Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 62

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

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

"Fun" fact

Further proof that engaging in politics is not good for your mental health: former Poland international Jan Tomaszewski, now a politician, has said he will NOT support the team in the upcoming UEFA Euro 2012, deeming it "utter rubbish" over the naturalization of players - he has previously insulted newcomer Damien Perquis (see here http://www.kickoff.com/european-league/36729/perquis-tackles-tomaszewski-over-trash-tirade.php).

Now, who has he said he will support in the tournament? Germany (with this guy, and this guy and this guy)!! Okeydokey (here's the ref for the "rubbish" remark and his "German solidarity act", could only find it in this language, "basura" is "rubbish" or "trash" in Spanish http://www.marca.com/2011/12/07/futbol/futbol_internacional/1323266354.html). Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What a nice man.--Echetus Xe 16:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I just love when people don´t make any sense, as Tomaszewski just did in that case... FkpCascais (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Image help

Hi, bit of an odd request, but can't find a specific forum for this so thought I'd ask here. Could anyone that has access to something like photoshop crop File:1973 uefa cup final.jpg for me please as its too big and there is white space around the actual image, so when its put in an infobox you can see the white space instead of just the picture (see the diffs in here to see what I mean). This would be greatly appreciated, cheers. NapHit (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Chile task force?

User:Ulof4 has kindly invited me to be a part of a project in this country's football. All interested (in case it's still not been created that is!), please drop a line here. Cheers! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is enough editors who would be interested in Chile alone. Therefore, can we expand this idea to include all of South America? I dabble in with the Chilean league very now in then, but with the objective of keeping the format consistent with similarly structured leagues in the region. Digirami (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me man, i was just conveying what Ulof asked, maybe you could get in touch with him for further developments, my hands are "full" with SPA and POR football/ers. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright question

Hey guys I don't know much about copyright so do any of you know if this image can be uploaded. It is Celtics first home kit (from 1888). Adam4267 (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, the copyright on that particular picture will have started from whenever the photo was taken, which appears to be 2008, even though the copyright on the design of the kit will have expired years ago. Unless the person who took the photo has specifically released it under a license suitable for Wikipedia (e.g. public domain, Creative Commons) we won't be able to use it. Big Dom 14:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Kevin-Prince Boateng Styles of play and attributes section

Could some experienced editor review the Styles of play and attributes section in Kevin-Prince Boateng. I have my doubts that it could inclue POV-ish info unconfirmed in sources, but User:MarkMysoe is acting like he owns this article, he does not allow to make any correction so I'm asking for your help.--Oleola (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could take it to the article talk page. WT:FOOTY is not supposed to be the first place for every single dispute resolution; it's busy enough as it is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is hyperbolic but it will do.--Echetus Xe 10:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for copy edit as the whole tone is overblown and riddled with poor syntax etc. The worst example is " He also promised to Milan when he has 100% security that Milan signed him he will have a tattoo of A.C. Milan . . .". -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Kenny McLean

Hiya, could someone else have a look at Talk:Kenny McLean/GA1. I think the article meets the requirements of a GA, but I am concerned about its neutrality. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at this. Adam4267 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fernando Navarro

Please pay attention at the last paragraph in his CLUB CAREER section, in order to reach a conclusion on whether this is a BLP violation or not (methinks not, as it stands presently): first, a Dutch user inserted the situation, but with VERY biased language (i.e. "set a new low for sportsmanship" or the sorts, etc) and with only a video as ref. I reverted him, he reverted me.

Afterwards - and after apologizing to him for YET ANOTHER heated summary - i reinstated the section, but with toned-down language and a different set of sources. A week later, voilá! Sentence and refs removed by Spanish anon user (editing from Seville, we can assume he's not a fan of this team). Where does it stand in your opinion, is it valid or not (i think so, as Navarro is not insulted or made fun of, only what happened is reported)?

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That red card doesn't seem notable anyway. Doesn't sound dramatic in the espn reference. -Koppapa (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Without a clear, explicit reference for exactly "Navarro blatantly asked for a red card to Aduriz", it's a BLP violation. I'm sure your Spanish is better than mine, but I can't see that in the report from El País. It seems to talk about Navarro getting involved in the sending-off, but not in clear detail: please correct me if I'm wrong. With an explicit reliable source, it's acceptable, but not very interesting: if it had been so very dreadful, surely it'd be easy to find sources, and without them, it doesn't belong on WP at all.

On another note, in the sentence "after opponent Aritz Aduriz stepped on Emir Spahić in the 70th minute, the Bosnian's reaction was apparently exaggerated", it might be an idea to change "the Bosnian" to Spahić, both for clarity and to avoid an apparently gratuitous reference to the nationality of the exaggerating player. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I will do the asked story changes. Speaking of the "blatant" bit, that's where the video "proof" could come in handy, he DID BLATANTLY ask for a red card, i saw the footage, like Nelson Muntz pointing to people and going "ah ah", Navarro was going "send him off" (see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdJ0PQlBVmc); how can we rephrase it (keeping in mind the whole section is not eventually removed)? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So that happens every day in some match. Fail to see why it is important to him? Why is there a "however" in the sentence, this had nothing to do with his contract, right? Or did he get fired? -Koppapa (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"However" removed :) The paragraph is there, in my opinion, to show the lack of sportsmanship (all the players in all the leagues ask for their peers to be booked, but this was highly exaggerated and unsporting - is that how you say it, "unsporting"?) --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sam Allardyce

On reviewing the Steve Kean article, I also looked the one for Sam Allardyce. I am rather confused with regard to his spell as caretaker-manager at Preston North End which seems to have been from Les Chapman's dismissal on 29 September 1992 and the appointment of John Beck on 1 December 1992. (see Soccerbase for dates). This period is not listed in the infobox on the Allardyce article, nor is he mentioned on the PNE managers template nor is he categorised as a PNE manager. Likewise, he is not included on the List of Preston North End F.C. managers, although other caretaker managers are. The statistics table in the article says that he managed the team for 12 matches, although these are not credited to Allardyce by Soccerbase, so it's not clear where these stats were sourced from. What should be done? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The list of Preston managers omits several caretakers apart from Allardyce, if you look at this list on their website. I think with that and other RS e.g. Independent report of Chapman leaving, LEP feature that says board preferred Beck to Allardyce, for Allardyce being caretaker for the whole period between Chapman and Beck, and Soccerbase having a clear 12-game gap between the two, it wouldn't be original research to allocate those 12 games to Allardyce. Makes a pleasant change for Soccerbase to get the dates right and leave a gap between: perhaps they are gradually improving their site. His time as caretaker should go in his infobox, and he should be categorised as a PNE manager. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

England players

I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring this up - if not, could someone point me in the right direction? To date, 1179 players have appeared for the England national team (see list), but there are 1182 (excluding lists) articles in Category:England international footballers. Is it possible to do a search to identify articles that have been added to the category between certain dates? If not, does anyone know of a quick way to identify the 3 "rogue" articles other than laboriously checking the list against the category? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorted - there were three user pages (all duplicates of the Michael Owen page) with categories added. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

OOOOOEEEEE OOOOOEEEEE Para Skënderbe

Cheering things up this weekend, I just want to share with you all my latest discouvery at footy articles. I know that transponding cheering songs into encyclopedic articles may be a challenge, but just check out this one: KS_Skënderbeu_Korçë#K.F._Sk.C3.ABnderbeu_Kor.C3.A7.C3.AB_official_anthem. OOOOOEEEEE OOOOOEEEEE Wikipedia ALLLEEEEEE!!!! FkpCascais (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And to be fully in spyrith, don´t forget you have to repeat it 8x, as indicated at bottom. FkpCascais (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I hate to be a party pooper but I've removed it. Giant Snowman 21:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar up for grabs!

In addition to the ones set out in the main drive, I'll be happy to award a barnstar of diligence to anyone completing five reviews from the Sports section of WP:GAN and who posts back here! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed Ben May, Phil Edwards, Alan Julian, Jennison Myrie-Williams, and Chris Beardsley in September, does that count? :D --Echetus Xe 16:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, but you can have a WikiCookie on me! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Football articles not already under review are: Fraizer Campbell, ~~Scott Laird~~, ~~Chris Holroyd~~, and ~~1973 UEFA Cup Final~~.--Echetus Xe 18:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Eden Hazard. Adam4267 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Crowther, Willie Irvine.--Echetus Xe 11:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Standard link names for Swedish Fb team templates

Hi!

Me and a couple of other editors over at the Sweden task force have been discussing the issue of how club names should be displayed in statistics and league tables on WP in the fb team template. One editor proposes that the full club name should be featured with abbreviations such as IF and FF (Swedish forms for FC ect.) while I believe that simply the common name for the club as long as its not easily confused with another club should be featured. For example, IF Elfsborg with the abbrevation "IF" or simply the common name Elfsborg. As of now, if we look at 2012 Allsvenskan for example, the system I am defending is used, 6 clubs in the league table feature their abbreviations so as to seperate them from teams with a simular name, for example, Malmö FF can't be written as simply Malmö since the club played in the same league as IFK Malmö for a number of seasons. The other 10 clubs in the league table have been shortened in the templates, removing the abbrevations, in a fashion that I see as praxis on the rest of WP. Does anyone know if there are any clear guidelines on this? Thanks! See this for the discussion. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

An argument for including abbreviations for every Swedish club is, in short, that they are much more closely connected to the name of the club than they are in most other leagues, almost as if they are the equivalent of "City", "United", "Town", "Wanderers", "Wednesday", "Athletic" in the English leagues (or "Dynamo", "Torpedo", "Spartak", "Energiya" and so on in the Russian leagues), rather than the equivalent of "F.C." (which is used by some 95 % (?) of the clubs in those leagues). In Sweden, many clubs and their supporters see these abbreviations (IF, IK, FF, SK, BoIS, GIF, BK, BoIK, FK, GoIF, AIK, AIF, IFK, IS, ...) as an integral part of the name, for my own club IFK Göteborg, it should never ever be referred to as just Göteborg (or Gothenburg). There are usually several clubs using the same "name" (city names such as Göteborg, Malmö or Halmstad, districts/residential areas/... such as Djurgården, Norrmalm or Krokslätt or even non-geographical names such as Sleipner, Drott or Göta) only with different abbreviations.

I do not agree with Reckless182 that there exsists a praxis on the rest of WP, just looking around at the various league tables of Europe, several leagues are using abbreviations in full or partially. However I am not looking to change the standard for all leagues to one single standard, as I believe that each country has its own traditions and customs (and that each country standard is best decided by those that know these traditions and customs), I would just like the naming to be reasonably consistent within the league tables. – Elisson • T • C • 14:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In my defence. There are several Swedish clubs that are much more commonly referred to without their abbreviations. Just a couple examples, Elfsborg, Gefle, Häcken, Mjällby, Djurgården, Åtvidaberg, Öster, Degerfors, Brommapojkarna, Hammarby, Brage, Jönköpings Södra, Qviding and Örgryte. These are just a couple of examples of club that one wouldn't refer to with their full name in common speech. I don't agree that the abbreviations are equivalents of "City", "United" etc. IF and FF are simply abbrevations much like FC and SC which are not featured in other league tables. I don't believe Sweden is unique in this fashion. Consistency should be maintained across WP, therefore we shouldn't change the templates. --Reckless182 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out in the task force discussion, this is not about prose or common speech. I would also like to point out that many of the clubs you mention are often referred to with the abbreviation and the name itself shortened, such as DIF, ÅFF, and ÖIS. Also as pointed out in the task force discussion, there is no consistency across WP today, so that really isn't an argument to keep it as it is. – Elisson • T • C • 18:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to argue for the fact that there is consistency across WP in the use of the system I proposed, to shorten the name in the template but to feature in abbreviations in cases where there is more than one club with that name. A majority of league tables on WP are like Sweden's with a mix of full club names and some with abbreviations as to avoid confusion. Others feature tables with only shorted names and no abbreviations like Italy's Serie A. But as a matter of fact, I can't find any league table to feature the system that you are proposing with only the full club names. I'm unable to see what makes Sweden any different to any other country in this matter? Sweden's use of abbreviations in the club names or in the statistics is no different from any country, why should it be any different on WP? Personally I don't see any problems at all with the current system. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No one has yet presented what the English-language sources say. RSSSF use the letters after/before the club names, whilst Soccerway tend to only use the letters where there are different teams from one town. Eldumpo (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not an easy issue to address so I refer below to the way that the key organisations/sources that I am familiar with present club names.

Some abbreviations used (Elfsborg, Gefle, Häcken, Mjällby etc)

Svenska Fans - [svenskafans.com]
Soccerway - [soccerway.com]
SvFF - Swedish Football Association - [svenskfotboll.se] (Djurgården and Örebro)

Full club name used (with abbreviations such as IF and FF)

SvFF - Swedish Football Association - [svenskfotboll.se]
Everysport - [everysport.com]
GAIS - [gais.se]
RSSSF, Clas Glenning - Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation - [rsssf.com]
SFS Bolletinen - Swedish Football Statistics - [bolletinen.se] [follow the [Allsvenskan] link and click the Valj läg box].
Claudio Nicoletti's site on European soccer statistics for clubs - [webalice.it/claudionicoletti1/]

The information above may help the decision-making process. It would appear that there are more organisations/sources (of significance) using the full club name but I am sure that my survey is not complete and there must be other organisations to consider. Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 18:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)).

Just a note with regards to the above comment and SoccerWay. Having spoke to one of the main content guys over there, they use the same naming convention for all the clubs in the world, that is, they use the short name of the club unless it comes into conflict with another club. For example, IF Elfsborg is Elfsborg, but if there was another Elfsborg, say FF Elfsborg, then they would be both listed with their full names to avoid confusion. With that said, I don't think the website should be considered in making a decision in this particular case. TonyStarks (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a few other points that I would like to make:

1. Most (but not quite all) of the Allsvenskan league tables showed the full club name until a few weeks ago.

2. With regard to consistency on WP, the case is made by Reckless182 that league tables that feature only full club names may not exist in other countries. However, in English league tables only the "F.C." is removed.

3. If the Premier League was amended using abbreviations (as shown in the league table in today's The Times) we would see for example:

- Tottenham (not Tottenham Hotspur)

- Newcastle (not Newcastle United)

- Stoke (not Stoke City)

- Norwich (not Norwich City)

- Swansea (not Swansea City)

- QPR (not Queens Park Rangers)

- West Brom (not West Bromwich Albion)

- Wolves (not Wolverhampton Wanderers)

- Wigan (not Wigan Athletic)

- Blackburn (not Blackburn Rovers)

- Bolton (not Bolton Wanderers)

If we retain the Swedish Fb team templates in their current format should we amend the Premier League on WP to accord with the format for the Allsvenskan?

4. The work recently undertaken on the Swedish Fb league tables looks superb in comparison with the previous format. It would not take long to reformat the Fb league tables to show the full club names again. Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 09:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)).

1998 FIFA World Cup qualification

Isn't there some official FIFA record for World Cup qualifiers from 1998 and earlier somewhere on the Internet? Reports from various websites have been cited in our articles, and here's just a random match I found weird: Bulgaria vs Luxembourg, 1998 qualification. The minutes of the four goals are given as 43' (p), 45', 50' (p), 81' in the Wikipedia article, which can't be true because I watched the game back then and certainly remember that the halftime score was 1–0, sealed with a late penalty by Stoichkov. The source on its part gives the four minutes completely different: 41', 47', 49', 70', and does not say anything about the penalties. And that one is just one of the many matches. Isn't there something better to cite? --Theurgist (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:VNT says change it, unless you can find a more reliable reference. While those numbers could be OK for a 1-0 HT scoreline (some sources give the "clock time" for goals, so a goal scored in the first 20 seconds of second half could be listed as 45') they do not match the scores of the listed match report so I have changed them to match.--ClubOranje^T 22:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've checked in Persson, Gunnar, ed. (1998). Årets fotboll 1998. Stockholm: Strömbergs/Brunnhages., the standard authoritative (published in cooperation with the Swedish FA) Swedish football yearbook (that covers more than just Swedish football). It gives the goal scoring minutes as 44', 47', 49' (p), 81' (no penalty marked for the 44' goal by Stoichkov). This doesn't really clear things up that much, but at least it's a reputable source... – Elisson • T • C • 00:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

[1], a very good source for me, gives the same minutes, except 47 instead of 45 (clearly an error). 109.173.212.187 (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

And it does give both penalties too. Great, I'll replace the current source with this one. I was having a vague reminiscence that the minute of Stoichkov's opener was 43' exactly, but that wasn't something I was absolutely sure about. Thanks all. --Theurgist (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Friendly tournaments 2012 and beyond

hi, I think we must add the word "International" in the title of this templates, maybe not in the link but the title must be more clear to ban insidenationals friendlies games, like the Desert Diamond Cup or summer frienlies between River and Boca in argentina, and expand the 2012 with more internationals friedlies. We have the Template:International club football and those template share some poits that must be easy to read at first view--Feroang (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Perhaps "International friendly association football tournaments"? FkpCascais (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of these templates. There's hundreds of "friendly tournaments" every single year, do they really relate to each other in anyway other than being tournaments? If it were up to me, I'd actually propose to delete them .. and sorry if my response has nothing to do with the request in the original message! TonyStarks (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, what's the actual use of these templates? I'd advise taking to WP:TFD. Giant Snowman 09:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As you did here.... The use is navigation, which is pretty much the same reason some contributors give for keeping various squad templates as long as they have half a dozen blue links. And before someone mentions that the 2012 one only has 2 links, I suggest referring back there.... --ClubOranje^T 10:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well is there really need for one template every year? Why not simply put it in a template current friendly tournaments, and former ones. -Koppapa (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

