previous discussion for reference. Oldelpaso 11:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've dumped a list of all article titles containing "F.C." to User:Sjorford/F.C. - there are a few redirects, and a few false positives, but that still leaves about 2000 football club articles at "F.C. rather than "FC". So it is quite a big job, but nevertheless I agree that it will probably look better once it's all done. Things that will need doing:

move articles
fix the resulting double redirects
fix navigation tempates to bypass redirects
move categories

It would be a good idea to publicise this discussion in other places (such as WP:VP, WP:NC etc.) It's also worth considering the option of using full names throughout - e.g. Arsenal Football Club, which would be more in line with Wikipedia's general naming conventions, I think. — sjorford ++ 14:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In rugby league we tend to just use the club names (such as Leeds Rhinos) except where disambiguation is necessary (such as St Helens RFC). A similar convention might be helpful for football clubs: Doncaster Rovers, Leeds United, etc, but Middlesbrough Football Club and Rangers Football Club where necessary? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sjorford, I believe that Wikipedia also allows for acronyms to be used in article titles when they are more well known than the full name, e.g. FIFA, NASA. I would argue that most people know Associazione Calcio Milan as AC Milan and the same goes for the various FC clubs too. aLii 14:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case it would make more sense for the clubs with names (rather than just Town FC) to be located at Doncaster Rovers, Sheffield United, etc - without AFC, A.F.C., FC, F.C., Football Club or any other suffix. The infobox has a full name field for a reason (being that the article name isn't necessarily the full name: see Leeds Rhinos). Would that be even harder to implement though? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not see a mishmash of club article titles, some with and some withouth the FC at the end. I'd not like to see the full Football Club in the article title either. Just plain FC after the name is the best one to use, IMO. – Elisson • Talk 16:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Suffixes are necessary to distinguish Town FC or whatever from Town. Otherwise it would be Town (football club) which is even stupider. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep the suffixes - it is not wrong to refer to a club as e.g. "Manchester United FC", and it makes naming consistent across all teams. It also saves any pointless quibbles over individual teams' names - a single, simple rule that applies equally to all makes things much easier. Qwghlm 22:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would look much better with FC instead of F.C. -- MATTYTHEWHITE yap stalk 30/8/06

As I've obstructed from moving individual teams (see User talk:Yorkshire Phoenix (194.203.110.127)#F.C.) I need to know how to take this change forward. F.C. is U.G.L.Y. and should have something done about it sooner rather than later. Does anyone know the next step in making a consistent change to all British clubs and their associated categories? Yorkshire Phoenix 12:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, this is a huge task involving hundreds/thousands of changes. So first of all we need to make sure this is really something we want to do. After that I'd talk to someone who runs a bot. ed g2s • talk 12:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure how we take this forward? Yorkshire Phoenix

12:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put a request out at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves for help in working this out. As it stands I think there is a fair consensus here to move from F.C. to FC but a full formal proposal under the auspices of WP:RM is probably required so that moves have the full backing of the community. Qwghlm 12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see that some progress is being made (which is more than can be said for the 'national football team' "debate"!!). It's probably going to take a bot to be able to make all the changes and have the articles at FC with F.C. redirecting. The rest of it (i imagine) would be up to us, as far as player profiles, etc go....I'm not sure if a bot would be able to go through and change EVERY instance of F.C. into FC (including those in player pages) so it would be a pretty big task, but i think it'd be definitely worthwhile. Off-topic we should also try to get something sorted RE the national football team situation, because the debate/argument before just got us nowhere with people editing the poll and kicking up a fuss. DJDannyP//Talk2Me 12:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't get much help there so I've reposted at the Village pump - I'll keep you all updated... Qwghlm 15:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I volunteer in moving the Norwegian clubs (to their correct names, that is without full stops). Shall I go ahead? Punkmorten 21:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Manager/Coach in squad

User:Djdannyp has been adding the manager (preceded by a break) to templates such as Template:Blackburn Rovers F.C. Squad. When the new format was devised we decided not to include managers (since they are not actually in the squad) but Djdannyp has cited the World Cup squads which do include the coach.

I've created Template:Football squad2 manager which can be used instead of Template:Football squad2 lastplayer for the purpose of including the manager, but I'd actually prefer not to include the manager. Can some sort of policy be devised before a lot of time is wasted adding managers or reverting the additions? Slumgum T. C. 14:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned I did this yesterday. It seems valid enough as managers are as much a part of the squad as the player, and as also mentioned, they are included on world cup squad templates. Furthermore it makes sense for editing purposes to have the manager at the bottom with the "lastplayer" tag, therefore not requiring anyone to edit that tag when adding/reorganising players. If people would like to see this become standard then i can easily work through the divisions making these changes and i'm sure there'd be no shortage of people ready to help me. Djdannyp 15:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Personaly, I think it just looks untidy. At the very least, if they are to be there, I think they should be on the end of the player list, rather than on a separate line, as is the case with the national teams. ArtVandelay13 15:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Djdannyp's manager additions aren't aesthetically pleasing, but the manager is an important part of the team, so there's a good arguement to include them. How many pages have you edited in this way? aLii 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

soccer-europe.com images

Another set of edit wars (e.g. [1]) have been caused by the removal of the soccer-europe.com images. The images are okay to use (from a copyright viewpoint) as long as the website is credited. Kwame Nkrumah's reasoning for removal is that he dislikes the website, claiming it is a spam link.

Of course, we'd all like to see the images stay, but it seems only KN is unwilling to pay to cost of acknowledgement, and would rather have no image.

Is it considered reasonable to remove them on that ground? Do we have to credit soccer-europe on the article page, or just the image's page? I'm trying to reach an amicable compromise. Slumgum T. C. 22:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Apart the fact that it does not seem to me that you are looking for a amicable compromise, note that:

It is explicitly requested by the copyright holder (User talk:Soccer-europe.com) that the link to his page, in the form he chosed, must be present in every article that uses any of his images
- ignoring this fact is not a good way of looking for a compromise
- some images are also used within the user pages, without credit, so problems could arise from there
It is good to give credit, but inserting a link everywhere an image, media, or text is used is a bit too much. And if the image/media/text is not necessary to the building of the article, as the case of footballers' images, it is better to look for substitutes (many sprung up after I removed the s-e.c ones), or to have no images at all.

--Kwame Nkrumah 23:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest we just need some editors to go along to a few matches and take some half-decent photos, I know that this is the sort of image I've been adding to pages. I'm not personally convinced that the soccer-europe images aren't copyright violations in themselves. They sure look like they've been lifted from somewhere. I seriously doubt his pulling power to find good photographers all over europe... I mean just look at his front page today... that "photo" of Boulahrouz sure looks like a screen cap to me. Infact, they all do. I say remove all the images, probably speedy-delete them. aLii 23:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

These are photos taken by his mates? Bobby Charlton sure looks like he's been lifted from match footage. The images aren't of a high enough quality to come from Getty Images or anywhere similar — but the photography is good. The only other source is screen caps or scanning books for these kinds of photos, which is exactly what's been done here. aLii 23:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That's rational rationale. I don't have any objection to the images' removal on those grounds. Slumgum T. C. 23:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I love this bit of his website: Under no circumstances may my data i.e. goals per game, assists, assist per game, clean sheets, goals conceded per game be used in wikipedia entries. I don't think he has a particularly good grasp of copyright... He's trying to copyright assists?! I don't think so... aLii 23:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The fair use policy requirement that No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information is not met by these photos if the player is still playing. For retired players there's more leeway. These photos should be removed, the other uncertainties don't help either. Oldelpaso 10:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember raising doubts about the source of the photos ages ago, and I would agree about them looking like screencaps. The photos are not GFDL-licensed and insist on attribution in the article, which I think contravenes several policies, if not the spirit of Wikipedia. I would remove them and submit them to WP:IfD. Qwghlm 11:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always been suspect of these images, but given that there's no direct evidence, there's no reason to not take his word that he actually took these images. {{Attribution}} is a perfectly valid license and it was made perfectly clear to User:Soccer-europe.com that the images could be used for any purpose whatsoever (see Category talk:Soccer-europe images). Given that the licensing is acceptable to Wikipedia, in the absence of better alternatives, I see no reason to delete them. howch e ng {chat} 03:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If I, as an anonymous user, decide to take some Getty Images photos from the web, alter them slightly, and upload them to Wikipedia as my own work, then Wikipedia can still be sued for copyright infringement by Getty. Indeed it would be sad to lose good images, but these definitely go against the spirit of Wikipedia, and definitely seem dubious. aLii 16:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but seeing as how Getty Images are used by many media outlets, it's rather easy to discover a copyright violation via Google image search. howch e ng {chat} 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, even if we give Soccer-europe.com the benefit of the doubt, that they refuse to identify photographers should put the copyright status of the images in doubt, no? Ytny 16:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that he's a professional photographer himself, or that he has many friends that are (or both). It's not likely, but it's certainly possible. If we want to be rid of these images, then prove they're copyvios. Either find them somewhere else on the web where they're fully sourced, or if you think it's a screen cap, record an upcoming broadcast and try to compare any images he gets out of that game with your recording. howch e ng {chat} 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that a fair few of his images come from when the TV camera moves along the line-up of players pre-game. Still photographers do not get to walk along with the TV cameramen. They get one photo opportunity when the badges are being exchanged. Hence these are definitely screen caps. I'm not going to try and watch 90 minutes of various world cup games in an attempt to show you conclusive certain proof, but we all know it's the truth. aLii 19:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Last night I was watching the Man City v. Arsenal game on Sky in the pub - before the match there was an advert for some televised football package, which included brief video headshot of Thierry Henry that was identical to the image of him in the corresponding article. Alas I do not have a home Sky subscription nor a PVR so I can't prove it, but I am now convinced they are screengrabs. Qwghlm 18:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha - YouTube is our friend. Exhibit #1: This picture of Jens Lehmann looks suspiciously similar to a shot of him from the BBC coverage of the Germany v. Costa Rica game - scroll forward to the 4:59 mark. Qwghlm 22:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Screencap here. ed g2s • talk 17:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice detective work. I'll have to put all of these images on IFD. howch e ng {chat} 06:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it's been a long while since I've looked at User talk:Soccer-europe.com. Based on what he has to say there, it does seem reasonable that they're not screen grabs per se (the image quality seems to be pretty good and they are lacking the graphics you would expect to see), but apparently he has friends in the industry from whom he purchases these images. I'm guessing it's people who work at BBC or Sky in the production room or something. That would mean he's getting them illegally. I've asked User:Ed_g2s for an opinion, as he's been involved in the matter for a while as well. howch e ng {chat} 16:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The quality of the images is not that great - e.g. Image:Thierry Henry 191105.jpg is only 300x240, which is less than the resolution of a standard PAL signal. I used to own a TV card and was able to grab screenshots of similar quality. The Jens Lehmann photo I linked to above could have been taken from the BBC shot with the scoreline cropped out. I don't think it's as sophisticated as you make out - anyone with a TV card and a reasonable signal could have got those screencaps. Qwghlm 17:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless there were photographers very near the TV camera, it seems his work is a screenshot. Seeing he has never provided a proper source, or an explanation as to where the image have come from they should be deleted. ed g2s • talk 17:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I listed all the ones that User:Soccer-europe.com touched on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 5. User:Ytny added some more. If you find any more, feel free to pile them on. howch e ng {chat} 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Promotional" photos

Can we get a definitive ruling on photographs marked as {{Promotional}} or {{Publicity}}, incorrectly in my opinion. News photos are clear vios, but what's the word on profile headshots from UEFA.com and FIFAworldcup.com? I say they need to go.

They come from websites, not from press kits.
They are used as part of the sites' content, not for promotion.
The websites are commercial products, not promotional material. Ytny 00:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is really the place to get a "ruling", but it seems pretty straight-forward to me that it isn't promotional in anyway, it's just simple copyvio. UEFA and FIFA almost certainly don't own the copyright on the photos on their sites anyway. I'm particularly lazy with deleting these photos though, for two reasons:

It's a pain to fill in all the pages with all the correct details to get a deletion (I'm no admin)
Within a day of the photo being deleted from superstar player X's article, some other anonymous user will just upload another one :-/

I know it's not the perfect attitude, but it is somewhat realistic. What we really need to do is find/create some free images, and then it will be much less likely that a casual user will decide the page needs an image. aLii 00:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

By "ruling", I of course meant "consensus" - that's me not being very clear. I guess there's just too many of those headshots out there to for mere mortals to do anything about it. You're right that we should be out creating good images rather than worry about deleting "bad" images, but I can't do much, what with living in the States and not owning a high-end camera or a private jet. Though we should be deleting the really blatant copyvios, i.e wire service photos marked as promo or sportsposter. Ytny 00:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive

The Football Article Improvement Drive has been rather quiet recently, with the last two having the lowest response yet. Given that the season has recently started or is about to start in a lot of countries, I hope this will be a temporary blip. The current AID is Pelé, which the Wikipedia:Core biographies people have deemed to be one of the 250 most important biographies for an encyclopedia, so lets get to work! (not sure I agree with some of the other core biography choices, but thats a discussion for another thread) Oldelpaso 11:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

French regional teams

Hello,

I am requesting the following moves:

They are actually two main reasons why I am requesting this move. These teams aren't national teams (though they play national or regional teams as well as competitions like the Gold Cup). They are more regional teams from French departments and territories and that's one of the reasons why I think that the word national isn't necessary. Furthermore (and more important), they don't call themselves national team but more équipe de la Guadeloupe [2] (for example) whose exact translation is Guadeloupe football team and not Guadeloupe national football team. Some other links : [3], [4] (about Martinique football team), [5] (about Martinique, Réunion and Guadeloupe handball teams). On the opposite side, I have some results for équipe nationale de France de football (French national football team), which show the different of status between this national team and the regional teams. Any comments about these moves ? Poppypetty 19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Poppypetty, it's not regular to name teams like this. And this is just about France, I think there is other country (or teams) with this problem. Sebcaen | ☨ 19:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

+ 1. Sigo 20:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong support. --Bsm15 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I also support this idea. Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, and Réunion are French departments and regions both, not a nation itself !. Wallis and Futuna, and Mayotte are overseas territories, but are still part of France, and still not a nation itself ! Slasher-fun 20:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course! Poppy is right. Those teams are "regional" not "national". 84.99.239.104 20:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC) (Clio64 from WP.fr)

