Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 66

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 60

←

Archive 64

→

Andrea Stramaccioni

This guy is Inter's new manager, he didn't have a page until I created it just there. However, there is a real lack of English sources so it's not very good. If there are any Italian editors who know more about him, or anyone can find an Italian editor that would be helpful. Cheers. Adam4267 (talk)

The only one i know about, User:Angelo.romano, seems like a good bet. Cheerio! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Vasco, he quickly went onto the article and it's looking in a lot better shape now. Adam4267 (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Bristol and Avon League

Following on from the discussion above about the Turkish fifth division I have prodded this league. The 21st and 22nd level of English football. There seemed to be a consensus aboce that leagues below level 11 should be deleted but as I said above that's well over 100 leagues and I'm not sure what the process is for that. Adam4267 (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the PROD. This could be a controversial one and is probably better at AFD, and there could well be merit in redirecting and/or mergeing to either an existing article, or we could start a new one on English lower non-leagues. Giant Snowman 12:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's now Afd'd. Adam4267 (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If this nightmare scenario is followed through by culling a 100 or so leagues in the English football league system I suggest that flexibility is shown in allowing the leagues to be properly accommodated within their relevant County Football Association. In the case of the Bristol and Avon League this would be the Gloucestershire County Football Association (although the league is also affiliated to the Somerset County Football Association). There would be 13 leagues to cover with the Gloucestershire FA and I would suggest in the interests of fairness and flexibility a further page be permitted for the "Gloucestershire FA Leagues" so that they could be reasonably accommodated. Some other counties with a lot of leagues would also need an extra page. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC))

I have suggested a redirect and sending it to the local FA is fine by me, though in this case it appears to be affiliated to two. Giant Snowman 18:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with putting info on the leagues into their County FA article. However, I don't see why a seperate County FA leagues page is necessecary. Although on a side note are each of the County FAs actually notable? Just looking at the two Counties League Octopus mentioned above. Neither have any independant sources. Adam4267 (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Would it be appropriate to discuss which teams are favourite to win a league in a league season article in a section called something like "Background" or something similar? I have a perfectly good ref for that kind of section for 2012 Allsvenskan. The ref is neutral (Swedish FA) and the people that have participated are the leagues managers, players and media experts. Is this a good idea or not? --Reckless182 (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If you had a summary section of the title/relegation/european races then it would fit in quite well. But I suppose you could also just have a shorter section about it. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be in the article though. Adam4267 (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There need to be hugely reliable sources for that kind of potentially controversial information, but in this case I also don't see why it shouldn't be included. – Kosm1 fent 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO, it'd be fine, so long as you make it clear in the text whose opinions it is that you're reporting. "According to a poll of league managers...", "whereas a panel of members of the public...", whatever it is. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers guys! --Reckless182 (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone able to translate from German and got some time to help?

I have some RS in German relating to an article I'm trying to develop. If you might be able to help, please drop a note on my user talk. Thanks --Dweller (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to ask me. Jared Preston (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Rotherham United F.C.

This article's recent unsourced edit problem needs attention from someone more familiar than I am. I found that the sacking of Andy Scott as manager is sourced but I doubt whether he has been replaced by Kevin Keegan (unlikely but remotely possible) or the winning team of Susan Boyle and Homer Simpson (no comment). There are other small problems hiding in there as well. Britmax (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Chuckle brothers are their biggest fans though. That isn't vandalism.--Echetus Xe 23:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

State cups

I also had a notability question since cups aren't convered in the Football notability essay. I am wondering if it is notable to have seasons articles of State Cups(U.S. that is). There is an article for Peel Cup which is the Illinois state cup but no seasons yet. It might be nice to have some of those seasons. I read in the essay that a league is notable if the teams take part in the national cup or the highest league. Along those lines it could be considered notable if teams participated in both State and National Cups which is possible for several states. Libro0 (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

For the US if the clubs are eligible for the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup then the state cup should be notable. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be very cautious about assuming notability here. The Peel Cup certainly seems to be a notable enough competition given its history, but there are no secondary sources at all to actually back that up. The other state cups of this type may very well be less notable. I'd just go with the GNG on this one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I would doubt that 'there are no secondary sources at all'. The sources would be considerably fewer, but the same that would be found for the National Cups. Libro0 (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox question

I always have this question when creating/updating an article: When creating/adding the infobox for a player, do we delete empty fields or keep them blank? For example, do we keep the nationalteam fields for a player or delete them (and add them back when/if he makes his international debut)? My thinking is that there is no point of leaving blank fields since it will only take up space on the Wikipedia servers and given the amount of information on here it could really add up. However, I never knew if it was the right approach or not. TonyStarks (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I personally delete blank parameters - a waste of space (both when editing and on the server). Giant Snowman 14:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thought so TonyStarks (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As above. Parameters can easily be added; just as when a player signs for a new club. Some fields like "clubnumber" for managers, or even "currentclub" for dead (former) players will obviously never (again) be used. There's certainly no need for all parameters to be listed in the infobox; some infoboxes like {{infobox person}} or {{infobox officeholder}} have an awful lot, so it makes sense to pick out only the ones which are required. Jared Preston (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

...but, I allways keep the ones that could potentially become usefull soon, such as currentclub/clubnumber for a player momentaneously without club, heigh parameter for a player we don´t know for time being his height, etc. Makes sense, right? FkpCascais (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah yeah for sure. Things that will always apply I keep. It was mainly for the nationalteam parameters that I was asking the question. TonyStarks (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I sometimes remove the nt parameters and ntupdate for players that never represented neither seem that will represent nt´s, specially in cases of former players with no nt appereances. FkpCascais (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry FOR SURE

User:Steadyfingers is blocked user User:Aciyokrocky, no checkuser required methinks, just compare both set of contributions (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aciyokrocky and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Steadyfingers), the lack of summaries and talkpage replies and the continuous upload of images against site guidelines continue.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

To report this type of concern, use WP:SPI. Cloudz 679 09:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Squad number

Squad number is currently at RM see here. I'm not trying to Canvas I just thought I'd bring it to your attention as it's possible in it's last day there & hasn't had many comments. Although it mayn't be a high priority article it's still a cornerstone of the sport. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Football League season articles

This has been discussed a couple of times,[1][2] but no action was ever taken. A lot of the Football League (and Football Conference) articles were edited by Apanuggpak (talk · contribs) back in 2011. This introduced a lot of flaws - over-wide league tables, overlapping maps, large whitespaces, horrendously coloured tables, and some inappropriately text and referencing. It also left them without introductions, and increased the size of the article to over 100kb. On the plus side, the editor in question did add the results from the season, which was missing previously.

What should we do about these articles. As there are so many it is quite a bit of work to fix them, so there needs to be consistency and agreement before any changes are made.

So, I guess the options are:

A straight revert to the pre-Apanuggpak state. This removes the mess and the inappropriate text (but means the results grids are lost)
A revert to the pre-Apanuggpak state, but then adding back in the results grids
Edit the existing ones to add an introduction and remove the inappropriate text and maps (although this leaves the table width issues)
Some other form of edit to make the articles readable
Leave them as they are

Thoughts? Number 5 7 15:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Option 4 in form of using the existing MoS for league seasons would probably be the best idea. If that is not a feasible consensus, use option 2. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 15:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggested before to split the articles by divisions and expand them with the usual sections we have now: teams (stadium and locations), top scorers etc. Also, you could include only overall standings in the league table, I haven't seen this home and away stuff anywhere else. London maps could be removed and the clubs from London added in the top right corner of the locations map. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with option 2, unless someone really wants to take on the huge task that option 4 would present. I did revert a couple of Conference tables a year or so ago, whilst retaining the results tables, but Apanuggpak went postal and I stopped. I definitely agree with Dr. Vicodine about only using overall tables - the home and away tables are overkill, and also the getting rid of the London maps. Leaving them as they are is not a palatable option, and option 3 with the width issues is also not really satisfactory, in my humble op. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with option 2. Best not set ourselves too ambitious a target, or the work might not get started, let alone finished... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Back when I originally flagged this I provided some basic instructions which resolved some of the worst of this, along the lines of #3. Unless the work is truly unsalvageable I'd rather not revert all of the new content, but ultimately it's up to whoever is most likely to work on these in future and I dare say there are editors more interested in historical Football League seasons than I am. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am minded to go with option 2 - option 3 leaves us with the tables split into home and away (with no aggregate section). I might try a few today and see how they look. Number 5 7 08:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies between category titles & category descriptions

I've been recently adding missing categories to players articles & I added [[Category:IFA Premiership players]] to a small number of articles, but then I read the category description: This category lists footballers who have played in the now defunct Irish Football League. Now the problem is, if this category is intended for the now defunct Irish Football League which ran from 1890–2003 then why does it have the current league title? So should we:

(1) Change the category description to say: this includes category includes footballers who have played in the Irish Football League, Irish Premier League & IFA Premiership. For those not familiar with Northern Irish football the top Division was the Irish Premier League between 2003–2008 now also defunct.
(2) Should the category be moved back the it previous title Irish Football League players & then create new categories for Irish Premier League players & IFA Premiership players.

PS: I'm not in favour of the latter but would be willing to sort the players if necessary. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it the case that there are not really material differences between the various leagues i.e. they were all the top-level of football in Northern Ireland. On that basis I would go with your Option 1. Eldumpo (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It should have the current name but be for all players, past and present, to have played in it - my understanding is that the league hasn't changed, the name simply has. Giant Snowman 12:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. We don't have separate categories for Swansea Town and Swansea City players, so I don't see why this needs to be any different. Of course, the former name can be explained in the category itself. Number 5 7 12:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it that case i'll just reword the misleading category description. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Names for international tournament squad templates

I've seen many variations, and I think this needs standardising. My preferred would be 'Country squad Tournament' e.g.:

'Brazil squad 1962 FIFA World Cup ' not {{Brazil Squad 1962 FIFA World Cup}}
'England squad 2010 UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship' not {{England U19 Squad Euro 2010}}
'Argentina squad 2005 FIFA World Youth Championship' not {{Argentina U20 Squad 2005}}

Thoughts? Giant Snowman 13:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes; these names are a mess and your suggestion of standardisation is duely welcomed! Jared Preston (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Fully support, standardisation is key for this WikiProject and those examples you've listed are not only unstandardised but moreover they are vague and misleading. Cloudz 679 14:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else? We can't really have a three person consensus... Giant Snowman 09:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good to me. Should be fairly uncontroversial. Incidentally is that under-19 template notable? U21 tournaments and the U20 World Cup are understandable, but I've seen a few squad templates going as far down as under-17... J Mo 101 (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with GS's proposal. Adam4267 (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree to this proposal, it's good that someone tries to clean up. --Jaellee (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do we put the words "European" and "Football" in the title of UEFA's tournaments? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with all three. I've renamed a lot of the World Cup ones to the format you've proposed over the last few months, having gone through the categories in reverse order from Category:2010 FIFA World Cup squad navigational boxes. Category:1990 FIFA World Cup squad navigational boxes and the categories before still need formatting. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