One template, per decade, organised by year? Get rid of the flags, location + dates, and just have the tournamrnt title. Giant Snowman 12:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In response to ClubOranje, squad templates make sense, it's a team and the players that make up that team. There's a real link between the players. Friendly tournaments do not relate to each other .. in my opinion anyway. I don't see what a friendly tournament in Iran has to do with another friendly tournament in Chile with another in Canada, all featuring different teams. Also, what's the scope of this template? Are we talking about any friendly tournament? There's hundreds every season, do we really need to add them all to a template? Will people really use it for navigation? And sorry if I sound negative, it's nothing personal, I just don't see the point of them. TonyStarks (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't like these templates at all, but if we're going to have articles on the individual tournaments, they're the lesser of the evils. Better to have a slightly pointless template, than to not have remotely prominent links to these articles anywhere, or giving them undue prominence by editing links into articles that probably shouldn't mention them at all. Worse still, some bright spark might decide to create some sort of crufty, two column list for them. —WFC— 22:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Steve Kean

Just a quickie regarding the stats table on Steve Kean. There is presently a note underneath the table stating that it includes Premier League games only. But should this be the case? I don't think I've seen any other tables in managers' articles that account for league games only. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree - as far as I can see, the norm is that the table should include all first-team matches and should tie up to a reliable source such as Soccerbase. As the Soccerbase stats don't show the league and cup matches separately, the table in the article must include a degree of Original Research. I have corrected the table in the article, and have invited User:RoverTheBendInSussex, who insists that cup games don't count, to contribute to this discussion. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded, it should be all game he is manager for - after all, that is what Soccerbase, normally used as a source for manager games, includes. Giant Snowman 11:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As I don't wish to get involved in a edit war, can someone else take a look at this article. There are now two stats tables; one of all matches and one of league only. User:RoverTheBendInSussex justifies the inclusion of the latter with the edit summary: "There is a need for the second table. It is very relivant(sic) to the current climate at Blackburn Rovers." so I guess he wants Kean out. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Table removed, I've also had a word with the editor in question. Giant Snowman 16:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User refuses to listen & continues to revert, what should be our next move? Giant Snowman 16:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically it would be WP:ANEW if it continues. That said, Daemonic Kangaroo has merged the tables, which presumably means he supports keeping the content. Given the explicit agenda behind the PL-only stats, and the lack of a direct reference, I'd remove them again, but it's not so urgent that it can't be left for a few days to see if your talk page comment gets any replies. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really support having two tables, but I didn't have the stomach for a fight with someone who made it quite clear that he was not going to listen to reason. Unfortunately, I've been in bed with (man)flu, so I'm not thinking very straight. I will go along with the consensus. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I favour one table with every match, not one table split in two, and certainly not two tables. I suggest we try & come up with consensus on the article talk page, so that we can then implement it.Giant Snowman 10:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you copy the content from here and our various talk pages into the talk page for Kean and we take it from there? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll copy this discussion, but won't touch individual's talk pages, my own included. I don't think there's anything useful there. Giant Snowman 11:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Koffi Ndri Romaric

This is a NAME/NICKNAME compound, thus wrong in my opinion. However, there is already an article called Romaric, should we consider moving the footballer's page to "Christian Kofi Ndri" - his REAL name - "Romaric (footballer)" or leave it as it is?

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:Common name, I would move it to Romaric (footballer). -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

With a redirect to Koffi Ndri Romaric? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 04:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I support the move to Romaric (footballer), and of course redirect should be there. This is similar to a move that I requested few months ago: Thiago Emiliano da Silva to Thiago Silva (footballer). — MT (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Move completed. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of Romaric before, so wanted to take a look at RCD Espanyol's team, but for some reason I can only see the coach's name on the template. See here: Template:RCD Espanyol squad. What's up there? Jared Preston (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Now fixed (I hope!) -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice work guys! Apparently JARED, something's afoot as well in Template:Málaga CF squad... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Current Squad Templates

Is it just me, or is everyone experiencing the same problem all the current squad templates are only displaying the manager. What’s going on? ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Check the edit history of {{Football squad2 player}} - looks like WOSlinker (talk · contribs) and Thumperward (talk · contribs) have been playing about. I'll direct them here. Giant Snowman 14:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverted for now until the requestee figures out what went wrong (an odd bug by the looks of things). While we're at it, though, it looks like {{football squad2 start}} has finally been orphaned, so it's time that it and the other bits of associated code are deleted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There still seems to be a problem. On the {{Template:RCD Espanyol squad}} I deleted the {{Squad maintenance|update source= }} template, which cured the problem, but that doesn't seem relevant to any of the others. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have fixed it now - I had to purge each page to clear the cache to see the correct template. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Definately still a problem, see Wayne Rooney for example. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be caused by the {{Squad maintenance}} template included in some current squad templates. If this is removed, both the Manchester United and Málaga CF templates are OK. I haven't touched these club templates, as there is presumably a deeper cause. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Both those templates - with the squad maintenance intact - appears fine to me. The problem was with edits made to {{Football squad2 player}}, which Chris reverted. Giant Snowman 15:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Something odd is going on, as 5 minutes ago, they were both screwed up, but are now both fine. Perhaps my flu bug has got into my PC! --- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be fixed now, can't find any errors ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Premier League website "redesign"

Don't know if anyone's mentioned this before, but in their infinite wisdom the Premier League have recently "redesigned" their website. What this means for us is that most links to premierleague.com now either redirect to the front page of the site or the front page of the relevant section (e.g. for news items), or, in the case of player profiles, are just 404. Hope this helps :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not long after I added a reference to our most recent signing for his height, this happens and I don't think he even has one on the redesigned website because he hasn't featured in a Premier League game. Surely it wouldn't be hard for them to have the original URLs redirect the user to the new page. It wreaks of laziness. The FA have done the same with their site this year. Lots of player pages don't work any more and, for the ones that do, they've taken away the statistics table – which was handy for my FL efforts. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You might find it annoying, but it hardly reeks of laziness on their part. Why would the Premier League care if it compromised Wikipedia referencing? Omg † osh 19:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Why indeed? But you'd think they might care about not making it difficult for people to use their website. It's pretty standard procedure when restructuring a website to redirect URLs, at least on a temporary basis, to avoid irritating the users. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If I provided a service that is regularly used and then decided to move it all, I would ensure that old URLs all redirect to the right place. To their credit, articles on the BBC that are more than a decade old still work despite the numerous changes they've made over the years. As you pointed out, I'm sure that a multi-billion pound corporation like the Premier League couldn't care less. We'll just have to alter them manually as and when we find them, just like when UEFA changed their website. Fantastic. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Permalinks are supposed to be permanent. There is simply no excuse for any major website to have a redesign which breaks links to content unless they've actually removed it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

FIFA trigrammes

I've discovered that the infoboxes at certain articles on national teams that are unaffiliated to FIFA or to any of the continental confederations, and have always been so, specify FIFA trigrammes for those teams which are not mentioned anywhere at List of FIFA country codes. Those include: Monaco, Vatican City, Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Mayotte, Kiribati, Nauru, Wallis and Futuna, and possibly some others that I've overlooked. How did we get to know those country codes and why aren't they in the main list? --Theurgist (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, does anyone know why the Central African Republic team had its trigramme "CAF" replaced with "CTA" when the country has changed neither its name nor its borders? --Theurgist (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

For the former, I'd imagine the answer is our old friend mister Original Research. For the latter, the most likely explanation is that FIFA would rather not have an African nation share its trigram with the African federation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion took place nearly 5 years ago on the relevant talk page, and it's still there. Not sure why it is raised here now. Kevin McE (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The talk page Kevin refers to is here. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the version before the section was last deleted. And here are some more of those codes, although that mentions no such thing as "Antarctica national team". I'm going to remove the codes from those eight articles. With the exception of Kiribati, all those teams maintain neither full nor provisional membership to any confederation, and unless it gets confirmed that their trigrammes are of a value extending beyond their serving as provisional codes employed for occasional purposes, their presence in the infoboxes wouldn't make much sense. By contrast, the CAF/CTA distinction makes perfect sense to me. --Theurgist (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Neil Etheridge in desperate need of protection

If an admin reads this would they mind protecting the Neil Etheridge article? He's making his debut for Fulham tonight and the page is taking an absoluting battering from IPs. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously needs to be done, there's even been discussion on the BBC website about how he managed to get 328 caps for the Philippines national team... [2] DeMoN2009 20:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ive never seen anything as bad as that. I reverted to last clean version and within seconds it was vandalised multiple times again. Keith D has protected it now. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Top marks to Phil Dawkes for fuelling the fire... What triggered that hot mess then? Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The first thing tweeted in on the BBC about Etheridge was about his impressive number of international caps, so I'd suspect that helped kick it off. It seems to me like it was an organised effort by a number of individuals, and then once the ball got rolling and the increasing number of Tweeters that got heed of it, it just exploded. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Kerim Frei article didn't avoid vandalism either. This passage was rather bizarre: He owns two pet rabbits both of which are named after African footballers. They are called George Weah and Taribo West ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Beeb are a net positive for Wikipedia (here's one example). Even the likes of Fighting Talk generally only cross the line when there is an underlying good reason, such as protesting against a notability blunder. See the history Greg Brady (broadcaster) and Will Buckley (journalist) for an idea of what I mean. If a couple of people are bothered enough to complain to the BBC about that page, it's a fair bet that the person responsible for putting that into the live text won't do so again.

As for Twitter, the vast majority of Wikipedia-related trends depend on the mainstream media for traction. —WFC— 21:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

User uploading dozens of non-free images.

User:Antony1821 has been busy over the last couple of days uploading pictures of players, mostly from Olympiacos. [3] He added a couple to articles that I watch, which I've tagged as being a likely copyvio. Given this user's history (warned multiple times by myself and others in the past for inappropriate editing) and the quality of the images, I'd say they all need to go and a block needs to be made. Is there a quick way to get rid of all these copyrighted images? Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

He appears to be claiming that he holds the copyright to the pictures... that is clearly not the case. I just went through each of the pictures and tagged them db-filecopyvio. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 21:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Jamelli

Can someone please restore - i could not - the previous title, or at least "Paulo Jamelli"? Move without discussion often lead to those MISTAKES, and here's why:

JAMELLI is not a nickname, it's part of his FULL name. Wayne Rooney's page is not "Rooney", Iker Casillas' page is not named "Casillas", Thierry Henry is not "Henry", etc, etc. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Jamelli a common name like Ronaldo? Not every article about a person on WP needs to be named with the full name of that person. However I suppose that the use of the common name has to be well documented in the article, which it isn't as far as I can see. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

But Ronaldo (the Brazilian guy that is) is a FIRST NAME, Jamelli is the SECOND. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Does that really matter? The title of the article should be Jamelli if he is referred by that name (simply Jamelli) on more occasions than his full name. Since I don't know the player that well and haven't done any research on him I cannot say for sure if this is correct or not. How about doing some research in trustworthy sources such as FIFA, the Brazilian FA and so on to find out? --Reckless182 (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

FLC List of Israel State Cup winners

Hi everyone, There is a Featured list candidates of List of Israel State Cup winners. People with experience in WP, please have a look and apply your concerns, Support, or Oppose. Thank you. Please note: have you say before it closes with Stale nomination.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Football box

I think {{Football box}} could do with an option for a key. We football fans may instinctively know that the arrows and numbers mean substitutions and times, but unfamiliar readers may not. The trouble is, with a template that complicated, I have no idea how to add it. Any template experts on hand to help? Oldelpaso (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

{{Football box}} has no substitutions included, it only has goals (or at least the meaning is only to include goals for the goals parameter), while {{Football line-up}} has the parameters to use cards and substitutions. Either way, the standard symbols have their own templates (such as {{goal}}, {{subon}} and {{sent off}}), how about just adding a tooltip to those?

It could look like this for substituted on, for example:

47'

And like this for a golden goal:

112'

– Elisson • T • C • 07:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

We should probably do both. Tooltips may not be accessible to readers (for instance on touchscreen devices). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The image's alt text is supposed to do the job of a tooltip, in the case of those templates. But sure, not everyone can access tooltips or alt text. I just worry that we're dumbing the encyclopaedia down too much. I mean, if you can't work out what the symbols mean from context, what are you doing using a computer? – Pee Jay 01:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Neil Etheridge

Just when this young man's page looked set for some stability...! I and User:Banana Fingers are in a bit of a disagreement over his international caps; I amended the figure from 28 to 25 (citing his National Football Teams profile), but this user reverted back to the original 28, stating that "nft has missing data!" (despite him/her not providing a source for these three missing caps). I then readded the 25 caps alongside a stats table sourced to NFT but this has since been removed by the user and the subject's international stats have been removed, with the user claiming NFT to be an "unreliable source". I've tried engaging with the user but s/he seems oblivious to discussion. Any input would be greatly appreciated, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've had my own run-ins with BF in the past...Giant Snowman 16:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

So..... 25 caps..... still reliable?!? pfff. Even if I hadn't provided evidence that Etheridge featured in the three matches where NFT doesn't have the data, bottom line is that the stats automatically become inaccurate, Etheridge's or any other player's stats where there is missing data due to the fact that it is unknown if the player featured or didn't feature in one of the matches where the data is missing. This is until you can find evidence that the player featured or didn't feature in a a particular match. In this case, I was able to provide evidence that Etheridge DID feature in the three missing matches as well all other matches for the Philippines in 2008. Therefore persisting with NFT despite being aware there are missing data is just effing ridiculous. Banana Fingers (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Top Scorers

Does anyone have a source that will show the top scorer for an individual club in the Scottish Premier Division & Scottish First Division dating back from 1998-1890's. I've the found plenty of sources for the league top scorer but none for a invividual club. Its Dundee I'm particularly interested in. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean pre-1998? If so, check the club's website/SFL website? Giant Snowman 19:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's pre 1998 I'm looking for, the only records on SFL website is the Leugue tables & Cup Winners no top scorers. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Cat Deeley

Her article claims she is the granddaughter of Norman Deeley, though there is no mention of this on Norman's article. Is this a lie?--Echetus Xe 11:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Check her ref#14 - 'Top 10 Famous Female Football Fans: 8 Cat Deeley - West Bromwich Albion' - I would do but I'm at work and don't trust the combination of The Sun + attractive women. If there's nothing there, then remove it at once. Giant Snowman 12:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

All that article says on the subject is "YOU would never have guessed that pert Cat could be so Baggie. The Sutton Coldfield lass is obviously not afraid to stick up for herself either, as her Mum, Dad and brother are all Wolves fans." -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of Cat on Norman's obituaries, he only died four years ago, so I'm pretty sure it is nonsense.--Echetus Xe 13:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur - if she was really his grand-daughter, I'm sure the Express & Star obit would have mentioned the fact. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Good to see it's now been removed. Giant Snowman 13:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 UEFA Champions League Final

An editor insists on changing a few players to their full names as in this edit. Could a few editors watch the article and help explain why it's incorrect? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Fuck's sake, not that guy again. He seems to pop up in those articles every couple of months just to change the names despite overwhelming opposition. I know he's foreign and whatnot, but can't that guy take a fucking hint? – Pee Jay 23:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No discussion on the article talk page or the editor in question's page? Giant Snowman 23:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't speak English. – Pee Jay 23:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of Spanish speakers in the Project. Giant Snowman 00:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Editors who cannot or will not explain their edits fail WP:COMPETENCE. The next time it happens, issue a final warning, and the next time after that ping me. Vasco seems to be in touch with him, so he should at least be getting good advice on how to avoid this outcome. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

What are the standard disambiguators?

Hello.

It doesn't say on the project page what the standard disambiguators for people are. I know of "(footballer)", but if there is one player and one coach (who never played himself, at least not on a notable level) with the same name, how do we dab them?

Thanks

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Do they use British or American English? British would be '(footballer)' and '(football manager)', American would be '(soccer)' and '(soccer coach)'. Giant Snowman 16:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

They're both Russian, and I guess international=British.

Thanks.

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Júlio Regufe Alves

Vandalism in the player's article continues (better said, the persecution on VascoAmaral), i have asked for page protection, which was politely declined. Plus, the "user" has a neverending array of IPs, thus rendering other measures such as ANI or talkpage messages pretty useless.

Don't know what can be done, really. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Sepp Blatter's middle name

Is there a published source for Sepp Blatter's middle name? Hack (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he actually has a middle name - Sepp is just an abbreviation of Joseph. According to the South African government's website though, his middle name was briefly "bellend"! —BETTIA— ^talk 10:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the reference in his article, following FIFA's execrable site redesign which (yet again!) broke all the permalinks. Note the "perma" part of "permalink". Sigh. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we should just declare FIFA unreliable and be done with the hassle ;) —WFC— 15:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In this specific instance FIFA.com isn't independent of the subject... lol Hack (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, Bayern Munich v Norwich City

This article reads like a Sun or Daily Mail editorial of the tie, not an article. An article is not littered with little quotes, and, obviously, is not so slanted in favour of one point of view. Using quotes in the introduction in particular is rank amateur. The problem, also, with The Independent being an accepted source is that very often they descend into tabloid-style jingoism and cite rumour, opinion and conjecture as fact, and being a smaller paper, their editing is usually of poorer quality than other papers. And, like the other British papers, the lines between comment and reporting are blurred.

It would fit in very well on canaries.co.uk but it boggles my mind that such a piece continues to exist here. Again, I feel the English Wikipedia's football articles should follow the format used by the Spanish and Italian Wikipedias, where the facts are simply presented as-is and there is simply no room for self-important description:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_de_la_UEFA_1978-79 http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Europa_League_2010-2011

I'm glad to see that overall there's less of a trend to include reams of match description in articles, but I feel my point still stands; I find it crazy that the bloated 2009 UEFA Champions League Final page is considered a "good article," and the policy to allow match description leads to messes like, for example, 1968 Intercontinental Cup.