I can confirm that they must be renammed EyOne 20:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want to bring my agreement to poppypetty's idea, like Clio64 said those teams are regional ones! Sanguinez 20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that there is no nation state of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. They may be members of FIFA (a sore point for many countries e.g. UK gets 4 votes), but they aren't exactly members of the UN. Perhaps we should change the names of their teams too? hehe. My point is that is this really as simple as it looks? aLii 22:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I am a little unsure about why this is necessary. To take an easy example, as aLii mentions above, England national football team. England is not an independent nation (even though it is a "Home Nation"), but the team is still a national team, and the article is not located at England football team or England regional football team. Many of the teams participating in the 2006 FIFI Wild Cup (including for example Greenland national football team, which has about the same status as the French overseas departments) are called "national teams" ("Nationalmannschaft") on the official site of the tournament. The word "national" does not necessarily imply an independent state. And, most of all, having the "national football team" suffix for all teams simplifies everything. – Elisson • Talk 22:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And it is also not good Wikipedia style to make such moves before the subject has been discussed thoroughly... – Elisson • Talk 22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Also it is interesting to note the above users' (Sebcaen, Sigo, Bsm15, Slasher-fun, 84.99.239.104, EyOne and Sanguinez) general lack of contribution to the English Wikipedia. At worst they could be sock puppets, and at best one must assume that they have been brought from the French Wikipedia to lend weight to Poppypetty's argument. Scanning through the history of this it would seem that Poppypetty has been involved in an edit war with User:Osgoodelawyer, and most of the pertinent points have already been made, see User talk:Osgoodelawyer#"National" football teams. aLii 22:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

They have all been brought from the French WikiProject on Football. Not good style. Let the contributing members of the English Wikipedia decide how to handle this. – Elisson • Talk 22:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes we are from the french wikipédia but we are in the best position for tell you that these titles are wrong, we are french. For example: A scottish player will play in scotish national team, not in the england team (In this way, the scottish team is a national team). A guadeloupean player will play in french national team, not with Guadeloupe football team (Lilian Thuram is guadeloupean, he plays for France). We comes here just for help you, we can call it the interwikicollaboration, don't take this for bad intentions.EyOne 22:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC

Marcel Desailly is a Ghanian and Patrick Vieira is from Senegal. What is your point? aLii 23:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Marcel Dessailly come from Ghana, but he has the french nationality, please see France. Viera too. And moreover, Thierry Henry, and others come from frenchs islands. What's wrong?? Sebcaen | ☨ 09:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

His point is they only hold their dual nationalities as a result of the french overseas status of their home countries. The Senegal National Footbal team, represents the nation of senegal, and yet their players can play for france, rendering your argument, useless. Philc _T^E_C^I 10:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You are from the French Wikipedia, and that is exactly the reason why you probably are not in the best position to tell the English Wikipedia how to name articles here. Greenland players may play for Denmark, but they still have a national team, as noted in my post above. – Elisson • Talk 23:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

you CANNOT compare the status of Greenland with the french overseas departments. the french DOM-TOM are completely part of the FRANCE country, as Pas-ce-Calais or other departments / territories in France in Europe. They follows exactly the same laws (the differences are the same as between european french territories). Guadeloupe, Martinique or La Réunion DO NOT have the right to sign acts with other sovereign countries, as greenland did for example when leaving the European Union. The people in this page who say that a team of a french territory is a "national" team is wrong. And, even if you affirm it, as 2+2=5, I say you : first learn the french laws and then speak. If you don't do it, be humble and let the french people explain it to you. And the problem is not that an inhabitant feel french or not of course, it is stupid to say that because certain people does not feel french the french law does not apply... If a people does not feel french in France (France means every territories in Europe, and every Overseas territory from Saint-Pierre-Et-Miquelon to Terre-Adélie as same) he goes in anoter country and that's all. France is ONE nation with regional teams as best. To finish, I add that I dont really like the english word "territory" as it means little puzzled lands with differents rules. When I write "territory", you have to understand the french word "département" or the french word "territoire" in its juridic dimension. 194.51.20.124 15:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sectarism on wikipedia?? I can't believe your first sentence. Sebcaen | ☨ 09:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have looked at our contributions, you can see that we didn't register for the first time today, it is not a conspiracy. Moreover, the point is not to now who is in the best position to tell I don't know what ; we are not "from the French Wikipedia", here we are only humble little contributors of the English Wikipedia (with a poor English in my case, I fear :-)). The point is to know if Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana and Reunion are nations from the point of view of the FIFA. If you look at the FIFA website, you will see that Wales team has its own flag ([6]), Hong Kong has its own flag ([7]) but New Caledonia (the only French territory present in FIFA ranking) is shown with the French flag ([8]). Does it look more relevant ? --Bsm15 23:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Like others (good guys ; I know them all), I did my wikijob to help to fix a mistake. no more, no less. I didn't know that users from another langague of the encyclopedia could not give there point of vue here. This a very bad news for the wikipedia spirit... What's the next step? We have good contacts with users from others wikipedias in the sport section of the french wikipedia, and we are very happy with that. I didn't know that it was different on the english version... Last word to end : somebody said that is was more simple like that. "simple" is not the case on wikipedia ; right or wrong is. Excuse my very bad English... 04:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (Clio64 from WP.fr)

My own take on this issue is that I don't have any strong nationalistic preference one way or the other. Lets look at the current situation of naming all articles of all teams that play in national competition Exampland national football team:

Pros:

Simplifies article writing and linking
Stops us from having to make individual decisions in all the multitude of cases, and lets not kid ourselves there are a lot of teams that fall into this grey area.

Cons

Not 100% factually accurate. See England (etc.) though as a counter-point. Also, I wonder how many national teams actually bother to refer to themselves as "national" teams? My guess is less than 100%. Potentially confusing/misleading for readers.
Has the potential to cause nationalistic arguments and edit wars. Note: If we changed the names of the teams (like suggested above), this "Con" can still apply :-/

Please feel free to add your own Pros and Cons. aLii 23:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't believe that poppypetty "edit warred" with me. I noticed his edits, reverted them and explained my reasoning, he reverted once more, and I asked him if he could self-revert and discuss the issue here, which he kindly did. Anyone who read the link above to my talk page can see that I am against removing "national" from the page titles, since it is clear that including it is not an endorsement of the "nationhood" of such places, but simply an indication that the football teams play on the "national stage" (even if only against other unrecognized nations in some instances). As Elisson noted above, it is also in the interests of simplicity to keep the "national" in the title, and I support that. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppets... there is no cabal do you remember? We just come here to tell you what's the matter is. If you don't care and you finr right to assimilate Guadeloupe as a nation, it's your problem, and not ours. But it's wrong, that's all. Sebcaen | ☨ 09:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I 100% agree with Sebcaen. Another sock puppet ? --ArséniureDeGallium 09:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A question for our knowledgable French friends then: From what I have heard these representative teams only ever seem to play national team opposition in national team competitions. As this is also the case for many other famous non-national teams, which are identified as national teams, what makes these teams so different? I understand the FIFA part, but not all nations are members of FIFA are they? FIFA has 207 members, some of which are not actually nation-states. There are 243 nations in the world. This leaves us some very interesting connundrums.

Are all FIFA recognised teams "national" teams? (My opinion = yes, all national teams)
Is the team of a nation that is not a member of FIFA not a "national" team? (My opinion = no, they are national teams)
Is any representative team that plays in national team competitions effectively a "national" team? Should it be labelled as such? (my opinion = yes, effectively a national team. Not sure about label)
Should any "national" team that doesn't represent a nation officially recognised by the UN be stripped, by us, of it's "national" name on Wikipedia? One would have to include England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland of course. (My opinion = no, don't strip them)

This I fear is the crux of my issue here. Almost 100% of British people will want their national teams to be known as such. I don't care too deeply about how these French colonies are named, I merely feel that it would be easiest to have a one-rule-suits-all solution. If others have different opinions it'd be nice to hear it explained, fully addressing each of the above 4 points. aLii 10:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

when i see this [9] i don't see Guadeloupe and other teams, where are they? You'll only find Tahiti, because the federation is different and the political (tahiti is not a french department but territory). I wonder if it's not a CONCACAF specification.
It's not a national team but a selection team that quite different. Be careful when you're using words such as nation. Speciallly with french department. Corsica is not a Nation but Peoples, that's is amibugous I know.
According to me, I don't know who decided to name teams like this. On french wp we named team like this: équipe d'Ecosse de football literally: team of Scotland of football which can be translate as Scotland football team and for all country and regional selection, it's like this. More neutral.
Compare England is Guadeloupe is not a all the same thing. Guadeloupe is just a french department, ok an island but political is given by France and are under french law. England, Scotland and others have their own parlment and some specifical laws which don't exist in others parts of the United Kingdom. See Sovereignty for more. Sebcaen | ☨ 11:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Theyre not part of concacaf as others country, COuntrys are members they are associated members, guadeloupe and others are most like Isle Of Man, Falklands or Gotland (sorry for the missing accent) than Wales or Ulster. The people from these territories rather like to play for France than these team, only second class player and local player play for them. I must add than player who play for these team are still eligible for France team except if they play Gold cup. And they are not member of FIFA Maldebaran 11:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So if you play in the Gold cup, you are not allowed to play for France? Sounds like you're representing a different nation in the eyes of FIFA then. It would be interesting to know the exact details of the rule. aLii 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of counter examples to these french islands though. There's no such nation as the Faroe Islands — they are simply a collection of Danish islands — but the Faroe Islands national football team try to qualify for each world cup. The British owned islands of Jersey and Guernsey are most similar I guess in that they do not have FIFA recognised teams, and their players choose to play for England (e.g. Graeme Le Saux). However I, and most of their inhabitants (I would guess), are perfectly happy for their teams to be called Jersey national football team, etc. I think Sark is the only channel island to have a wikipedia team article, and it says "national" team. 610 people live on that island. I don't see what's so special about these French islands other than the fact that they are French. aLii 13:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What's "special" about them is that the French are vehemently against any more of their possessions being considered anything other than French through and through (and that includes, obviously, the naming of football teams). Most aren't even afforded official flags (although local unofficial flags pop up anyway). As someone above noted, even New Caledonia--which is in bloody FIFA--doesn't have a proper official flag, and so FIFA shows it with the French tricolour (interestingly, New Caledonia is the one French possession that the Frenchies are not claiming is not a nation). _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems non-sense for me who is form this island to call national team, but do what you want, I don't care. It's not about french domination, it's because we are French, as much french as anybody else ! Granting nation statuts to our island is the first step to make us second class citizen.Maldebaran 14:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (I'm from la Réunion)

You're from New Caledonia? Doesn't seem likely, since you fail to grasp the seriousness of the situation on that island. Or maybe by "because we are French" you really mean "because we white people are French"? It's pretty clear that a large portion of New Caledonians do not consider themselves to be French. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And where is the problem? A lot of corses doesn't considers themselves as french but politically they are. It's not your position to decide (or you're Jacques Chirac, sorry Mr President, indeed...), I think in two or three sentence you'll win a Godwin point. Sebcaen | ☨ 15:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, Godwin's law has never been invoked on me. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Its a football matter rather than a political issue If these entities are members of FIFA they are national teams (like England, Scotland, Faroes etc). If they are not members of FIFA they are regional teams (like Basque and Catalan teams). The political arguements should not really come into it. Dodge 15:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but even if we adopted your rules we'd still have to make exceptions. Tuvalu, Palau, Kiribati, and Vatican City are full-blown nations (the first three are in the UN, and the last could be if it wanted to) who have football teams, but are not FIFA members. They cannot possibly be considered non-national teams. FIFA does not have a monopoly on the word "nation". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I once over-heard an argument between someone from Northern Ireland and a random English person. The Northern Irishman was claiming that he was "British", whereas the argument against him stemmed from the wording The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In arguments like these there is often no neutral ground. This grey area is being called black or white, whereas it seems obviously neither. I propose that any team that is set up for the purpose of playing international matches should be deemed a national team. Indeed the above example of the Basques, see Basque Country national football team. If a team plays predominently regional games, then call it a regional team. If a team plays predominently international games, then call it a national team. aLii 16:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And when a city club plays against a national team? The fact is that's situation is possible an unofficial compétitions as are those where regional french tem can play. I think we should rename Paris SG by National team of Paris and the Isle of France, why not? OK I do too much, but you've must see how wath you say it's ridiculus! These team we talk about are from french region and are not indepedant countries, not because the France get them in ostage but because there are french!Sanguinez 18:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC) PS: sorry if my english is not so good

I used the word "predominently" (now highlighted above). Perhaps you don't understand, but it means "mainly". If for instance Guadeloupe can be shown to play mainly regional games, then I'll agree that it is a regional team. As far as I'm concerned it's mainly put together to contest international games. I know that my club team, Liverpool, have played friendlies against small national teams from time to time, but it's not what they predominently do.

Let me try to answer :

First of all, attacks about supposed sock puppets are unbearable. I am a contributor of the French and English wikipedia and I don't care of supposed sock puppets. You don't respect WP:NPA and WP:ATTACK. Attacks under the belt against other contributors are I guess due to the facts that you aren't able to come out with proper arguments.

Then, I am not talking about Greenland, Jersey, Guernsey, Faroe Islands. I never went there and I don't know those regions. So I shut my mouth and I humblely recognize that I am not able to talk about their national team. I quote User:Elisson : including for example Greenland national football team, which has about the same status as the French overseas departments. I advise you to read Greenland and Département d'outre-mer. You would learn a lot. So, I think people their should begin answering to a few questions before posting. Have you ever been to France ? Do you speak French ? Have you ever been to these islands ? Have you ever talked with someone who lives in these islands ? Have you ever talked with someone who went to these islands ? And last but not the least : Have you ever heard about these teams before this post ?!!

That said, I am sad that beyond personal attacks, nobody has been able to came out with a single link or reference mentionning Martinique national football team or something equivalent. This aspect doesn't respect wikipedia policies : WP:CITE (Citing sources), WP:NOR (No original research) and more importantly WP:V (Include only verifiable information). Basically, you're creating content which is in my opinion the most dangerous aspect of wikipedia.

I strongly disagree with the argument saying that we should do the same about all these teams and call them national teams. It's like saying that Israelians and Palestinians leave roughly at the same place so they are approximately the same. Should we include mistakes because it Simplifies article writing and linking ? I will ask for a merge of Israel and Palestine articles immediatly as it would be much simpler to have only article for the whole region. Perhaps, we should merge Denmark, Sweden and Canada because those countries are cold during winters. Let's be serious. I am sorry to say that but things aren't simple (Stops us from having to make individual decisions in all the multitude of cases) and in most cases you have to take individual decisions.