&ndash

Is it not protocol to use &ndash for match results? The only reason I'm asking is User:Ohconfucius has change alot of ndashes to key strokes on season pages results section. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. Maybe he doesn't know. -Koppapa (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming Ohconfucius is just changing the way the endash character "–" is generated, not changing it to a different sort of dash? It doesn't matter whether you use the &ndash format or the character out of the wiki markup box to produce the character. There's no point making an edit just to change one format to the other, but some scripts do it as a standard change while making other more constructive changes at the same time. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what Ohconfucius is doing. AFAIK he uses User:GregU/dashes.js, which does change the html (–) to the unicode (–), but only if there are constructive changes also to be made. Jenks24 (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm using dashes.js as the engine. As far as I am aware, with a few exceptions that have been noted on the author's talk page, the script engine correctly replaces hyphens, endashes and emdashes, with spaced and unspaced dashes as appropriate in conformity with WP:MOSDASH. An accompanying change is the "–" into "–". This is a secondary function in my script, the main object of which is to align date formats in accordance with WP:MOSNUM. I try hard not to do inconsequential edits, and the chances of me doing this are minimal. Nevertheless, another editor got very upset about me replacing the html ndash with the unicode ndash, and I undertook not to run the script if there were not misaligned dates. I'll monitor this page for further discussions on this issue. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually using the dash from the markup box occupies one bite, while the extended form of "&ndash" uses 6 bites. FkpCascais (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Or, coming at it from the editing direction, the dash from the markup box looks the same as a hyphen in the standard monospace font in the edit window. Using &ndash makes it clear what's meant. On heavily edited pages, it can be helpful to use the &ndash format to encourage the inexperienced to copy it into their changes and thereby get the right sort of dash. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are really only a handful of editors on the project who actually care about dashes versus hyphens, and using Unicode dashes means that the editing window is not filled up with confusing bits of code-like stuff for those editors who neither know nor care about the difference. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather use the same shape little line for everything. However, given that the MoS does care about the difference, and given that most updating of infoboxes, stats tables and lists of results is done by anons or inexperienced editors, where's the harm in helping those who don't know but might actually care about getting stuff right to notice that there is a difference? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The harm is simply that it requires casual editors to take on board a whole load of additional process trivia for the sake of what is one of Wikipedia's most infamously petty quibbles. Those of us who have the tools and the knowledge to correct improper dashes (and while I would quite happily use hyphens forever were it up to me, I do indeed spend far too much of my own time updating dash use on random articles) can do so, but quite frankly it's the very lowest priority thing we have to educate casual readers on. But still, nobody is stopping people from using HTML entities if they like, and there are compelling reasons to do so (especially if one works on articles in an offline monospace editor); the issue here was an assertion that one style or the other is discouraged, and that for some reason people are even threatening to edit war over that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Edinburgh Wanderer came to me the other week suggesting there was something wrong with using – as well. Who is telling people this? There is nothing wrong with using the Unicode character rather than the HTML entity and indeed if done properly it's probably preferable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I rgo on AWB to clean up articles (spelling mistakes, formatting etc.) I also change &ndash to –, purely because I think it looks neater and takes up less space. However, as long as it is constant in the article, it's not an issue at all, and there are more important things to be getting in a stress over. Giant Snowman 10:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a very strong feeling re this. The mos on dash does not exclude use of the code. This is the policy he uses to say he can change to a keystroke. The argument he used were that it used up more bytes and is less accessible to new editors. The policy clearly links you on how to use the code. This is a preference. If any editor or group of editors use the code rather than keystroke as is the case with season articles then there is no need to change. I have no objection to his other edits but I do to this. I asked him to stop changing them but he isn't interested. He does not need to run that script. He can sort dates and other issues. I'm going to spend tonight reverting his changes to the keystroke and try and leave his good edits. He dosent like me and i don't like him. He was well aware there isn't policy to back up non use of the code. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good night in, EW! But seriously, don't you have something better to do? If you're stuck for something to do may I recommend the Category:Football articles needing infoboxes, currently including 716 pages, much more worthwhile than aesthetic issues in articles. Then you can establish your own way of writing the –. Keep up the good work, - Cloudz 679 12:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

that does sound worthwhile and I do like a challenge but I'll fix these first. I would rather be out in the sun than fixing something that shouldn't of needed fixing in the first place. But that's the way the cookies crumbled today. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

he also says his changes are minimal thats not the case over the last couple of weeks he has done it frequently. I have fixed the ones so far. Today he has done loads. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that the coded "&ndash" corresponds to the dash found in the markup box, while the one from the keystroke is slightly shorter. The difference is really minimal, but it the infobox it becomes more evident. FkpCascais (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Alternatively, EW, why don't you stop personalising every dispute, turning every difference of opinion into a battleground, and just walk away from it? It's very likely that Ohconfucius isn't doing this to annoy you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

chris I appreciate as you well know that I do get wound up easy but it's getting to the point where I think he is. All he has to do is run the other scripts no one is objecting to the other changes just these. So why on earth does he insist on doing it. He has good intention and I don't want to argue over this but what's the point he won't listen to me so I'll just had to keep sorting it. The issue here is that there shouldn't of been an issue in the first place there was no policy or other pressing reason to make these bulk changes. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You're not "sorting it": you're edit warring (or threatening to) over a piece of complete trivia which is firmly established to be more a matter of opinion than a genuine problem. OC's recent edits have not been solely to change HTML entities into dashes: they've been thorough cleanups of lots of MoS compliance / consistency issues such as reference syntax, date format, flag use and others. If he's "not listening to you" it may be due to your propensity to leap in two-feet-first with strongly-worded and lightly-punctuated demands that editors show you irrefutable proof that whatever edit you've objected to today is demanded by some Wikipedia policy (such as this discussion). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

chris it's clear he has no consensus for his changes. Let's be clear I never raised this discussion. Other editors are saying the same as me. How is it edit warring I have over the last two weeks went through the pages he changed that are on my watchlist keeping all the edits that are good only reverting the ndash. I'm sick of this from you. It's clearly stated here that it can be used. The policy clearly states it. So explain clearly where I am edit warring. I have only taken out one part which he doesnt have consensus for. I have never reverted more than once. If there is any edit warring it's him he has hidden behind a

Non existent policy saying two me that the code shouldn't be used which as you told meIsn't correct. If you believe I'm edit warring or being disruptive which i am not then block me. I'm sick this from you so eithier block me if you have proof of edit warring or me abusing policy or back off. I would then strongly suggest you then get the policy he quotes changed because it doesn't back him up. Neither does edit warring. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

he changed 25 pages today. And I will fix them. That was 25 pages he need not of changed. So who is edit warring he is well aware me and others don't want the ndash changed but 25 times today he did it. He is doing it when he has no reason to do it. He can easily fix the other issues leaving the dash code alone. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I fear we are approaching WP:LAME territory here guys...this is a waste of time & effort in a) making the changes in the first place and b) reverting them. Changing dashes serves little real purpose but does not actually hinder the article. Giant Snowman 15:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Im not seeing it as a waste of time. Chris has decided to turn this into all about me. I never brought this here. Before i commented others also said there was no need for the change. This needs sorted now one way or another snowy. Chris needs to put up or shut up he cant keep having a go at me when I'm not the one making the edits. If he feels I'm edit warring block me, if he feels I'm being disruptive block me. But this needs to happen both ways. He had directed all the criticism and snipes at me. Im the one wasting hours going back through the edits he makes to articles on my watchlist to keep the edits which are good and reverting the dashes back to code in the season articles. I shouldn't have to do that because the change shouldn't be being made in the first place. I want a clear decision one way or another. WP:DASH clearly indicated the code can be used (Two forms of dash are used on Wikipedia: en dash (–) and em dash (—). Type them in as &ndash (–) and &mdash (—) ) and barely mentions keystroke. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Im the one wasting hours going back through the edits he makes to articles on my watchlist to keep the edits which are good and reverting the dashes back to code in the season articles" is precisely right. You are wasting your time doing this. You want a bright line where common sense and good will suffice. I've lost count of the number of times that different editors on this project have informed you of this. It's getting near RFC/U territory for absolutely no reason. Just stop taking utterly inconsequential differences in option personally and things will massively improve. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok chris do it. Im sick of this bull shit from you in fact lets both do it because your pointedness is clear in fact lets take this as far as you want to. There is no need for him to change this how am in the wrong hereEdinburgh Wanderer 17:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not in the wrong. But then neither is Ohconfucius. As long as the dash looks like '–' it doesn't matter whether it's &ndash or not. Giant Snowman 18:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thats not what chris says he says its perfect example of my inability or unwillingness to digest the responses given you in good faith. I can see it clear here there is no consensus for him to have made those changes. He cited WP:Dash that doesn't back him up which means i can revert putting back the way it was. Im leaving all the good edits which he is correct in doing. Im shouting for all the world to see now. Chris is the worst admin on the planet. He makes threats he has no basis for i want him to block me or start his RFCU. He is a joke. I'm not putting up with his crap. He turned this to me deliberately i never started this thread. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry EW but you do seem to be taking this out of proportion a bit. I mean come on it's dashes for god sake, no-one but a few wiki editors will be able to tell what the difference is. Adam4267 (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I never brought this here did i Adam. I really don't give a shit who notices the difference in the final page display. The point is policy does not back his change. I will not stand for anyone lying to my face saying the policy does and that was what happened. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, EW's beef with me started on User talk:Tony1, because he did something similar, and continued over on my talk page. The guidelines say the "–" doesn't need to be changed to "–", he's clearly taking the interpretation is that they cannot be changed, because he prefers them. I already informed him, and pledged above, that I do not and will not edit a page simply to change the two perfectly acceptable forms of dashes; these changes are incidental for me. I run a multiple-function script that does a lot of very mundane maintenance work; dashes.js happens to be just one module. Dashes.js is tried and tested, and used by quite a few editors, but not every article needs to have it run on it. If EW wants to spend his precious time, come up behind me and change all the –es back to &ndashes, then it's not really my problem, it's his. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually no its yours its pretty clear here that there was no need for the change to be made in the first place when there is nothing wrong with the code being used. You choose to run the dashes script when it didn't need to be done, but yes if i want to waste my time thats my perogative but it is equally your problem for running it in the first place.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

2022 FIFA World Cup - vandalism

The 2022 FIFA World Cup page is getting a bit of attention after a post on a Facebook page suggesting they vandalise the article. Hack (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

How are clubs that play in the FA Vase notable?

I am just wondering because the FA Vase is mainly for amateur teams only and yet somehow if you play in the FA Vase you are considered a notable club? ---Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Professionalism is the limiting factor for notability of players not clubs, although pro clubs will usually be notable. Beyond general notability there is no clear cut guideline for football clubs. WP:FOOTYN says that all clubs that play in their country's national cup are notable, but given that the structure of national cups varies greatly from one country to another (over 1000 clubs compete in the Coupe de France, but only 64 in the DFB-Pokal) the viability of that guideline has been called into question repeatedly. There are also a number of generally accepted standards for notability that have never been formally codified. If memory serves, playing in the FA Vase is one of these standards, albeit one of the more controversial ones. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Fulham player lists

Anyone with Fulham FC: The Complete Record mind helping me out with the final load of players to be added to List of Fulham F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances). The missing surnames are those beginning with D, F, G, L, M, P, S and T. The other two lists are complete and I hope to develop them with more prose and references to take them to featured list. 03 md 01:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the book but I don't think claiming Diarra as the most notable player on that list is featured list material, since it is POV. Cloudz 679 06:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Rob Gier

Please can somebody take a look at the recent edit history of the Rob Gier page, sorry to say that I have been personally involved, and it is definitely time for me to stop editing this page, but following this player signing for a club in the Philippines, which six different editors have added, each time User:Banana Fingers has removed the content. Bernejay [3] was reverted [4], IP [5] was reverted [6], different IP [7] was reverted [8], Cyrus35334 [9] was reverted [10], and same user [11] was again reverted [12], cloudz679 [13] was reverted [14] and again [15] was reverted [16], Drmies [17] was reverted [18] and most recently Cyrus35334 re-added the information [19].