Wannabe rockstar (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and of course you are entitled to it, but for us to follow the Spanish or Italian model and reduce articles to mere stats would be a violation of (funnily enough) WP:NOTSTATS. We should be striving for neutrality, of course, but we can only work with what is mentioned in the media. Otherwise you just get an article so dry that no one wants to read it. – Pee Jay 23:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Read many encyclopedia articles? They tend to be quite... dry. I know that's not the idea of Wikipedia, but I felt compelled to mention it.

Obviously people can only "work with" what's reported in the media, but there's a big difference between citing facts noted in the papers and opinions expressed by writers in the papers; most of the article in question consists of the latter. A decent example of an article with description, although in my opinion most of it is still both unnecessary and uninteresting, is 2005 UEFA Champions League Final, which is relatively concise given the importance of the match to Liverpool fans, and at least doesn't read like it was copied and pasted from a tabloid. Quotes are simply presented and not editorialized upon, for one thing. And I note now that you're one of the editors maintaining the status quo of the 1968 Intercontinental Cup page, so I suppose that wasn't a great example to use... Wannabe rockstar (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've notified User:Dweller, the main contributor of said Bayern v Norwich article, of this discussion. Oldelpaso (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I've seen a lot worse - it has 34 sources for starters and the quotes are only there so that what might be considered POV can be included. Sure, improve it. But it ain't so bad. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's a pretty great article. If you read some of the articles we have on proper encyclopedia articles like battles, you get much the same tone. Quite simply, this was a huge upset and in the end the article is going to reflect that. Would that more articles were as well-written (and of course well-referenced) as this rather than simply being piecemeal aggregations of single-sentence news updates tied together by statistics. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Oldelpaso. I'll come back and comment when I'm not tired, or I might write something out of character. --Dweller (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I've missed something but how does the first leg of a second round UEFA Cup tie meet the inclusion criteria? Brad78 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The article's moved on a lot since it was kept at AfD, but the match has enduring notability for several reasons: pinnacle of Norwich's history, massive upset and the only match Bayern ever lost at the Olympic Stadium to a British club. It garners a good handful of in-depth references in reliable sources every year, never mind ever. --Dweller (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

To be honest don't see the problem here its in a pretty good condition and as said it seems to be a notable match and has passed an AFD in the past.Edinburgh Wanderer 03:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

*Sigh* Lots of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, i.e. the GNG. Not some daft set of checkboxes that a WikiProject cooks up so that people can AfD articles without reading them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe notable for Norwich but certainly not for Bayern. The club gets a wake-up call in pretty regularly in the German Cup, whether its FV Weinheim (III) (1990: 0–1), FC Homburg (II) (1991: 2–4 at home), TSV Vestenbergsgreuth (II) (1994: 0–1) or 1. FC Magdeburg (IV) (2000: 3–5 pen), and that by clubs much lower in division and reputation then Norwich City. And. needless to say, these events get heaps of lasting press coverage, and not just in Germany (La Gazzetta dello Sport: "Club di dilettanti elimina Trapattoni"). Bayern is happy to admit so on their own website. Would these lapses against mostly amateur sides be notable to have their own match article, too? Calistemon (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The UEFA Cup is a considerably higher-profile event than the German Cup. Nevertheless, nobody is saying that X random event is not notable, only that this one is. If you want to try creating an article on another match you believed received enough coverage from independent sources to pass the GNG then go right ahead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If those events have significant or in depth coverage over a wide area and beyond a relatively short news cycle then they might be notable, especially if they have some form of historical importance. I think the Bayern-City match has this sort of stuff covered. I wonder if the matches you're considering would meet the short news cycle aspect? As others have said, from a Norwich perspective the event has been revisited and reanalysed a number of times. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

German club seasons

Would anybody be able to help with the German club season articles? In paticular with 2011–12 1. FSV Mainz 05 season, 2011–12 FC Schalke 04 season‎, 2011–12 FC Augsburg season‎, 2011–12 Fortuna Düsseldorf season and 2011–12 Borussia Mönchengladbach season‎. Kingjeff (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Would anybody be able to help with 1986–87 1. FC Nuremberg season? Thanks. Kingjeff (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Help with what? Adam4267 (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think he's looking for additions to stats and history. Likely translations from the German site. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

And when you're finished you can start looking at 2011–12 English club seasons. There are so many out of date I don't why they even exist... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

What english articles are you referring to. Edinburgh Wanderer 03:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Take any of the teams in Championship, League One or League Two in the form of 2011–12 Football Club season, e.g. 2011–12 Exeter City F.C. season. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with these type of articles is that they get started by a user with a burst of energy at the start of the season but before long the user realises that the article requires a very high level of attention, so interest wanes. Easier to create articles about past events IMHO. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course its easier to do one of these articles after all the information is gathered. But if you look at a high profile club like 2011–12 Manchester United F.C. season you will notice that everything is fine and dandy and that the information is almost updated in real-time. That's not the point however. You have a mass of these articles which are not up to date and IMO misleading - To the point that they should be deleted and left as stubs so when a good soul arrives that wants to contribute they don't have to wade through oodles of krep. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than stubbing them, they can be redirected to the "History" section of the club article. In an ideal world, said section would be a WP:SUMMARY of the individual league articles anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding company infobox to football club

After the introduction of UEFA financial fair play, i think reader were going to know more about the clubs financially. Please comment on Talk:Manchester United F.C. after the infobox was removed.

As i said in summary and talk page. It is stupid to say Manchester United is rich, its successful global brand but without actual figure.

And for the debt, it is also stupid to write Manchester United had a heavy debt (actually is his holding company had a heavy debt) but without actual figure. Negative equity is a solid prove that the holding company had a heavy debt. Matthew_hk t c 20:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to have a separate infobox. All clubs are companies, and as such company detail should, if relevant, be added to the main club infobox. As regards the debt issue, it isn't for us to compare sources to each other and come up with novel interpretations of the real state of affairs. A company that has significant debts may indeed be very rich anyway: I dare say Richard Branson hasn't paid off the mortgages on his island mansions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Manchester United is rich. However A "rich man" opened a series of company called "Red Football" and borrowed money from bank to buy Manchester. So there is still huge total asset, but deducting the liabilities (debt), the equity/net asset of "Red Football" is negative. So financially "Red Football" isn't rich and bank can always filed bankruptcy if they did not pay the interests in time. "Red Football" could be folded and its valuable asset would not be folded, instead bank would find a new buyer, just like Liverpool and Roma.

Based on above, the ownership section should be total rewrite or stated the difference between "holding company" and the "football Club group". Infobox is a supportive measures. Professional sports newspaper editor not always a non-amateur in finance.

For finance, i don't know why Forbas or other "richest" list were allowed to insert. Their information was subjective. Total asset and revenue merely related to sports result but the cost does (wage and transfer fee). However nowadays Guardian (Daily Mail) reported Manchester City huge net loss and UEFA Fiancial Fair Play, Chelsea, CPO, new stadium and FFP, the net loss was concerned by the reader, despite most of the football club isn't for money-making (and FFP only concern did the club use balanced budget). Infobox could support the "richest" list with actual figure not estimated one, and actual figure as a reference for FFP too (despite FFP balance is a adjusted one with relevant income and cost, not always equal to the accounting balance). Matthew_hk t c 04:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If a club was publicly listed, an article on the listed entity could probably detail this sort of information. Hack (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

We're not here to Right Great Wrongs in journalism. That most certainly includes contraditing sources based on personal analysis. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

2011-12 Belgian Pro League

All the tables on this page are mad up with green (PLay-offs 1), white (Play-offs 2) and red (relegation play-offs). Changing the white with yellow would be much better, especialy in the tables of positions by round. The colored rectangles that come after the matchday last played show how long a team rests in playoffs 1, no mather wich result and how long a club is still in the relegation zone, no mather the result. With yellow you could clearly see how long a club is in play-off 2, no mather the result and it would also be clearer as a difference to all the other white squares who come after the other play-off colours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ycleymans (talk • contribs) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Honours

After another edit war between User:Raulseixas and some other users, resulting in his block (again), i have to notify the "force" of my weariness regarding the following: last time(s) we discussed this, i thought we had reached the consensus that runner-up honours (except in leagues that is) should be listed.

Now, User:PeeJay2K3 has replied to my message to him per Raul's request saying that NO SUCH CONSENSUS exists, and that several people agree with him that those "accolades" should not appear in a player's article. Kind of tiring this (seemingly) endless discussion people, again where do we stand please?

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there is simply no consensus either way on this point; thus to delete them on the grounds that "No consensus exists" is just as wrong as the opposite. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. There is a subtle difference between "no consensus to do something" and "consensus not to do something". The latter means that it is forbidden; the former merely means that it is not mandatory. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Semantics aside, what are people's opinions on this? Shall we perhaps say, only a player's best finish in a competition should be listed? – Pee Jay 16:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Depends what the sources say - if a reliable newspaper article takes the time to mention a runner-up medal/position, then I say include it. If no, then just victories should be noted. Giant Snowman 17:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem we run into there is that different sources will list honours to different levels. I hate inconsistency. – Pee Jay 17:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well then we should agree that runner-up or winner are the only two acceptable positions, and even winners need referencing in order to be listed. Giant Snowman 17:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I also like consistency, but I think we need to be sensible here. My personal preference is certainly not consistent: it would be to see winner and runner-up for league, the winner only for cups, but for the World Cup, I'd be open to listing top three. But on top of that inconsistency, I bear in mind that I'm British and influenced by British sources I normally access. There may be an element of WP:WORLDVIEW to take into account here. --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have found that generally the honours listed on a player's page are directly related to how much success they have achieved. If they have won several title, cups etc. runners-up are not usually listed. But if their only acvhievement is to have finished runner-up in a cup then that is listed. Personally, I think the best solution is to list the things that players actually get medals/trophies for; which is usually winners in leagues, runners-up in cups, and third place in tournamenets with third place play-offs. As well as Golden boot winner, Young player of the year etc. But if a RS shows that they can get medals for other things then those should be included as well. Adam4267 (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A.F.C. Darwen

1. Shouldn't Darwen FC and AFC Darwen have separate articles? The article suggests that the two clubs are different entities, as Darwen FC was formally wound up. 2. Is AFC Darwen a notable club (yet)? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It was moved by Sarumio (talk · contribs), who was a long-term nuisance and is now blocked. I'd say move it back, and concentrate on the old club, as that is notable, whereas I don't feel the new one is. Giant Snowman 13:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In contrast, I think there should be a single article at the current location - I don't see the point in having separate ones when you can make it clear in the history section what happened - I don't understand why we bother for some clubs (e.g. Maidstone United) but not others (e.g. Middlesbrough). Either way, the reformed club is still notable as they play in the North West Counties League. Number 5 7 16:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Iraqi articles

Can someone please help keep an eye on BRO7 (talk · contribs), who also edits as 81.86.65.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - they appear to copy & paste information from a website (which one I don't know), and they don't seem to understand WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP... Giant Snowman 13:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

MSP Szamotuły

Can I put in a request to have the MSP Szamotuły article un-deleted? It's a fairly high profile goalkeeping academy in Poland which has helped produce several international goalkeepers. TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I rememeber PRODding the article, there were no references whatsoever. No evidence of notability provided. I'd suggest creating it in User space first, ensuring notability. Giant Snowman 14:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Phil Babb

Check the picture - admittedly hilarious, but still an act of vandalism. Can someone please deal with this, I'm busy for the next few hours. Thanks, Giant Snowman 14:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the Babb vandalism NEVER going to end?! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Racism in association football

Could do with an update/clean up, given recent events, if people would be so kind... Giant Snowman 15:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Top goalscorer the world as classified by the World Federation of the history of football and statistics (IFFHS)

Just wanted to make everyone aware of the glory that is the title of this article. – Pee Jay 16:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not a thing. No direct source, and even if there was, it would probably violate copyright (as the full list at Time's List of the 100 Best Novels did), as well as just being generally pointless. Giant Snowman 16:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I can't say as I understand the text nor what the article is trying to convey. Can it be deleted? If so, what are the best grounds? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR? I think it applies best here. – Kosm1 fent 17:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've PRODded the title article and am looking for others - can someone please look at {{IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer of the Year}}? Giant Snowman 17:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Related - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer of the Year. Giant Snowman 17:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Oakes

Hello. I've created an article on the cricketer Dennis Oakes, who also played football for several teams. I've added a note of who he played for, but as I have little interest in football I've no idea where to look to find sources to expand his football information. So I've posted it here so anyone who wants to expand that section can. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Tuples in association football

I recently 'attempted' to clean up the page by removing the large amount of unsourced information on it. I then opened a discussion here to try and get more editors opinions on this. However, I wasn't really sure what the consensus was for going forward, so I just left the page as is. Without the unsourced information. Users, Subtropical-man and Kahkonen have recently taken exception to this and have tried to re-introduce Barcelona's alleged 'sextuple'. Subtropical-man has now re-added all the unsourced information in it's entirety, without discussion on the talk page (I opened a new section but neither user replied) and with a confusing warning and explanation on my talk page. Adam4267 (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A "tuple" isn't a thing. Giant Snowman 20:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Talking about a possible 11-tuple in some contries is a joke, that has to include so minor tournaments that really isn't notable. Triple is ok, quaddruple is a term used in countries where there is a league cup. Anything above that is not generally used in media, as it only includes minor cups or single-match cups. Sextuple is included by some users, because FIFA used that term on a single news-item. Haven't seen it used ever again. So, it should be deleted in my view. -Koppapa (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree should be removed. Edinburgh Wanderer 01:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to derail the thread, but I would note that Celtic's European Cup year is often referred to as a quintuple or the like (the Glasgow Cup was rather more prestigious in the 60s). But that's the sole referenced exception (and it's referenced poorly in the current article, and in the wrong section to boot). Anyway, yeah, I'm still in favour of merging the double and trebl articles to that one and then taking a well-oiled chainsaw to anything which isn't rigourously decorated with good secondary sources. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The article, as it stands, is Subtropical-man's version. I had removed everything unreferenced. Plus Barca's Sextuple, as I explained on the talk page. However, he reverted without explanation. This is how the article looked after I had taken said well-oiled chainsaw to it. Adam4267 (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This needs done its in a poor state and i agree with chris and adam that the only way to sort it is to try and get good secondary sources and if it can't be done then it has to go. Subtropical was notified of this two days ago and appears not to want to input. This is the second discussion we have had re this so we need to move forward so support going to what Adam has already done previously and trying to improve further.Edinburgh Wanderer 03:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted Subtropical-man again, so the article is in a better state now, no doubt he will revert me again without explanation. However, the other user has been on the talk page which is good. I personally am not sure about the way forward for these three articles, although obviously this one needs to be renamed because 'Tuples is ridiculous. Adam4267 (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Another user has reverted me, with his first mainspace edit. Anyone else thinking sock? [4] Adam4267 (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And Subtropical-man has now re-created the three articles, (The Quadruple, The Quintuple, The Sextuple) or at least re-added the, content and is requesting that the 'Tuples' page be deleted. Adam4267 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Adam4267, not only did not you not address the points I raised in the discussion page for the "Tuples" article, you went a step further and made a false accusation to distract from my argument. If you don't have an argument, then do not resort to defamatory statements, and please stay away from my Talk page. You seem to consider yourself the "owner" of the "Tuples" article, yet you are simply one of many editors. If you are wondering why the majority disagrees with your viewpoint, it is for two reasons: 1) the article has been listing the winners of the Tuples for a while, and 2) there was yet another important Tuples victory today. So it is no coincidence that the page is receiving greater than usual attention, and that is why people do not want to see it destroyed by a obviously biased editor. For the record, I have absolutely no association with Subtropical-man or any other editor of the "Tuples" page. So stay away from false accusations, and stick to arguing my points. If you can't do that, then stay away from the article and stop doing a disservice to Wikipedia readers by censoring facts. JohnMannV (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I would like to point out that Adam4267 is censoring the article in question. When someone uses false reasons to remove facts in favour of a biased version, it is censorship, pure in simple. This is especially evident when you consider that Adam4267 supports the Celtic F.C. (as per his Talk page - talk), and that "his" version of this article that he keeps reverting to conveniently only lists and recognizes the accomplishments of the Football club he supports. It should also be noted that Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) is also from Scotland and likely supports the same Football club, so their tag-team "consensus" on this issue should be taken with a grain of salt. Furthermore, as I pointed in another response on the article's Discussion page, the "Tuples" are notable not only because they are often discussed in the media when a new tuple arises, but are also recognized by the FIFA governing body. To put the notability of this subject matter to rest, here are some facts:

over 100,000 search results containing "sextuple" and "football",
over 1.3 million search results containing "quintuple" and "football",
over 2 million search results containing "quadruple" and "football".

Now on the Official FIFA site alone, there are:

over 250 results for "sextuple",
over 550 results for "quintuple", and
almost 1,000 results for "quadruple".