Poppypetty 21:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

aLii above made what I think is the most succinct argument for "national", which you have conveniently ignored: "I propose that any team that is set up for the purpose of playing international matches should be deemed a national team. Indeed the above example of the Basques, see Basque Country national football team. If a team plays predominently regional games, then call it a regional team. If a team plays predominently international games, then call it a national team. aLii 16:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)" Martinique plays in CONCACAF, against other nations. It does not play against mainland French departments, in some sort of "French departmental league", now does it? Doesn't that say a lot? Again, nobody is saying that Martinique is a "nation", just that it has a "national team". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 21:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My argument is quite simple. I (and by reading the policies I am obviously not the only one) think that we should never create content and you should produce some references showing the name national team (Nobody is calling them national team). As for now, it's a very evasive content. I will repeat myself but let's stop to include mistakes just to simplify our job. This is a very poor argument. You obviously play with the international word to try to show that those are national games, which doesn't hid the fact that you are not able to show a reference. Poppypetty 21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I found some links for you : [10], [11], [12]. So at least, you have decent arguments now. Poppypetty 21:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, it was a valid point about potential sock puppets. Issues like this often cause one to resort to such methods, I've seen it before and will see it again. I did not make a personal attack, there was nothing personal about it. This time I was wrong, but I only mentioned it as a possible worst case scenario. I do always find it odd when a large group of hithero unknown users suddenly appear together to argue a particular point of view — do you not?

Anyway, moving on... I'll try to play your game. Yes, I have been to France. No, I don't really speak French, but can generally make out the meaning while reading French. I haven't been to the particular islands in question, but I doubt you've been to them all either, so we're all in the same boat. Have I ever talked with one from these islands? Not to my knowledge. It is interesting that the first real article I find when I google Guadeloupe football team reads like so: "Most Guadeloupeans are usually fans of the Brazilian football team" and "in 1998, when France won the World Cup ... many Guadeloupeans both felt happy and unhappy." [13]. That doesn't look like undying love for the French motherland to me. I am not trying to claim that Guadeloupe is a nation-state. However I have not heard a single argument against the fact that Guadeloupe's football team is put together for the sole purpose of playing international games. Guadeloupe is a member of CONCAF. Therefore it is a "national team".

I will end with this. I think we should have a non-French vote on the subject (I only say non-French so that we can ensure WP:NPOV). If the vote comes down in favour of the name change I'll be perfectly happy to see the change occur, and I will add that I do actually think there's a good chance that the vote will end that way. I personally will also abstain from any voting. Does that sound acceptable? aLii 21:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

OK go with your "non-french" vote. You are the god of the universe and decreted that Guadeloupe is a nation, Martinique is a nation, and 2+2=5 (it is the same). But it is wrong, wrong, wrong. You can say all your pseudo-arguments : some people from martinique are unhappy and want to be people of brazil, or people of Mars and Pluto, but theese islands have exactly the same laws and status as the differents territorial subdivisions in France in Europe, so France is ONE nation. Even if Guadeloupe is member of a football society named CONCAF, FAFCON, NANACODA, NONOBIDULE ou TRUCMUCHE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so must keep exact. And the english-speaking people here do not rule France. So, say what ever you want, make your non-sense vote, and when you have the time, open (one time in your entire life) a book to learn about the countries in the world : when finished and come back with you new knowledge / wisdom / humility. 194.51.20.124 15:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is also noteworthy that like you say/point out google has basically no English information on this subject. We're talking one or two poor links either way. However as far as I can see there aren't really any good French links either. For example your Guadeloupe link [14] gives the team as équipe de la Guadeloupe, which unless my French is much worse than I thought, does not translate as Guadeloupe football team, but rather Guadeloupe team or more directly team of Guadeloupe. So is this really what the article should be called? Remember WP:V... Or are we actually allowed some descriptive leeway, like adding "football" or "national football" to the middle? aLii 22:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The link is from guadeloupean federation of football ..... Maldebaran 23:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I know, I'm 2 days late (and I dont speak english). Each time I see an article about this national teams from France, I think english Football Project is wrong. I won't repeat what has been ever said. In fact, I have a proposition. You could use national team for each team affiliated to FIFA. And for other, only the word team. The other are these one :

I hope you will thing about that. Jeanfi 20:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So you mean that for example Monaco, Palau and Vatican City should not have national teams, despite those countries clearly being nations? – Elisson • Talk 20:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You take 3 exemples of a list of 49 names. What about the 46 other? 45 if we except Montenegro, which will (probably) soon be a FIFA team. Jeanfi 20:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't see the problem in letting FIFA decide which teams we should refer to as "national teams" and which we should not? Sorry, if that is the case I see no point in discussing this further with you. – Elisson • Talk 22:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to make things clear to me, could you explain what is the nationalistic difference between being registered with FIFA compared to being registered with CONCACAF, CAF and OFC? They are all international football bodies that preside over tournaments for national teams. aLii 23:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this discussion got so heated. There is a very simple google search to do to understand the french side: "équipe nationale de la guadeloupe", "équipe nationale de football de la guadeloupe" return zero. Now this is the english Wikipedia and you may have different ways of naming things than we do on the french wikipedia. It just seems to the french readers very strange to see this being refered as a national team for the Guadeloupe, that's all. Both sides should welcome the cultural differences and try to be a little bit more open to suggestions, I do not think that trying to impose a new title to the english wikipedia is better than telling people to shut up. If it is difficult for the maintenance of the english wikipedia to change the titles, then why not just add a mention in the article that would clarify the fact that by national team the english denomination refers to it as a nation as an independant team or something approaching (i'm not a soccer expert)? Thanks for reading me, Fabwash 23:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

“A non-French vote on the subject”? like most of what I read so far on this page, I am astounded! Is it a Troll or is it a common policy on the English Wikipedia to exclude voters because of their nationality? Hey, there's a problem with the Peroxymonosulfuric acid page? What the heck, let's just do a non-chemist vote, after all we know better! As for matters concerning Wikipedia, should we impede all Wikipedians from giving their opinion? This reasoning about it avoiding biased point of views is twisted: I may be French of nationality (because of a stupid mistake made at the British embassy), but I spent half of my life and all of my childhood out of French-speaking countries, and I frankly couldn't care less about this subject. But are you trying to imply that nevertheless, because of my nationality my very views are biased, and that therefore I shouldn't vote? Not only doesn't the argument stand before reasoning, but I'm afraid the one who proposed this didn't even begin to grasp the concept of NPOV: it is not about representing one single neutral point of view, but to represent fairly all points of views (Cf. the very page you exhibited to make your point). <rumbling mode>And I thought bloody Frenchmen were provincial!</rumbling mode> --Sixsous 00:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should move on, and work on the resolution of this issue in a open way. The views expressed by some contributors are not the general view of english speaking members, and we should see how to make everyone come to a good solution that will fit the english wikipedia's requirements, yet reflect the fact that there is no national guadeloupean team per say. Fabwash 01:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As as french guy who contributed tens of articles on football players in this wiki:en last year, I would like to assure you that it is not a french plot, there is a real issue with the treatment of teams like Guadeloupe, Fabwash is right: calm down Dingy 02:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

ArséniureDeGallium 06:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC), another french having a general lack of contribution to the English Wikipedia.

Why do we have to have national in the title of any football team? Someone new to Wikipedia, looking for the England national football team is far more likely to type England football team than England national football team. Yorkshire Phoenix 08:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes someone overminded here! a just this: Basque Country national football team? isn't a provocation? Sebcaen | ☨ 08:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, we have article called Northern Ireland national football team but I don't know of anyone who considers Northern Ireland a nation: unionists/protestants consider themselves British and republicans/catholics consider themselves Irish! Yorkshire Phoenix 08:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that it would be quite difficult for other contributor to imagine that you have some articles with a wrong name. But it's the truth, If I were you I choose to rename all football articles (using a bot of course) in Country football team, that's shorter and gets no more problem. Sebcaen | ☨ 09:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll

~~ok, everything that could possibly be said on this subject has been said. Lets just start the vote that is obviously needed. Everyone vote please.~~ aLii 09:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Note: see comments below

Option 1

Teams are named according to whether they represent nation-states or not. Neither Guadeloupe, nor England is a nation state, and so would be named for example England football team

Option 2

All teams that are formed to play (predominently) international games, should therefore be named a "national" team. So Guadeloupe national football team would stay as it is.

~~– Elisson • Talk 12:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)~~

Robotforaday 17:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Philc _T^E_C^I 10:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Poulsen 10:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
—Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 14:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Option 3

A special case is made for French regional teams, where by their articles are renamed to remove the word "national". No other articles are affected.

Option 4

A special case is made for FIFA teams. Non nation-state teams, for instance England and the Faroe Isles, keep the word "national". All other non-nation-state teams have it removed.

Option 5

A special case is made for all teams that are members of any major international body, e.g. FIFA, UEFA, CONCACAF, CAF, etc.. None nation-state teams, for instance England and Guadeloupe, keep the word "national". All other non-nation-state teams have it removed, e.g. Wallis and Futuna football team and Basque Country football team.

Option 6

Remove the word "national" from all "national football team" articles.

Yorkshire Phoenix 09:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
DJDannyP//Talk2Me 10:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Sebcaen | ☨ 11:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Chaps the idol 11:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Maldebaran 12:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Jedaaii 13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Jeanfi 14:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Slasher-fun 20:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
VIGNERON 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Clio64B 01:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Poppypetty 12:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Option 7

Add the word "national" in all "football team" articles for state/land/departemnt and... like Texas men's national soccer team, Floride men's national soccer team, Alaska men's national soccer team,..., United States men's national soccer team. (same idea as France with Caledonia, Corsica and ...) :) .

EDUCA33E 21:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Option 8

polls are evil

Oldelpaso 22:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
--Guinnog 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
aLii 22:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC) (read it before, but worth reading again)
Alias Flood 00:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I don't really know what I should say about votes cast by users that have either had very few contributions to the English Wikipedia, or users whose main contributions to the English Wikipedia are interwiki links. IMHO, such votes should be disregarded, just as such votes are disregarded in AfDs and RfAs. – Elisson • Talk 12:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I was going to vote but have instead decided to Abstain as a means of registering my objection to how this vote's been handled: aLii has POV-pushed by including an argument for Option 6 while not doing the same for any of the other options. Qwghlm 12:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is true. I had thought about removing the final sentence, but 5 people had already voted. Perhaps this should all be started again? I have been abstaining from voting, but mainly because I am uncertain as to how I actually want to vote. aLii 13:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- note: I just removed the offending sentence. aLii 14:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  - Votes have already been cast, alas. It's usually a good idea to have someone from outside the discussion running & wording votes such as these. As it is, discussion has got quite heated here and started to shoot off on tangents. I would recommend waiting a couple of weeks - this is hardly a matter of life and death - so everyone can cool off and refocus, then run a second vote, run by a neutral member of the Wikiproject. Qwghlm 14:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Following Qwghlm, Abstain, not primarily because of the "argument on option 6"-thing, but because I can really not see why we should vote on this. No-one saw a problem until a dozen of French Wikipedians that very seldom contribute to the English Wikipedia decided that something should be done. Let the English Wikipedia contributors handle the English Wikipedia and the French Wikipedia contributors can handle theirs. – Elisson • Talk 12:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
^^ Seems to me exactly at the opposite of the Wikipedian principe of contributing encyclopedia. Maldebaran 13:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I always thought ... national football team looked daft, it wasn't being discussed until now. Yorkshire Phoenix 13:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's vote english contributors for see, but despite this, national, in my view, isn't fundamental in articles title. So What do you mean by a few contributions? What's the number of contribution you want? If the problem will be the same on wiki fr: you 'll let articles names like that? Sebcaen | ☨ 13:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- National is fundamental, IMO, to tell the reader that this is a team that represents a nation (independent or dependent), and not just a team team from that country/nation/region/whatever, but the team from that country/nation/region/whatever. Few contributions? Well, look at User:Chaps the idol (6 edits in total, 2 this month), User:Maldebaran (12 edits in total, 7 to this discussion) or User:Jedaaii (5 edits in total, 1 this month), not to talk about you, having close to zero edits if you discount modifying interwiki links. That is what I call few contributions, and that is what I call votes that should not be counted (and would probably not have been counted in an AfD either). If you have a problem over at fr:, I would let the contributors to fr: handle it, I would not gather people here and send them to fr: to make changes. – Elisson • Talk 13:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  - And you know what? I won't increase my edit score while a long time. One who said me I'm a racist because I'm white ... I hate this mentality. Make as you want, it wasn't to bear you we do that, just to set the truth... Sebcaen | ☨ 14:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  - We don't need "national" in the title to show that a player is playing for the national team, we have the definite article for that, ie "Thierry Henry regularly plays for the French team" vs. "Thierry Henry regulary plays for a French team". And that's ignoring the fact that "France team" or just "France" would be more common than "French team". I'd be interested to see if there's a single plausible example of a time when omitting "national" from the article title could lead to confusion. --Daduzi ^talk 22:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    - Adding "national" when discussing Henry's participation with the French national team certainly gives a reader, who is unfamiliar with football, a fair bit more information. I could be reading his biography; Arsenal this, Arsenal that, the French team... maybe Arsenal are the French team? Adding "national" would certainly help avoid potential confusion. aLii 23:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      - Well, possibly, but I'd wager that if the article was written in a way that the distinction between club and country was unclear then that's a problem with the article rather than the name of a separate article. And there is, of course, nothing stopping editors from adding "national" to the link, via a pipe, if they want to make the distinction clear. The fact that in the vast, vast number of links to national team articles the national is omitted in the text (the typical format being [[France national football team|France]]) should tell us something. I suspect we'd be hard pressed to find a single example of a link to a national football team article that includes the word "national" in the displated text. --Daduzi ^talk 23:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I for one knew how I was going to vote before I read all the option, never mind the supporting sentences (in fact I was going to add option 6 but aLii beat me to it. Yorkshire Phoenix 14:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
To answer Elisson, you speak of a team that represents a nation (independent or dependent). He you have time, you may read that : http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2002/2001454/saisine1.pdf. It's the verdict of the Conseil Constitutionnel about the Corsica law. To sum up, it says that the nation of Corsica does exist, and that the Corsican people is French, and under law of France. So, in France, there is no dependent nation. Jeanfi 14:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- The law says that the nation of Corsica exists. And then there is no nation? How does that work? And still, neither FIFA, nor the French Constitutional Council have any right whatsoever to decide what we should call our articles on Wikipedia. If there would be a Corsica team playing predominantly international matches, I'd call that a Corsica national football team, no matter what the Council says. – Elisson • Talk 15:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  - You 'll be a very good despote... Ok I see we can talk with you, your titles are corrupt, you don't respect you're own namming rules, and after all, it's like you want. No more english wikipedia for me. That's a stupid comportement. Sebcaen | ☨ 07:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Now I've had a while to think about it, it seems that my annoyance at the above circular arguments spilled over into the writing of the poll. The poll as it now stands, does at least show the multitude of problematic scenarios. Perhaps before this poll was started we should first have asked: Should we write down a naming convention for international football teams? Then if the concensus was Yes, we could ask: Should the current convention be changed? The above poll could then be reworded and come later if needed. Also I'm thinking that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies is the place to take naming convention discussions, if and when it gets to that. aLii 15:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm French and although I think there shouldn't be any restriction for discussion on this subject, I agree that it seems a bit odd to allow people with so few contributions on the english wikipedia (including myself) to vote. I would call for my collegues to abstain, and if the vote doesn't go to their liking today, then fine, wikipedia can change later if needed. Fabwash 15:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The status quo is fine for now, and the discussion has got heated. Let's come back in a week or two, can we? --Guinnog 22:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I really enjoy this : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bougainville_national_football_team&diff=prev&oldid=70992781. Can you, OzLawyer explain the reasons of your vote. I think, maybe I'm wrong, but I think you don't consider French overseas and Bougainville in an identic way. I say that especialy because of the words : obscure "national" football teams. Jeanfi 23:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The "national" was simply to state that I understand that these are not nations (but are national teams). I do not consider the French overseas departments differently. As for the delete vote, if Bougainville had a real team that played internationals I would have voted to keep, it seems that they do not, however. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This debate has become much too heated and personal to consider this matter objectively. What needs to be decided is not that which is best or correct for any side or viewpoint from us, the editors, but that which is best for the reader; the real end user of Wikipedia. This will be difficult within the present climate of this discussion. There is no hurry and things that are rushed often go wrong. I recommend that all sides take a break from this matter and this debate until they know that they can revisit these issues for the greater good of Wikipedia and its raison d'etre. -- Alias Flood 00:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