The only justification provided for these persistent reverts is that the player doesn't actually play for the new club. However consensus would seem to suggest that the information stays in the article. Thoughts? Cloudz 679 07:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Should be in the article unless otherwise sourced. Banana explained his thoughts on the talk page. -Koppapa (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ballon d'Or

Sorry I post this a bit late (and in the wrong place!), but regarding the discussion of last week (see last archive), I think the solution might be including the distinction in the article itself. It happened already too many times with football competitions whose organization changed from institution to another. If we don't reach a consensus (which I think would last a temporary situation at worst) it can also be stated with a footnote, like "it's not clear if this should be considered the same award..." or something like that. Can't that just be stated and leave just one article? And sorry again for the mess at editing this page. Ipsumesse (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Help with creating a template

Would someone be able to help me create a template for player profiles from the website DZFoot.com (like the player templates from FIFA, N-F-T.com, Soccerbase, etc.)? I do most of my work on Algerian football and create a lot of player profiles, so it would be very useful for me and the few other users that also work on Algerian football. The player profiles are all linked the same way on the website and each player has a unique ID. Here is an example. In this case, the player ID is 1898. It would be good if I could so something like {{dzfoot|1898}} and link to the player profile. Thanks! TonyStarks (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem, will let you know here when it's ready. Cloudz 679 13:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not going to be as simple as Soccerbase as DZFoot has a double ID number. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Try this Template:DZFoot. May not work for all pages! Cloudz 679 13:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WOW that was fast! THAAANKS! And yes seems to be working, just tried it on a player page. Can I just ask for a minor change? Instead of showing up as "Player name Statistics ..", can I make it "Player name profile .." ? TonyStarks (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. No problem at all. Cloudz 679 14:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks once again, I really appreciate it! TonyStarks (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, as DIJ said above, there is a double ID number, at the moment the second number is static. If this transpires to cause a problem, please contact me via my talk page and we can work out a solution. For now, enjoy! Cloudz 679 14:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The season ID changes at the end of every season/start of a new one. I'll update it when they update the website (it's currently at 17, will go to 18 when the site is updated). If I can't figure it out I'll let you know but I should be OK. TonyStarks (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Fighting alone out here people

Let's see if some admin who's a little less busy sees this:

User:Steadyfingers, aka blocked user User:Aciyokrocky, continues to "go at it", now not only in Luis Enrique Martínez García, but also in Gonzalo Higuaín (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gonzalo_Higua%C3%ADn&diff=prev&oldid=484841521) and Raúl González (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra%C3%BAl_Gonz%C3%A1lez&diff=484593379&oldid=484590913), he has removed info (especially in the boxes) without one word in summary. The L.Enrique case, as referred ABOVE by me already, is more serious, as he continues to upload a pic he should not, having been duly warned.

Per User:Cloudz679's suggestion, i launched an SPI investigation, which has received NO FEEDBACK in four days. User:GiantSnowman has hinted it is due to lots of cases pending. However, does this case not merit an immediate block (all these warnings with the subsequent lack of response, as ACIYOKROCKY did before)? Can someone please (pleeeaaase) lend a hand (other than suggesting SPI and akin)?

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Vasco, relax a little bit! The SPI case is open, Wikipedia admins generally do a good job, this will get fixed. It looks like you're spending lots of time trying to fix this yourself, and you've realised it's not possible. Wait it out, do something constructive in the mean time, and take heart from the fact that although two or three of your favourite pages are being vandalised, these will soon clear up. I have found from my own experience that the more I am affected by a particular case of vandalism, the more difficult it is for me to edit elsewhere. It may be best to take a break for a couple of days, then come back fresh and ready to contribute again. Don't burn yourself out on the vandals - it's just not worth it. Regards - Cloudz 679 16:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wish i could man, just wish i could :( --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

FA class articles needing dead link cleanup

As User:Brudder Andrusha has alerted me, I looked at the situation of dead links in football articles. We have nearly 5,000 with this problem. Anyway, top down approach has me listing the 15 FA class articles which are in need of attention. FA class articles are supposed to be the pinnacle of the project. These are sorted by importance and then date of listing. Thanks for any help.

Completed cleanup - dead links remaining

~~High Aston Villa F.C. Feb-12~~ 3 dead links. 2 are from the same page-set from TimesOnline, and may be still available behind their paywall (the content is available copypasted to a forum post, but we can't link to copyvio content), and for the 3rd (National Football Museum), I'm not at all convinced the information referenced is correct. Struway2 (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
~~Mid Gilberto Silva May-10~~done. 5 dead links remaning. There were probably more than 20 to begin with, it was in a terrible mess. If anyone can tackle the remaining five, that would be brilliant. Cloudz679 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC) doing Mattythewhite (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- How's the Gilberto cleanup going Matty, need any help? Cloudz 679 07:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Completed cleanup - no dead links

~~High Chelsea F.C. Feb-12~~ done. Cloudz 679 19:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
~~High FC Barcelona Mar-12~~ done. Cloudz 679 22:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
~~Mid History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present) Jun-10~~ done. Struway2 (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
~~Mid John Wark Sep-10~~ done The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
~~Mid Seattle Sounders FC Dec-11~~ Done DemonJuice (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
~~Mid Norwich City F.C. Sep-10~~ done. Cloudz 679 08:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
~~Mid History of Norwich City F.C. Jun-10~~ done. Struway2 (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
~~Mid Derry City F.C. Jul-09 5 dead links, all to rte.ie and all died since yesterday; will go back in a couple of days and if they're still dead will add archive copies.~~ done. Struway2 (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
~~Mid Luton Town F.C. Sep-10~~ ~~1 dead link left.~~ Struway2 (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC) All clear. Cloudz 679 07:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
~~Low History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966) Jun-10~~ done. Struway2 (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
~~Low Portman Road Sep-10 done~~ Eldumpo (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
~~Low Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C. Sep-10~~ - Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC) - 1 dead link
- Deadlinked info was out of date, now updated and dead link gone. Struway2 (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
~~Low CenturyLink Field Sep-10~~ Done DemonJuice (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This tool is very useful for identifying the dead links. Thanks again for any help. Cloudz 679 10:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Easiest thing to do is use the Wayback Machine to recover the old links. Giant Snowman 10:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

What's annoying, apart from the links that don't come up dead but only point to their site's front page or whatever, is when you look at the "source", you notice that it doesn't actually verify the information at all, and then feel morally obliged to look for a replacement. Wish I hadn't started AVFC.... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Soccerbase

For a short while now, all links to specific matches, specific season league tables etc now just redirect to a generic page on Soccerbase. Anyone got an easy way of fixing these or do they all need to be handcrafted from scratch (or taken from statto.com instead if that's not possible)? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The process would be:

Identify if the content still exists
Identify the new location of a given bit of data, and compare the URL structure with the previous one
If there is some regular way of mapping old->new, update any templates and get a bot to do the manual ones (or even better, get a bot to templateise the manual ones)

Starting from scratch would be disastrous, and frankly if Soccerbase doesn't want the presumably massive amount of traffic it gets from en-WP it should probably be blacklisted as unreliable (as we cannot guarantee that content referenced there still exists). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It may be just me, but I don't seem to be able to access, say, the 1990/91 "second division" final table on Soccerbase anymore... Looks like they stop at the 1992/93 season. Anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not just you, or else we're both equally stupid. Use statto (my personal preference), or RSSSF, or FCHD (no longer updated, but the old version is still online, at http://www.fchd.btinternet.co.uk/). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Sigh. Oh well, at least statto's URLs are simple enough to get my head around! Although the dead link tool just shows these links up as redirects, they're going to all be wrong so I guess while we're clearing up the genuinely dead links, we should clean up those which no longer actually point at the right things...! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

At a guess it has something to do with the name changes to the leagues that took place then and they have not got the older names in the drop downs. Keith D (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Times

Now all the Times pages are behind a paywall, should we be adding "subscription required" to all the links which, despite the tool showing them as live, they're not unless you subscribe. And I don't, so I'm not even sure if the URLs are still valid... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been adding "subscription required" templates in such cases, although much like you, I do not have access to these pages. I think we have to assume the links are valid. Cloudz 679 22:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think that subscription required links are worthy entries for WP since our philosophy is free access of knowledge. Just MO. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources don't require links at all. DemonJuice (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

And how verifiable is that? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." — Preceding unsigned comment added by cloudz679 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thx butt *YAWN*.... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for that. The fact is that while we prefer non-paywalled sources we certainly don't consider them unreliable just because they're paywalled. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you + suggestion

I just noticed this thread - it explains why several articles on my watchlist (including some of "my" FAs) have recently had a spring clean. Thank you very much. Can I suggest those participating include a marketing link to here in [some of?] their edit summaries? --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Dweller for the recognition, that's a good idea of yours, I have looked into a few of the GAs with broken links and left some tags for the project in the edit summaries. Especially David Villa, which seems like an incredible mess! - Cloudz 679 19:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

From the original 15 posted FA articles, 13 appear to be fully clear and just two have some minor issues. Thank you everyone for your hard work and congratulations on a job well done! Now who's up for the GAs?! Cloudz 679 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Bahrain vs Indonesia match

I just created stub article Bahrain_vs_Indonesia_:_10-0_(2014_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification). It's about Bahrain vs Indonesia controversial match which is under FIFA investigation. Please help to expand the article, so it can be GA like Australia 31-0 American Samoa match. Thanks for your contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annas86 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Leon Gardikiotis

Leon Gardikiotis is currently under BLPProd. I sofar found one reference to a fact not mentioned in the article but in the corresponding club article. I have added the ref but don't feel comfortable to remove the prod. A few more eyes would help. Agathoclea (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try to find some references tomorrow, now I got to get some sleep. Meanwhile, the article is in a really bad state – not only reference-wise. Cheers. – Kosm1 fent 21:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Found a FIFA reference which will take care of the BLPPROD but the article is in dire need of attention. Thanks - Cloudz 679 22:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added what decent references I could find, removed everything that is unsourced from the infobox and made a start on removing prose. All in all, I'd say it's one of the worst articles I've ever seen. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed terrible, and was probably written by an editor with COI. (The article's creator is Leongfootball (talk · contribs)? Come on.) It needs some major cleanup. – Kosm1 fent 07:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting better, although still needs cleanup in the "coaching career" section, good work people. Cloudz 679 12:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, every image used on the article is a copyvio and I have now nominated them all for deletion on WP Commons. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Shouldnt we take off all those photos then as they will be deleted. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No, they haven't been deleted yet, so ntil the process is complete they should remain (technically speaking they might not end up being deleted if someone can prove they can be kept). TonyStarks (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

All gone. Cloudz 679 10:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

External links

I know that the vast majority of the teammates will disagree with me (no novelty there), but i'll bring this forth anyway:

of course, in links that have a template (NFT.com, FIFA.com, Soccerbase), the name of the footballer will always appear, but in the links that we write manually, why be redundant and write (example) "Wayne Rooney at Transfermarkt" or "Jan Kromkamp at Voetbal International" when "Transfermarkt profile" or "Stats at Voetbal International" suffice 100%?

Meaning, if i see "Transfermarkt profile" in Rooney's page, of course it's Rooney's profile! Inputs please. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur. When I create articles and add the external links manually (ie. without the use of templates), I don't rewrite the player name, it's pretty obvious whose profile we are referring to. However, that's just a personal preference of mine, not sure everyone will agree. TonyStarks (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Link rot. However, if you use templates, the names of the players are added automatically. See Template:Transfermarkt for an example. Cloudz 679 18:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I initially used to writte what I am focusing on on one specific link (Exemples: Stats from Serbia at Srbijafudbal, or Profile at Transfermarkt) however I changed to use the name instead, as indicated in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players and because that is how it has been displayed in template formated links.