So everyone can stop pretending like this subject matter (in its entirety) is not notable as it just makes you look uninformed. No one here is above FIFA, no matter how fervently you support a Scottish Football Club. JohnMannV (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added external citations for Galatasaray SK's Quadruple, Inter Milan and F.C. Barcelona's Quintuples, and F.C. Barcelona's Sextuple. It really wasn't that difficult. Three of those citations are from FIFA, and I think they are a more credible source for Football achievements than Adam4267. JohnMannV (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The governing body of the sport can hardly be said to be independent. And consider this a warning for continuing to make this personal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Giant Snowman's point should not be ignored. We can't make up words for article titles --Pretty Green (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

We didn't. We just took one that doesn't really apply and used it anyway. Whether or not we can think of a better title is another matter... Alzarian16 (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward), your threats don't phase me, least of all when you have no argument to stand on. If the governing body of the sport isn't enough to give the term credibility and you insist on requiring "independent sources", then allow me to indulge you to put this matter to rest once and for all. Let's take "Sextuple", for example, as it is the rarest of the terms. Here are a few notable "independent sources" using that exact term to refer to the Sextuple of F.C. Barcelona in 2009:

TheGuardian.co.uk
Indepedent.co.uk
SkySports.com
Metro.co.uk
SportsIllustrated.CNN.com

Can you please stop arguing this point and wasting everyone's time now? You have no argument left. If you were a gentleman, this is the point where you would admit you were wrong. JohnMannV (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop trying to browbeat editors into ending the discussion. Of course publications are going to use the term "sextuple" to refer to a multiple consisting of six things: that's what "sextuple" means. The issue is whether this is truly a part of the footballing lexicon the same way that "The Double" is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And if it is, why not mention it at Glossary of association football terms? Giant Snowman 15:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward), what a predictable response. You request citations. I provide them. Not good enough for you. You request "independent sources" using the terms. I provide them. Not good enough for you. Now you want more independent sources essentially stating "Sextuple is part of the footballing lexicon". This from a person who does not consider FIFA - the governing body of football - to be a reliable source for Football terminology. It is now evident that you will not stop stretching the burden of proof for something you simply do not agree with. It is also clear that you are now letting your pride overtake your rational judgement, so I'm going to stop feeding the troll. For everyone else, I have provided indisputable evidence for how there are: 1) millions of Google results for the terms within the Football realm, 2) several notable news agencies using the terms, and 3) several examples where the world governing body of FIFA is using the term. It is clearly notable beyond a shadow of a doubt as it meets all the criteria of WP:N. JohnMannV (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof hasn't changed. It is a common rhetorical trick to give the impression of one's opponent moving the goalposts by continually low-balling one's responses, but if you'd asked me from the beginning what I regarded as an adequate burden of proof you'd have gotten the same response as currently. Misrepresenting the arguments of others, referring to them as "trolls" and partisans blinded by "pride", and continually trying to shut down response in the face of arguments made in good faith are not positive indications that one's arguments are solid. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not jsut delete the sentence "Sextuple is a term in football that refers to a club winning six tournaments all within a single season or year." and replace it by "A sextuple of titles has been achieved by..." -Koppapa (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Because if you remove the inclusion criteria then the page just becomes an indiscriminate list of teams who have won over four title across any period of time. Adam4267 (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Koppapa's suggestion would be a very good start. The problem is that you've got at least two editors insistent that "The sextuple" is part of the footballing lexicon. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"The problem is that you've got at least two editors insistent that "The sextuple" is part of the footballing lexicon." Really? Just two editors? Let's have a look who else, shall we? Here are just a few notable external sources using that exact term to refer to the Sextuple of F.C. Barcelona in 2009:

FIFA.com
UEFA.com
TheGuardian.co.uk
Indepedent.co.uk
SkySports.com
Metro.co.uk
SportsIllustrated.CNN.com
Goal.com

Just two editors, huh? You guys have absolutely no argument and you keep distorting facts to support your personal bias. Stop it already. JohnMannV (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Further input from project members would be helpful on the article talk page on the problem with Barcelona's Cup wins to try and help solve a potential edit war either way. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Losing the battle due to your personal bias and need your cronies to come support you with more distorted facts and personal opinions? Could you be any more obvious? You have absolutely no argument and are just trolling the Talk page of the "Tuples" article at this point. For those unaware, let me bring you up to speed. Edinburgh Wanderer, Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward), and Adam4267 are trying to claim F.C. Barcleona never won a Sextuple. While all three have falsely accused me of WP:SOCK and attacked me on my Talk page with impunity, they successfully got me blocked from Wikipedia for simply pointing out that all three of them are from Scotland (which I don't believe is a coincidence as I think it goes to show they are conspiring together against any non-Scottish team in the "Tuples" article). Now please refer to the following sources that prove them unequivocally wrong regarding F.C. Barcelona's Sextuple in 2009:

FIFA.com
UEFA.com
TheGuardian.co.uk
Indepedent.co.uk
SkySports.com
Metro.co.uk
SportsIllustrated.CNN.com
Goal.com

That is not enough for them. They are arrogant enough to think they are above FIFA, UEFA, The Guardian, The Independent, Sky Sports, The Metro, SportsIllustrated/CNN, and Goal.com and that they know better simply because they do not support the team. It is transparent and obvious. Since Edinburgh was losing on facts, he decided to call in his two cronies to try to overturn those facts with conspiratorial consensus. I welcome all of you to read the exchange on the "Tuples" page and to draw your own conclusions. JohnMannV (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they behaved in a similar way when pretending that Scottish Football League First Division is a "fully professional league", when it is not—and never has been—anything of the sort! 94.14.194.24 (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference her porridge is that the sources show they won six cups in a year we can categorically prove they did not win that in a season. There is also a difference in winning The sextuple and winning a sextuple of cups. I suggest you look into the thing further before making judgement. An agreement has been reached re this on the article talk page with several users.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

subst:nft template

Normally when you type in {{subst:nft|Wales}} the result is [[Wales national football team|Wales]] which shows as Wales. A gremlin seems to have got in as this substitution now results in masses of hidden text being added, although it still shows as Wales. For an example see my test page and click on the edit tab at the top. Does anyone know what is going on? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This edit made it tha way it is now. "avoiding numerous possible redirects and wrong links" Should be reverted. -Koppapa (talk) 08:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I have reverted the edits by User:Theurgist. Cheers. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Theurgist here. I hadn't thought that my edits could create such a mess, because I hadn't thought the template normally had to be substituted. See the note I left on Daemonic Kangaroo's talk. His reply on my talk brought me here. Will an auxiliary subpage Template:Nft/code do? The {{Nfa}} template has one: Template:Nfa/code, and is working just OK. --Theurgist (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

~~Done~~: {{subst:nft|Wales}}, {{subst:nft|United States}}, and {{subst:nft|Frøya}} now produce Wales, United States, and Frøya, without bringing any unexpected troubles. --Theurgist (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually not... The code [[Italy national football team|Italy]] was displaying {{subst:Nft/code|Italy}} as plain text... I reverted. --Theurgist (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Now, finally, it is

Done with the help of the safesubst modifier, thanks to Patrick. --Theurgist (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A little help please

I am considering creating an article for a footballer called Phil Roe who is a defender for Port Vale F.C. however I am not sure if he is considered as being "notable yet" and Wikipedia:Notability (sports) doesn't really answer what I want to know. Currently the only first team performance by Phil Roe was as a substitute in the First Proper Round of the FA Cup against non-league Grimsby Town F.C.. Now normally an appearance in the first round proper of the FA Cup should be considered notable, but because it was against none-league Grimsby does it still count as being classed as notable? Cheers IJA (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As the FA Cup itself is very notable, i think he "passes the test" even though the opposition was amateurish. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give it the go ahead and create the article. Cheers. IJA (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A bit late and I know you've already created the article, but if I'm not mistaken, since the match was played against non-league opposition (ie. not professional as per guidelines), he is not notable. However, I don't want to propose the article for deletion without being absolutely certain, so hopefully someone else can confirm. TonyStarks (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't convinced myself, which is why I didn't create the article. However now it has been created I will look after it.--Echetus Xe 11:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Grimsby Town are a professional team - they were in the FL last season - but play in a semi-pro league. Just ensure that the player meets GNG and it won't be an issue who he played against. Giant Snowman 11:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this was a worthwhile effort after-all.--Echetus Xe 12:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Flag issues

Can someone please help out with the ongoing discussion at Talk:2011 FIFA Club World Cup Final. A particular anonymous editor doesn't seem to understand why we use the Spanish flag instead of the Catalan flag for FC Barcelona. – Pee Jay 18:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Iran Pro League

I made a number of changes to this article, including removing some unreferenced material and adding English-language sources, but have twice been reverted. I'd be grateful if people could have a look at the changes and review the situation. I have also posted a similar request at the article's talk page. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You remove unref'd stuff and add English sources and get reverted? Talk about teamwork... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

13 external links to news websites and live score sites. :) Will delete some of them and add e.g. Fifa link. -Koppapa (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

They all got reverted again without discussion. Have re-added the text and asked author to discuss here, but grateful if people could continue to keep an eye on this. Eldumpo (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Tuples Again

Most of the original dispute has been revolved and the article is looking far better thanks to a few editors very hard work. The last argument is that Barcelona won The Sextuple. The way the article had been set out before was that they won a sextuple of Cups in a calendar year and that was my belief as well not The Sextuple as it was felt in footballing terms that had to be done in one season. Anyway once and for all a definition has to be decided by the project one way or another I'm really not bothered which way its really not important. Does The Sextuple have to be done in one Season. If it does then they one a sextuple of cups not The Sextuple.

The debate has been heated and needs to be brought to a close quickly and that will only happen it everyone inputs hence why i have started a new thread as replies on the original or on the Article talk page are low.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

First, according to the sources ([5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]), Barcelona won the sextuple. Sources for "the sextuple is six trophies in a season": none.

Secondly, in the article one can explain, how the sextuple or any *tuples were achieved. Now the description for Barca's Sextuple is: "their three trophies in the 2008–09 season allowed them to play and win another three competitions after the season in year 2009".

Kahkonen (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Take Barcelona out of the it as we are not questioning they won six cups in 2009 nor really what Barcelona did anyway. So that should be discounted. As a footballing term we need to decide what The Sextuple is does it have to be in one season or does that not matter. Sextuple means six so you can win six cups in a year no question but do we accept that as The Sextuple in footballing terms.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we? Do sources accept, should you say. And they accept. I think it's case closed. Kahkonen (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Its not closed at all you forget this is a footballing term it dosent just refer to Barcelona it refers to many clubs. This is not closed and will not be until further discussion has taken place with input from everyone. Your sources do not define the term. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you point out the exact source and part that says The sextuple so far it says sextuple which just refers to them winning six cups in a year thats is different. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I have never said "sextuple" refers only to Barcelona. It is a term that sources use in the meaning "six trophies in a year". It can refer to any club. But I don't get, how this "the sextuple" definition will affect to the article which lists different -tuples? As the year-sextuple is a -tuple, "the sextuple" definition, if found/defined, will not remove anything from the article. I have nothing against the article stating that "No team has achieved a/the sextuple in a season". Kahkonen (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My problem with it is the definition is used widely to refer to a season in footballing terms. If the intro is changed to along the lines of no team has one The sextuple in one season ...Barcelona achieved it one calendar year. But it has to define that it is clearly different to the others on the page. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is if we have Barcelona's "Sextuple" in then every other fan of a team who has won a double or treble plus some minor cups the season after will want to add that. However, there is generally no references for these other supposed achievements which means that the article will bascially be asking for large amounts of unreferenced matreial to constantly be added to it. This will stop it from ever being able to get up to a decent standard. Adam4267 (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Solution to that problem is very simple: unreferenced -> delete; referenced -> keep. Kahkonen (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Kahkonen is essentially right although the sources must be reliable/verifiable.Pretty Green (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

THe issue isn't the sources they do verify they one a sextuple of cups in a year but not that they one The Sextuple. No source will back the term thats why we needed consensus but has no one is interested then i feel the compromise above is fine and still shows barcelona's no small achievement but explains exactly what it is. The whole thing has ended in numerous personal attacks and needs sorted. I don't mean from Kahkonen.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The thing is the article can't be about who won 'the quintuple', 'the sextuple' etc. Those are WP:NEOLOGISMS and don't deserve articles about them. There is scope for an article on winning multiple tournaments in one season. Winning five, six or seven is rare enough that, as the Barca example shows, sources have remarked on it happening in one year, rather than strictly over a season. This is also fine to include as well. But the scope of this article can't be about the definition of a group of neologisms. Pretty Green (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I Think we need to be clear their is a difference between the feats the club achieve. To achieve it in a season is far greater than in a year. They should all be included but their needs to be a clear line that they are different. The simple way around it is if a club do it in a season we say they did it in a season and if a club does it in a year we make sure that its clear that it was in a year otherwise were doing the clubs that achieved it in a season a disservice. To be honest its looking really good now its finally been accepted that Barcelona didn't do it in a season and the descriptive text and the sourcing of the whole thing is far better. The sources we have although state the won a sextuple of cups they don't say they won The sextuple in football it does mean something although i understand to the wider public it will not however i think its unnecessary to debate it further. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Are there actually any sources saying that a Sextuple can be winning six trophies in a year? Because otherwise, it seems to me that they are just using the word sextuple to describe Barcelona winning six trophies. In which case it isn't really a footballing terminology, it's just the word sextuple. Adam4267 (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

there isn't but I think you will never find that. I agree the sources all say it in the meaning of they won six cups. Not they won the sextuple as you would expect in footballing terminology however I think to pursue that Would be a losing battle. At they very least it's been established they didn't do it in a season as was put forward. I think the article is looking alright could be better but I think it's going to be hard to improve any further. move debate needs to happen properly as the title is very wrong. Edinburgh Wanderer 01:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

New Rotherham stadium (New York Stadium)

What do people think about the new name for this article. I moved it once but didn't spot that one of the refs (bare URL) did reference the New York name. Perhaps in time (before matches start there?) people will use the new name, but might there be common name issues in the meantime? Any issues regarding the name sounding like a muncipal stadium in a certain large US city? Eldumpo (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's the name of the stadium, so we're stuck with it. The fact that it's a ridiculous, confusing name, is not our fault! --Pretty Green (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

CanadaSoccer.com

Yet another website that's "revamped" and now all the old link are dead. I'm trying to find their player profile database, but no luck - can anyone help please? Giant Snowman 12:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Qualifying/qualification

Why:

But:

UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying?

(replace with other years if needed) --Theurgist (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, see my reconstruction of Template:FIFA World Cup. I hope you'll approve it. --Theurgist (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it generally looks good, but don't know how much change there is from previous version. I think the section titled Main might need to retitled, and qualification and finals are already included elsewhere. The droughts article might not be worthy of inclusion - I have noted at its article that it is unreferenced. Eldumpo (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I, too, was wondering about very much the same two things: what exactly the Droughts article's encyclopaedic purpose is and how much it is worthy of having a link to it, and what else could be there instead of "Main". And regarding the qualification/qualifying inconsistency, I guess it might have occurred as early as the very first World Cup/UEFA Euro qualification articles appeared, the subsequent articles having just been following the pattern of the previous ones. That can go through a move request if we fail to work out a solution here. --Theurgist (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Main could be retitled as History. The qualification and finals articles are being duplicated here from above, but maybe being called History would make this more reasonable? Eldumpo (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The official songs article is also very poor and basicly unsourced. And more than half of it is the unofficial section, seems every song got added that included football in the video or was played at the time of the games. -Koppapa (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe just this way?

I personally feel that the qualification and finals articles are too basic and essential for that subgroup and attach too great a value to it, so I'm more keen on removing the duplicated links from the main group names than from that list.

The statistics articles are quite a pretty collection of trivia, I don't know if there are many other places representing this kind of information. Recently I did some work on the No appearances and Undefeated teams articles and linked them from the template, and this morning I sort of reconstructed the Hat-tricks list (which is a featured one), and here's the result. Do you agree that the topic covers a sufficient level of notability and, if supplied with a few external links, will do a nice article? --Theurgist (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Own goals could merit an article but it depends on there being reliable sources, not just original research where someone has dug them out from a list of all the scorers. Eldumpo (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

List updated and sources added. I didn't say it was ready, but it was almost corresponding to this source by fifa.com from before 2010. However, I used one updated in 2011, which lists six own goals that the previous one doesn't and credits another own goal to a different player than the previous one does. Apparently FIFA's statisticians have re-attributed some goals recently, which means that there are now plenty of "mistakes" across our articles, where the text written is inconsistent with the references it relies on. --Theurgist (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The FIFA link would appear to confer notability, although it may be there are some secondary sources which have focused on World Cup own goals. Eldumpo (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hunan Xiangtao & Hunan Billows

Are the Hunan Billows F.C. and Hunan Xiangtao FC articles both describing the same club? Dong Fangzhuo (ex Man United) transferred there today: [17]. doomgaze (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The Billows article says there was a name change but the page has no English language links. This article suggests there is a team called Billows as of earlier this year. Eldumpo (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the positions in the seasons, those articles describe the same club. One should be redirected to the other. -Koppapa (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously content from Hunan Billows F.C. should be kept and if other name is decided it should be moved there. I also chaged the stadium, the team doesn't play in a 60,000 seater stadium. -Koppapa (talk) 12:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Rosenborg BK in Europe

User:NapHit has nominated Rosenborg BK in Europe for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. NapHit (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I've created an infobox for european football articles such as Liverpool F.C. in European football as per The Rambling Man's suggestion at the articles Wikipedia:Peer review/Liverpool F.C. in European football/archive1, but I'm having a few problems with getting it working. Was wondering if anyone would be kind enough to have a look and see if they can fix it, all the parameters that are going to be in the infobox are there, its just needs fixing so it works properly, something I don't how to do. NapHit (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I take it you mean {{infobox european football}}? I'm happy to take a look. Just let me know on my talk what exactly it is you need looked at; a test case would be great. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with it? – Pee Jay 14:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The code was right, it was the actual did look correct, its all sorted now anyway. Btw thanks for the inclusion of those collapsible lists, great idea. NapHit (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be a good idea to modify that infobox should it could be used for clubs outside of Europe? Digirami (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Alan Combe/Coombe

Yesterday, a goalkeeper called Alan Coombe made his debut for Hamilton Accies - but is he actually Alan Combe, or is it just a happy coincidence? Giant Snowman 10:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The match report on the Accies website [18] says "former Killie goalkeeper Alan Combe came in as a trialist", so I guess he's the same player and the BBC have spelt his name wrong. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Giant Snowman 11:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

it through me for a short time. He's now played for three clubs this season. And is supposed to be a goalkeeping coach at Alloa. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Another Dragosh sock?