is not that which is best or correct for any side or viewpoint from us, the editors, but that which is best for the reader that's what i've been trying to say thank you :D Fabwash 03:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on voting:
- Not all interested parties are watching this project page. If there is to be a mass renaming, it probably needs discussing/announcing at Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Requested moves, and a Template:Move on the talk pages of relevant articles. (Which articles are relevant depends on the proposed change!)
- Some users are worried about masses of meatpuppets from the French wikipedia rushing over to stuff the ballots. Wikipedia debates/votes are not (necessarily) decided by plurality.
- Banning users from voting based on nationality is abhorrent. Banning one POV is not the way to promote NPOV. jnestorius^(talk) 00:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Banning votes based on nationalitly is abhorrent I concur. However I do not see why french contributors that have no or very few contributions on the english wikipedia would have the right to vote. I'm not an admin on the french wikipedia but I believe that if users from the english wikipedia were to vote with less than 50 or 100 contributions depending on the vote they would be ignored. Once again i'm French, and I wouldn't even think about voting on the english wikipedia about this issue, but I think people have used their right of discussion and this is a good thing. I've also noticed a lot of translation/english speaking problems during this discussion (including mine) which may be taken the wrong way by english contributors. You have to take that into account too. Fabwash 03:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm suggesting you can give more weight to the votes of longer-established users, and less weight to those of newer or less respected users, without resorting to a crude all-or-nothing system of ignoring some and treating the rest equally regardless of the merit of their arguments. Basically a variant of "Voting is evil": "crude voting is evil". jnestorius^(talk) 06:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Topically, the BBC are today reporting that Gibraltar wants to be admitted into UEFA [15]. aLii 17:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Players on loan and their templates

Hey, a while ago, there was a request for templates for all squad listings for every team in the Premiership, Championship and beyond. I've just encountered an edit where a player (Mark Noble, who is registered with a squad number for West Ham United F.C. has just signed on loan for Ipswich Town F.C.. He is officially registered as a player for both clubs under two different squad numbers. My question is, should both team templates (i.e. WHUFC and ITFC) remain on his page or just ITFC, as the editor proposed? I understand that he's now an ITFC player, but if you were on another WHUFC player's page and clicked on Noble from the template, they'd be no WHUFC squad template to continue to browse with.

So, I just wondered if there was a general policy for this kind of thing, and if not, perhaps there should be. I'd be interested in hearing your views... Budgiekiller 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As he is only available to play for Ipswich, I think the Ipswich template only should be used and he should not be in the West Ham template at all; I believe this is normal practice across WP (although it is not written down anywhere). In actual fact, he probably does not have a West Ham United number any more, technically - I remember Francis Jeffers being given the Arsenal No. 9 shirt at the start of 2003-04 but he then went on loan to Everton, allowing José Antonio Reyes to become the new No. 9 when he joined Arsenal midway through the season. Qwghlm 20:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you there Qwghlm. -- MATTYTHEWHITE yap stalk 20/8/06

Thanks for the discussion, but in this particular case, is Mark Noble still registered with West Ham under shirt number 24? If so, he should still be in the template, particularly as new players (i.e. new buys, new loans) without registered squad numbers still regularly appear in these templates. There should be a consistent policy for this since it happens so regularly. Budgiekiller 20:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Two other things, (one) he's not ineligible to play for WHUFC as he can be recalled anytime (from September onwards, and recalls in short notice are a regular feature of loan signings) and (two) have WHUFC de-registered his squad number? Budgiekiller 20:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

West Ham would have to recall him to their squad for him to be in their squad. Although technically a Hammer, he's only available for selection by Ipswich, until he's recalled or his loan period ends. Therefore I would only keep him in the ITFC squad. Slumgum T. C. 23:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Level 10 notability debates on AfD

Moved from /Notability since Balerion responded here instead: I just put a bunch of Level 12 teams up for AfD, following the criteria here. Now, while I understand that some of those I put up for AfD will have claims to notability that sometimes only come up during the AfD debates themselves, and they should perhaps be kept for such claims, there seems to be a lot of opposition in general. Seems like people are pushing for "special circumstances" which put pretty much every team and league at Level 11 into the notability category, and a good number of Level 12 teams as well (and who knows where it might stretch to after that). Honestly, I don't care what the level of notability finally is decided to be, but it needs to be hammered out some more to be a little more consistent.

The four AfDs:

_└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

One question I've been thinking about with regards to notability is the status of relegated clubs. Murton F.C., one of the clubs up for deletion, is current a level-12 club after 2 relegations in 3 years. However, prior to that period, the club played as high as the Northern League Division One (level 8 at the time) and had a few extended runs into the FA Vase. Are we just deleting every club that drops down? While a few of the clubs listed have never played at an inherently notable level according to current policy, many have in the recent past - Wareham Rangers, Middle Barton, Old Chelmsfordians, Tuffley Rovers, Lydd Town, Sheppey United, and Murton. In fact, the only reason why they have articles is because they were created within the last few years when those clubs played at a level currently defined as "notable" (with the exception of Sheppey United, who dropped down 5-6 years ago, but they have a more illustrious past, with two stints in the Southern Football League). In general I'd like to err on the side of caution when it comes to mass deletions of club articles. --Balerion 19:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Balerion has raised a good point: it may not be that good an idea after all to determine a club's notability based on the league it plays in, because this may change rapidly over time.

It appears from the recent notability guidelines as in WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and WP:SOFTWARE that there's a trend of moving away from determining notability on domain-specific grounds (eg number of records published, number of users &c.) to more generic and primary ground, namely being mentioned in multiple non-trivial published works. This, I would suggest, is a good trend to follow because this re-affirms the fact that WP:N is but a concept to re-inforce the actual policies in place here, ie WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. It may follow from such guideline that clubs of various levels may then fall within notability, but that would only be re-affirming the policies in place here and the vision that wikipedia is not paper nor a descriminate repository of information. --Pkchan 04:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

But that would probably raise the bar, and make it more haphazard: Coverage of football below level 5 in the mainstream media is very low, and only sides lucky enough to have had a recent FA Cup run will be reported in multiple non-trivial works. Meanwhile popularity, i.e. attendances, is too variable - there are plenty of good sides from small towns and bad ones from large ones. Also, I think the problem is not as bad as it's made out - only very few clubs rise or drop down more than one division in a short period of time.

I think there's a bit of confusion about how the top 10 levels rule is applied - it is not an exclusive rule, i.e. that clubs outside of the top 10 levels are automatically unnotable. Rather it is about inherent notability, which still leaves open the option that a club can claim notability through other means. In the above case Sheppey United are definitely notable thanks to past achievements (as are South Liverpool, another AfD'd article). But the majority of level 11 or 12 clubs have never been above that level and should be deleted. Perhaps in future, it would be a better idea to (a) use {{prod}} at first as I think many would be uncontested, and (b) do AfDs on a club-by-club basis so that each one can be judged on its own merits, using the levels 1-10 rule as a basis. Qwghlm 07:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do club-by-club, but people accused me of spamming the AfD board. I think I'm going to leave AfDs of FCs to someone else entirely. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I may be missing something here... but why is there a need to delete these articles? Yes, there a lot of club articles in the lower levels that are little more than stubs, but every article has to start somewhere. Tompw 13:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Because we need to draw a line somewhere. We (most of us, at least) do not want to see Wikipedia flooded by amateur teams that noone outside that team ever has heard of, and we decided that the place to draw the line was at level 10. – Elisson • Talk 13:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Then lets just have a list of those deemed not to deserve an article, with a brief description or something.--Tiresais 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You propose we should have lists of everything deemed not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? – Elisson • Talk 16:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I propose we should have a list of the teams in their respective divisions if people want them. --Tiresais 10:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

FA Premier League cruft

There's a lot of pages to do with the FA Premier League springing up recently - pages dedicated to detailed statistics, such as...

FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers
FA Premier League 2005-06 goalscorers

And month-by-month fixtures:

FA Premier League Results- August 2006

Also, results pages for September and October have been created but then speedily deleted as copyvios, but I bet they will be recreated when the time comes. I think these detailed pages are unencyclopaedic, probably contravene WP:NOT a news service, and are a waste of wiki and editors' time in maintaining it, especially when dedicated stats sites such as Soccerbase are already out there. What do others think? Qwghlm 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, let's get rid of them. HornetMike 22:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Monthly results seem a bit over the top. I think a record of goalscorer's is ok, but those pages have far too much detail. I don't see any good reason to expand it past the current FA Premier League 2005-06#Top goal scorers type articles. So I guess I agree, delete them. Unneeded. aLii 23:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not appear to be limited to Premier League articles, I just came across La Liga season 2006/2007. Oldelpaso 11:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these pages are unencyclopaedic and should be deleted. - Pal 13:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Pages like La Liga season 2006/2007 are completely acceptable in my opinion, there are corresponding articles about almost every other league anyway, Scottish Premier League 2006-07, for example. It's pages like FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers and FA Premier League Results- August 2006 that are excessive. Most of the information is already included in FA Premier League 2006-07 anyway! Kanaye 14:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, its not having a La Liga season 2006/2007 article I object to, but using that article for current events in a manner more suited to Wikinews. Oldelpaso 19:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, get rid of the month-by-month articles but keep the season articles. See also Fußball-Bundesliga - August 2006, Jupiler League results July 2006, August 2006, September 2006. Punkmorten 21:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

...and Jupiler League 2006-07 goalscorers, which I just created. Had no idea that more information could be bad :S Anwyay, if all these pages are to be deleted, then please hurry with it, since the 'virus' is spreading fast. See: Corgoň Liga Results - July 2006, August 2006, September 2006, October 2006, Danish Superliga Results - July 2006, August 2006, September 2006, Ligue 1 results August 2006, Serie A 2006-07/September and Serie A 2006-07/May. --Pelotas^talk 14:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Old Champions League/UEFA Cup templates

I notice that the ones for last season are still hanging around and there might be some more now. Seeing as they're completely obsolete, shall we get rid of them? HornetMike 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like they can go to me. Have you got an example though? Cheers, aLii 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. This and this. HornetMike 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest subst and delete. Punkmorten 15:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Most likely elevens

Can we please, please get rid of these things? They're popping up a fair bit and are complete un-enyclopedic. "Most likely" is a hugely ambigous phrase. How do we know what Watford's first choice eleven will be? This one appeared on Watford's page today and it has Bouazza on the left. He's come into the team and done well but I doubt he'll be our first choice left winger this year. But then again, maybe he might. We're not a prediction service.

Some are based on most appearances last year, but then again those players might have played in a variety of positions. Some might not actually have played together at all and so forth. You get my point, I think. HornetMike 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Foster

Demerit

Shittu

Powell

Doyley

Francis

Bouazza

Mahon (c)

Young

Henderson

King

Aidy Boothroyd's most likely starting XI for the 2006/2007 Premiership campaign.

If one turned up on the Liverpool F.C. page I'd delete it. Can't say I watch every team, but yeah it's totally against WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I'd remove them without discussion to be honest. aLii 23:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed a "likely starting eleven" more than once for both domestic leagues and national games. I would like to see them removed. They are WP:POV and they fall foul of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Alias Flood 00:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree these have no place in general articles. Can only be of use for single game articles ( or for use on User pages like me. Delete any on club or national team articles Dodge 03:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's easily a violation of WP:NPOV. The coach picks the team, not Wikipedia. All instances of it should be wiped. Qwghlm 07:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we support the ones that are claiming to be the most commonly used line up from the most recent season? Or ones like FC Barcelonas has one of the champions league winning side, do these deserve places on the article? Or ones like rangers claiming to be the "05/06 season lineup" whatever that entails... Philc _T^E_C^I 18:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think any of them should be on club/national team articles Dodge 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Transfer Sections

I deleted the transfer section on Rangers and Celtic, because we're not a news service and all the information there is freely available on loads of different sights. Just checking the consensus. I know someone reverted the Rangers one and I don't want to go back and start a potential edit war without knowing I'm in the right! HornetMike 10:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I recently deleted the Liverpool one, taking inspiration from the Arsenal article, where it was replaced by the sentence: "For recent transfers, see the "Transfer Deals" section of 2006-07 in English football." aLii 15:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, if you want to remove it from the articles there should be another place where it is organised by club. It is not nice to have to sift through hundreds of transfers to find one. Contrary to the statement about us not being a news service, this doesn't mean we may not include news in our articles, not the "in the news section" on the main page. I think they should remain unless they are organised in a sensible way, that duplicates the information somewhere else. Philc _T^E_C^I 15:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:NOT a news service means just that - you shouldn't be including news for news' sake. If you're going to include 2006-07 transfers, then why not include 2005-06, or 2004-05, or 1904-05 as well? Articles about clubs are meant to be about the club as a whole, not what happened in the last few days. If you want to be a wiki journalist then go join Wikinews. Qwghlm 16:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dont be a sarcy twat just because 100% of opinion isnt in your favour. The Wiki is not a news service rule is to avoid first hand reports of breking stories, as wikipedia recquires citation and verfiability for its facts, it is not a ban on the inclusion of recent news into articles. Maybe You should read policy before quoting it. It is quite obvious why they should be included, because the transfer market is an on-going event, and the squad is subject to heavy change during this time. And it makes it a lot easier to keep track of the squad and transfers. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down, and please refrain from making personal attacks. There is no misuse of policy in Qwghlm's statement, club articles are Team F.C., not Team F.C. in the last season or two, and sections which create a bias towards recent events should be avoided. Transfer news is just the sort of thing which falls under the remit of Wikinews. Oldelpaso 17:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was reffering more to the fact that he quoted WP:NOT a news service, which if he had read is compltely irrelavent to this case. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure he has read it, and I'm sure he understands it. My impression is that you are looking at a particular interpretation of the policy, and Qwghlm is looking at the spirit of it. Here I agree with Qwghlm, as a particular technical interpretation of a policy should not be put above the principle expressed by the policy. Oldelpaso 19:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it was done on the pages above but I quite like the way its done on certain pages, like the FC Barcelona page Dodge 18:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

More or less the same as that. Oldelpaso 19:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It was in the same style on both the Liverpool and Arsenal articles. My personal wish is to get the Liverpool article up to Featured Article standard, which frowns upon lists of any kind. Firstly the list of notable players went, then other lists were turned into prose, the Reserve squad was removed, and lastly I started a discussion about transfers being removed. There was one dissenting voice wanting to keep the "transfers out", but everyone agreed that "transfers in" was a bit pointless. When I realised that all the summer's transfers were kept up-to-date on the seasons pages I just removed them both. There is perhaps an argument for a team specific Transfers article, that details notable transfer history at a club, but it certainly shouldn't be kept in the main article. aLii 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I remove transfer and other "news" sections at sight on the Swedish club articles, for the reasons given above. – Elisson • Talk 19:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct pronunciations?