Anyway, I have been progressively using more "References" section to reference the article content, and less "External links" which does not specify exactly what is sourced by them. However, I still use both sections (References and External links) and I have been using them in a way that in "References" section I put the links which I use to reference the prose, and in the "External links" section I have been putting the links that reference the infobox data and stats, as I particularly find usefull to avoid cluttering references inside the infobox, purelly for practical and esthetic reasons, using them inside the infobox only when extremelly necesary to source one specifical maybe controversial data, although even then, I usually writte it in the prose and source it there. FkpCascais (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

FkP makes a good point about the need to cite references, although really the same principle should apply to infobox data as well. I understand the issue about cluttering the infobox with citations, but this can be got around by referring to the stats within the prose (not including all data, but enough to get across the broad details), and/or by having a club statistics section whereby each season is separately cited. Eldumpo (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Eldumpo that sounds like a good solution, do you have an example that you've worked on (all of what you said but particularly the stats section with separate citations by season)? Cloudz 679 22:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

John McGovern (footballer) is an example of a player article with a career stats section that has a cite for each season. If all the data were sourced from a single location then I suppose it would be reasonable to have just one source listed above or below the stats section. Eldumpo (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And why not leave just ONE ref in the statistics chart (what the hey, one ref per season?), and several EXTERNAL LINKS (NFT.COM, the links from the country a player competes mostly in, etc), why are external links so underrated? People can click there to verify the info if they want to, just like they would in a ref methinks... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Re number of refs, I've answered above. External links are OK as long as they're indicating where extra information can be found. Anything included in the article should be directly cited. Eldumpo (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

League and club notability for India

I propose, due due to the sheer size of the country, that for India, the highest fully professional league under each state federation may be assumed to be notable, in addition to the national leagues. Furthermore, I propose that professional clubs that have played in these leagues may also be assumed to be notable. I think we have a precedent for this in Brazillian football articles among other large countries. Please comment on the discussion on this talk page. The Discoverer (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

India doesn't need special rules for this; all fully professional leagues are notable, subject to confirmation in multiple sources independent of the subject. Cloudz 679 20:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he is referring to the actual clubs and not those players within clubs. Therefore, he is referring to the notability of the clubs/leagues and whether they warrant articles, not whether the players that play in those leagues warrant articles. That's what I understood anyway. WP:FOOTYN is not very specific when it comes to clubs/leagues as it is with players (something that should be looked at in my opinion given recent discussions such as the Turkish Regional Amateur league one, as well as the lower English leagues). TonyStarks (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I already know that players in India are only notable if they have played in the I-League or Federation Cup as those have been proven to be fully professional. This is just what the cutoff for league notability should be (for me the cutoff should be after the TOP state league. Anything below that is not notable) and the cutoff for club notability is. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not the size of the country which is important: it's how much reliable secondary coverage the sport gets. For whatever reason, India's domestic game has simply never developed like that of comparable countries. It's certainly not comparable to Brazilian domestic football. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability of U-21 internationals

U-21 internationals don't count towards notability, because it's youth football, but if you look at the uefa.com website, the top navigation clearly considers it a cut above regular youth football. Time for a rethink? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The website's layout is not a valid notability criterion. – Kosm1 fent 20:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to original message, nope. Plenty of players have played at U21 level but never made the cut at the senior/professional level. TonyStarks (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

ArtVandelay13, not sure if this is what you mean, but, are you suggesting that we should (re)open a debate about considering U-21 national team appereances as a criterium for players to pass notability just per se? FkpCascais (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - it's a high level of football in its own right. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

We've gotten to 2012 without this being a major issue of discussion before AFAIK, so I'm cautious about assuming we have enough manpower (in terms of editors expressing an interest in the topic) to suddenly open the floodgates to another multiple thousand BLPs. Individually notable U-21s (and U-20s, which are more important basically everywhere outside Europe) can already be included if they meet the GNG, but in the modern game it is not uncommon for players who have never played a professional game to feature regularly for the U-21s in front of low crowds and with very little coverage at a national newspaper level. How important UEFA.com treats them is largely irrelevant, as we don't judge notability on what primary sources think. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

2001 LG Cup (Iran) - notability

This page, 2001 LG Cup (Iran), is about an exhibition tournament that doesn't seem too significant. Also I'm not sure about the source, it looks like a website that someone created. In the past I might have just proposed it for deletion, but there have been times where I did that only to have someone send me a message from a related wikiproject explaining why it is notable, so now I prefer to ask first. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It is notable since it has sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG, just like any other friendly exhbition invitational tournament. The LG Cup is a regular tournament, albeit held at regular times .. but yes it is notable in my opinion. TonyStarks (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to my original message, here's the full list of tournaments that have taken place: LG Cup (association football). The articles can use some work but there's plenty of sources out there to warrant notability. TonyStarks (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad I asked first. Thanks for your help. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

League tables/templates

At Liga de Ascenso the Apertura table has a strange format in edit which makes it difficult to make changes. It seems the table has been set up as some kind of template, but it's not clear where the master is. I think I've asked about this before (possibly last season) and someone made the change for me. Is this the normal way to list league tables - how do you make changes to team names? Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they use the strange fb templates. Change Fb cl team to Fb cl2 team and enter a normal wikilink to the t= parameter. -Koppapa (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, seems to work fine. Eldumpo (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Needing information about an English coach

I need someone to help me find information about one English coach from the 1920s. But, I have some problems to start with. The basic info is that he coached SK Jugoslavija, one of the major Yugoslav clubs from the pre-WWII preiod, for 6 months during 1927. The problem is that my source is a book written in Serbian, and that makes one particular problem: in Serbian language foreign names are written in the way they sound, as the language gives preference to correct pronounciation over correct spelling. Now, the way his name is written is Hari Lenk. So, Hari is certainly Harry, but I am not cetain about the surname Lenk. It means that sounds as Lenk, but could it be Lank? Lenk? Lienk? Lenq?... I haven´t found anything in generalistic football websites, and Google search makes it impossible with the ammount of unrelated trash it gives me. Also, it says he is English (it is a short interview about him providing opinion about Yugoslav football during that period but gives no clues about him), but as there are no other sources and the fact that he spent short time there, it wouldn´t be the first time that some Serbian publication had a name spelling wrong (the way it sounds in this case), or even his nationality (he may be Scottish, Irish, or even a foreign coach who came to Serbia coming from England, but not necessarily English). Well, I am speculating now, but I just wan´t to keep as many options open, as I would really like to find who this coach is...

Resumingly, he is allegedly English, his name is pronounced Hari Lenk, and he coached SK Jugoslavija in 1927. Anyone, please help. FkpCascais (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

My best guess would be Harry Lang, although I can't find anything conclusive on google. Cloudz 679 13:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to say Lenk is not an English sounding name. Len-kuh is how I imagine it sounds.--Echetus Xe 17:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Len-kuh? Lineker? Gary? instead of Harry? Hmmm. I have no idea either, but only looked on google. Jared Preston (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Harry Linacre........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all for the tips, but I didn´t find anything until now... If any of you comes to find any player or coach with a similar name, please let me know. FkpCascais (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Cameron Howieson

I nominated the above article at AfD, the player know meets WP:Football as he made debut tonight subsequent to AfD being placed. I've withdrawn my nomination could someone do the deed & close the deletion discussion. Thanks ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Dom. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure you cannot close an AfD as 'nomination withdrawn' while there are still delete !votes - WP:WITHDRAWN. Giant Snowman 09:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I know what that page says, but since all the deletion rationales were null and void I didn't see any problem closing the discussion early. Big Dom 09:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Oldest football chant in the world

Hello all. We currently have two clubs claiming that they have the oldest chant in the world still in use, Norwich City F.C. and Portsmouth F.C. Perhaps it's just me but they can't both be right. My preference would be for them to both say "it is claimed that..." and maybe refer to the other? Whatever the solution, I think the current situation is undersirable. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dog tired and not really concentrating, but is the solution that Norwich claim to have a song and Pompey claim to have a chant? --Dweller (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice, could win. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points... Portsmouth's claim is backed up with references, Norwich's is not. Most importantly though, given the article texts it seems that Pompey's fans have been singing the song since 1899, whereas the article for the Norwich chant/song says 1902. Methinks perhaps the Norwich song is older, but if we're discussing which song has been sung by one specific club the longest, it seems to be Pompey. Grunners (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What makes you say the Norwich claim is not backed up by references? There are two sources provided currently. I could give more. The article says it's the "the world's oldest football song still in use today". See On The Ball, City. --Dweller (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

1988 AFC Asian Cup

Im wondering if someone could shed light on this situation. There are two AFD's Hisanori Shirasawa and Yusuke Minoguchi. They both played in the above tournament which looking at the articles seems to have been played by the main Japanese National team, however National Football Teams does not list them as having played for Japan and the proposer of the AFD has stated that this tournament was not played by the senior team. Is their anyone who could shed light on this situation.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

1988 AFC Asian Cup squads backs up the idea that at least Japan and South Korea entered less than full-strength squads that year. However, the competition itself is still a senior international competition. Do we regard NFT as sacrosanct when it comes to official caps? Is there any official AFC documentation on that? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The AFC Asian Cup is an official FIFA sanctioned senior competition. If countries chose to enter youth/university teams, that is their choice, but any caps those players have at the competition would still count as caps at the senior level, and would therefore warrant notability as per our established guidelines. I will vote against the two AfD's, both articles should be kept. TonyStarks (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Still they may have been selected in the squad for the 1988 Asian Cup but after looking at there pages it seems as if they have not had a cap for Japan. They may have been just reserves the team added to the squad. Unless you can prove they have 1 cap for Japan and not just selected in the 1988 Asian Cup squad then they lose notability. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No they played the source in the article shows that. If you look at the history of the article for the first one you will see the nominee removed the info from the infobox. The latter just had the source. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh okay. My laziness to check the sources wins again. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

One minute guys. The reason behind the AfD was the alegation by the nominator that Japan squad at that tournament was not their A squad. I don´t recall now exactly, but I do remember that we had tournaments in which some NT´s presented their main squad and counted their players appereances, while other NT´s didn´t. The main question is: do we have anywhere a confirmation that Japan considered those matches as A team appereances? If they did, and they count with FIFA as well, then the articles should be kept, however if the tournament appereances didn´t counted for Japan, as the nominator claims, than the players fail notability. We need to confirm this, and NFT is not the best way, as they are quite reliable for the info they have, but sometimes they do miss data, so there must be some other way to confirm this. PS: Don´t we have any editor specialised in Japanese football? FkpCascais (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter whether Japan considered this their A team or not. This is an official FIFA sanctioned senior continental competition. Therefore, any appearances a player makes in this competition are considered to be caps for the A team, whether or not the federation treats it that way or not. The matches are listed on the FIFA website (see this screenshot) and are therefore considered to be full internationals. In other words, Japan could've sent a U17 or even U15 team and the matches would still count. TonyStarks (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Tony is correct. FIFA's website only lists A internationals - so we can safely conclude that Japan's matches at the 1988 AFC Cup were FIFA A internationals. Jogurney (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I forgot that AFC Asian Cup is the higher continental NT tournament... Obviously yes. I thought it was some regional tournament (duh), as the nominator said that Japan sended their youth team, so that made my confusion, while in the meantime I forgot that the name AFC Asian Cup actually represents to Asia what EURO or CAN represent for Europe or Africa respectivelly. If this was one of those internet forums, I would have definitelly put in the end an icon with the guy hitting with his head in the wall... FkpCascais (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's all good, happens .. that's why it's always good to have lots of people discussing here. But back to the topic of the 1988 Asian Cup, they have a Final positions table listing teams from best to worst. However, this seems to be completely unsourced and is very "subjective" in my opinion (can we really compare teams in different groups). Should that not be removed? If kept, should the efficiency column at the end be removed at least? Seems like a very arbitrary measure. TonyStarks (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right, you can't compare them. But FIFA did this too, they sometime decided to rank all teams from 1 to 32. You are right, that it should have a source though. -Koppapa (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ryad Boudebouz photo

Is that picture really acceptable in an encyclopedia? I'm not good with rules regarding images so I didn't want to remove it from the article (especially since there isn't anything else) but I'd rather the article have no picture than have that one. If necessary, I have a photo I took of the player during a game that I'd be willing to upload to replace it. TonyStarks (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like he is trying to escape from some kind of virtual reality, but its not that bad.--Echetus Xe 10:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's Photoshopped .. or more likely, given the result, MS Paint-ed. TonyStarks (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged it for speedy deletion at Commons as derivative copyvio of this. Might work... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That should do the trick. I'll upload the photo I have of the player when the other one gets deleted. TonyStarks (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's gone..... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Copa Argentina

Given that it is nationally equivelent to the F.A Cup, is the Copa Argentina regarded as a professional cup? User:181hamburgerwcheese (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2012 (AEST)

The FA Cup is not regarded as a fully professional cup. The Football League Cup is though, as it is only open to clubs in what are fully professional leagues. However, I believe a player from a club in a fully professional league who makes an appearance in an official cup competition (e.g. a Hereford United player who makes an appearance in the FA Cup) is generally regarded to have met the spirit of WP:ATHLETE. Number 5 7 11:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the FA Cup is not regarded as fully pro, as hundreds of amateur and semi-pro teams take part in it. If the same applies to the Copa Argentina then that isn't a fully pro cup either -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys xD User:181hamburgerwcheese (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2012 (AEST)

Joey Barton

Can I have eyes on Joey Barton's article multiple vandalism by different users & IP's happening so frequent I can't even revert (edit conflict) & the Bots are making it more difficult with a partial reverts. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Have listed it at WP:RPP, not that much seems to be happening there. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It's like an explosion over 30 edits of vandalism in 10 minutes by multiple users & he's not even on twitter tonight :P wonder whats causing it. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Facebook probably. One of the IPs editing Barton's article lead me to Gervinho. Equally as sad. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It's protected now thanks Matty, looks like some sort of organised attack how odd. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

They moved on to Stewart Downing now. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Downing has been protected. A few users have been blocked. Somewhere else is probably getting hit as I type. What a lovely way to spend an evening. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Illegitimi non carborundum, guys. Keep up the great work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ditto (although i have no idea what Chris just said :)), kudos to the lot of you! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- We have an article for it, Vasco. Good advice. :) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Template(s)

How bout this template? Does this not create a dangerous precedent? I mean, pretty soon all squads than won the league in all the countries (or most of) will have one...