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I think we may have another sock puppet of Bad good dragosh98 (talk · contribs). Parola1234567890 (talk · contribs), apart from having a similar username, has recreated a few of dragosh's deleted articles, and has exclusively edited Romanian football articles. That beign said, if it is the same person, he/she is being a lot more constructive now. Compare Parola's 7 deleted edits to Dragsh's 228, with a comperable number of live edits. Just a heads up. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPI would be your best bet, to get a formal check. Giant Snowman 17:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Please direct all further comments to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Parola1234567890. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

But even if they are being more constructive now, does the total silence and lack of interaction (and re-creating articles that have been deleted?!) not merit an immediate block? I thought it did... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Booyakasha! Has received the just treatment so i see... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year to everyone! Giant Snowman 09:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Frosty.--Echetus Xe 11:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I promise not to be a wiki-Grinch this year so much :) Cheers to the lot of you! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all wiki users, but particular WP:Footy. Heres to another successful year in every aspect of your life. 03 md 00:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Belated season's greetings - I've been offline for just over a week since my PC blew up. Have I missed anything interesting....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Just the usual man! Welcombe back. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding football kits

Hi there! I created two football kits (here and here) for an article but I just couldn't bring them into the article. Could anybody help me out or explain me what I did wrong? Cheers! -Lemmy- (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to save them as File:Kit body Frankfurt1112H.png and File:Kit body Frankfurt1112A.png for them to work with the template. Cheers, Big Dom 21:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Those images, containing sponsor and club logos, are not suitable for use in infobox kit images. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese footballers' names / Introductions

After seeing the Adrien Silva article yesterday, let me drop a few lines regarding the subject #1 (yes, maybe i will again be deemed trivial for "comparing" this with the pressing issues the forum has to attend):

In Portugal (my country, so i'm not mocking or making fun of anything to make my nation look better or superior), there is this idiotic custom, both in the written press and live comments, that ALL Portuguese players are known by two names (first and last), when the case is just not that (Luís Figo is known as "Figo", Fernando Couto known as "Couto", etc, etc); the level of wrongdoing is such that even the name/nickname compounds abound (Pedro Mantorras, Pedro Pauleta, Nuno Capucho). Believe me, if Wayne Rooney moved to Portugal to play, he would be referred as such 99,999999% of the times (in fact, he is already, as Sport TV covers the Premier League and many more).

Regarding Silva, i tried to bring that to User:Joao10Siamun's attention, who improved the article (but left the bit "known as Adrien Silva" in the intro), he left me hanging as always in the past, no reply whatsoever and no correction. For him (as so many others!), my wrongdoings (seldom i discuss changes in articles' talkpages, my bouts of uncivility) clearly outdo my good actions (which i think exist), and he refuses to have any interaction with me... All those who: 1 - think the approach is not trivial; 2 - have understood what on earth i was talking about, please drop a line.

Still about Silva's improvements, something about item #2 (intros): i thought that introductions to articles were just to give an idea about what we were going to write. Clearly, in Silva's case, the introduction is as big as the CLUB CAREER section (and i have seen several other examples, just can't remember which), where is the logic in that?

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

On #2: the MoS for lead sections, WP:LEAD, says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points" etc etc. In terms of content, the lead in Adrien Silva seems about right for a well-developed article of its length. On #1, I'm afraid I don't understand what the problem is with the player's name, sorry.

Have you notified Joao10Siamun you're talking about him here? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

On #1, what i meant is that the player is known as Silva, period, but the level of "professionalism" in Portuguese broadcasters does not allow for more, hence misleading the viewers/readers (hence, A. Silva's intro would be wrong - he's NOT known as "Adrien Silva"); additionally, if you feel the intro overall is well presented, then i'll leave that at rest.

Regarding your last question, i am going to notify João, maybe he'll give his two cents here, he's not going to give them to me that's a given! Regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to establish Vasco. Naming conventions seem to suggest we go by the name the player is most commonly known as in the English language and that is Adrien Silva. His article is even named Adrien Silva, not Silva (footballer born 1989). — JS^{Rant Away} 03:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you people are doing it on purpose to confuse me (of course not, i assume good faith), but it looks like it. One more time: in the example presented, the article reads player is "known as Adrien Silva", but he's not, he's known as "Silva", his last name, i don't know how much simpler can i get (again, example to back this one: many Portuguese sources claim Luís Figo is known as such, he's not, he's known as "Figo", only). Of course the article his named "Adrien Silva", it's his first and last name, Iker Casillas' article is named as such, BUT the player is known as "Casillas".

If the confusion remains, i give up, and everybody gets on with their stuff in WP and life in general. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait a sec Vasco. I am not sure I quite understand you. As a foreigner living in Portugal since late 1980s I find that local players are known by either one of the following ways:

Name + surname: meaning, usually first name and last surname, as it is the last one being the father´s one (oposite to Spanish where is the first). That is why Paulo Manuel Carvalho de Sousa [Paulo Manuel being the first and second names, and Carvalho de Sousa being mother´s and father´s surnames] is known as Paulo Sousa.
Any other part of the name: exemple Cristiano Ronaldo [Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro], using only names combination, disregarding the surnames. We even have the extreme case of using a real name mixed with surname of another player who´s the idol of the player in question Nuno Gomes, [Nuno Miguel Soares Pereira Ribeiro] with the Gomes part coming from his idol Fernando Gomes (strangely, that curious info is missing in Nuno´s article).
Nickname: Litos [Carlos de Oliveira Magalhães], or Petit [Armando Gonçalves Teixeira] for exemple, which is neither a name or surname.

I must say that I think that usually people with common surnames (Costa, Sousa, Silva, Gomes, Lopes, Pinto, etc.) usually because of disambiguation reasons leave their first name in their commoname, while others like Luis Figo don´t need it, as "Figo" is not a common surname, thus easily recognisable simply as Figo. That is why is common to see in line-ups, exemple: 6 - Paulo Sousa, 7 - Figo, 8 - Rui Cosa, 9 - João Pinto, 10 - Pauleta, 11 - Capucho.

In case of Adrien Silva, and to be honest (and really sorry Vasco), I never heard him ever being called simply Silva (notece that I am Sporting fan, his club), just as Paulo Sousa is never called simply Sousa. There are and were cases of players using only common simple name or surname, but they are rare, and these exemples are really not those ones.

I already discussed this issue about Portuguese names correct order for defaultsorting with User:Carioca, and if I remember well, we decided to use the most common name first, and the one easier to find.

What I really concluded is that Portuguese (including most places using Portuguese as mother tongue, like Brazil) players don´t really have a rule for their names, and they often choose one while still young, which will help them to be recognisable, and usually keep it troughout their careers, weather being real name, nickname, or whatever. Best regards, and happy Hollydays to allFkpCascais (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked at a number of the English-language sources at the article and they were all referring to him as Adrien Silva. Eldumpo (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Syrianska FC dispute

There have been many several differences of opinion in the lead of Syrianska FC, the dispute is regarding the club being referred to as Suryoye (Arameans) and has a background in the ethnicity of the clubs founders. Today User:Shmayo removed all references in the article which refers to the team as "Suryoye" (Arameans). However, the clubs refers themselves in the same term on the English version of their official website. Therefore I believe that this is the term to use since the official club website should be considered a reliable source on the subject. I'm not sure if there is an easy solution to the problem as this is clearly a dispute that is deep rooted in some kind of ethnic conflict. Looking at the talk page of Shmayo I noticed that he or she has been involved in previous edit wars involving the term and he probably has his own agenda. I would be grateful for any suggestions on how to solve this or to make it easier. Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Shmayo (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The only English-language source at the article other than their own website just refers to Syrianska FC, as does Soccerway and FIFA. Eldumpo (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Now at WP:ANI. Giant Snowman 19:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Anon IP

An anonynmous IP has been adding stats to the infoboxes of a number of African players. I checked a few and they seem to be wrong. 1. Is there anyway to revert all their edits instead of doing them one by one manually? 2. While they might be doing this in good faith, if the stats are wrong (which I'm pretty sure they are), is there anyway to block the user even though it's just their first offense? It will save me a lot of work if he keeps adding stats to other articles. Thanks. TonyStarks (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have used rollback to revert all the IPs edits; based on the editing pattern and location of the IP, this is almost definitely Zombie433 (talk · contribs) who has been long blocked for hoax articles + fake information. Monitor the IP; I have requested a block at WP:AIV but don't have high hopes to be honest. Giant Snowman 11:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick help on this! I was actually on my way back here to say that I think it's him as well because like you said, very similar pattern and he's editing a bunch of the same articles. Let's hope the block request does the trick. Thanks once again. TonyStarks (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

An admin has blocked him for 31 hours. Giant Snowman 14:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Shame that it's only for 31 hours, he'll probably be back today, I'll try to keep an eye on him. Anyone know why he continues to do this? At first I thought he might be a player agent, but given the amount of edits and the players involved, I highly doubt it. TonyStarks (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Just someone who, like User:Pararubbas (70+ socks!) or the Romanian chap thas has been discussed in this archive (three and counting) could not care less what we think about their actions. That, coupled with their poor grasp of English (highly likely) makes for a very difficult situation to handle, if not impossible :( --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Kenny Dalglish

As an American who knows very little about international football, I just have to ask. Is Kenny Dalglish really called "the goat" or is that an attack? There's nothing in the article which explains that nickname. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted it. Childish vandalism. Might want the article semi-protected if it continues. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Regional player categories

I have just had a short discussion with Monegasque (talk · contribs), who believes that players should be located in their regional category, rather than their nationality category, i.e. Category:Castilian-Leonese footballers rather than Category:Spanish footballers, or Category:Soccer players from Colorado rather than Category:American soccer players. I disagree, and believe that the parent category should remain, regardless of any regional category. If you want both, fine. I have brought it here for wider discussion. Giant Snowman 11:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be best to still have the parent category, removing it will confuse any reader not familiar with the regions in question. I don't see a problem with having both categories. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Me neither. I did make the point that in a case where a regional category exists, the national category is actually redundant, since the regional category is always a subcategory of the national category. Besides, that is the practice followed by the Spanish-language wikipedia. However, I'm not on principle opposed to having both categories in an article. GiantSnowman had deleted the regional category from an article, and from this I got the impression that he was opposed to regional categories in general, which did appear a little odd to me. However, from his post above it would appear that this is not the case and he has nothing against regional categories as such. As I said, having both categories suits me as well. Monegasque (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to this edit? Because I didn't delete the regional category, I restored the national category - an important distinction. Giant Snowman 12:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You could just have added the national category if you consider it important. In the new version edited by you, the regional category has been omitted. Monegasque (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines indicate that "each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." There are some exceptions listed but I don't think the above situations qualify. Camw (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What about a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE though? How do we determine where a player is from? There are enough problems on a national level, let alone regional. Giant Snowman 12:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Subcategories belong to the national categories so no information is lost by refining the category to that level, the idea being that an article in Soccer Players from Colorado also belongs to American Soccer Players even if not explicitly included. We should aim for consistency across all articles (both in our project as well as other sports and biographies) and the best way to do that is to follow the guidelines rather than making up different rules to follow just for this project. Camw (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as the vast, vast majority of baseball/basketball/gridiron players are from America, so they place the emphasis on which state they are from, which is fair enough. Football is much more international. Reliable sources regarding baseball/basketball/gridiron will have a "hometown" bit in their bio; reliable sources regarding football detail the nationality, not which part of the country they are from. Giant Snowman 12:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in most cases they do. There is some variation between different countries, but the information we have about football players from Spain, for instance, tends to be very accurate. In the Spanish-language wikipedia, the category corresponding to Spanish football players ("Futbolistas de España") is basically a container category. As a rule, Spanish footballers are assigned to provincial categories, which are subcategories of regional categories, which are subcategories of Futbolistas de España.Monegasque (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

But this isn't the Spanish-language wikipedia, it is the English-language wikipedia. Giant Snowman 13:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A truism is not an argument. In actual fact, the guidelines according to which the Spanish-language wikipedia functions differ only very slighly from those of the English-language version. The main point, however, was not the Spanish-language wikipedia as such, but the fact that we do have lots of accurate information about a large number of football players, especially from most European, North American and Latin American countries. Even more important is the question raised by Camw: do general wikipedia guidelines about parent categories giving no new information apply for football articles as well, or don't they? Monegasque (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What about players outside of Europe? I thought we wanted consistency. And even those that we do know lots about, how do you define/decide where a player is from? Is there a minimum number of years they had to live there? That is straying into WP:OR territory. As for Camw's question, I would suggest we WP:IGNOREALLRULES with regards to footballer nationality categories. Giant Snowman 14:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SNOWMAN 100%, if you want to have "BASQUE FOOTBALLERS", "CATALAN FOOTBALLERS", "GALICIAN FOOTBALLERS", fine (i have inserted such cats in some pages myself), but to remove "SPANISH FOOTBALLERS" is as wrong as it gets! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Before we get too hung up on whether we have regional AND national categories included, we ought to concentrate on the wording of the categories full stop. There seemed to be some emerging consensus when last discussed for categories like Category: Footballers born in Spain instead.Eldumpo (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

So you mean there is a possibility that SPANISH FOOTBALLERS does not reunite consensus, is that it? - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous to not have nationality categories. The need for regional categories is only in a few places like Spain or America and we need to take a WORLDVIEW here, clearly something that the Spanish wiki has not, and realise that players are recognised by thier nationality rather than "region". Furtermore this would be really hard to source and would be OR in most cases. Adam4267 (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not that hard to source, as their birthplace (thus birth region) is sourceable in many many cases. But the mere thought of not including national categories (should Barack Obama have "Presidents of Kenyan descent" instead of "AMERICAN presidents" in his article?) sends a wiki-shiver down my spine... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not the same thing, because Extremaduran footballers is a subcategory of Spanish football players by autonomous community, which is a subcategory of Spanish footballers. This means that an Extremaduran footballer is implicitly a Spanish footballer as well. This is why there is no real need to state explicitly what has already been stated implicitly. Besides, the nationality of the player is always stated in the article itself. As to your example: there is simply no way in which Presidents of Kenyan descent could possibly be a subcategory of American presidents, as this would mean claiming that Yomo Kenyatta, for instance, would be an "American president"... Monegasque (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Being born in a region does not mean you are from that region, just as being born in a country does not mean you are from that country - though the latter is more likely than the former. Giant Snowman 15:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for these regional football categories, the national categories should remain & the sportspeople from ... category should be added where appropriate then there is no issue with WP:SUBCAT ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The regional categories already exist for some countries. As far as I know, no one has wanted to introduce them for every single country of the world. They are suited mostly for countries which fulfill these conditions: a large number of football players with wikipedia articles; local origin of players well documented; strong regional identities with some form of self-government. All this applies to the USA and even more to Spain. A large number of countries, however, do not meet these conditions. This discussion has mostly been about whether there is a need to include the parent (national) category as well in cases where a regional subcategory exists. Wikipedia guidelines do not as a rule endorse including parent categories, unless they give some information that isn't already implicitly included in its subcategories. As regional categories are always by necessity subcategories of national categories, including a national category where a regional category exists simply doesn't give any such information. If someone is from Tennessee (subcategory), he/she is by necessity from the USA (parent category). If someone is from Andalusia (subcategory), he/she is by necessity from Spain (parent category). Monegasque (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily true - are you determening the regional category from place of birth? Because what if a player was born IN x, spent 1 day there, then grew up in Y? WP:OR springs to mind... Giant Snowman 16:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

To state the obvious: wikipedia is much larger than just the football project. And "out there", in the English-language wikipedia as a whole, there is already a well-established practice of including both places in the case which you brought up. No need to have different rules for the football project. Monegasque (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No-one's claiming any different, but trying to have 100% the same rules for every project is nonsensical. Imagine a player whose father was in the Army - there are plenty of American + German players for who this is the case - and who probably spent time as a youth in five or six different cities or even countries. Are you going to include every place in the categories, or just the place of birth? And because there is, as you state a "well-established practice of including both places", why not include both national and regional categories here? Giant Snowman 16:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There will always be borderline cases no matter what. Suppose that a boy is born in Karlsruhe, Baden-Württemberg, Germany to French parents. After a couple of years, the family moves back to France, where they live a couple of years in Strasbourg, a couple of years in Toulon and a couple of years in Dijon, after which they settle down in Rennes, Brittany when the boy is eight years old. He grows up in Rennes, joins a local football club and becomes notable enough to get a wikipedia article of his own. The article would typically have both the category People from Karlsruhe (because he was born there) and People from Rennes (because he mostly grew up there). As his nationality would be French and not German (besides, according to German law, the mere fact of having been born in Germany doesn't make anyone a German), I would not classify him among Football players from Baden-Württemberg. The classification among Football players from Brittany (if such a category existed) would make much more sense in his case. On the other hand, if he had been born in Dijon, Burgundy, he should get the category Football players from Burgundy as well. Both categories ("FPs from Brittany" and "FPs from Burgundy") imply French nationality, which would be correct in this case. Monegasque (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment at Fandi Ahmad's ongoing peer review!

Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present my latest contribution to Wikipedia and this WikiProject, an article about Singaporean football legend Fandi Ahmad, which I am trying to get to GA status! Start 2012 by supporting the quest to counter systemic bias, by commenting at the ongoing peer review of this short, but interesting, article, which I hope you enjoy reviewing as much as I enjoyed writing it! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made a quick comment and made some small changes to the article. Anything else, please let me know. Giant Snowman 16:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! Of course, more thorough reviews would be needed for the article to attain GA status. Any other editors interested in reviewing it? Are there any other GAs on Asian footballers? Working on such articles presents a unique set of challenges, such as lack of reliable statistics, hence the omission of the infobox. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Assists

Many player articles have tables of statistics with a column for "assists", but the source for these is rarely stated; e.g. Gareth Bale's statistics are referenced to Soccerbase, which doesn't mention assists, while Theo Walcott's is referenced to www.arsenal.com, which likewise doesn't mention assists. In the absence of proper citations, shouldn't these columns be deleted? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I vote "yes", if the sources are misleading as they are in this case. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, delete them if they are unreferenced. Eldumpo (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

These assist statistics should also be deleted from season articles. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree for player articles but not for season articles. They are often sourced via the match reports.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Just because it is sourced is not a reason to include in an article. This opens the door for other trivial statistics. Minutes played in the season, most red and yellow cards, how many times someone waved to the fans, etc. This leads to inconsistancies across different leagues and levels. (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

totally disagree with you. What kind of example is that. If its sourced it is clearly part of a clubs season. There is no problem at all with it being included. Edinburgh Wanderer 08:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

I agree there is nothing wrong in keeping them IF they are reliably sourced. I believe some leagues/media do record assists (ESPN, FA Premier League?). Eldumpo (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

They should not be included at all, regardless of sourcing, as different media outlets define and record them in different ways, so there is never a definitive answer, and this 'recording' is only done for modern and high-level leagues. We should be aiming for consistency, and lower leagues, or older players, will not have these stats available. This is also a reason why we only include league games in the infobox. GiantSnowman 12:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Completely agree with GiantSnowman. There is no consistency between each source's definition of an assist. As such, they have no place in an encyclopaedia built on verifiable information. Big Dom 12:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

how do you mean there is no consistency in definition of assist. As far as I'm concerned if its sourced then there is no reason not to include in an encyclopaedia. Also there is already very little Consistency in season articles. I don't have a strong opinion on it as have never included it myself but feel there needs to be a better reason than that for not including it. Has there been a discussion re this before. There probably has. . Edinburgh Wanderer 13:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A few related discussions: [19], [20], [21] or [22] may help. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks for that. Still not sure what is meant by varying definitions of assist surely that's simple. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, think of it this way - how would you define an assist? Giant Snowman 13:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start with the article on the subject!. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What, you mean the article which states "Recording assists is not part of the official Laws of the Game and the criteria for an assist to be awarded may vary"? Giant Snowman 14:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the one! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

having read the previous links I wouldn't say there was much consensus eithier way. It was more arguing about the validity of the sources and mostly about players articles. It may not be written in football law but if sources show an assist then it was an

Assist. If the source is reliable then it not down to us to question it. Especially if several sources agree. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if ESPN states that John Smith, Jr. had 5 assists in the 2010-11 season; the same statistic won't be available for John Smith, Sr. in the 1970-71 season, and we need consistency across articles. Like I said, this is why we don't include cup stats in the infobox. Giant Snowman 14:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the inclusion of assists. But I don't understand the reasoning behind only having league statistics in infoboxes. Adam4267 (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

just because we cant get for 20 years ago is not a reason not to include it. I fully understand the whole infobox thing and I agree about player articles but if the info is available and sourced for current season articles then I don't see that as a reason for not. Unfortunately there is loads of things not available for years gone by but it is now. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Adam - stats from 100 years ago rarely, if ever, include cup stats, and because we want articles to contain the same amount of information, that is why we only use league stats in the infobox. EW - I thought we were discussing player articles, not seasons? Giant Snowman 14:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Andrusha said they shouldn't be in season articles as well and I said as long as they were sourced I didnt see a problem. Eldumpo agreed and then you said they shouldn't at all. Now im confused. I agree about player articles complety as they cant specifically be reference to soccerbase or the like. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well there's a slightly stronger argument for season articles, but it's still a weak one. Like I said, definitions vary and the recording of these stats is erratic. Giant Snowman 15:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman here. These sources that include assists in their statistics do not define the criteria for an assist and therefore plenty of question arise about the stats, such as: if a player dribbled the ball for more than 10 metres, is the player who passed him the ball still collect an assist; is a deflected cross still count as an assist; and so on. Therefore the number of assists are different in various sources, for example the following players has three different total number of assists based on three different sources:

David Silva (2011–12 Premier League): 8 assists (ESPN) or 12 assists (Premier League) or 9 assists (Transfermarkt)
Lionel Messi (2010–11 La Liga): 18 assists (ESPN) or 19 assists (FC Barcelona) or 21 assists (Transfermarkt)

Based on this, until there is a clear definition about assist and consistencies between sources are achieved, I prefer not to include assists in the statistics table. — MT (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

as I have said I agree for player stats but not for season articles take an sfl match I can get at least two sources per game that indicate assists. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I oppose including assists in both player articles and season articles. My examples above show that definition of assists is still unclear (ESPN and Premier League can't even found a similar way to count assists) and therefore assists became a trivial and unofficial statistics for both player and season articles. — MT (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with including assists from reliable sources, and if different reliable sources show different stats this can be explained in the table. Although we should be going with the official source where available e.g. The Premier League appeared to start tracking assists in 2001-02 [23]. I don't see why all stats entries need to be the same for 'consistency', assists appears to often be regarded as a worthwhile (and official) stat now, so why not record it. We include information on league stats for some leagues where we probably don't have full all-time stats for all players from that league, but we don't decide not to include any stats for the league on that basis. We should be going with what the sources report. Eldumpo (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And what when, as Martin has shown, none of the sources agree? What about players who have had careers which begun before assists were recorded? Give them a '0' until 2001? Giant Snowman 21:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you would go with the official sources, so Premier Lge and Barcelona in the examples given. If a player only appeared in the pre-assist recording area then he doesn't have an assists column. If he covers the two eras (i.e. my Giggs example) then I would record a '–' for those earlier seasons where assists were not recorded. In all cases a direct link to all sources for the data should be provided, a lot of the time this might result in a different cite for each season/row. Eldumpo (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Why would you go with league/club? We need third-party sources. It's ridiculous to include info on modern players but not older players - if we do that, then what's the point of this Project, which strives to get ALL articles to a similar level of information/format/layout etc.? Giant Snowman 22:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The point you make on league/club source is a reasonable one. I know we ideally we go for secondary sources but for something Iike assists it seems to me you have to go with the official source as it is their league/decision. We can't include assists info for older players as it isn't recorded. Notwithstanding my posts, I would not decide to include assists myself if I was creating a new player career statistics table, but I think we need to be realistic about the status of this stat in the modern era. Eldumpo (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a fair bit of suggestion that primary sources be used for these stats....apparently because reliable third party sources are hard to come by. Surely if no third parties have seen fit to reliably note them, they are not notable stats and maybe shouldn't be included in biographies. Articles are supposed to contain notable information, not all information. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not contain all data or expression found elsewhere on the Internet" "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" --ClubOranje^T 02:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well in the two examples shown, there are three sources listed for each, and there may well be others, so you're then getting into the secondary question of which sources to use, which can be dealt with via suitable notes. It's definitely the case that the recording of assists stats has become much more commonplace for the major leagues in recent years, and we shouldn't be ignoring that, or more to the point, I don't believe we should be removing assists info from player career tables where this is specifically cited. Eldumpo (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Third party sources are available for season articles. Edinburgh Wanderer 10:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Third party sources are also available for player articles. But which one do we use? See MT's post above whioch illustrates the differing stats available from otherwise reliable sources... Giant Snowman 10:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure, can unsourced assists stats be deleted? I recently removed Thierry Henry's assists for France since it was unsourced. — MT (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If they are unsourced, they should be deleted. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Gareth Bale height

There are various sources for many players' heights, but I'm confused regarding Gareth Bale. At present the article lists him as being 1.83 m (6 ft 0 in), citing Soccernet. The Premier League website have him as 1.80m (5 ft 11 in) [24]. In a recent interview with Harry Redknapp, he referred to Bale as being 6 ft 2 in (1.89 m) [25]. I know that as a young man, he is still growing, but which should be used in the article? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Bale's UEFA 2011/12 Europa League profile gives 1.86 m (6 ft 1 in). Presumably clubs supply UEFA with this sort of detail at the start of each European campaign, so it shows he was that height at the end of last season/start of this one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I would go with the Redknapp interview. Mainly because it is the most recent but also because he does look about 6 ft 2. Adam4267 (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"he does look about 6 ft 2"? From what perspective; on TV? sat in the stands? passing him on the street?. The Redknapp interview is the one I would definitely not use. I doubt very much whether Redknapp himself measured Bale, so whether his remark is just offhand (all tall people are "six foot two"), hearsay or he is repeating what he knows it is unreliable information. Premier League get it right on first registration but do not seem to update the information each year - we have had these discussions before - so I would take their number with a pinch of salt given Bale first registered as a 17 year old. Per Struway, latest tournament tends to be most reliable as they tend to start with a clean list of players for each tournament; but of course not all players are in tournaments every year. Personally I think height should be removed from the infobox as there are few consistently reliable sources, and unless the player is notably short or notably tall, who really cares. --ClubOranje^T 19:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now amended the article to show his height as 1.86 m (6 ft 1 in) per the UEFA profile and copied this thread to the article's talk page. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Anelka - International goals

Nicolas Anelka's infobox says that he has scored 14 international goals for France. The goals table in his article lists all 14, except that one of them is against a FIFA XI side. Surely that goal and cap shouldn't count towards his total? It's not an official friendly since it does not have involve two nations .. or am I wrong on this? His French FA profile also lists 14 goals and I'm guessing counts that goal as well. Note that the goals table in the article does not list that goal as an official one and only gives him 13 goals. TonyStarks (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't count - it wasn't a FIFA A-international, as confirmed by NFT, which only has 13. Giant Snowman 13:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The French Federation recognised it as a full international, as is clear from Anelka's FFF profile and those of others who played in the match. Appearances and goals in a similar match, between England and the FIFA World Stars in 1963 to celebrate the centenary of the FA, are counted towards players' totals. Without his appearance in that game, Bobby Charlton wouldn't have set his England record of 106 full internationals. National-football-teams.com gives Charlton 105 international appearances. Similarly Jimmy Greaves's 57 games and 44 goals per the FA include his goal in that game. If we're happy to follow the official England sources, which include the 1963 centenary game, I don't really think we'd be wise to start following NFT, which is basically someone's personal website, ahead of the official France sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FIFA recognizes the match (France vs FIFA XI) as an official international game. Anelka's 2010 FIFA World Cup Profile confirms 69 caps and 14 goals. RSSSF also count this game as a full international as they listed Anelka with 69 caps and 14 goals. Thierry Henry also has the same problem here, as FIFA listed him with 123 caps here and here, which according to RSSSF, that 123 caps includes that match against FIFA XI. Other players in the match includes David Trezeguet (2 goals), Robert Pirès (1 goal), Zinedine Zidane and plenty others. See the rest of the players in Match #18 in RSSSF FIFA XI list of matches. — MT (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I just found this note on Zidane's RSSSF page that says: following FIFA's decision not to count matches against FIFA XI's or confederational representations as full internationals, match number 60 (France vs FIFA XI) should be deleted; however, as the French FA insists this match is a full international, FIFA decided on August 14, 2001, to count it as official after all. So I guess the caps should be counted. — MT (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well in that case, looks like the stats from that friendly do count, although I really don't see how they can justify it. Thanks for the quick replies and happy new year! TonyStarks (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

So these matches wouldn't count now (due to the rule change) but do because they are historical? Interesting. Giant Snowman 15:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Which rule change are you referring to? TonyStarks (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

See MT's post a few above. Giant Snowman 16:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Added a note to Anelka's international statistics section to clarify the situation. — MT (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Roster format

A discussion started at Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC#New squad format for Portland Timbers and Vancouver Whitecaps FC related to a change in formatting to those two team pages. They've gone from Fs player2 back to Fs player mostly on the grounds that they more closely reflect WP:MOSFLAG. The only reason given for using Fs player2 is that it's more compact. Are there any concerns with moving all MLS club articles to the older template format? Does anyone know why the new template was created and its use superseded the older one? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you transposed the two templates in the above text, Walter. Fs player2 is the one that conforms to MOSFLAG and Fs player is the more compact one that is widely used. Full disclosure: I support the use of Fs player2 as can be seen at Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC#New squad format for Portland Timbers and Vancouver Whitecaps FC. DemonJuice (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

{{Fs player}} all day every day, I'm afraid. Giant Snowman 21:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

But the argument is that it is broke (to riff off of your edit summary). Visually impaired users and mobile users (because they can't mouse hover) cannot distinguish between many of the flags. DemonJuice (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I appear to have it backward. Fs player2 is WP:MOSFLAG friendly (and by extension friendly for the visually impaired and mobile users, although the latter group, especially iPad users, could solve their problems with football articles by sending me their devices and then they wouldn't have to look at the rosters and wonder what country the flag relates to, but I digress).

Are there any concerns with moving all MLS club articles to the older template format?
Does anyone know why the new template was created and its use superseded the older one? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not clear on your position Walter. At times you seem to be more positive about {{Fs player2}}, but judging by your last post it looks as though you're opting for {{fs player}}? For what it's worth, I think the solution that doesn't screw over mobile users and/or blind people is probably the better starting point. —WFC— 22:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of either. The former is in use in most articles and the latter has some benefits. The question is should we standardize or not and are there any drawbacks to the new position. And I wouldn't mind a few mobile devices arriving at my door. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that using full country names gives undue relevance to that column in the table of {{Fs player2}}. I mean, are we listing the nationalities of the players in the squad, or are we listing the players in the squad? I've always believed that country flags mostly provides flair rather than actually conveys an important piece of information. I like neither of the templates, really. {{Fs player}} is just plain ugly. – Johan Elisson • T • C • 22:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't considered the undue weight angle, which has merit, but I also feel that the nationality of the players is important and expected information in football articles. Point to the status quo. I'm also open to option (c), whatever that may be. DemonJuice (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's really not very difficult to track down what happened with {{tl|football squad player]} and {{football squad player2}}: it's right in the latter's edit history, which points to this RfC. As to why it hasn't been rolled out everywhere, that's mostly because every discussion on such breaks down into the same ridiculously tedious arguments over aesthetics or personal opinion / interpretation of MOSFLAG. For me it's an utter no-brainer, and we'd be best simply commissioning a bot to get this done once and for all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for a bot to do the work. Will need to read the RFC first though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see #2 fully rolled out as it has more sensible wording relating to flags/nationality than the other version. Eldumpo (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

So the question is, if we commission a bot to this, will there be any dissension? Is someone going to start wholesale reverts on us?

Perhaps we put a warning on the #1 footer indicating that we are planning switching to the new format first and then wait to see what the fall-out is. When we know that we can move forward, then we commission the bot. We could make the timing of the bot's roll-out for the end of the European club season. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think whether or not it's during the season matters too much: it's during transfer windows and when squad numbers come out that these sections are edited the most. —WFC— 21:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless there's any further discussion, how would we go about commissioning a bot to do the work? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about changing every club squad into the #2 template? If so, is it possible to change the order of the tabs to No, Nat, Pos, Players instead of the present tab order where nationality is placed last? As Johan Elisson said earlier, are we listing the nationalities of the players in the squad, or are we listing the players in the squad?. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, it is possible. I have no real opinion on whether we do it or not. —WFC— 18:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to play catch up, but this is all about complying with MOSFLAG, for the most part? Essentially about displaying just the flag without some sort of text indicating the country. Right? Well, the big question for me is what is an appropriate amount of text to comply with MOSFLAG: USA or United States? If it is the former, then we have an alternate that exists; here is an example ({{Boca Juniors squad}}). This format is already in use in every team in the Argentine Primera. But, it keeps the same design as the one commonly used elsewhere, has text to more readily comply with MOSFLAG, and can be used as a navigational template. Aside from the sorting function of the other new alternative (which is something I think is not necessary), I think this might be the best solution. Digirami (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure

USA is the best example, and thus disagree with you r.e. country names. I am however impressed with the initiative of integrating navbox and article table into one template. —WFC— 13:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy McCall

Depending on the source, this player began his career with either Blantyre Celtic or local rivals Blantyre Victoria. Does anyone know which one? Giant Snowman 23:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Rothmans says Blantyre Vic: the full citation is {{cite book|last=Hugman|first=Barry|title=Football League Players Records (1946–1981) |year=1981 |publisher=Rothmans Publications|location=Aylesbury|isbn=0-9075-7408-4|page=227}}. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Giant Snowman 10:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I do think Rothmans have made an error here. Quite a comprehensive career history here on a Leeds site says Blantyre Celtic. The Juniors Centenary book interestingly lists McCall as a Vics player in a chapter about Juniors in the Football League, referencing Rothmans as a source. In the club gazetteer at the back of the book however, which was compiled by information supplied by clubs themselves, an Andy McColl (sic) is listed in the Celtic entry and no mention of him in the Vics notable ex-players. Unfortunately, the Evening Times Google News archive only goes back to 1951 online. Perhaps his son Stuart's autobiography would mention it. Sgt Elvan (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Tunisian football club names

I noticed that some Tunisian clubs have the whole name listed in the article while others don't. Most seem to be made by one user back in 2006 and 2007, and he chose that approach. However, The vast majority of football clubs on Wikipedia are listed by their short name so I was just wondering if the long names should be changed to the shorter ones. For example, Union Sportive Monastir should be US Monastir, Avenir Sportif de La Marsa should be AS Marsa, Espérance Sportive de Zarzis should be ES Zarzis, etc. I didn't want to start mass moving these articles without making sure I was doing the right thing. TonyStarks (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