Various articles that I edit sometimes get "helpful" pronunciation advice added; mostly Xabi Alonso and Dirk Kuyt. This is useful information for the average English-speaking reader, and so probably does merit inclusion in the articles, however I am unsure as to how it should/could fit in. I always therefore remove said helpful advice. Does anyone have any opinions on whether this information should stay? Is there a Wikipedia policy that I don't know about? (likely). cheers, aLii 00:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) recommends International Phonetic Alphabet. Check out the Talk page for huge opposition to this. jnestorius^(talk) 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Usbob FC squad

This template must be a joke. First of all, there is no article for a club called "Usbob FC", and the names are completely taking the piss. It should be taken out of the Scottish football squad templates category. -- MATTYTHEWHITE yap stalk 28/8/06

It should also be deleted and userfied for the user pages it's currently on (Martin Le Roy and Marky 1987). Usbob also needs deleting. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 23:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted it from Category:Scottish football squad templates. -- MATTYTHEWHITE yap stalk 29/8/06

UEFA stadium templates

The nav templates for UEFA 4- and 5-star stadiums do not seem to tally with the lists that I could find online - there are a few too many in the Wikipedia version. But I'm not sure how up-to-date the links I found were. If anyone could help me find a correct and accurate reference as to what stadiums are on the list, I'd be most grateful - please see the discussion at Template talk:UEFA4Star and Template talk:UEFA5Star. Thanks. Qwghlm 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-FIFA national football teams

Looking at the {{Non-FIFA teams}} template, I see that some of the articles linked there are about teams where there is basically no information in the article (like who, if anyone, the team has played against). The particular articles I have in mind are:

Can anyone add any verifiable information to these articles? Or should they be submitted for deletion? --Metropolitan90 07:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kurdistan, at least, attended the non-Fifa New Federation Board meeting in June, and should play at the VIVA World Cup in Cyprus in November Superlinus 17:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Football squad2 start

I've proposed a new format that includes hide for the {{Football squad2 start}}. Please see its talk page. Mariano(t/c) 11:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Football Assessment Department

I have noticed that many of the larger WikiProjects have started up Assessment departments, focuses on assessing the quality of the project's articles, to identify important articles needing work, and articles that already are of good quality. In the end the assessment may also play a role in the WP:1.0 program.

I think I have read enough to start up such a department for football related articles, but first I would like to see if there is any interrest in such a thing. Starting it up and then having very few to none of our members regularly tagging or assessing articles would be a waste of time and resources. So, is there any interrest? – Elisson • Talk 15:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that most players are being assessed by WikiProject Biography, and as such wouldn't need to be included. Just out of interest has anyone stumbled across a player that has been rated higher than B-class, other than the obvious Denis Law article? aLii 16:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at a few biographies, many of them seem to have several "assessment templates" on the talk page, so I think players should still be included, but it of course makes our job easier if another WikiProject already has assessed the player article. – Elisson • Talk 16:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

David Beckham is a GA article, but I haven't seen any A-class footballers. Poulsen 16:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Marc Pugh is a GA (and a great counterpoint to those who think journeyman players can't have decent artices). Bobby Charlton is a failed GA which would be A-class with a few more references and a copyedit. I think identifying important articles needing work, or those that could be A-Class with a small amount of work has more merit than general assessment. Several European Footballer of the Year winners only have stubs. Oldelpaso 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well there seems to be some interrest in having an assessment department, so I'll start one and we'll see if it will sink or swim... – Elisson • Talk 19:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Started here. – Elisson • Talk 20:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a bot should be programmed to mark every article in the subcats of Category:Football (soccer) players by country and Category:Football (soccer) clubs? Poulsen 21:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am currently reading through the guidelines on WP:BOT and will file a request for a bot to do the task. Great minds think alike! – Elisson • Talk 21:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There must be some kind of bug in the automatically generated list pages. Category:Unassessed football articles doesn't show Liverpool F.C., which is not yet rated. It does however show Liverpool F.C. Reserves! I think such problems should be rectified before sending a bot to mark all football related articles. aLii 21:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a bug in the list, but a bug in Wikipedia. The article hasn't been added to the category since the talk page has not yet been edited since I implemented the assessment system in the already existing {{Football}}. This will fix itself as soon as someone edits the talk page. – Elisson • Talk 21:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Tidying the football positions articles

sigh... I've put up with the constant huge flux in the Football (soccer) positions article for long enough. When writing footballer biographies it is very useful to wikilink these articles, but when people keep on rewriting the section titles it breaks all the links. The links are constantly broken. A very quick scan of the various articles gives me this list:

I assume there are more though. It would be nice if all the articles could be named similarly. I guess, sadly, that (soccer) might be the most useful, espcially seeing as that is how the main article is named. I also think that the sub-sections of each article need to be named in an agreed way. For example:

These article names and section names need to be agreed upon so that we stop this stupid cycle of breaking the links every few weeks, and to get a system of article names that will stand the test of time, where no-one argues that the word midfield should actually point to something other than just a football (soccer) article — surely that's going to happen sometime soon? So I guess I have a few questions that I want everyone to think about:

Should there be only a Football (soccer) positions article, or are the sub-articles needed?
Should the sub-articles be renamed?
Do you agree that we should decide upon section names for these articles?

aLii 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes there should be separate articles, as each I consider each role separate and different enough. The sub-articles are fine as they are, the parent article needs to be shortened into a concise summary of the daughter articles, so there are no more than one or two paragraphs per position, to avoid unnecessary duplication.

As for subsections - I personally dislike wikilinking to subsections of a page anyway, for the very reason that they can be so easily changed at will. I would just not bother - wikilinks should just be e.g. [[defender (football)|right back]]. Anyone clicking on the link can probably find the relevant subsection without too much trouble - the pages are not that long. Qwghlm 07:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Renaming Italian teams

Just wondering about the renaming of a few Italian football clubs that have articles on wiki. First is Piacenza F.C., which should be Piacenza Calcio. Also, is there some kind of rule/guideline for which clubs have the years in them? Bologna is named Bologna F.C. 1909, while Modena F.C. does not have the 1912 in it. There are a few more examples where the year the club was founded is in the full name of the club, but not used as the article name. Is it worth renaming any of these? Bigdottawa 05:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We could decide whether to include the dates or not then rename for consistency. While we're at it we could lose those clumsy dots after F and C! Yorkshire Phoenix

07:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If the dates are in the official name of the club, then they should be included. Clubs that don't have dates in their name should not have their formation year included just for consistency. The consistency should be adhering to official names, surely? Similarly, if they use calcio instead of football, that, too, should be amended. Superlinus 08:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead with the move of Piacenza F.C. to Piacenza Calcio for now. Bigdottawa 14:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant: consistency with the official names (and no full stops). Yorkshire Phoenix

08:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Image Help

Bit new to this, but I've uploaded an image for the VIVA World Cup and I'm not sure how to properly include the copyright info. I thought I'd cracked it, but the OrphanBot is on my case. Damn you, OrphanBot! Any help? Superlinus 08:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Added an appropriate tag, should be sorted now. Qwghlm 08:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! Superlinus 09:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

New Category; Football League of Ireland players

Just created Category:Football League of Ireland players Its similar to the FA Premier League or La Liga categories. Grateful if you could help populate it as you come across players who have played league football in the Republic Of Ireland. Any doubts/queries, don't hesitate to contact me Dodge 02:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger - CL Group stage results

Discussion can be found here. Controversy exists on whether to continue displaying results on the main page. Feedback is welcome. - Pal 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Formations VOTE

I have spent some time removing formations from Chelsea F.C., Middlesbrough F.C., A.C. Milan, Real Madrid and FC Barcelona. I have also noticed a most likely elevens post on here.

Chelsea was a trouble as a mini-edit war started with the person who put it up. He said I was the only one to have a problem with it. This being the case I wanted to have a vote about formations so if it happens again I can link to it here which should help solve disputes. Please Agree or Disagree adding any relevant points...

Formations should not be included in Wikipedia football club articles as they are non-factual and therefore not encyclopedic. Formations change every game so creating them is pure guess work so they have no place in Wikipedia. Exceptions are greatest ever teams but only when referenced (ones voted for by supporters)

Agree As per above SenorKristobbal 22:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree as per WP:NOT a football manager. It does not pick the teams and it does not decide on 'best' tactics including formations. Robotforaday 14:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:VIE I agree that these formations should not be included, but this poll is not a binding way of deciding they are not allowed. Surely just including the fact they are violations of various wiki policies on the template articles, should be sufficient. Philc _T^E_C^I 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Wait - there are two separate types of such formations. One is formations of the "X's most likely formation 2006-07" or "Y's best team during 2005-06" - which breach WP:NOT a crystal ball and WP:NPOV/WP:V respectively and should be deleted. But, you could also have "A's Champions League final-winning side" or even "B's most frequent lineup during 2005-06". If such formations can be cited with suitable references to the statistical record, then I have no problem with them.

In my view, there is no need for a new rule or a vote - there is already an existing and well-defined policy on not including speculative, subjective or unverifiable information. Anything that does not qualify under that rule can and should be deleted. Qwghlm 23:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally feel that even "Champions League winning" formation diagrams should not be on a club's main page. If the game was that notable it should have it's own article written, and within that is where they should go. aLii 00:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if the club is a very successful one (which final would you choose?) But I don't see why not, if it was a club's only ever major trophy or if it is widely accepted that it was the club's most successful season. Perhaps in most larger club articles it would be better in the relevant "History of..." article, though. Qwghlm 08:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a discussion with Poulsen re:this (sorry I didn't reply to you, by the way). I removed the "most common line-up 2005/06" picture on Brondy's page. I said POV as the reason, which is probably the wrong phrase. The way I see it, these are somewhat deceptive. Whilst you can base them on appearances, the line-up shown might not actually have appeared on the pitch for Bronby more than a dozen times. Furthermore, the page is about the team as a whole, not the team last year. If you're going to have one picture you might justify having pictures for every time Bronby (or whoever) have been in existence. HornetMike 21:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a small correction - Brøndby IF's most common lineup is taken from the Double winning 2004-05 season, which is the last time the club won a title, so it has a small relevance when placed in the achivements section. I can see your point that it seems a little arbitrary and might not represent who actually played on the pitch together. I'll do some research as to their starting line-ups in individual games and respond here a little later. Poulsen 07:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As you suspected, the lineup wasn't exactly what it purported to be. It only started in 6 games, while all players were present at the same match a further 12 times. So in all, 18 of 33 matches had all players present, which doesn't sound like a "starting line-up" at all. I've changed the descrpitions to reflect what information the image actually gives. But I still think that an image of the team of their last trophy winning season has some merrit in the achievements section. Poulsen 05:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice one. With that caption I don't have any problem with it. HornetMike 13:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Foreign players

What about creatin' Lists of foreign players for the most important European domestic leagues (e.g.: Serie A, La Liga, FA Premier League, Ligue 1) like the List of foreign MLS players? I think it would be useful, and I would collaborate for the Serie A part of the "project". Let me know what you think. I think it isn't hard as it seems. --necronudist 16:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a big fan of list articles in general. Would you try for a list of foreigners who've played in those leagues all time, like the MLS one? Wouldn't some of them be way to long? --Bigdottawa 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of lists either, and I can't see the importance to have this kind of list. – Elisson • Talk 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In the top European leagues, foreign players make up such a large proportion of players that a list is likely to become unmanagable, as it will include thousands of players. Oldelpaso 09:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've started to fill in the Serie A foreigner, if nobody is interested I will judge this idea definitively dead. --necronudist 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes guys, you are right. But: first of all, there are lists longer than this could be, and however lenght isn't a good reason to be against a list, I think (I don't know the thousands of Wikipedia policies about how you piss and how you must properly eat...). Second: foreign players are a very important portion of the quality of top european leagues. Without'em championships will be poorer: Serie A was considered the best league in the world when foreign players where more or less at the top ever. And now La Liga has even more foreign players than Serie A and is considered even better than Serie A (Aimar, Riquelme, Saviola, Ronaldinho, Rafa Marquez etc... all players than 10 years ago would have been acquired by italian teams; and now Aguero or Zigic go to Spain, and we manage to resume from the grave Ronaldo... is casual that Barcelona won the Champions League, and the runner-up Arsenal has a squad almost totally foreigner?), you can agree or not on this list, but you must consider the importance of foreign players in european top leagues. Then, we can talk. --necronudist 10:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The points you make are interesting and valid, but are not necessarily obvious from a list. I think there would be scope for an article called Globalisation of football (soccer) or something of that nature. The subject is probably a little to specific for History of football (soccer) (though could be mentioned there), but other than a mention in the Players section of FA Premier League, I don't think it is mentioned anywhere else. Oldelpaso 10:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of an article on Globalisation of football (soccer), but it'd require contribution by the whole project. That could be arranged couldn't it?--Tiresais 11:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how many players will need to go onto a comprehensive Italian list?! The reason that it can be done relatively easily for the MLS league is that it's such a young league, and there is a relatively low percentage of foreign players. A quick "back-of-the-envelope" calculation (20 teams x ~10 foreign players each) gives a total of around 200 foreign players currently in the EPL, nevermind historically. I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with the idea, I just don't see as being easily achieved or easily kept up-to-date. aLii 11:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if foreign players are an integral part of leagues, it doesnt mean you have to list them, I cant see that this list would have any redeeming value. And I personally do think it is coincedence that these succesful teams have a lot of foreign players, as they were bought because they were good, not because they were foreign. Since the nationality of a player has absolutely no meaning within the sport, it is pointless to try and make one. Should we have a list of Professional Footballers with dark hair? because a lot of the greats had dark hair, and by your logic, people with dark hair are therefore integral to football. Philc _T^E_C^I 11:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Philc, you are demonstrating yourself more stupid than aLii... cheers! However, I appreciate your idea Oldelpaso, it could be done. P.S.: my list of foreign Serie A/B/C players updated to 1997-98 counts 1495 entries, limited to the Serie A it could be of about 1000. I'm not saying they aren't many (too many maybe), but simply that, seen the historical importance of foreign players in the development of a domestic league and the increment of "competitivness" (what a bad bad english!) of minor national football teams (another important aspect), we could think about a listing-project like that. Or maybe the Oldelpaso's idea... However, we can't ignore this phenomenon --necronudist 12:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC) (sorry for my english...really!)