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd delete it. -Koppapa (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I will WP:TFD it. Giant Snowman 21:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, there's bloody loads of them - Category:Fenerbahçe templates - depending on consensus at this TFD I'll nominate them all at a later date. Giant Snowman 22:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Just co-nom them now. We've a strong consensus not to maintain per-season squad navboxes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Lawlor

Can somebody with the appropriate books (primarily Terry Frost's book on Bradford City, but others as well) please take a look at Jimmy Lawlor - I have an editor who claims to be the subject's son who has removed cited information claiming it is wrong, and added a bunch of unreferenced information. Can somebody please verify what is correct and remove what is not? Giant Snowman 18:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The only relevant source I have available is Barry J. Hugman's The PFA Premier & Football League Players' Records 1946–2005 (p. 362), which states his full name is James Joseph Lawlor (in opposition to this user who removed the J. from his full name). Afraid I can't help you with the rest of it, though. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If Kit Lawlor's obituary is anything to go by, he quite possibly isn't Jimmy Lawlor's brother. The piece is reproduced at Doncaster Rovers' website, and given that both Lawlors played for that club in the 1964/65 season, you'd think they might have mentioned a relationship if one existed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I'm hearing rumours (from the BCAFC official forum) that Jimmy Lawlor has died, so keep an eye out please... Giant Snowman 10:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Indian Clubs for deletion

Hello, there are a few clubs from India that I proded a few days ago and now the deadline to contest the prod has passed. I do not know how to delete the articles though so if anyone has the time can you please delete them. It would make my job easier. You can find the articles on the main WikiProject Football page where all the nominated for deletion pages are. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless you are an admin you can't delete articles. I have deleted those where the PROD has expired -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Cameroon international footballers 2011-12 Season

Is this acceptable as an article or should it be deleted? It's just a list of Cameroonian footballers around the world. I couldn't find the exact WP policiy that deals with this type of list and WP:List doesn't have much. TonyStarks (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OLIST is what you are looking for. FkpCascais (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. Am I right in assuming that the list falls under "Irrelevant Intersections by Race, Gender, Beliefs, Sexuality, Ethnicity, and Religion List", specifically ethnicity? TonyStarks (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I will speedy it as recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of International Cameroon football players 2011–12 Season. Giant Snowman 10:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks! TonyStarks (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Eduardo Malásquez

If someone has a bit of free time on their hands this article needs some attention. Obviously needs some sources as it's currently at BLLPROD but also needs a total rewrite & headings fixed etc. Haven't got the time myself but thought someone might for an experienced world cup player. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made a start - two sources added and all unreferenced info removed, I've also cleaned up the infoobx. Giant Snowman 10:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Great, I'll try to add some content during the week. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfree image

I just came across File:Cristian Tello GBF.jpg, which was added to Cristian Tello's page. I'm assuming it's not a free image and the uploads work as per the AFP and Getty copyright symbols. How do I go about flagging up the image? --Jimbo^[online] 20:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The Commons speedy deletion process is very similar to on here. Where the image page on here says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below.", click on "description page there" and that takes you to the file on Commons where you can edit it. In another tab/window, open the Commons copyvio template and follow the instructions. For the reason (parameter 1=), just put something like "image marked as © AFP/Getty images". You don't need a Commons account. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What goes in box

Really confusing...after seeing in the past that EVERYTHING went in box (gk coaches, presidents, etc), now i see another pattern: User:Mattythewhite (100% reliable by the way) has been removing assistant and junior jobs, saying that only senior head spells count.

Where do we stand as of now? Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

He's removing assistant and junior jobs from what box? Can you provide a link? – Kosm1 fent 17:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I assume Vasco means manager infoboxes. Adam4267 (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as Adam says, infoboxes of players/managers we have at the start of the page to the right, with the caps/goals/years (diff here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricardo_S%C3%A1_Pinto&diff=485031459&oldid=484438080). --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I'm not aware if there's a consensus, but I believe including junior coaching jobs is overkill. Assistant jobs, on the other hand, should be perfectly fine, because they generally gather more media attention than any other football staff apart from the manager. – Kosm1 fent 19:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think assistant, caretaker and national youth team manager jobs should be included. Club youth teams are overkill, IMO, but national youth teams (perhaps down to Under-18 level) are important. – Pee Jay 21:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Can I refer you all to the guidelines at Template:Infobox football biography#Parameters which say under "manager": "A list of clubs that the person has served with in the capacity of team manager. Please do not list positions other than team manager (such as assistant or coach positions, or director of football roles where this role is not considered managerial) unless that position is a significant part of the person's career; this will apply primarily to those with significant or perhaps primary experience in management." -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"... this will apply primarily to those with significant or perhaps primary experience in management", which includes coaches with little coaching experience as Ricardo Sá Pinto. And actually that last sentense makes sense, since you don't know if a young coach's career will get big enough for an assistant position of his to be considered non-significant. – Kosm1 fent 05:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have favoured using most coaching positions in infoboxes. It helps to keep a track of ones career. Basically I only ignore when we are talking about coaching a youth team of some minor club... Assistant is usually a usefull info, youth is OK when in major clubs or NT´s, and I kinda add the (gk coach) indication for goalkeeping coaches as well.

However I wouldn´t add sports director, or scouting, or other sorts of club jobs to the infobox. FkpCascais (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For me, this section is only for manager positions. If an individual has held positions such as assistant manager or youth team manager, these can be included in the main body of the article, if notable. Cloudz 679 08:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with including assistant managers, but don't think youth or other coaching should be. Edinburgh Wanderer 08:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It varies from case to case, which is precisely what the present wording (which has been unchanged, save for bolding of the word "not", since I originally added it three years ago) suggests. I'm not sure there's a problem here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Fleetwood Town F.C.

Could clinch promotion tonight, so look out for the usual deluge of edits, probably mostly from IPs, editing the article to state that the club "currently plays in League Two"........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've put an invisible note in. That usually helps (although apparently not everyone round here can read block capitals... ?!) Britmax (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, but your note was inaccurate. The trigger is not publication of final tables for this season, but official start of the new season, which IIRC is on, or near to, 1 July. Kevin McE (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've long since given up trying to stop people making these updates in late May or June - they're not doing any real harm and it just seems like too much effort. However, we absolutely need to stop people making these edits before the current season has even ended..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The kits there (especially the home one) seem to break the rules. Cloudz 679 14:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So the general WP:FOOTY consensus is that we want Wrexham to win then? Good stuff. :) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Question about Curaçao

According to it's article; Curaçao and Dependencies, the nation/colony was known as Territory of Curaçao between 1936 and 1948 (the nation became affiliated to FIFA in 1933), so why does FIFA list the national team results from 1943 under the name of Netherlands Antilles, is this because the FA is known as the Nederlands Antilliaanse Voetbal Unie (NAVU)? RSSSF refers to the participant as the Dutch Antilles.

Is it an error on the FIFA website or was the Territory of Curaçao's representatives in FIFA known as Netherlands Antilles ?
Does a new article need to be created for the Territory of Curaçao football team? They would seemingly be the participants of the 1941 CCCF Championship and 1948 CCCF Championship tournaments as the Netherlands Antilles never came into existence until 1948 informally and 1954 officially.
Does a new alias need to be created for the Netherlands Antilles country data with the Dutch flag ?

TheBigJagielka (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

hmm, I'm not the only person to come across this: [details] TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I read a bit about it when I updated Richmar Siberie article some time ago... Resumingly, no more Netherlands Antilles, but Curaçao now. FkpCascais (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I created a new article for the national team for Curaçao for the time period before it became the Netherlands Antilles. For the era I was updating (1941-61 CCCF Championship competition history), Netherlands Antilles didn't always exist and the national team was being mixed up with and often had the wrong flag or country name etc. I think that the problem came about because the RSSSF article was written by a source who uses French as a first language and refers to the nation as the Dutch Antilles. Also, despite the Netherlands Antilles unofficially coming into existence in 1948, it didn't use that name in FIFA competitions until 1958. But before the 1958, the team had represented the Netherlands Antilles Olympic Committee in the Summer Olympics and regional athletics competitions. I think I have now resolved the problem. There is now:

Curaçao (1936-1958) - Curaçao
Netherlands Antilles (1958-2010) - Netherlands Antilles
Curaçao (2011 onwards) - Curaçao

Potentially, there could be scope for a Curaçao and Dependencies national team that was founded in 1921, but I can't find anything notable between 1921 and 1936 - the only fixtures were against Suriname according to FIFA.com - six over two years, both years contained a group of three spread over the duration of a week. In 1936, the nation was renamed to the Territory of Curaçao and the nation later participated in the CCCF Championship on a regular basis.TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So Curaçao (1936-1958) was the NT of the Territory of Curaçao which in 1954 changed its name to Netherlands Antilles although kept playing under the name Curaçao until 1958 despite the official name change. Now, in 2010 Netherland Antilles dissolved as unified territory, and 2 new countries were formed, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, with the rest of municipalities going to direct Dutch control.

So, the Curaçao team that existed until 1958 included all of the terrtory of what became the Netherlands Antilles, while the current Curaçao is only one part of what were the N. Antilles, thus making the articles separated. You made a great effort to make all these different periods easily indentified now.

As curiosity, there is another tricky situation, Sint Maarten, one of the islands which formed the former N. Antilles, has its own national team now, Sint Maarten national football team, however there is also the French half of the island, which was never part of N. Antilles and which has its own national team, the Saint-Martin national football team. By time being only Sint Maarten is affiliated to FIFA, but Saint-Martin has already been participating in CONCACAF competitions from 2000 on. I already noteced some websites mixing these two. FkpCascais (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Why 3 articles? Why not merge their records like FIFA does. By the way: Curacao only represented the main island until November 1946. The CVB (Curacao, founded 1921 and a FIFA member) and the AVB (Aruba, founded 1932 not a FIFA member) started to cooperate in the early 40's. But a joined membership as NAVB was rejected by FIFA. FIFA wanted Aruba to apply for membership first. To solve this problem the AVB formally joined the CVB in November 1946, but continued to be the only football gouverning body on the island of Aruba. Cattivi (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability of footballers in Indonesia

Following a discussion with ‎DUCKISJAMMMY (talk · contribs), we came the conclusion that clarification regarding the notability footballers playing in Indonesia is needed. Best I can tell, there appear to be two parallel league structures, with clubs and sometimes entire leagues moving from one pyramid to the other, which to anyone accustomed to the European system creates a lot confusion. At present, only the Indonesian Super League is listed at WP:FPL. However, its inclusion is based on sourcing from before the changes at the beginning of the current season. Your imput much appreciated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say that if the player has played in the Indonesian Premier League sense it was founded in 2011 then they are notable as the IPL is now the top league in Indonesia according to the Football Association of Indonesia and it even says in the article that the IPL "is the highest level of professional competition for football clubs in Indonesia since 2011." Although I am not sure about the Indonesian Super League and whether players who only played in it after 2011 should be notable. Maybe both can be notable. Both articles state that both leagues are professional. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Both claim to be the top league. That's a major concern for FIFA at the moment. See e.g. 1 or google. -Koppapa (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Lolwut? Although it appears only the Premier League is recognised as top level league by the PSSI, the Super League may still be considered fully professional, so they both can be notable. (providing there are decent sources to back it up, of course) – Kosm1 fent 06:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything on WP about the conflict between the ISL clubs and PSSI? Hack (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't think there is more than one sentence anywhere. I find it very complicated from only the outside view. And allthough only the Premier League is recognized many of the top clubs left those and at least according to wikipedia the Super League gets the AFC competition spots: 2011–12_Indonesia_Super_League#League_table. -Koppapa (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the rebel clubs, Persipura Jayapura, did qualify for a play-off spot in the 2012 ACL but this was by winning the ISL when it was under PSSI control. Hack (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Koppapa, "according to Wikipedia" means nothing, especially if that part is unsourced (and it currently is). Although I agree with what you're thinking, only the top league will send teams to the Asian Champions League. We have to see which one will. – Kosm1 fent 09:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