How are the reliable English-language sources referring to them, as that will play a major part in determining what they should be referred to. I note that Soccerway use 'Monastir', which presumably would not be acceptable as an article title due to dab issues. Eldumpo (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no real English language sources dealing with Tunisian football. However, Tunisia is a bilingual country (Arabic and French), and in their French-language press, their clubs are referred to as US Monastir, ES Zarzis, AS Marsa, etc. As for SoccerWay, having spoken with their content director, they use the same naming system for all the clubs in the world. That is, they use the name of the city, and if there's other clubs from the same city with the same name, they add more details (such as FC, CF, ES, AS, etc.). TonyStarks (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I would support moves to the US Monastir, AS Marsa etc. format. Giant Snowman 13:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Should I take that as a green light? I really don't see any issues arising anyway. TonyStarks (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe wait another day or so to see if anyone has anythying else to say on here, and if not, then go for it! Giant Snowman 15:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. TonyStarks (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are quite a few English-language sources that have references to Tunisian football teams. I'm not sure whether your anecdotal comment on Soccerway's naming convention is supposed to downplay its importance, but it is a reliable source and thus it should be considered in determining the correct name. RSSSF refer to 'Esperance de Zarzis' and 'AS La Marsa'. Eldumpo (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I support the moves, but would prefer "AS La Marsa" rather than "AS Marsa" seeing as the city is called La Marsa. Big Dom 19:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I support too. FkpCascais (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@Eldumpo: With regards to SoccerWay, not at all! I think it's one of the best websites on the internet, with one of the most complete, accurate and easy to use player databases. In fact, every time I create a new player article, I always add a link to their SoccerWay profile in their external links. I was just referring to their naming system, which takes a universal approach, rather than a country by country approach. For example, their naming of Algerian clubs is all wrong with names such as Kabylie (should be JS Kabylie), Chlef (ASO Chlef), Belouizdad (CR Belouizdad), etc. As for Marsa, "AS Marsa" gives 450,000 hits in Google, while "AS La Marsa" gives 60,000. I'm quite familiar with Tunisian football and it should definitely be AS Marsa. North African clubs will sometimes drop the El, Al, Le before the city name when it comes to club names. Two quick examples off the top of my head are AS Khroub (based in the city of El Khroub) and MB Hassasna (based in El Hassasna). TonyStarks (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

.. and just to add to the discussion, this template, even though it hasn't been updated in a while, is a great example of how Tunisian clubs are named.TonyStarks (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Libyan Premier League

It's strange that the is no refference to the 2010–11 season being cancelled and the 2011–12 season not contested due to the 2011 Libyan civil war. My guess is it should be easy to find an english source stating that given the media attention to that crisis. But apparently i can't find one. Anyone able help? The 2010–11 season looks like not updated since mid-season, when in fact there were no more matches. But the article does not mention that at all. -Koppapa (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Found this. The article isn't directly about the league but has this: "Libyan league football has been suspended since mid-February but clubs have continued to play in continental club competitions, by forfeiting their right to play their home leg in knockout ties, which were reduced to a single match at their opponent's home ground." It should do the trick I would think. If you need others let me know, I could probably find some Arabic ones if worse comes to worst. TonyStarks (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's ok. -Koppapa (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

List of UEFA Euro finals

Hey all. Just wondered if something like this existed, like List of FIFA World Cup finals, only I have a nice slot for a main page featured list the day after Euro 2012 finishes. I've had a quick scan around and can't see anything. If it doesn't exist, I'll probably get on with it, all collaborators welcome! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest List of UEFA European Football Championship finals as an alternative title, as List of UEFA Euro finals doesn't seem quite right. – Pee Jay 17:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Completely, I had trouble typing that out anyway, and it'd make a fine redirect. Funny how all our articles are "Euro 19xx" etc though! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

List created, now at WP:FLC. Advice/suggestions always more than welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The Football Club of Edinburgh

I just PROD'ed this article, but might have been a bit hasty. Basically, what we have is an incredibly low-level amateur club claiming lineage from a club which apparently existed in the 1820s and has been claimed in some sources to be "possibly the earliest known football club". Obviously in that era the club can't have played association football, as it didn't exist. Is there any merit in keeping the article with the stuff about the modern club stripped out, given that what is known about the earlier club is unlikely to expand beyond two sentences......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, the article should definitely stay with most of the content regarding the present club reduced to a footnote (rather like with the present day Wanderers club). Whilst the game that was played by the club when it was formed in the 1820s was not Association Football as we know it, the club is still sufficiently noteworthy to merit an article. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, that article is about some amateur Sunday league club formed in 2007 and everything about the current team should be deleted as non-notable. The fact that the author has made some spurious link to a club that may or may not have existed in 1824 doesn't change that fact; the current side is clearly not a "resurrection" of the old one. Now, if we could find some (decent) sources for the old club then I would have nothing against an article that solely concentrates on it. Big Dom 09:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The two references cited in the article (The Foot-Ball Club in Edinburgh, 1824-1841 and Extra-time for the oldest club) are mainly about the original club. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As there seems to be pretty much nothing known about the old club other than that it existed, is it worth simply merging to Oldest football clubs, where everything that seems to be known about the club is already mentioned.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The article deserves to stay on the grounds of the old club whether a stub or not. The new one is clearly not notable but the old one is. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

An article on the old club may - with further research - be notable. The new club deserves no more than a short sentence in an article describing the old one. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Playerhistory.com is back

Yeap, playerhistory.com is back. There are some design and navegability alterations, however, I have some bad news: the old links are broken! FkpCascais (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have altered the {{playerhistory}} template to suit the new playerhistory.com site. Unfortunately there are a large number of pages that do not link via the template, so either a BOT request or I'll look at an AWB run when I have some time. ID numbers are the same, we just need to change "''http://www.playerhistory.com/Default.aspx?page=player_details&playerID=''" to "''http://www.playerhistory.com/player/''" and "''http://www.playerhistory.com/Default.aspx?page=club_details&clubID=''" to "''http://www.playerhistory.com/club/''". Might be worthwhile changing all the player ones to templates while we are about it. --ClubOranje^T 20:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

International statistics table

While editing Nicolas Anelka's international statistics table (see the discussion), I noticed that Anelka's international statistics table used different format from Thierry Henry's international statistics table. One uses yearly format and the other one uses seasonal format. Which one should we use? — MT (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As the concept of a season does not really exist in international football as it does at club level, (where do the major international tournaments, generally played in the summer, fit into a season?) the tables should be formatted by reference to calendar years. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the summer tournaments could be placed in the season leading up to the tournament (i.e. 2010 FIFA World Cup would be in 2009–10 season). But, I agree with you that using calendar years is better. — MT (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That would only work for Eurcentric type seasons. I grew up where seasons started in March and finished in September/October. --ClubOranje^T 20:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's sort the default(s) once and for all

I have been having quite the run-in with User:Monegasque over the approach of the keyword in footballers' articles (yes i know i am the one who is wrong, but i'll propose something now),

take a look at this example: Salva Ballesta, why should he be sorted in "B", when the subject is known as "S" (Salva)? Am i getting WP:COMMONNAME all wrong? In Daniel da Cruz Carvalho, i see an instruction at the bottom that reads "should be sorted under D" (he is known as "Dani"), and it was not even i who wrote it.

Monegasque wrongfully accused me of being THE ONLY user who has this sorting reasoning, this clearly not being the case. If the set of rules is directed to the very opposite pole that i champion, i can add: rules can be and HAVE BEEN changed, can't we reach a compromise?

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You should be looking at WP:NAMESORT and not WP:COMMONNAME to resolve this issue. If you click that link, you will read that in most cases you should sort by surname. There's some exceptions of course, as listed, but I don't think any of them would apply to Salva Ballesta unless you can justify that he is "known primarily by his (their) first name only." I'm not an expert on Spanish names and naming conventions so I can't really say whether you are right or wrong on this one. TonyStarks (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NAMESORT states the rule very clearly. If the title of the article is "First name Surname", one should sort it as "Surname, First name". This rule is usually considered so self-evident that I can't remember any editor trying to challenge it before this discussion. It is important to note that as WP:NAMESORT concerns the English-language wikipedia in its totality, the only thing required here is to abide by it. The rule is clear enough. One should note as well that this discussion does not concern those articles which do have the nickname as their title. As the rule requires sorting by the title, in those cases the article will quite naturally be sorted by the nickname. Example: Pelé. On the other hand, Elvis Presley is most often referred to just as "Elvis", but as the article about him is titled "Elvis Presley", it is sorted in the regular way: "Presley, Elvis". About Spanish names: A Spaniard (or a Spanish-speaking person) usually has two surnames: the paternal surname (from the father) and the maternal surname (from the mother). The paternal surname comes first and is the one used in sorting. Monegasque (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually Vasco is right about this issue, as the cited policies don´t deal with the specificities of Spaniash or Portuguese language names. It was agreed a long time ago to use the most common name (either name or surname) for Brazilian players, and I think the same applies for these cases as well. Vasco is right for these exemples. FkpCascais (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If the player in question is known as 'Salva' rather than 'Ballesta, Salva', then why not prove it with reliable sources, and suggest a move to 'Salva (footballer)'. Giant Snowman 17:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. That would certainly be the most logical course of action. If a player is significantly better known by his nickname than his surname, proving it according to normal wikipedia standards shouldn't be a problem. And after that fact has been proven, the most logical thing would be to rename the article. Spanish names as such are, by the way, no exception when it comes to applying WP:NAMESORT, which requires sorting names as "Surname, First name". As the paternal surname always comes first, this means that one has to sort them by the paternal surname, not by the maternal one and certainly not by the first name. Some editors who are unfamiliar with the Spanish name system sometimes mistake the paternal surname for a middle name. The same mistake is often seen in North American newspaper articles dealing with Spanish or Latin American personalities. Monegasque (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

From what i see (FKP Cascais the only ally), NO POSSIBILITY at all that the rules on defaultsorts are reviewed? So, who wrote that in Daniel da Cruz Carvalho? Kind of contradictory no (should he not me moved as well, to "Dani (Portuguese footballer)", or do we have a DIFFERENT approach for THE SAME issues?)? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A page doesn't have to be moved - in fact with the nicknames of Brazilian etc. footballers it makes sense to have them at their full name but you have to, as I have said, make the case that these players are the exception, and are known by their first-name rather than their family name. This can be done by reliable sources. Giant Snowman 19:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Curiously, just antecipating this precise discussion, I included this issue in my comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Portuguese_footballers.27_names_.2F_Introductions, but everyone left that discussion and started others.

As far as I remember the main issue about DEFAULTSORT was to make the names as easy to find as possible, thus the excuse for using the most common name if not the worldwide common father´s surname... HEY, actually it is already included under WP:MCSTJR. Nice! FkpCascais (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Even so, it needs to be proven in each case by reliable sources, just as GiantSnowman said. And even then one should bear in mind what exactly needs to be proven: not the existence of a nickname as such (for that proves nothing), but that the player is indeed usually referred to only by his nickname and that his surname (or a first name - surname combination) is only rarely used. Monegasque (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, what do reliable sources say on the players in question? Adam4267 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want an online resource that's both reliable and easy to use, Transfermarkt is probably the best one: [26] . The link opens directly on the current squad of Albacete Balompié, which we can use as an example. Those players who are usually known by a nickname (or a first name) are listed by their nickname/first name, while those who are not are listed as "Surname, First name". The database is easy to research. Monegasque (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think anyone who registers an account with Transfermarkt can edit it, making it unreliable by WP standards. Big Dom 09:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. In addition, we can't establish common usage in reliable sources by just referring to a single source. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability for matches

I was wondering what the notability for matches is after I came across this story in the middle of an article. Would that be notable for it's own article? BCS (Talk) 21:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there are special notability criteria for matches, other than the usual WP:GNG. – Kosm1 fent 21:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Definitely create that article. That is remarkable.--Echetus Xe 09:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WOOOW .. just read the details of that match! Incredible stuff. TonyStarks (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I've read an article about that match before, incredible stuff indeed. – Kosm1 fent 10:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wonder if there is much to add to the text as it is. Seems like a good position there, and i wouldn't create an article unless much more could be added and sourced acordingly. -Koppapa (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've heard about that match before, it's pretty incredible. I would say definitely create an article on it.

Are there any sources which tell us anything more about the match than what's already on the tournament page? If not, it seems fairly unnecessary to break it out to a separate article on the grounds of it being a slightly crazy match.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I sort of agree with Chris. There's little question that it's notable enough for a stand alone article, but that doesn't always mean that a stand-alone article would be the best way to cover the topic. At the moment the prose adds some flavour to what otherwise would be such a skimpy article that WP:NOTSTATS could apply. At the same time, background information about the tournament gives context to the story of the match. If there's more to write about the game, I'd advocate developing that section of 1994 Caribbean Cup so that a split becomes necessary, rather than to syphon off the best part of that article merely because it's permissible. —WFC— 18:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to find some more about it. A paragraph summary for one game in the middle of that article is a little out of place, IMO. One more problem: What do I name the article? BCS (Talk) 02:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Barbados v Grenada (1994)? Hack (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

So, was the silly rule abolished after that? Was there an official statement from CFU or CONCACAF? Why was there even extra-time in a group-stage match? The tournament article lacks the tie-breaker criteriums. Cheers. -Koppapa (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

RSSSF don't seem to hold any further details on the match (no line-ups, goalscorers, etc). If the new page would be created by simply copying the paragraph currently in the tournament article to a stand-alone page, I don't really see the point, personally..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Created Article BCS (Talk) 14:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Heads-up over IP

Just in case this IPs decides to keep resurfacing, I thought I'd bring this individual to peoples' attentions here (he has used two IPs so far; 83.100.238.108 and 212.50.182.94). This started with the matter of Peter Gulacsi's loan from Liverpool to Hull City; I reverted him over Gulacsi's removal from the squad list on multiple occasions as there are no sources to support his exit, to which he seemingly took great offense and resorted to infantile abuse and mudslinging. I wish to have no further contact with this user, so just in case he decides to resurface I thought it be best to make people aware of his presence. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you misinterpret this, you'll believe that Gulacsi has returned to Liverpool. So I can understand his edits to the Hull article. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, if you were to miss the "but remains tied to a season-long deal" part. Although I'm sure you can't understand his general attitude? I find it quite appalling that someone is so willing to talk like that to someone they've never met. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me, some people don't take it well when they're wrong. Others are just complete morons. I notice that their block has expired so I'll add your page and Hull City A.F.C. to my watchlist for the time being. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't understand his general attitude. For some reason that sentence was "left out" when writing the other reply :P It's true as Argyle says; Some people can't be wrong. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

André Amougou

I am busy this weekend but I always thought this guys is called 'Bikey' - can someone please look into claims he has changed his name? You will also notice that someone has changed all thee reference titles from Bikey to Amougou i.e. a news piece which is actually titled 'Bikey signs for...' appears on the reflist as 'Amougou signs for...'. Cheers, Giant Snowman 13:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

He changed his name at the beginning of the season, apparently Amougou is his actual family name. Here is a reference. I reckon what will have happened with the references is that someone just did a search and replace throughout the article and forgot to leave the link titles alone. Big Dom 13:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

League tables as templates

I've very much liked the League One table template this year, which has been used on lots of pages, and avoided redundant copied tables in clubs' season articles. I think the idea should be used on old seasons too, so I moved the Third Division North table from 1921–22 Football League to a template, allowing its use on 1921–22 Tranmere Rovers F.C. season as well as on the original article. Is this the way forward in general? If so, should the tables separate home/away results and have a key at the bottom (as per 1921–22 but not 2011–12)? Should the source(s) of the table be part of the template? Cheers! U+003F^? 18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is the way forward, it makes it easier. Tables is better with separate home/away results, but I guess you'll need a source for that, which should be a part of the template. Having a key at the bottom improves the quality in my opinion. If you do it like this: Template:2011 Norwegian First Division, you could even have references included in the template. Mentoz86 (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Jacobo Sanz Ovejero

I have been in contact with this footballer's brother in order to improve the article, especially regarding pictures. However, i found out that the storyline, refs, links and more (the infobox for crying out loud!!) have been summarily removed/replaced, leaving the English version as the Spanish one, in appalling state and language; i have already rolledback and messaged the individual, which i think is the brother - the VERY SAME IP also wrote the stuff in ES.WIKI.

Can someone assist me here? Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Turns out it was the player HIMSELF! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ibba

This article was recently created, but before I move it and clean it up I am wondering: He has not played football in a FPL an fails NFOOTY - should this be PROD'ed or is there other notability guidelines for futsal-players (He has played for Norway national futsal team)? Mentoz86 (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Academies

User:Yaya Silva has taken it upon himself to make wholesale moves of club academy articles to "B" articles. e.g. he moved Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy to Manchester United 'B' with the edit summary "Format". -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Should undoubtedly be moved back, as that's simply not what they're called in England. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Revert and explain to him why. I've moved them back now, think I got them all. Giant Snowman 14:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Jack Kershaw

Anyone with access to Joyce, Hugman or an equivalent book who can clarify this?

According to this source Kershaw played in the English Third Division North. There was a Jack Kershaw who played for Wigan Borough around this time, but there's no mention of him leaving to play in America. Despite the coincidence of being born in the same area, I suspect they are probably two seperate players, but would appreciate if someone could confirm this, and whether the player who moved to America did actually play in the Football League.

Cheers. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Just had a look in Joyce (p. 147) and there's one "John Kershaw" who played at right back and centre forward for Wigan Borough from 1921 to 1924, with 42 appearances and one goal. So it seems they are two different players. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No record of the other one playing League football? I guess that article might have confused the two players then. Thanks! J Mo 101 (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, he's the oly Kershaw listed. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Fernando Torres

This probably isn't the best place to report this but there is an on-going petty edit war going on at Fernando Torres. Basically, User:The Footy Show wants certain content to be included and is continually re-adding it and User:Mythical Curse is continually removing it, with both just accusing each other of vandalism, rather than engaging in any meaningful discussion. This has been going on for nearly a week now with no end in sight, and by my reckoning they've each broken WP:3RR twice. As someone closely involved with the article I thought it would be best to get someone independent taking a look. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

3RR warnings issued, article fully protected for ten days. Have suggested the two protagonists talk it out on the talk page. Let me know if it gets better/worse...! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Racism in association football

There is a discussion regarding the content of this article that could be important, please see Talk:Racism in association football. Giant Snowman 22:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Help requested

There is a very aggressive football fan that I am trying to help at Talk:Shamrock Rovers F.C.#Capacity of Tallaght Stadium. He has taken a strong dislike to me and is acting combatively, so the page has been protected for the time being. I believe he probably means well in his edits but he takes requests for sources as a personal affront. The point I have tried to impress on him is that Wikipedia requires sources.