You certainly managed to further you own demise in this project of yours, by personally attacking several members of the wikiproject you so desperately need help from. Well done. Philc _T^E_C^I 19:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's listcruft and not particularly useful, to be honest. Qwghlm 13:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ya ya NN, D and so on... something at wikitruth.info will laugh for this...However...like you want. --necronudist 13:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No because the incresed flux of foreign players into the game was a result of the coincedental globalisation at the same time, countries with more developed footballing economies were more attractive to players of foreign countries, and had more financial weight in the market place, so in short, better leagues buy more foreign players, not foreign players make better leaugues. Statastic does not define cause, my jibe about the dark hair thing, was just an equally pathetic attempt as yours to convince that the statistic defines the cause, which it doesnt. If you really are as intallectually superior to me as you enjoy announcing you should have considered this. Philc _T^E_C^I 19:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, your questions are all bullshits, obviously I considered those. First of all, your bold sentence is totally arbitrarly, I can say the opposite and you can't disagree. So, who's right? Second: I never said to have any statistics about what I say, I just say what I see. Sorry that my theory have 0 google hits =_='. For me, this discussion ends here. I keep hopin' that someone is interested. --necronudist 08:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This an encyclopedia not a collection of crackpot theories and flights of fancies of random contributors. The bold sentence is not total abritrary, its a summary of the preceeding point, I thought you would need summary for you to get your head round it, but it seems you have still failed to comprehend much of anything. Philc _T^E_C^I 12:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Stop it. Damned wikizealots. --necronudist 12:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Large cleanup on Football firm

The article is a mess, and its main content is a completely unreferenced list of firms. There is currently a discussion on the talk page, where I have proposed to blank the whole list and only allow referenced information. Please take a look at it and give some input, and maybe some of you may even own some of the books about hooliganism that has been written. Those could be helpful to reference the article. – Elisson • Talk 18:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical league position

I've uploaded a Excel file to Image:Example league position.xls. I've also written a brief explanation of what it contains there. I have been using it to create a graph of a club's historical league position such as ~~Image:Sheffield Wednesday F.C. league position.PNG~~ Image:Sheffield Wednesday F.C. league position.png. To adapt it to your club simply update the league positions in one of the club columns (F and G). Then cut and paste the relevent chart to your favourite image editor and save. josh (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, and you well represented the changing division sizes, though it seems a bit asthetically non-pleasing, and the legend, doesnt correctly show for anyone that doesnt understand the system that division4 = league 2 and division1 = the premiership etc... Philc _T^E_C^I 20:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Opps. I put up an old copy (didn't realise it was still on the server). The one i'm using is at Image:Sheffield Wednesday F.C. league position.png. Got rid of the legend because its illegable on the page any way and changed the colour scheme slightly. josh (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I quite like the idea, but the gradient-shaded bars are horrible. Infact the whole plot could do with being re-coloured. Make the background all white, any axes or writing all black, and make the various bars solid colours. Perhaps use all pastel colours or something similarly unobtrusive. aLii 15:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Reserves teams

Are they notable enough to have separate articles like Liverpool F.C. Reserves and Manchester United F.C. Reserves? SenorKristobbal 20:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

while many would say not, I tend to think they are. They use professional players and you have to pay to go and watch the games. In some countries (e.g. Spain) reserve teams even play in major competitions. aLii 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This varies from country to country. In most cases reserve team players are not full professionals - they are players on youth and academy contracts, or mere apprenticeships. The reserves setup in England is significantly different from that in Spain - FC Barcelona B play in the Segunda División B, equivalent to the third/fourth tier of football; in England that would be League One/League Two. But in England reserve teams are excluded from professional competition altogether, and no reserve team plays anywhere near that good or popular a level. I don't believe that English reserve teams deserve a wholly separate page from the main club - the players are clearly not noteworthy themselves (as WP:BIO and past AfDs show), which negates the need for a squad list. Once you remove that, there is not very much left that can't be included in the main club article. Qwghlm 21:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that a level-10 standard team is deemed notable, whereas a Premiership reserve team is deemed non-notable. I recently found my way to the New Bucks Head article. It's a 6,300 capacity stadium belonging to Northern Premier League Premier Division A.F.C. Telford United. The article states "The New Bucks Head regularly hosts the Wolverhampton Wanderers reserve fixtures and often has high profile players on its pitch as a result of this. For example when Steven Gerrard returned from injury 2 seasons ago in the Liverpool Reserves it attracted one of the hbiggest crowds the stadium has ever seen." So, the stadium and the team who own it are notable, but the tenants that bring in most of the fans are not? Something is backwards in this logic. Perhaps the level-10 notability should be re-thought, they aren't professional clubs after all... aLii 22:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Liverpool Reserve team did not attract that crowd - Steven Gerrard did. With him being and England international and club captain I'd be shocked if he didn't attract a sell-out crowd. The acid test is what crowds are like when there aren't any first-team regulars playing, and I suspect the crowds are barely a tenth of that figure then. On top of that, the "why do small clubs get articles then?" argument is irrelevant - Liverpool Reserves are not a separate club from the Liverpool first team, they are different teams fielded by the same club. The only informative paragraphs in Liverpool F.C. Reserves - the first two - should be included in the main club article, rather than a whole separate article which mostly consists of trivia and players few have ever heard of and who are deemed non-notable according to WP:BIO Qwghlm 23:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Reserves teams in England need seperate articles. They are like a branch of a team but not notable by themself. Can be given a section but an article seems a bit much. When I say sction the players do not need to be listed. SenorKristobbal 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that all the youth team players are worthy of an article, but a list of their names seems fine to me. Things like the squad and the reserve team honours list, and infact all the related trivia do not belong in the main Liverpool FC article. If they were in the main article it would become overly cluttered and lose focus. It is worthwhile knowledge though, and in my opinion shouldn't be deleted. The fact that Steven Gerrard doesn't feature week-in, week-out for the reserves is not a reason against the team's notability. However the fact that such players do sometimes turn out for such teams does add to their notability.

Looking at the Liverpool reserve team right now I see at least four players that have played first team football for lesser teams, but don't have a Liverpool squad number. Are they now deemed to have lost their notability because in your eyes they are now playing for a "non-team"? How do you propose to deal with such players? WP:BIO would indicate that they are notable. Salif Diao has infact played at the World Cup, as hard as that is to comprehend... aLii 23:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't think there should be separate pages for English club's reserve sides. If some players have played for their first team they should be mentioned in the squad listings. Maybe have another section for "other players" if they don't have squad numbers. Articles on Narcelona B are different and I'd keep Dodge 23:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(Response to aLii, with indent reset)
The problem with even a list of the reserve players is, unless they are policed very regularly, people will be tempted to wikify them make articles about those players, which is why I think they should not be listed at all. As for Gerrard - he was not in the reserves team because of that team's merits, but because he was recovering from injury and needed a less strenuous run-out than a Premiership game, just like many other players have done.

As for the missing four - this is an interesting, but somewhat separate issue. I have had the same difficulties about Ryan Garry, who is in the same situation - formerly a first team player for Arsenal, but now only in the reserves while recovering from injury. My reasoning was that as he was formerly a first-team squad member and has played two first-team games he was notable and should be kept. However, as he is not listed on the official page that the Arsenal F.C.#Current squad section cites as a reference, he is not linked to. Granted, having an near-orphaned article is not ideal but it's better than creating a whole new page with lots of other unnotable players listed in it, just to make that article unorphaned.

A suggestion - of the players that had first-team squad numbers last season then you could perhaps have a Former first-team squad members subsection under the current first team squad list in Liverpool F.C., listing them and their old numbers in brackets or struck out. That way they remain unorphaned. What do you think? Qwghlm 00:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Liverpool's official squad list is somewhat different to Arsenal's, as it does show players without a squad number, including loaned-out players, formerly numbered players, and any youngster who has been promoted from the academy. I think anyone in this list is worth an entry. ArtVandelay13 09:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with listing "former first-team squad members" for Liverpool is that only Salif Diao falls into this category. David Martin has never been assigned a squad number at Liverpool, but has 25 appearances for Wimbledon/MK Dons. Besian Idrizaj is in the same boat with 36 appearances for Austrian team LASK Linz, and an Austrian young player of the year award. These players are obviously notable, but have never been anywhere near the Liverpool first team. aLii 10:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In those cases then, keep the article but don't include in the squad. Don't worry too much about if they're orphaned for the moment - given those players have played for professional first teams before it's likely they'll get a chance to do so again in the future. Qwghlm 10:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The argument to remove all mention of these players from Liverpool related pages seems dumb to me. Isn't Wikipedia about helping people to find information? Since when was it about hiding information? As far as I'm concerned I've heard no good reasons to delete the reserve team details other than "It'll stop people Wikifying non-notable people and creating unneeded articles". It seems a pretty poor reason to delete any page, nevermind one that does actually collate useful information. aLii 10:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the argument is whether or not to dlete the players but rather the article on the reserve teams. I still think adding a section for other player under Current Squaad template would get around this.Dodge 11:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Once you cut out the player lists and duplication of material in a reserves article, what you have left are two or three paragraphs of useful information. That isn't very much for a standalone article, and could easily be merged into the main article as a subsection. Qwghlm 11:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This argument should perhaps change to: Should each football team only be allowed one related article? I don't see that an article about Liverpool reserves as entirely different to Arsenal F.C. records, Arsenal F.C. seasons, List of Arsenal F.C. players or History of Arsenal F.C.. Like these pages the reserves article simply elaborates upon what is contained within the main article in such a way as to de-clutter the main article. If one aspect of a team isn't worthy of a seperate article because "it is the same team", then other aspects should be treated with a similar disdain. aLii 11:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the history of the Liverpool Reserves article and noticed it was created from adaptations from your work suggesting you have an emotional attachment to it. I know its hard to face but everyone else seems to be in agreement that Liverpool Reserves don't deserve their own article. History, Stats, Players and Seasons pages are created because there is so much information they need a separate article. A lot of the information in the Liverpool Reserves article isn't needed and could easily be cut down and merged into the main article. Note that there isn't a separate honours or Colours and badge page as there isn't enough information to warrant a separate article. SenorKristobbal 13:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to note that i refute that slur. My arguments here have not been emotionally fueled. Perhaps you should read them again? Liverpool reserves command media coverage, notable match attendance, and notable players. Basically pretty much everything for an article subject to be notable. Even a lot of the lesser players commanded national media coverage last season. See this example. I'll be willing to listen to objective arguments that properly address Wikipedia:Notability. 17.255.248.18 14:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (aLii)

Getting back to the point - a club can obviously have more than one article - and it makes obvious sense to split off a long and detailed daughter article such as History of Liverpool F.C. from the main article. My point was that what can be said about the reserve and youth sides can be summarised in two or three paragraphs and not much more - this could be included in the main article as a section. Qwghlm 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to try and sum up the arguments put forward against, primarily, the Liverpool F.C. Reserves article:

The players are not noteworthy.
- I feel that I have successfully refuted this. It is semi-irrelevent anyway, as many notable teams have non-notable players. It is not a reason for deletion.
The fact that they draw large crowds is a fluke.
- This is POV and irrelevent.
They are not a seperate club.
- No-one ever said they were. They are however a seperate team, that play at a seperate ground, in seperate competitions, with a seperate manager and a seperate Honours list etc.
Reserve squad members should not be named because it encourages people to create articles.
- This is a poor arguement, and certainly not a valid reason for deletion.
The information can be readily summised in two or three paragraphs.

Of points 1-5 only point 5 is particularly valid. However I see many stub articles on Wikipedia — it's not generally a reason to delete an article. If I were so inclined I'm sure I could write a more in-depth article about the history of the reserves. For example I could include a section about players that never quite made the grade at Liverpool, but went on to have successful careers elsewhere — Paul Jewell for example. There is plenty of worthwhile info, but for now the article is of stub standards. Surely this is not a valid reason for deleting the article? aLii 16:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put the articles up for deletion and copy this section into the discussion...we need an admin to decide. SenorKristobbal 17:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Admins have no more say over content disputes than anyone else, in the case of AfD, they just close the discussion as keep, delete no consensus or whatever consensus has developed after five or more days have elapsed. Oldelpaso 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I know but they do decide on strength of arguements. SenorKristobbal 20:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that it's sad that it had to come to this. If you can't win an argument you simply put the article up for deletion?! Hopefully it will be thrown out, and this discussion can continue unaffected. aLii 21:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I really wish you hadn't taken it to AfD yet, SenorK - aLii and I were disagreeing but we were still discussing it on friendly terms and I had hoped that we could still agree on a solution. Now that it's been done I've had to vote delete, but AfDs really should only be used as a last resort once every other option had been exhausted. Qwghlm 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately the players mentioned in that article are contracted to Liverpool F.C., not Liverpool Reserves F.C. Their names should be included on the Liverpool page, notable or not. They're not different to any other Liverpool player. They could be playing for the first team tomorrow. A reserve side is simply a second string, there to give a run-out to those not in the first-team. The players that play for it every week are different.

I know it's a bit different for Liverpool and United and the other big teams, as their reserves operate as vaguely seperate entities, and the first-team players rarely go near them, whilst with pretty much any other team it's the players who can't get into the first-team. Nonetheless, I can't see enough in those articles to warrant a seperate article.