SC Bastia common name

A question for our French football experts: Is SC Bastia is the most notable club in Bastia? And if so, is it OK to write it as simply Bastia in the infobox, instead of using the whole name? There's another club in Bastia, CA Bastia, and I've noticed that some SC Bastia players have the full club name in their articles instead of the shortened version. I changed some of them to just Bastia but I was wondering if maybe there was a reason for having the full club name. TonyStarks (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly SC Bastia is the most notable club in Bastia, but since there are two clubs in the city I'd personally use the whole name, since a casual reader may be confused by a simple "Bastia". It's the same case as KV Mechelen and RC Mechelen, and from what I can see, the more notable club's players (KV Mechelen) all have got the club's full name in their infobox. – Kosm1 fent 04:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget ÉF Bastia! Big Dom 07:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

And don't forget CA Bastia aswell. Murry1975 (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Corsican clubs are an exception in French football when we have usually one city=one club. I'd tend to use the SC Bastia name to disambiguate. And also for AC Ajaccio and GFCO Ajaccio.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll change back the articles I modified. TonyStarks (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability of league seasons and club seasons.

Following the deletion discussions on several season article about sitxh-tier-leagues in Italy, and another deletion discussion on a club season article about a sitxh-tier club, I suggest that WP:FOOTY add some guidelines on notability for league season articles and club season article to the essay WP:FOOTYN. There might be a consensus somewhere in the archive, but we should have it written somewhere it can be easily found. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If memory serves, the guideline for club seasons is any club playing in its country's top flight or in a fully-pro league. As for league seasons, I don't think there are any hard fast rule, but I don't think they're necessary since general notability is pretty clear on this. Any league season that receives coverage that goes above and beyond merely reporting the results is notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The club season one I can't see as being correct or we have a major problem. It should be if the club is notable surely. The discussions I've been involved in the past havent indicated that. As notability is permenant rather than temporary, there are plenty of sides who play in fully pro leagues who didn't in the past who now do. There past seasons are notable. Think this might need further discussions. I'm not saying 6th teir should be necessarily just that to automatically say it's not notable like some of those AFDs have Isnt correct either they need properly checked to see if there is sources rather thank just say they play in the 6th teir so aren't automatically notable. Not meaning you by the way. Edinburgh Wanderer 09:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the fully-pro leagues (and possibly other decent-standard leagues such as the Conference National and Championnat National) for club seasons as a general rule, but obviously any club season is notable if it can be shown to pass the GNG. Big Dom 09:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case would it not be proffesional league bodies rather than fully pro. In Scotland we have them to division three level4 . A professional league but not fully pro. In England its down to the conference level5 (I think). There is a slight difference but important one. I agree not amateur leagues or junior but I think It should be a proffesional rather than fully pro especially given they are notable. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

My main concern isn't what the consensus or the guideline is, but where to find it. It should be easy to find somewhere, and I think WP:FOOTYN is a good place to put it. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There will be previous discussions in the archive and it should be put somewhere however i think it really needs to be discussed again looking at the debates in recent AFD's. To me the bigger problem is them lying uncompleted and the fact we don't have a mos for club season articles. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Club squad templates

Someone raised a post here a while back asking why we don't include loaned-out players within the templates of their club owners. I think some of the responses indicated some club templates already do this. Has anyone got a link to the thread, or give an example of club templates that do include their loaned-out players. Eldumpo (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, me here, no examples though. I tried to knock one up at the time, but I'm no good at coding and couldn't manage it. I stand by my proposal mind, can't remember why I didn't get back to that discussion (usual busyness, I suppose). I think if you just named the template "squad" rather than "current squad" you'd cover that issue, I don't think size would be a problem and the only real difference would be is that instead of "hiding" players when they went on loan, you'd simply put them in an "on-loan" section. HornetMike (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for response. I did look through archives but did not go back to 60! I think the reference to Rangers is incorrect - it did not seem that their version of the template had a section for players loaned out. Oh well, I seemed to have remembered it incorrectly, and there no current examples of this. Eldumpo (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember the Rangers template having that. Their is a loan section on their main page but i don't remember it on the template. I actually like the last time thought it would be a good idea, especially if it was clearly sectioned. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there anybody about who could develop a prototype? When I tried to make one I tried to base it around a template like this one, but it didn't work - whether it's because it wouldn't be possible with that format I don't know... HornetMike (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User adding championships to Panathinaikos F.C. article

A editor, Armandomvb (talk · contribs), is adding won championships to the Panathinaikos F.C. article that are not backed up by any reliable source.[20] (since the first Panhellenic Championship took place in 1928 [21]) The user's reasoning is that "FIFA officially recognised 6 more Panathinainikos titles ~~(not backed up by any reliable source)~~. Could someone please set an eye on the article and the user? Thanks. – Kosm1 fent 08:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The editor is citing this article, which goes against the HFF list. Could that be a typo? – Kosm1 fent 08:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that stream of unsourced edits (by 2 anons and the user above) is probably due to today's headlines of a Panathinaikos fan newspaper, which using the above FIFA article, claims that FIFA recognised an additional 6 Greek Championships for Panathinaikos (none of which appear in any official list or on the sources given in the Panathinaikos article). – Kosm1 fent 10:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As the years come out of nowhere those shouldn't be added. Howmuch do PAOK itself claim? -Koppapa (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Panathinaikos you mean? Their website says 20. [22] – Kosm1 fent 10:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have submitted a semi-protection request, but until it gets accepted, please someone watch the article, as the vandalism continues. I have reached WP:3RR, so I can't do anything right now. – Kosm1 fent 11:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh goody. There is a campaign posted on a fan blog about adding those six championships to the article: [23] – Kosm1 fent 13:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if they at least source them. RSSSF list SEGAS championships as not held from 1912 to 1921 and lsit not Pana in 1912. -Koppapa (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There are now four reliable sources confirming Panathinaikos' championships. If they still disagree... not my fault for reverting! :P – Kosm1 fent 14:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected and in a good state, all is well. – Kosm1 fent 07:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Making room for the young

Teammates, i bring forth the following news (for some sad, for some - the vandals in 99,9999999999% of the cases - great! For most neither fish nor flesh, an event, period): i am retiring from WP, as i edit(ed) almost exclusively on soccer, i thought i'd talk about it here if you don't mind,

Almost six years (started, as anon, in OCT'06 if i'm not mistaken), it was a good run overall. However, i find out i cannot cope with the amount of stress i brought upon myself as far as watching articles is concerned (i have had no more than 7,8 on my watchlist, but i tended to "patrol" 50 or more on a regular basis), it was also starting to have an effect on my personal life, a bit in turmoil if you will (aged 39 and not improving so it seems). That said, i am NOT SORRY for: improving articles to the best of my abilities; having understood the site guidelines overall and more or less complied; having worked in team spirit when required; SORRY for: my bouts of uncivility even with people which were not vandals (well in those cases it was more hysterics going to work rather than uncivility), that "so strong behind your keyboard" attitude, not who i am really, really ashamed of those antics; not being able to comply with some rules even when understanding them (also belongs to the NOT SORRY bit :)); not having the chance to meet some of the great people who have made this site a better and reliable one (not just the football part!), my heart goes out to so many people, User:GiantSnowman, User:Thumperward (no hard feelings mate!), User:Satori Son, User:FkpCascais, User:Raulseixas (yes, a bit of a wikinuisance and a former sock this last guy, but we interacted many many times, this aided by the fact he also speaks Portuguese and little English, so i had to "step in" - he is faring better nowadays) to name a few, apologies to those who touched my wikiheart (and/or viceversa) and i forgot.

The vandals? I am not going to leave the site in bad shape, so i'll only say i figured there were better things to do with one's life, guess i was wrong. Keep it up, my warm regards to the lot of you from Portugal, my sincere apologies to the ones that never saw where i was coming from even though they tried hard (i.e. User:Kevin McE, another hard-worker extraordinaire). --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hope the rest of your life goes well. Take care, Struway2 (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to see you leave. Best wishes, Big Dom 16:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Life always comes first, Vasco. I hope you'll come back one day. Godspeed. – Kosm1 fent 17:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

See ya mate. I knew you on here a little but it was still a good run. Have fun with your real life. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Woah, this is a big shock. You know how to e-mail me if you ever want to, and should you ever decide to come back, you'll be more than welcome. Take it easy mate. Giant Snowman 19:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Similar sentiments to GS, good luck and see you around if you ever choose to return.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What everyone else said - look after yourself Vasco -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Bye Vasco. We'll all miss you :( Adam4267 (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

All the best Vasco. I know there are a number of articles you've worked diligently on. Eldumpo (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Take care of yourself Vasco. We did not always agree on things when it came to your methods but no one can deny the tremendous amount of work you have invested on improving football articles. You will be a huge loss to the community, but your health comes before anything else. Good luck with your life, enjoy it to the fullest! TonyStarks (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to return at any time. Sorry to see you go. I know that conflict is not a healthy thing, so I understand your conclusion that leaving the project will make you happier. I'm just glad that life patrolling Port Vale related articles is usually so peaceful and stress free. We all appreciate you working on the 'front lines' against vandalism and all the annoyances that entails. I hope you manage to find something to do in your spare time as equally rewarding and worthwhile as the job you did here.--Echetus Xe 20:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit late, but I'm also sorry to see you leave. --Jaellee (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to see you leaving after all the great work you've done, but happy to see you heading back into the real world. I hope you pop back to make a few edits now and again, as I do. King of the North East 22:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn´t around yesterday, sorry to come so late. I guess it is useless and egoistic to say "No Vasco, please don´t go!" but I feel extremelly sad to know I wan´t be having the priviledge of your company here anymore. I understand your frustration, I feel it too, but that is why I have changed my pattern of editing latelly into creating more articles, rather than patrolling the existing ones. That helped me a lot and lowered my stress level. I really wish and hope that you will have more of a wiki-break than a permanent retirement, and I beleave you see how much all of us will miss you. Please feel free to email me at any time you want I will be most happy to know about you at any time! Enorme abraço amigo!!! FkpCascais (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Source for number of caps by youth internationals

Greetings. I'm wondering, is there a reliable website with the number of caps by U21 and/or U19 international players? Uefa.com seems to list only appearances at official UEFA matches, not friendlies. Cheers. – Kosm1 fent 19:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No general website exists for caps at youth level but you can find stats for youth caps for individual countries on federation or fan sites. For example, fff.fr has stats for more recent French youth internationals. There's also RLFoot.fr which has stats from the early 2000's but my anti-virus software blocks it. What country are you looking for exactly? Or is this just a general question? TonyStarks (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's the story; yesterday I set to improve Giourkas Seitaridis, when I stumbled upon his UEFA.com profile, which listed 9 Greece U21 appearances. But seeing his number of his senior team appearances (which was way off), I realised that the U21 caps may not represent international friendlies, etc. To make a long story short, I was looking for a site like NFT.com which could confirm youth international caps, so yeah, this is kind of a general queston. Cheers. – Kosm1 fent 07:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn´t any. The UEFA.com only lists the youth appereances for qualifications and final stages of the tournaments, and it is us editors who need to find a way to add the rest of appereances from the friendlies... Sone national team websites include that information, some don´t. General websites sometimes mention the stats but they are hard to confirm. FkpCascais (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, perfect! Well, I kind of feared that. Thanks anyway! – Kosm1 fent 08:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

TonyStarks, actually rlfoot sucks as it doesn't count real caps, but call-ups in a stupid way, for example 21 players was called up for a 3-match tournament, and all 21 players get automatically 3 caps each on rlfoot, no matter in how many games they actually played on the tournament. Rlfoot also counts call-ups only for a training camp as a cap. Sadly these false "caps" from this misleading website subsequently spread across the net, so we can unfortunately find them also in many biographies on wikipedia too.--Oleola (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I know the Ukrainian and Turkish football federation websites list youth caps (although the Turkish website has limited or no coverage of internationals prior to the 1990s). I believe the Czech Republic has a similar section on its football fedeation site. Unforunately, most FA's do not. Jogurney (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Montenegrin FA has them and I have been adding and correcting often the youth NT stats, but they have an easy task, as they are independent only since 2006 and even so they have some stats missing for their U19 and U17... FkpCascais (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Danish FA has complete stats for under-16s upwards here. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Notable?