He is now trying to come up with a source for his claims but is having a hard time doing so. Football articles are not something I spend a lot of time writing usually so I am not sure what the specific requirements are for sources. Recently he has suggested that the source for one of his claims is an offline technical drawing made by an architect. I need help regarding whether this is acceptable as a reliable source and a third party opinion would be very welcome at this point. I also need help pointing him to a good place for appropriate sourcing. I'd like this editor to see that I'm not attacking him personally, but I'm just trying to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. If anyone is interested in weighing in on the specific sources he's provided, please join the conversation such as it is. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well from what I see is your saying the capacity is over 8,000 which you've acknowledged was only temporary & IP thinks it's 5,947 but hasn't provided any sources. Shamrock Rovers themselves claims the stadium holds 6,500 see here. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The stadium's website and this article claim a capacity of 6,000. – Kosm1 fent 15:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about the capacity. The source that was originally there states that temporary seating had been added bringing the capacity to 8,600. This sourced figure was presented at the article for some time until this IP editor began changing it without sources. I'm trying to get him to provide a source for his claims. Until such a source emerges, I think it makes sense to stick with the sourced claim. I'd be happy to go with any figure that is sourced, though. Either the 6500 figure (with source) or the 6000 figure (with source) would be fine in my view. But the IP editor is intent on a specific unsourced figure. Recently he's suggested that he has some kind of a source - an architect's diagram of the seating. My question is whether this is an appropriate source according to WP:FOOTY's guidelines. -Thibbs (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Only if its accessible to the world at large, e.g. via a library; otherwise, how can it be verified? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. Referring to "morons" or "well-intentioned imbecile" is not conducive to a rational discussion.

I'll have to disagree with you there. Goading this editor actually got him to reveal his source. Prior to that it's been a stream of abuse directed at me since October. I don't usually use such rhetoric, but this editor needed direct prompting to get him to participate in the discussion. -Thibbs (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I highly doubt it counts as a reliable source. The architectural plan must be checked for accuracy first, and that's not our job. Plus what Daemonic Kangaroo wrote; it needs to be (easily) accessible. – Kosm1 fent 15:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll inform the IP editor then. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Architect drawings/diagrams are not a good source for actuality, but they could be good for intent. Unfortunately, the real world has an unhappy habit of interfering with architects' ideas. --Dweller (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Having seen the builder's plans for the extension the previous owners had put on my current house, I'll vouch for the fact that plan doesn't necessarily equal reality..... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Soccerbase

Has anyone actually got a response from Soccerbase before, I’ve been trying to get them to correct Scott Allan’s stats for some time now with no luck. Now their mistake has even made it on Sky Sports news when they were reporting his transfer to West Brom. Basically he made 4 appearances while on loan at Forfar which is correct in his wiki article & referenced via Soccerway who have it correct. Soccerbase have excluded his debut for Forfar against Alloa from their stats. Can someone else help email them so this mistake isn’t broadcast in the mainstream media again. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, about 4 years ago. Emailed them and they seemed happy enough to make the changes. Since then I have mailed them a few times but always got no reply and no changes were made. They no longer appear to have any working mechanism for dealing with emails or requests for changes - unless anyone knows otherwise?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I got a reply from them on Twitter ages ago when I pointed out that Jean-Paul Kalala had the flag of Congo on his page instead of DR Congo. They said it would be fixed, but as you can see, it's still there: http://www.soccerbase.com/players/search.sd?search=Jean-Paul+Kalala&type=player

For the record, their Twitter page is http://twitter.com/#!/soccerbase but it looks like it's just an automated feed of betting adverts now, I don't hold out much hope of you getting a reply or any action from them. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 08:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone gotten a response recently, where they altered the mistake? ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I've e-mailed them a couple of times, no luck. It may be time to start using other sources as the 'default' stats provided if they can't recognise that John Smith playing for X in 2010-11 is the same as in 2011-12. Sigh. Giant Snowman 10:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Only league appearances and goals?

Why are only league appearances and goals included in the infoboxes? I feel all official matches should be included, including domestic and continental cups. Paolo Napolitano 16:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Because comprehensive cup etc. appearances are only available for modern players, and we need consistency between articles. Giant Snowman 16:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that, for players where that level of detail is available, there's nothing to stop it being put in the body of the article in a table. As mentioned, though, for any player prior to the 90s it's going to be very hard to source all appearances in competitions other than the league, and to include cup games for some players but not others would just make for a horrible mess..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, when it comes to Norway, it'a easier to find total matches, Stein Olav Hestad for instance, has 681 matches (league, cups, friendlies) for Molde FK, and that is the number you'll find in most sources. To find out how many league matches he played, is very difficult, atleast I haven't managed to find it out. And the story is the same for most Norwegian footballers prior to the 90s. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree; it's often the case that where using club records, it's much easier to find total appearances rather than league only. This is particularly true where players may have spent part of their career at a semi-professional level. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That may be so, but the established convention is that the infobox stats only cover league matches and it would be nigh on impossible to change that now, with the thousands of articles that use this infobox. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe some sort of a notice can be put at the top of the infobox like "All appearances that are verified by reliable sources have been included" and in other infoboxes; "The appearance and goal statistics of this football player are incomplete and only include league appearances and goals. If you want, you can cite reliable sources and update the infobox with correct number of appearances and goals". Paolo Napolitano 14:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If the only stat available is total, then include that - it's better than having it empty - but make sure that the prose reflects this. If we are able to specify league stats, then they should be used all the time. Giant Snowman 14:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Luis Gustavo Ledes

An IP user keeps adding a break (<br>) in Luis Gustavo Ledes' full-name. Seems like a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT as it stretches the infobox. I'm at a 3RR. Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 22:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a proposal: let's remove the "do" in the box (i often do that), it still appears in the intro and it's not all that relevant methinks. Meanwhile, i'll message - seemingly - User:Raulseixas about that. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If the "dos" is part of his full name then it should appear in his full name. That's what full name means. If you really "often" remove it, then I suggest you stop. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - I mean look at Charlie Oatway's full name! Ridiculous but accurate. Giant Snowman 10:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe set the infobox to wrap the full name. Hack (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"Dos", "Da", "De" are merely conjunctions in my language that appear in names, meaning "of". Not really a name and not really that relevant, but OK i'll stop doing that. Was not really hoping on "heading home" my train of thought after five years :(... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about Category:Association football players who died while playing

I was trying to expand the newly-created Mitotônio article and noticed that it was a member of this category (and is wikilinked at List of association footballers who died while playing. All of the sources I've found show that Mitotônio died on 1 April 1951; the day after he played in a match (on 31 March). The cause of his death was found to be a hemorrhage he developed while playing in that match, but he did not actually collaspe on the field or die the day of the match. Does this person belong in that category or list? I think not. Jogurney (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please ignore this - I should have read the text in both category and list since it's clear that injuries sustained during a match that caused death are counted. Sorry, I should be more careful. Jogurney (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to ask a question about this as well. I was going to create an article about Soldier Wilson, which someone else has since started at David "Soldier" Wilson (disregarding the COMMONNAME guideline). Now, he suffered a heart attack while playing for Leeds City against Burnley but it was nothing to do with any injury sustained in the match. However, he did not die until after the match had ended so does he belong in the category or not? Thanks in advance, Big Dom 16:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Description for the Category has - This category covers association football players who have either died while playing, died directly from injuries sustained while playing, or died after taking ill on the pitch. - so reckon he does.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say they both qualify. Giant Snowman 16:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. On the same topic, does anyone have Wilson's Scottish League stats for the infobox? Big Dom 18:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Clubname parameter

Due to the inconsistency among English football club articles regarding what is placed in the "clubname" parameter, I have started this discussion with the hope of a clearer consensus being reached. This inconsistency can be demonstrated by looking at the 17 English football club FAs, with four (Ipswich Town F.C., Liverpool F.C., Luton Town F.C. and Manchester City F.C.) including "F.C.", while 13 do not. Previous discussions on this topic can be accessed here and here. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to see them listed with the 'F.C.', but consistency is key - whatever is agreed here should be rolled out across the board. Giant Snowman 17:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I remember this being a certain affectation of a now indef blocked user who insisted on removing all F.C.'s from the club name parameter. I believe it should have FC, AFC, F.C., etc otherwise it isn't actually the club name, it's just an abridged version. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It is worth noting that when Sarumio was blocked indefinitely, it was because "your continuing edits in removing "F.C." from various football teams is without consensus and therefore vandalism. Since you seem incapable of contributing in accordance to Wikipedia's requirements I have removed the editing privileges from this account." Giant Snowman 17:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

He's back at the moment, which is probably what kicked this issue off again. The consensus he was editing against was no unilateral mass changes, if I remember correctly. As the linked discussions show, there was no consensus for either with or without. I'd argue that if we do need consistency, and if this discussion is just about English (and possibly Scottish) clubs, we have to include the FC/AFC/whatever: Blackpool is a place, Blackpool F.C. is a football club. And as TRM says above, the FC is part of the club name: as the infobox is designed at the moment, if you don't supply the clubname parameter, you get the pagename, i.e. with the FC. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That account is now indef blocked as well. But the debate is still worthwhile. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It didn't even cross my mind that the new editor would be socking. I'm losing my edge ;) Giant Snowman 18:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

even if it is obvious half the time nobody listens anyway so wouldn't worry about it. In regard to the issue as far as I'm concerned F.C. Should be included there are so many clubs named after the place they are based in plus it is there full and proper name. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Djurgårdens IF

User:Plexus14 is constantly trying to add wikilinks for non notable players that he has created articles for but which I have PROD on the basis that the players are not notable since they havn't made any apperances in a professional league. He seems incapable of reading his own talk page where I left him a proper explanation the first time I reverted his edits. I'm at 3RR so I can't reverted him should he revert my edit again, could someone please explain his error to him? --Reckless182 (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User seems to have understood the point of NFOOTBALL now. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Playerhistory

Today, someone had a "streak" in my watchlist, adding "Player X on playerhistory.com" and "Club Y on playerhistory.com". (See the edits on Magnus Sylling Olsen, Freddy dos Santos, Tromsø IL and Association football here). The edits are mainly done by Polarman, but Hmandal and 88.84.174.179 also did some edits. The first thing that struck my mind, was to revert them and put a notice on the user's talk page, but I thought I should ask here first: Is Playerhistory.com a reliable source and are those edits inappropriate, especially when Polarman is Håkon Winther, the founder of playerhistory.com? Mentoz86 (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we've established that playerhistory.com is a reliable source, although I'm not a member so I don't know their exact process for publishing information. I avoid adding links to subscription-required sites like that, but there is some free content, so perhaps it's okay. Jogurney (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The site itself is OK, but I don't think every biography should contain a link to that player's biography at playerhistory.com. What does that website actually add to the article by being included as an external link? – Pee Jay 16:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the site only support numbers in the infobox. Could be useful when updating/adding players with limited sources. But it's just wrong when he add link to his site, to a lot of random articles, when the same stats are already stated in other sources. I guess I could just undo all his recent edits that is like that? Mentoz86 (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In my view the site is specially helpfull for sourcing less known players, and I remember in earlier discussions (years ago), that we used to consider it among the most reliable ones. However, it shouldn´t be used at every single player article. I use it mostly to complete players careers (as it often contains clubs not included in other sources) and NT stats (specially U21, U23, U19, etc.). I am sad to see that the new version excluded place of birth, which was included before, however this new version includes the leagues each club played in for each player (a definite plus in my view). I am very glad a bot has fixed all links that were broken. FkpCascais (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

We need to bear in mind that, as a user-edited site with no indication to the outsider as to how information is sourced or how good the fact-checking process is, playerhistory isn't a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. Doesn't mean it isn't useful, and it certainly doesn't mean I've never used it as a reference, but as a non-WP:RS, we'd be wise not to start using it as the source of choice just because it's easily accessible and has wider coverage than many other stats sites. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutelly right Struway. FkpCascais (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Same goes with Transfermarkt - anyone can register and edit I believe. Giant Snowman 21:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we mentioned it often. However I do remember us having a bit more of consideration towards Playerhistory... Just as note GS, I became an Transfermarkt editor about a year ago, because I wanted to fix a few mistakes there, and I did a test about the website. The thing is that you do have to present a source for the changes, and the changes are first presented to an admin who then makes the changes, usually only one, or more, days after. I made a test and added beside the clubs in the career section, which I presented a source for, a birthplace info without source), and after a day or so, when the changes appeared at the page, only the clubs info was added, meaning that they do have some filtering of info presented. The changes are never done directly to players pages (as here on WP happends), but they are presented to admins who approve them first. It doesn´t make Transfermarkt reliable, of course, and many errors are present which challenge it just by itself, but I just wanted to explain that the process of editing Transfermarkt is not as simple as WP, as sometimes is presented here on discussions. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This user has set about adding a whole load of extra Playerhistory links. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The main problem I have with adding links to this website is I do not see it containing anything that couldn't be/isn't already in the article. Wikipedia is not a directory of websites, the purpose of an external link is only to facilitate access to relevant content that cannot be added to the article. Frankly I don't see anything in playerhistory that suggests it should be linked. If people are satisfied with its reliability as a source, then it may be used as a cite, but that is not the same as including it as an external link. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Being a former editor (well I'm still an admin, but hardly added/changed anything in the last 3 years) I can remember very few editors who turned out be to be vandals and had to be blocked. In those rare cases their additions were soon detected and deleted. There are of course editors who don't know the difference between an accurate "reliable" source and an inaccurate "reliable" source (one of the reasons that makes Wikipedia and even sites like playerhistory.com for me very frustrating places to be). Examples of inaccurate reliable sources are soccerbase.com fussballdaten.de and vi.nl, these sites are unacceptable sources for me. The Skysports/Rothmans football yearbooks, non-league directories, (combined with recent clubhistories/player who's who's) are reliable sources as well and much more accurate. The only accurate reliable sources in the Netherlands are a few clubhistories. Infostrada has reliable data on the Dutch league (ca 1970-present day), but their accurate database is for professional use only (they work with 2 databases: one for professional use and a slightly less accurate one for us common people) playerhistory.com has some very good content, including content that wasn't previously published in any form. An example is the French team who do a lot of research, they correct the errors in reliable sources like Barreaud. So I agree it shouldn't be always added/used as a ref or external link. Someone who compaires playerhistory.com with the best ,available, most recent sources both on and offline can decide if using it as a ref or external link is usefull or not. Cattivi (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the biggest fan of the layout of fussballdaten.de's website, but as for stats in the German leagues it really is nigh-on accurate. I can't comment on other sites, but, for what it's worth, I would say this one in particular is as reliable as it gets. Jared Preston (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The most accurate sources on German League football can be found here [[27]] Have you ever looked at their second division line-ups of the 70's and early 80's in detail? Cattivi (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I just did, and must admit they are much better than a few years ago. I can still find errors: Bernd Krumbein played 16 games for OSV Hannover in 1980-81 and not 15. There are 16 matches in the database but I think the player/season is not correctly defined. (when they change bis 31-10 into bis 1-11 the error will probably be corrected) This is a typical error you can find in databases. Cattivi (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The statistics are there, obviously just a problem in counting the individual appearances for the database totals, which is a shame for that player. Cattivi, would you like to create the article on Bernd Krumbein? Would be a useful addition! Jared Preston (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

v t e Friendly association football tournaments in 2011
« 2010 2012 »
Copa Bimbo	Montevideo (14–16 January)
Match World Cup	Dubai (20–26 January)
Copa del Sol	La Manga Club, Elche (27 January – 7 February)
Marbella Cup	Marbella (2–8 February)
Asian Challenge Cup	Hong Kong (3–6 February)
Nations Cup	Dublin (8 February – 29 May)
La Manga Cup	La Manga Club (14–22 February)
Desert Diamond Cup	United States (4–5 March)
Cascadia Summit	Starfire Sports Complex (4–6 March)
World Football Challenge	United States and Canada (13 July – 6 August)
Lev Yashin Cup	Moscow, Khimki (15–16 July)
Vodacom Challenge	South Africa (16–23 July)
Audi Cup	Munich (26–27 July)
MLS All-Star	Harrison, New Jersey (27 July)
Premier League Asia Trophy	Hong Kong (27–30 July)
Emirates Cup	London (30–31 July)
Dublin Super Cup	Dublin (30–31 July)
Eusébio Cup	Lisbon (6 August)
Trofeo Costa del Sol	Málaga (13 August)
Velayat Cup	Tehran (3–7 November)
Focus Cup	Amman (13–16 July)
Friendly match Tournament

v t e Friendly association football tournaments in 2012
« 2011 2013 »
Copa Bimbo	Montevideo (13–15 January)
Match World Cup	Dubai (18–23 January)
Football Impact Cup	Marbella (22–28 January)
Asian Challenge Cup	Hong Kong (23–26 January)
Copa del Sol	La Manga Club, Benidorm (28 January – 7 February)
Marbella Cup	Marbella (3–9 February)
La Manga Cup	La Manga Club (15–22 February)
Desert Diamond Cup	Arizona (22 February – 3 March)
Hawaiian Islands Invitational	Hawaii (23–25 February)
Walt Disney World Pro Soccer Classic	Florida (24 February – 3 March)
World Football Challenge	United States & Canada (18 July – 11 August)
Peace Cup	Suwon (19–22 July)
Polish Masters	Wrocław (21–22 July)
Winoly Cup	Beijing (27 July)
Eusébio Cup	Lisbon (27 July)
Summer of Champions' Cup	Bucharest (11 August)
Philippine Peace Cup	Manila (25–29 September)
Trofeo Santiago Bernabéu	Madrid (26 September)
Friendly match Tournament