Sorry that's a bit muddled. HornetMike 23:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it was very much the wrong thing to do to take this to afd while the discussion was still ongoing here, and before many people even had a chance to see that the discussion was taking place. I hadn't had a chance to see, let alone take part in this discussion. You started this discussion at 20.21 on the 5th, and started the afd on 17.48 on the 6th, meaning that you gave the debate less than 24 hours before deciding that you weren't going to have everyone agree with you, and so went for the most divisive route possible. Why? I'd have been happier discussing it here, though, this makes any kind of compromise so much harder, and is the opposite of the consensus that wikipedia is all about. Great work, SenorKristobbal. Anyway, I don't want to duplicate everything I've said in the afd. I've made a page discussing the reasoning for why I think that the article should be kept: User:Robotforaday/Notability of Reserve teams. I'd be grateful if people would read it, as I think it states the general case that I would apply to the notability of Reserve teams, using Liverpool Reserves as the specific case in point, of course. Robotforaday 17:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Liverpool Reserves article looks stubbish at present, but looks fuller due to the squadlist and infobox. To me the question is whether or not a good article can result from expanding what is there already – and I am unsure whether it could (though if I was proved wrong I would welcome it, and of course an expansion or rewrite is worth ten pages of discussion about what an article could be). If an article is difficult to expand beyond the basics, it can often be productive to merge to elsewhere. Completely merging back to Liverpool F.C. is probably not the solution, but a partial merge might not be out of the question, particularly as there are other articles such as reserve team and FA Premier Reserve League. To take the various parts of the Liverpool Reserves article:

The first paragraph is the sort of overview that would fit in the main Liverpool article.
Things like where the teams plays and who is reserve team manager could be included in FA Premier Reserve League, the bulleted list of current teams there is crying out for a wikitable.
The Bill Shankley thing is a quip at the expense of Everton rather than anything of note about Liverpool Reserves.
Every reserve team brings players through the ranks, just as they are used to help senior pros back to fitness, that is the sort of thing which should be decribed in reserve team as it is true for all reserve teams.
In the case of English teams, there is no squad as such, a reserve team can include anyone from first teamers to youth players, so a squadlist is potentially misleading.

One other thing I just had as an afterthought - Manchester City F.C. have two reserve teams, and presumably are not the only team to do so, another factor which muddies the waters. Oldelpaso 22:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the multiple teams thing bothers me too - Arsenal have reserve and a youth team but personnel are often swapped between the two. If there are going to be reserve/academy team articles (as looks likely given the lack of consensue on AfD) then they should probably be merged into a single article; this will also help with the problem with stubbishness. Qwghlm 10:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please also consider Manchester United F.C. Academy Matt86hk talk 01:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the main consideration should be whether the Reserve te play in another professional league alongside other 'first team', and whether the team has to register the player for the entire season, following which they can only be 'transferred' to the 'first team' according to some strict movement requirement (eg limited number of match play, not allowed to play for two different team in the same week. As I'm from Singapore, I did see the neccessity to differentiate the Reserves from the First Team, because the Albirex Niigata of J-League (the first team) and the Albirex Niigata (Singapore) of the S-League (Youth-cum-Reserves team) gets directed to the same page now despite their huge different which makes them two separate entity with a father-son like relation. Hence I thought it will be neccessary to create a separate page for the Albirex Niigata (Singapore) team, even though it is only a youth-cum-reserves team. Of course, there should be link between the two teams, and one will focus on the team in Japan, and the other Singapore.Frankie goh 08:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

help...

Working on a Serie B 2006-07 article. Want to include a results grid. Made a template to fit results for 22 teams, but I can't get everything working. Can anyone figure what I did wrong here? Bigdottawa 09:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I got them into the right boxes, by evening out the number of bar thingys, but now there outlined in blue dashes, and I dont know why. Philc _T^E_C^I 15:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah, i had a go earlier and reached the same situation, sorry i didn't have anymore time to devote to it. I notice that you actually made the template Template:Football (soccer) table results 22 teams too, doh! I was going to suggest simply copying from an article that used it correctly. Poulsen's recent edit to your page has made it better again though.. aLii 23:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Not sure why those last two rows are bigger than the rest. I'll use that for now. Bigdottawa 04:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The irregularities of Template:Football (soccer) table results 22 teams seems to have been solved now. Poulsen 10:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Page getting too long

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football is getting very long. I would suggest splitting off the lost of participants and the list of stub templates to separate subpages. Do others agree? Qwghlm 14:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. – Elisson • Talk 14:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, sounds fair. aLii 14:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. Didn't think there'd be much disagreement. Qwghlm 15:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm - I might have gone a bit carried away and started rearranging sections. Sorry - if anyone disagrees and wishes to revert my changes feel free, I won't take offence. Qwghlm 15:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the inactive participants list into the main participants page, seeing as its original purpose of cutting down the size of the main project page is now irrelevant. I'll list the inactive page on MfD Oldelpaso 12:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You might as well make it a redirect and save the bother. Qwghlm 12:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed FA/PR/GA list

The list of featured articles, former FACs, peer reviews etc. is getting too long, and I've always found it annoying that the FAC and PR pages for a particular article are in separate lists. So I have put together a redesigned list in my sandbox which is table-based, and puts all the relevant pages for a single article together on one line. What do people think? Should I replace the current list with my new design? Qwghlm 09:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice table, please do! – Elisson • Talk 10:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's far superior to the current format. Nice work! - Pal 13:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, updated it. Qwghlm 14:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest result in club history

I removed the last result and next fixture from the Newcastle United history section, which has led to a complaint on my talk page so i was wondering what you thoughts on it were. Nufc2006 10:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a newspaper. You did the right thing. I do the same all the time. – Elisson • Talk 11:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right to remove them - it goes against Wikipedia is not a news service, and as the information dates so quickly it will look out-of-place in any hard copy versions such as Wikipedia 1.0. Leaving them out makes for more stable articles and stops wasting other editors' time in maintaining them. Pages such as Newcastle United F.C. are meant to be encyclopaedia articles about the club in general, not what has happened in the past few days; there are many other more appropriate outlets for recording latest news, including FA Premier League 2006-07 (and its month-by-month subpages) and WikiNews. Qwghlm 11:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the previous/next match sections from Bolton's page. King fish erswift 11:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Post-Transfer Window Signings

As you may be aware, clubs are allowed to sign non-contracted players after the transfer window has closed. I've added a section to the transfer dealings on the 2006-07 in English football page. Everyone okay with this, and the format I've used? Superlinus 15:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I think its better to have there old clubs, rather just saying unattached, just so the whole article looks the same. But apart from that I see no problem Gran2 15:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with that is, technically, it's factually incorrect. These players are unattached and the clubs no longer hold their registration. How about including their last club in parenthesis? Superlinus 16:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Edit: It looks clumsy that way - the tidiest way would be to leave out the previous club altogether (users can always check that player's entry for those details) or insert it in the note field. Thoughts? Superlinus 16:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Inserting in the notes field sounds good to me. You're right about it being factually incorrect, that was my mistake. Gran2 16:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Many players signed in the summer are unattached for a short time, between being released and picked up again, it's standard practice, on here and in the media, to put their last club as the "from" club and their next club under "to". You only use unattached untill the player has found a club, or if the player has been unattached for more than six months or so. To me, the note "Players without a club can be signed outside of the transfer window." explains the situation sufficiently, so for example "Didier Agathe to Aston Villa (previous club: Celtic)" should be enough. ArtVandelay13 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

participation template

It's only a small thing really, but I was wondering, is there an available template for users participating in WikiProject Football to put on their Use Pages, as there is for other projects? Not that it's that important, but I thought I'd ask nonetheless... NaLaochra 04:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's the {{User WikiProject Football}}. Enjoy :D Poulsen 05:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

List of clubs who have played in every UEFA competition

Just wondering if people thought this might be a useful list? If you include Fairs Cup and Intertoto I'd guess it'd be a fairly select group. I'd break it down by Country. Any thoughts? Dodge 03:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I initially misread you and thought you meant every club that had ever played in UEFA competition, which might be useful but very long list (basically, a wiki version of this). As for what I think you mean - a list of only the clubs that have played Champs League, UEFA, CWC, Fairs and Intertoto - I think that's a bit too esoteric - it's borderline trivia amd I'm not even sure there's that many clubs that have done so (maybe Newcastle United?). Also it could be deemed OR, unless there is a citable source anywhere that lists them? Qwghlm 10:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure it'd be considered original research as its just collating information rather than anything else. Take your point though. I actually think your idea of complete list of european competitors might be a better idea. Do it on the basis of Country>Club>Competetion>Years entered and we'd have a very useful list IMO Dodge 11:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It could be too long. Besides, note that the RSSSF list was last updated 28 October 1999. Punkmorten 11:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, useful, like this, but nobody cares. "too long, shut up" =_= that's the wikipedia way. However, I support this idea. --necronudist 15:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I said might be useful, and to be honest I'm not mad keen for it - as others say, it'll be too long and take a lot of effort to maintain, just like a list of foreign players. But it's not as if I will AfD either list if someone wants to create them, I just happen to believe our collective time might be better spent on articles rather than endless lists. Qwghlm 16:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be particularly useful and is basically trivia. However I'm an inclusionist, so I wouldn't have any real problem with the list being created. Qwghlm - I don't think you can argue that it could be original research unless some conclusion was drawn from the list. The list itself is just information, whether there is a source for "clubs who have played in every UEFA competition" or whether you collate the information from multiple sources. aLii 16:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'm just mindful of that Pele argument from a couple of months back that different people have different ideas of what constitutes OR. On reflection, neither list proposed is really OR, I suppose since the ever-useful RSSSF can always be cited. Qwghlm 16:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A neutral user intervened in the Pele argument and dismissed the claims of original research. It's not like the information was just being "made-up" :) aLii 17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not a big supporter of these kinds of lists, and I agree wholeheartedly in what Qwghlm says above, that "our collective time might be better spent on articles rather than endless lists". – Elisson • Talk 17:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Association Football (soccer) Football (soccer)

Im not suggensting to change the naming convention, just the way in which headings are written.

For all other forms of football we use names like American football, and Australian Rules Football, and Gaelic football. However when writing articles about soccer we tend to write Football (soccer) in the headings.

The use of this is extremely confusing to people reading about articles with more than one code. The use of Football (soccer) seems informal when compared the Association Football (soccer) which seems more scientific. By doing this change on headings within articles it makes Wiki seems alot more scientific and organised. We then can go on and talk about football within that heading without refering to soccer at all. ==

--61.69.219.237 05:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

FA Premier League seasons

Hi WikiProject people,

After looking through the pages on the Premiership seasons (especially the early years of the competition) I was shocked at the amount of NPOV violations and lack of sources, as well as the inconsistencies between the pages for each season. I've re-written, cleaned-up and de-junked the FA Premier League 1992-93, it can be found in my sandbox. I would appreciate any comments or criticisms of this re-write and any help with improving it would be greatly appreciated. If nobody is violently opposed I propose replacing the current page with my re-write at some point over the weekend. If my views on the style of these pages is not unpopular I intend to go to work on the rest of the pages in a similar fashion. Thanks, QmunkE 09:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, it looks fine. I suspect the article's current state is the work of AlexWilkes (talk · contribs) but I gave up trying to convince him of what NPOV or encyclopaedic meant a long time ago, since he never listens. Qwghlm 10:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now replaced the FA Premier League 1992-93 page with the re-write and I am now starting on bringing the other seasons into line. QmunkE 10:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Avispa Fukuoka

Can someone add the current roster to Avispa Fukuoka so we can delete Avispa Fukuoka 2005 Roster? Punkmorten 09:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. I've converted the roster article into a redirect; deleting it would destroy the edit history and is not recommended, and besides, redirects are cheap. Qwghlm 11:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

But is the roster up to date? Punkmorten 18:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Arrgh. Missed out on that. OK, found a 2006 roster and have updated. Qwghlm 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Records/Statistics pages

Several clubs have got a page for this but in the interest of standards shouldn't they have the same name?

eg. Arsenal F.C. records, Everton F.C. records

or

Liverpool F.C. statistics, Chelsea F.C. statistics

or the alternative change all to team name records and statistics SenorKristobbal 12:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I used to have the Arsenal page at Arsenal F.C. statistics but moved it to Arsenal F.C. records as I thought it more appropriate (see Talk:Arsenal F.C. records#Page move?): "statistics" implies a season-by-season breakdown or a list of results, while "records" is for most appearances, most goals, etc. In the Everton and Arsenal cases the pages are just records, but the Chelsea and Liverpool ones also include records and statistics - season-by-season performances, squad number changes, etc.

So perhaps the discussion should be what is included in such pages first, then we can decide on an apt title for them? I quite like the schema I worked out for Arsenal - one page for club records, another for seasons, but of course others might disagree. Qwghlm 12:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Just checked - there is already a Liverpool F.C. seasons article so per-season data from the statistics page could be merged there. There isn't as yet a Chelsea F.C. seasons article though. Having given it a little more thought I definitely prefer "records" to "statistics" as "statistics" can mean almost anything, while "records" is a much more precise word. Qwghlm 12:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Infobox for Premiership seasons

Having just done some major cleanups on the first two articles on Premiership seasons, I thought that the articles could do with an infobox, so I had a go at designing a simple one from Template:Infobox. The result can be found here and can be seen in an article here. Anyone think this would be a good case to use a template, or should I just have the raw infobox code on each page? Any comments on the layout/fields of the box? Cheers. (PS I did see the templates sub page but thought it more likely that someone would see this here.) QmunkE 14:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

the newly promoted clubs/relegated teams is confusing. Were they promoted at the end of the season or last season i.e. were they playing in the premiership or about to play in it. Similair with relegated teams. SenorKristobbal 15:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, attempted to clarify the above point. Also forced column widths to remain constant. Is this less confusing? QmunkE 15:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thats better SenorKristobbal 15:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

List of foreign Serie A players...