Just wondering what you guys think about English football first tier top scorers. Jenks24 (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, that "top tier" is a bad name. "top flight" would be preferable. Beyond that I think it's a very poor article and violates WP:NOTSTATS. Possible WP:OR as well, as the only reference is premierleague.com. In fact, it looks like a good candidate for WP:AfD. Cloudz 679 12:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say not notable - unreferenced and full of OR. Giant Snowman 12:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:LGBT association football players

This has set my already sensitive BLP alarm off, what do others think? Giant Snowman 12:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say that if there was to be a category then a more appropriate name would be Homosexual footballers. Because that's what the category really is. I'm not certain that there shouldn't be a category on that because there are some Homosexual footballers but I think LGBT footballers is a bit of a stupid category name. Adam4267 (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The name is actually appropriate, it's the content that's wrong. I've already had to remove it from Diego Penny, haven't checked the rest, and I can see it getting added to articles as vandalism. Given the few numbers of openly LGBT footballers, isn't it better to have a referenced list at Homosexuality in association football instead? Giant Snowman 12:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There's plenty of other LGBT categories on Wikipedia, so I don't really see the issue in having it or its naming. It's a well accepted way to label and categorize people in Wikipedia (see LGBT Actors, musicians, writers, politicians, etc.), so as long as the articles in the category are properly referenced, there really isn't a problem in my opinion. TonyStarks (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of top-level Lesbian footballers who came out without any problem, obviously at the moment it's different for the men. I suppose we'll have vandalism but deleting the whole category is daft, in my opinion. For what it's worth I'll put it on my watchlist and remove any joke additions I spot. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Icelandic categories

The categories for Icelandic clubs (those in Category:Footballers in Iceland by club) are a mess. For a start, only 12 of the clubs in the country,out of 66 that play in the Icelandic league system, have their own category. In these, there's no consistency to the way they are named:

Category:Íþróttabandalag Akraness players takes its name straight from the title of the parent article. However, this is not the common name of the club, as that would be ÍA.
Category:Breiðablik UBK players is similar to the usual format (e.g. Category:Burnley F.C. players). This is personally my preferred naming convention.
Category:UMF Grindavík players uses a completely made-up name that is neither taken from the parent article nor the common name
Category:Fram players and others (inc. Valur, Víkingur) use the common name, but this does not match the title of the parent article
Category:FH Hafnarfjördur players is just wrong for many reasons. FH is the common name, but the title of the club article is Fimleikafélag Hafnarfjarðar. The "Hafnarfjördur" part is meant to be the name of the town; it isn't part of the club name at all and it is spelt wrong - the town is called "Hafnarfjörður" (note that "d" and "ð" are completely different letters with different sounds).
Category:KR Reykjavík players; the "Reykjavík" part is redundant as the name of the club is Knattspyrnufélag Reykjavíkur, or KR for short.

The rest of the categories there all fall into one of the above bullet points. What do people think is the best naming convention for these categories? Big Dom 09:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

They should take their name straight from the parent article; if 'ÍA' is the common name then the club article should be moved there. Giant Snowman 09:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agree with GS. That is how I have been dealing with the cat issue till now. Just be sure if all club names follow the same pattern (provided the exemples, I imagine the same naming problem probably persists in articles itself) and move the ones that need it, then do the same with categories. It is possible that the Faroe Islands have a similar problem. FkpCascais (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

David N'Gog

Anyone want to take a crack at expanding his intro? I added some details about his international career but more can be added, specifically his position and maybe an overview of his club career? I'm not really sure what should and should not be included in the intro. TonyStarks (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I espanded the club bit a little. The transfer fees could be put in the lead, their not in the article currently, and also clarification of his current international status. Is he French or Cameroonian at the moment. 20:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

He's still French that's why the intro says French and the international paragraph says "is a French youth international". I believe he's in the process of switching to Cameroon that is why I threw that in there (all the I left as speculative since it has not been officialized yet). In any case, thanks! TonyStarks (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I generally just follow roughly that formula for all players intros and it works quite well. Adam4267 (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Does BLPPROD make an article ineligible for PROD?

I found an article, Eirik Holmen Johansen, which fails NFOOTY and GNG, but the article have previously been proposed for deletion per WP:BLPPROD. Can this article be WP:PROD'ed, or is WP:AFD the next step? Mentoz86 (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you can still PROD it as normal - per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Sticky prod, "this does not affect the regular prod process, which may still be used on BLPs, including BLPs from which the sticky prod has been legitimately removed." Giant Snowman 17:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast (and obvious) answer :) Mentoz86 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with women's national team articles

Hi. After File:FIFA national women's football teams by class.png was created, I decided I would try to create some of the wanted brown articles in my user space and then take them all to DYK. Below is a list of articles I am working on my userspace to get to length. They need some help with wikification (will get bare links last), adding more sources, improving the infobox, adding the country specific footer boxes, finding pictures, helping make them a bit more compliant with the manual of style for national team articles and adding more information. Any help would be appreciated. :) --LauraHale (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

AFC

User:LauraHale/Brunei women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Cambodia women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Timor-Leste women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Kuwait women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Macau women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Oman women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Saudi Arabia women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Yemen women's national football team

CAF

User:LauraHale/Burundi women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Cape Verde women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Central African Republic women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Chad women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Djibouti women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Gambia women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Guinea-Bissau women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Côte d'Ivoire women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Kenya women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Lesotho women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Liberia women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Libya women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Mauritania women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Madagascar women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Mauritius women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Niger women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Réunion women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Rwanda women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Seychelles women's national football team
User:LauraHale/São Tomé and Príncipe women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Somalia women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Sierra Leone women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Sudan women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Togo women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Zambia women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Zanzibar women's national football team

CONCACAF

User:LauraHale/Anguilla women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Montserrat women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Netherlands Antilles women's national football team
User:LauraHale/French Guiana women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Gaudeloupe women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Saint-Martin women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Sint Maarten women's national football team

UEFA

User:LauraHale/Andorra women's national football team
User:LauraHale/Liechtenstein women's national football team
User:LauraHale/San Marino women's national football team

I would be glad to help out. I will try starting a new project in which I try to add information to one women's national team per day. So it will take a long time but I have other projects I need to get done. I will start with the India women's national football team which I want to bring to C-Class at least. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Line-ups

I have been reading some articles on the FIFA World Cup finals, and I saw that in the articles about the 1930, 1934 and 1938 finals the line-ups follow the order Goalkeeper; Right Back, Left Back; Right Half, Centre-half, Left Half; Outside Right, Outside Left, Inside Left, Inside Left, Centre-forward. Now, all the sources I've read (several books, websites like IFFHS and RSSSF, and many others) follow another order: GK; RB, LB; RH, CH, LH; OR, IR, CF, IL, OL. This order actually follows the shirt numbers (1, 2, 3, 4... etc), but it was also adopted for line-ups in which shirt numbers were not present yet. What I would like to know is: is there a reason for the different order in which line-ups are shown here on en.wiki (at least on the articles about those three finals)? I know it is not a big deal, but I ask this question in order to know whether the standard used here is a common standard for British sources, American sources, or sources which are written in English in general, or it is just something accidental. Thanks in advance! :-) --Triple 8 (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the reason for the order used on Wiki but we should be following what the reliable sources say. Eldumpo (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will change the order in the articles I have mentioned in this post for now; if I see some other article with this "unconventional" order, I will change it, too. --Triple 8 (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Player articles redirecting to club articles

What is the best way to deal with them? Here, one exemple: Sunday Ibrahim, check edit history. I find this cases from time to time. FkpCascais (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the player a valid search term? Probably not. Even if he is, which club do you redirect to? Far too problematic, just nominate for deletion. Giant Snowman 12:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Or in a bit more detail... Where an inexperienced editor created dozens of these unsourced one-liners in a day, as was the case with Sunday Ibrahim etc, I can understand why they were redirected to their club articles. That's what WP:BEFORE suggests we might do if the player's name is a likely search term, as it probably was when they were all created.

There'll be some, but probably not many, players for whom a redirect to the club would be appropriate: perhaps where someone played a significant role in the history of a non-fully-pro club, so he wouldn't be personally notable but his name is a likely search term in context of that club. Where that isn't the case, check whether the player exists and is notable. If he is, then restore the content, update it if necessary, and add sources to prove it. If he isn't, then either restore the content and BLPPROD or ordinary PROD him, or take the redirect to WP:RfD with a rationale something like "implausible search term: non-notable footballer who made no particular contribution for club targeted in redirect and no longer plays for them", or whatever the case is. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I see... Usually if I find out the player is notable and if I find myself with time, I fix the article, but latelly I haven´t had that much time, so these cases need some quicker response like PRODing. Would "unsourced" also be a valid rationale for WP:RfD if I choose it instead of PROD? FkpCascais (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There never is enough time... Leave this one, I've found a couple of sources and hope to find time to expand the article later today. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, great job, you´re the best! FkpCascais (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Methinks you exaggerate a little... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Cup Notability

I am just wondering because the notability guild on here does not show cup notability. Can I make a page for a cup competition that is affiliated with the national football association of that country but does not have a fully professional club. For example, I want to make an article for the All India Gold Cup which is affiliated and ran under the All India Football Federation but there are no clubs from the I-League playing in it (The I-League is the only fully professional league with clubs in it in India) so can I still make an article on the cup or not. And if I can make a page for the cup, can I also make a page for the clubs in the cup. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What kind of cup is that? Looks like a state cup, if its this one. Pages for the clubs i'd guess is a no. -Koppapa (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If the cup has received coverage in reliable, independent sources then it is eligible for an article whether the clubs that play in it are professional or not. Big Dom 07:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In Finland a second national cup has been introduced for 2012 - Regions Cup 2012 for teams in Division 3 and below. As this is a national competition can I assume that it has similar parity with say the English third tier competition - the FA Vase? Some of the clubs have also competed in the Suomen Cup so there is a similarity with clubs competing in the FA Cup and FA Vase in England. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)).

It's only comparable if it receives a comparable level of coverage. It isn't comparable simply because it sits at roughly the same point in the league structure. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This cup is nationally held. Well its played in one stadium but teams from around the country play in it. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue is reliable sources. We cover things based on reliable sources. That is the be-all and end-all. It is folly to endlessly query whether such-and-such a player / event / team is notable in advance of investigating whether it has been covered significantly by reliable secondary sources because it is the existence of those sources, and no other property, which determines notability. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. Adam4267 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that I need reliable sources and I can easily handle that. That is not my question though. Is there a criteria a cup tournament needs to follow in order to be notable or do I just need reliable sources. Nothing else. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If the competition recieves significant coverage in national Indian newspapers then, I would say, yes create it. Adam4267 (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, just one more question (sorry)... would all the clubs in the tournament be notable as they would technically be playing in a national tournament which is affiliated with the national federation? --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally I would say no but I might not be/probably am not right so you should wait and see what others say. Adam4267 (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That will be clearer if and when some actual articles get written. It is not productive in the slightest to theorise about it in advance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Got it. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible area of focus to improve this project's BLPs

As noted in the discussion above, there are a number of football-project-supported BLPs that are microstubs (typically one or two sentences of text and an infobox with one source - often an external link). While most of these BLPs satisfy NFOOTBALL and should be able to satisfy the GNG with sufficient effort, many remain in this microstub state. As an example, this catscan shows articles in the World Cup players category (not only BLPs) that are likely microstubs: Catscan. We can run similar catscans within the XYZ international footballers categories, among others, to prioritze microstub articles that ought to get attention towards moving them to true stub status (or better). Maybe we can create a project page like we had for UBLPs to direct our efforts in this area? Jogurney (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to search for articles by category or, preferably, task force which are tagged with anything. I'd find that quite helpful, cheers. Adam4267 (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This catscan shows the articles in the FIFA World Cup players category that are tagged with refimprove. You just change the template field to whatever tag you want to search and then change the category to Watford F.C. players or whatever you want to search. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much Jogurney. I was looking for a tool like this. I'm currently trying to improve all the Celtic player articles. But the tool I was using before only showed what class they were. So this will definitely be a good help. Adam4267 (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone speak Dutch?