Out now! --necronudist 08:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It really misses any kind of sources, as well as an update date. Else, impressive effort. Poulsen 14:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Al-Saadi Qadhafi hasn't made an appearance in Seria A. Also I think Paddy Sloane might be a Northern Irish international. I'll check that out for you. Fair play though. Will be interesting to see if other country lists appear Dodge 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources are Italian magazine "Calcio 2000", this site, and many "Almanacco Illustrato del Calcio Italiano" by Panini. It is updated after every game (I can update it the day after a game) like the MLS list, and has no update date like the MLS list. Qadhafi played two games, one with Perugia and one with Udinese (nothin' much that 20 mins, however). Sources are trustful, obviously there can be some minor errors (mine or by the sources). I haven't made all this stuff, 2 months of work with some untrustful source (e.g. Wikipedia, Google)... be sure. :) Trying to destroy wikipedia in this way would be crazy... It's been hard (over 1200 players...) (and I'm also working on a List of foreign La Liga players)... However, I'll be glad of your collaboration to update and mantain it. --necronudist 17:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, add the sources to the article then. You can't expect people to come to this page to find the sources. It doesn't matter what the MLS article looks like (have never seen it, and don't know its name) - if that article lacks a minimum of sources, then it is unverifiable, and should not be emulated. The shortcomings of that article don't excuse the shortcomings of List of foreign Serie A players. Poulsen 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was that this list would be irrelavent, and should therefore not be made. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wanna delete it? Do it! I don't care...I made this for me, 'cause I needed it, 'cause I'm a football researcher (hobby, obviously) and then I thought it would be interesting for others, so I published it. But if a Jimbo asslicker wanna delete it 'cause "it's irrelevant -.-" ...Do it. You only damage wikipedia this way. Maybe a Pilota player is irrelevant for you, but not for me. Do what you like, I'll keep on updating it, since it exists. --necronudist 18:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but thats not how wikipedia works, you cant just make what you want as long as you can botherd to, or because you want too, or because its your hobby. But the article carries the assertion that there is some sort of relevance to the fact that the players are foreign, which their isn't. Please stop being rude to me (WP:CIVIL). I'm not here to lick anyones arse, I just want this place to be a decent place, not a collection of arbitrary stuff. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and this is why wikipedia basically sucks. However, I repeat, foreign players have been very important for the developement of Italian football, and they increase the competitivness of a league (like the Spanish League today, as I said). Many (almost ALL) Italian football teams have been founded by foreigners and the very first lineups (not part of the list, however) were made mainly (where not "only") by foreigners. We've had Maradona, van Basten, Shevchenko, Batistuta, Angelillo, Crespo, Gullit... and if in a certain period Serie A was considered the best in the world (and now, how curious, it is considered La Liga) is thanx to them. If you don't see the relevance of this...well, it's your problem, not mine. And if you wanna know, I'm sure that the wikigods will vote for delete this page...so, if you wanna, do it. And stay away from me, please. --necronudist 18:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well thats your POV, another one of wikipedias little taboo thingys, unfortunately what any single contributor thinks, doesnt stand up to anything here. The reason there are limitations is what makes wikipedia work, not suck, if you just what to post random miscellania you can do it to your hearts content at geocities or something. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, add the article to the AfD and let me rest in peace. PLEASE! --necronudist 18:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll Wait and see what the consensus is first. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the list TBH. Doesn't matter if a consensus of a small amount of editors here don't want to get involved in it. Its a decent list (as per above I'd like sources or external links) and has way more relevence than 100s of other football related articles here. There's no way this list should be deleted as I don't see see any way in which it fails to meet criteria. Dodge 13:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a particularly good reason to delete this list. It's not my cup of tea, but it's kinda interesting. aLii 21:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 13:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of league results/goalscorers

OK, so Apertura 2006-07 goal scorers, Fußball-Bundesliga - September 2006 and Fußball-Bundesliga - August 2006 have been deleted.

We also have La Liga 2006-07 goalscorers, Jupiler League results September 2006, Jupiler League results July 2006, Jupiler League results August 2006, FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers, Jupiler League 2006-07 goalscorers, FA Premier League 2005-06 goalscorers and perhaps more. In my opinion they should follow the other articles out the door; does the "general public" agree here? Punkmorten 20:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

At least I agree. – Elisson • Talk 20:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree that any of these should be deleted. Strongly. Did I say strongly yet? There has yet to be a good reason shown that any of these should be deleted. Bigdottawa 04:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

At the moment I would say they are candidates for deletion primarily through the fact that they are all unsourced, and that the information on the results isn't necessarily worth including in an encyclopedia. Links to external sites with details of results are probably more suitable - for instance whilst I have been editing the FA Premier League season report articles I found this website which does keep pretty comprehensive records of results, if not always detail on scorers/attendence/referee etc. Is there possibly a case for transwiki-ing this stuff to a more suitable repository (if such a place exists, and if not why not?) QmunkE 07:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they should go. I think there should be one article per season in each league (or division) only. Dodge 10:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I definitely agree (which is why I proposed the unsuccessful Premier League results AfD). I would agree that individual results are too much detail to include in an encyclopaedia, as well as the fact wiki is a terrible way of storing statistics compared to a proper database-driven site - there are issues of consistent formatting, searching and maintaining the accuracy of the results, which wiki is not suited to.

This is especially pertinent once you consider the enormous number of pages that are allowed. For example, FA Premier League results September 2006 covers just one month in one season in one division in one country. With nine months in a season, and roughly a hundred seasons of league football in England, that's 900 pages for the top flight alone, and several hundred more if you decide to include the lower divisions. And that's just England - extend that to other countries and the pages run into the thousands. Where do you draw the line? Primera Liga results November 1954? Belgian Second Division results January 1934? Luxembourg National Division results December 1911?

It's the thin end of the wedge. The end result will be thousands of marginally useful pages which no-one will have the time or effort to maintain. Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopaedia, not a statistical service or an almanac, we should be writing articles and new content, not copy & pasting stats from existing sites. Qwghlm 14:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The lack of sourcing seems to apply to most football articles. If we are to start deleting because of that there will be little left. For one, of numerour examples, take Sheffield United F.C. - not a source in sight. The key point is that the content meets WP:V.

What good does it do to delete these articles? At the moment about 3,000 articles per day are created. So we delete a few dozen; it won't even make an impact into the daily growth. What I suggest is that the articles are reviewed at the end of the season. If they have been kept up then the monthly results can be combined into a season article. If not, then they can go since I do not see merit in keeping odd months. Similarly with the goal scorers; keep them if they are maintained to the end.

Finally, it is not profitable to spend time arguing about the boundary of what is encyclopaedic. We want to attract football editors and readers. If someone is interested enough to write and maintain these articles (and if they are not maintained they go) that's good enough for me. BlueValour 15:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Qwghlm. These articles don't belong in a encyclopaedia. "It doesn't hurt to keep them" is just not a good enough argument. ed g2s • talk 00:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Qwghlm also. HornetMike 12:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

State flags

Hi there Being a Brazilian, it's very weird for me to see clubs represented by state flag figures in competitions. Clubs have nothing to do with the state, and there are actually many clubs per state - there are state competitions! So, in the article about Copa dos Campeoes, I naively edited the figures to show club logos instead, but someone edited it back claiming this WikiProject's rules. However, I wasn't able to find any explicit references about this in here. Could someone please help me? Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.215.102.91 (talk • contribs) 22:05, September 21, 2006 (UTC).

The reason is not to do with this WikiProject, but because club logos are only includable in Wikipedia under fair use, which means they can only be used in articles about the clubs themselves, and not as decoration of other articles, under Wikipedia's fair use rules. However, I totally agree that articles not be using the state flag either, since no club represents its own state alone (as a corollary, Arsenal do not claim to represent Greater London as a whole, nor do Leeds United represent Yorkshire, etc). So, I would recommend just deleting the state flag entirely from these articles and leaving them as text - it makes them look boring, I agree, but it makes sure Wikipedia respects copyrights properly. Qwghlm 00:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Categories

Hi all,

Can anyone tell me why some categories of footballers by club have been deleted and emptied recently. Mostly former English league teams (Glossop NE, Merthyr Town), conference or lower league Scottish sides from what I've noticed. At first I thought that it may be a policy on no clubs below a certain level having a category, but now I think it might be just because they didn't contain many players (yet). If this is the case I disagree with it - these categories by their nature will be added to as the Wiki football sections get expanded. Secondly, having such categories enables other users with knowledge about these clubs to improve the player articles. For example, I added a page that included a reference to playing or managing Nuneaton Borough with the appropriate category. Now I know very little about Nuneaton Borough, but if someone who does sees the category and notices a player that they can add some detail to, then surely this is only good for wikipedia?

Anyway, if someone in the know could clarify why these categories were deleted, then that would be very helpful. If it's the latter I'll just add them again but make sure they have more content. Markspearce

I agree that League or former League clubs should have their own categories, not so sure about Conference clubs that never played in the League, though. I don't remember the deletions ever being listed on this WikiProject, though. Can you find the CfD pages relating to these deletions? If there were CfDs, I for one would back a move to reverse these decisions. Qwghlm 13:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you all. --necronudist 14:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't find the CfD pages, but they include Glossop North End, Brechin City and Grays Athletic and the categories were emptied (i.e cat tags removed from player pages) in the last few days. Markspearce

This is strange. Edits removing these categories, e.g. for Bob Jack were done by a bot with the reason "Emptying out deleted category Glossop North End A.F.C. players" but there is no CfD discussion for that category - else there would be links from that discussion to that category, but the Whatlinkshere doesn't give us any. Qwghlm 16:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen bots doing that before in the same manner to other categories, and IIRC, it is because the category in question had not been edited (you know, adding it to another category or writing a short description of the category), which causes it to be "redlinked" and also causes bots to believe it is empty. And when it really is empty, there is no trace of it as it was never "created" (edited). I don't know if that is the case for this, but it might be. – Elisson • Talk 16:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. Surely when there are some articles to go into a category that is the time to create a category. Bots going around deleting empty categories seems like a perfectly sensible thing to do. It's no big problem, simply recreate the category once there are some articles to populate it. "Problem" solved. aLii 21:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You missed the problem. These categories were populated. – Elisson • Talk 22:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Aaaah, I see. Well you can't really blame the bots - populated or not, if the categories were "red" rather than "blue" then they're an obvious target for deletion. In which case, the categories should be properly created and players reassigned. Does anybody has a list anywhere? Qwghlm 11:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-FIFA Infoboxes

One of the areas of Wikipedia I'm trying to beef up are the entries for non-FIFA footballing nations, principally those under the banner of the NF-Board. However, the standard Football National Teams infobox contains much that is not applicable and can look untidy and unwiledy when used for non-FIFA nations. Is there, perhaps, some way that a new infobox can be created? It would differ in several ways, which I could detail if necessary for you guys! Superlinus 09:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just created Template:NF-Board football association, using Template:National football association as a base. What other information do you want in the infobox? Oldelpaso 09:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he meant the team infobox, not the association. Punkmorten 11:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, both would be nice. The Association box should include LOGO, NAME IN OWN LANGUAGE (neither have to be titled categories), FOUNDED, AFFILIATION(S) (which, for most, would be NF-Board, though in the case of Zanzibar, for example, CAF, too), PRESIDENT, HEADQUARTERS (some NF-Board HQs are outside the state that the "nation" lies in). The team box should ideally include LOGO, NAME IN OWN LANGUAGE, NICKNAME, ASSOCIATION(S), CONFEDERATION(S), HEAD COACH/TEAM MANAGER, CAPTAIN, MOST CAPS, MOST GOALS, KITS, FIRST INTERNATIONAL, BIGGEST WIN, WORST DEFEAT. Is this too much? Superlinus 18:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made an edit to Template:NF-Board football association - is that going to work? Superlinus 18:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames

An issue relevant to all clubs has recently come up on the Chelsea F.C. page over the use of nicknames in the infobox, namely Chelski. It seems to be standard practice to include only "official" club nicknames, or ones that the club's own fans use, and to leave out pejorative or abusive ones (this can also apply to player infoboxes), but it was suggested on the talk page that both types should be included. Any thoughts? SteveO 11:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Include only nicknames "accepted" by the own fans. – Elisson • Talk 12:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose having perojative nicknames in infoboxes, because they reflect a negative POV. In the infobox of the Microsoft article, should I add that Microsoft is commonly referred to as "Micro$oft"? Obviously not. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, in the Jimbo-Kingdom you can't. However, is (e.g.) Juventus' "vecchia signora" (old lady) pejorative? It's a commonly used name, sometimes by Juventus fans too...but in fact in Italian sounds like a pejorative. Juventus fans can say "uhhh a beautiful, charming old lady", others can say "an old, rubbish bitch". It isn't so simple. I'm to keep all the nicknames. Yes, even Micro$oft, if Jimbo's bank account agrees. --necronudist 12:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see your point. "Vecchia signora" is used by the own fans. Not pejorative. Should be included. Chelski is not used by Chelsea fans. Pejorative. Should not be included. Simple as that. – Elisson • Talk 13:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that claims that a nickname is a "common" nickname (pejorative or otherwise) then it can be included if it contributes to the article. But in the infobox? Probably not the best place. QmunkE 13:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-pejorative nicknames accepted by the clubs' own fans, obviously, else you could justify just about every club with a major rival being labelled "The Wankers" or "The Scum" in their infobox. PS Hildanknight, please read WP:POINT before making disruptive edits to other clubs' articles in order to prove your point. Qwghlm 15:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced references to "fans"

When writing player articles, I am always tempted to use the word 'fans' without citing a source. For example, "some fans criticised him for being inconsistent", and "His lack of composure on the ball attracts a lot of criticism and frustration from fans" etc. While these statements may be true, I'm not sure if they have a place on Wikipedia without a reference. It is tricky to get a reference for this kind of statement, since large groups of fans don't usually document their opinions, they just scream them at the television or shout it while at the stadium.

I think fans opinions are often a big part of a players career, and thus should be mentioned on Wikipedia - but I'd say that 99% of the time, they cannot be referenced. Does this mean that unsourced fans opinions should be stripped from all player articles? Or can I cite fan blogs/forums as a reference? Or can they just stay there unsourced?

My question is specifically about the Gilberto Silva article which I am trying to improve to GA-status. Any comments or suggestion about this problem will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, -GilbertoSilvaFan 17:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Usually blogs and forums don't qualify under Wikipedia:Reliable sources. With the Gilberto Silva article in particular, the few references to fans might be something you could alter to allow it to be sourced, by finding sports reports about him, for example the Charlie Nicholas article from Sky Sports that is already referenced. However if the entries are inherently unverifiable I think they should be removed. QmunkE 19:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You're always but a general rule of thumb should be that a claim about what fans think should only be cited if it can be proven a large group of them think so, not just one individual, else it's just weasel words. For instance, I use a reference from an incorporated Arsenal supporters' group in the Arsenal F.C. article to back up the claim the new club crest was unpopular with fans, which I think is OK as it is the official view of a representative body. Polls (but not web polls, which are very easy to rig) could be referenced as another way of gauging opinion. But yes, I would steer clear of individual bloggers. Qwghlm 12:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Qwghlm. I've removed any un-sourced opinions of Gilberto from the article. If you have time, I'd love some feedback on what you think of the changes! (diff)

All the best, -GilbertoSilvaFan 13:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest, where do we stand on references to fan's feelings in books. I.e. in club histories the writer saying "fans were unhappy at the sale of so-and-so" HornetMike 12:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If the book is a reliable source, that's ok, though phrasing it more precisely or giving more explanation would be advisable where possible. If you are unsure, make an attribution to the book clear. Oldelpaso 17:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted

I reverted vandalism on Dinamo Stadium (Bucharest) Maldebaran 09:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Stuff! Philc _T^E_C^I 22:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)