I wanted to start an article on Cornelis Jol (not the pirate). He is an an ex-player and brother to Martin, having worked on his management team several times. However, there is a real lack of English sources and without Dutch help it would really just be an incomplete infobox and stub summary. I started it at my userspace but have only yet gathered a few sources. So if any Dutch speaker would like to help me, either by finding Dutch articles and giving me a brief overview or my adding in stuff themselves that would be great. I think it would be a pretty good DYK. Adam4267 (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anyone from here but outside this project User:Night of the Big Wind & i think User:Drmies does as well. Not sure if they will help though. There is probably someone here who does.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Cattivi (talk · contribs) is a Dutch speaker and has fantastic resources with regards to sourcing. Giant Snowman 15:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask Cattivi first seeing as he is into football and then I'll take it from there. Thanks guys, good help as always. Adam4267 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems he is known in Holland as Cock Jol, see this. Giant Snowman 08:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Connor Lade

Hello, around December 2011 I created the Connor Lade page, he had signed with New York Red Bulls, he was deleted within weeks by a member who is no longer with wikipedia as he had yet to make a professional appearance, can someone help me in restoring the page.

Thanks

User:Elop76 —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

Here's a source for his MLS debut. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Connor Lade has been restored, please update & improve the article accordingly to mention details of his pro debut. Giant Snowman 17:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Match titles again

See prior discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 64#International football match titles and Talk:1994 Barbados v Grenada football match#Requested move. I think these article titles are now on the unwieldy side and by having the word "football" in them they lend themselves to be ambiguous. I propose a better naming system: Home team v Away team (Year + Competition). So that would make the article in question Barbados v Grenada (1994 Caribbean Cup qualification). One problem I can see, though, would be international friendlies. 1953 England vs Hungary football match would become England v Hungary (1953 international friendly), from which it would be difficult to determine the sport. I suppose one could go with "1953 international football friendly" as the parenthetical, but that runs into the same "football" ambiguity problem again, which would leave "1953 international association football friendly" as the only other choice (although maybe the word "international" is unnecessary; if you have the names of two countries, that should make it international by default). Anyway, your input is appreciated. —howcheng {chat} 08:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are saying but that could be misleading. What if its another sport. I know that is unlikely but you never know. How about England v Hungary association football match. Just let the reader know its association football as football could mean anything. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

How about England vs Hungary (1953 association football friendly match) just so noone can be mistaken? But seriously, why do you feel the need for a disambiguating title? The RM went through and it looks ok now. If someone can't work out the content from the title, they can read the opening paragraph. Cloudz 679 14:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Much of this is premature disambiguous on grounds of theoretical confusion which hasn't actually been backed up by evidence from the readership. Personally, I'd disambiguate by score rather than discipline if date alone isn't enough (in fact I'd often dab by score in the first instance). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What I'm really trying to get at is establishing some sort of standard for match article naming, because right now it's kind of haphazard. There's 1994 Barbados v Grenada football match (Year Team1 v Team2 football match) and there's also Uruguay v Brazil (1950 FIFA World Cup) (Team1 v Team2 (competition)), and there's also Battle of Berne (nickname, which is potentially confusing for an actual battle in a war). Is there any interest at all in creating a naming convention? —howcheng {chat} 16:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

We need a convention if can avoid things like Battle of the Buffet when some soup was thrown !!--Egghead06 (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we absolutely do not in that case. It is vastly preferable to use the common name in the case where a match has a memorable title. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's generally better to put forward a concrete proposal and see who agrees with it rather than to leave it open-ended. If you want to propose a convention in detail that would be a good start. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

For matches that do not already following another naming convention (e.g., competition finals, charity matches marketed under a certain name), I propose one of the following:

[Home team] v [Away team] ([date/year] [competition])
[Home team] [score] [Away team] ([date/year] [competition])

Examples (in all cases below, feel free to substitute "v" with "[score]" -- I just didn't feel like typing that repeatedly):

International competition match where teams meet once: Team1 v Team2 (XXXX CompetitionName), where team names are the country names, e.g., "Hungary v Brazil (1954 FIFA World Cup)"
International competition match where teams meet more than once and both matches have articles: Team1 v Team2 (XXXX CompetitionName round), e.g., "Hungary v Brazil (1954 FIFA World Cup semifinal)" -- this will be rare as I can't think of a case where both a group stage match and then a knockout round match are notable enough for articles.
International competition qualifying match: Team1 v Team2 (XXXX CompetitionName qualifying), e.g., "Barbados v Grenada (1994 Caribbean Cup qualifying)"
League match: Team1 v Team2 (date), e.g. Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal (26 May 1989)
Domestic/international club cup match: Team1 v Team2 (XXXX Competition), e.g., "Boca Juniors v Arsenal (2008 Copa Libertadores)"; I don't like using the date here because I want to keep league and cup matches distinct
International/club friendly: Team1 v Team2 (Year/Date association football friendly), using Year or Date depending if the teams met more than once that year and if both matches have articles

What I don't like about the other article naming formats:

"Battle of XXX": can be mistaken to mean an actual battle in a war; often is understood only by fans of the teams involved (example, I'm an Arsenal fan in the US and I didn't know that the Battle of the Buffet was so named). The nickname should exist as a redirect, however.
Other nickname like "Agony of Doha": Doesn't conform to NPOV.
[Team1] [score] [Team2]: While sometimes this works, one of the complaints expressed at Talk:1994 Barbados v Grenada football match#Requested move is that oftentimes the article title doesn't give enough context (Australia 31–0 American Samoa could be rugby)

Exceptions:

Matches that are not officially sanctioned by a football association, e.g., The Death Match
Matches where another event took place that is more notable than the match itself, e.g., Hillsborough disaster or 1985 Kenilworth Road riot
Other exceptions can be given on a case-by-case basis

Why do we need a naming convention? Mostly because if I'm an editor new to writing football articles, I'd like to know what to call it and it's reassuring to know that experienced editors have thought about this and come up with names that make sense. If I'm a reader, it makes it easier to find articles because I can start typing "Manchester United" in the search box and I'll get "Manchester United v Arsenal (date)" rather than "Battle of Old Trafford", especially if I'm unfamiliar with the nickname. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 32#Naming convention for not-easily-named matches, several people argue that the title should depend on what makes a match noteworthy, which might be the score or the year, so I tried to come up with something that gives us a good amount of context in the title itself, even if that means Bayern Munich v Norwich City gains disambiguation that's not really needed. —howcheng {chat} 20:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Would chose option 2 myself. The main issue (apart from the fact it panders to sensationalist journalism by calling it a Battle) I have with titles like Battle of the Buffet is exactly as described above. If a user is searching for articles on Manchester United games they would start by typing 'Manchester United' which would give them the selection. Commonname really can have little meaning for games played many years ago where that name has long since ceased to be meaningful. A title starting 'Manchester United 2-0 Arsenal' etc will always be relevant.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, using a common name where one is available is non-negotiable here. Our general naming conventions are strongly weighted to using the common name. The matter at hand is how to name articles which don't have a common name. As for the proposal, the argument that the score could make the result ambiguous is irrelevant: we disambiguate when the title is ambiguous, and thus far nobody has provided any evidence that this is the case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, it is if the commonname is not common at all.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What I've been saying is that some of these "common names" are in fact not very common, except among those who have specialized knowledge. For example, "Battle of the Buffet" is the name of a Tamil language film. Searching US sources, "battle of the buffet" turns up a lot of results about people dealing with eating at buffets. The "nutshell" summary of WP:TITLE states that "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Using nicknames for matches may hit the 3rd point, but certainly not the first two; conversely, "Manchester United 2–0 Arsenal (24 October 2004)" ticks the first two boxes, but not the third. Furthermore, using something other than the common name is indeed negotiable. Per WP:TITLE#Deciding on an article title, consistency between similar articles is also a desired trait, and it may be necessary to favor one or more of the principles behind these goals over the others (emphasis in original). I'm arguing that football match article titles should indeed value consistency. Perhaps you'll counter this by saying that the Premier League is (mostly) in England and thus should follow the British press, but I reject that because the Premier League has worldwide viewership. You shouldn't have to be a rabid fan in order to be able to find the article you want. —howcheng {chat} 16:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If the subject is not most commonly referred to by such a name then it isn't the common name. That would seem to be tautological. If your proposal is simply that we should not invent cute names for games then I don't see what the problem is, as this appears not to be a common problem. Battle of the buffet may not be appropriate, especially if it is ambiguous, but you said you didn't like "Battle of X" in general, when there are plainly instances (such as Battle of Bramall Lane) where this is the common name for the subject in reliable sources. Overriding that wouldn't be appropriate and would be a case of WP:FOOTY enforcing a local consensus against the overall naming guidelines. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If you were to ask someone who was not a WBA or Sheffield United fan if they knew what the "Battle of Bramall Lane" was, what's the likelihood that they would know which match you were referring to? However, "Sheffield United 0–3 West Bromwich Albion (16 March 2002)" is immediately obvious (well, I suppose you would need to know those are football clubs, but it's easily identifiable as a sports article). Moreover, the latter is a title that will have meaning long into the future, when the only people who know the nickname are sports historians. —howcheng {chat} 18:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem here 'may' be that these matches (Battle of ...) aren't actually notable rather than what the title is (See Articles on matches below). For example the Battle of Santiago, Battle of Nuremberg are properly notable matches with enduring notability and their names are (should be) widely known. However, these Premeir League matches were notable at the time and the press gave them a nickname but they are not notable any longer, which is IMO why there names aren't common. They don't have enduring notability. Other than that I believe that Home [score] Away (year, competition (is competition necessary for domestic matches?)) is the best format. Adam4267 (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Battle of Bramall Lane is one of the very few times in the history of the professional game that a match has been abandoned on the basis of the number of dismissals. You are under the mistaken belief that notable events must be titled such that readers completely unfamiliar to them have immediate context. That is not supported by our naming guidelines, which strongly favour common names over generic contextual names. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood me a bit. I'm fine with having common names for article where there actually is a common name. i.e Battle of Nuremburg, Santiago etc. However, a match actually has to have enduring notability to have a common name. My problem was mainly with the two Arsenal v Man U matches. I think the reason that few people on here (including me) and probably very few people in general would recognise this as the common name is that the matches aren't notable. Firstly the articles don't show any signs of enduring notability but also the name the matches were widely referred to as has fallen out of use. If the match was still notable people would know the name, but it is not notable. Adam4267 (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Utd v Arsenal matches, particularly the second one (or the "Battle of the Buffet" as it is certainly not widely known) are not notable. They don't show any indication of enduring coverage beyond that of a normal, albeit slightly controversial match. There are games like them every other week in the Premier League; the press might write about these matches for a few days afterwards, but then they are forgotten to the mists of time. Big Dom 14:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The only guideline these matches need to meet is WP:GNG and the Battle of the Buffet certainly does meet that and as GNG says notability is not temporary and it does not need to have ongoing coverage the enduring notability isn't an issue. In regards to the name thats what the sources refer to it as. The name may not have enduring notability but the event does.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You say it meets the GNG, I say it doesn't. At least, none of the sources there are anything other than WP:ROUTINE so far as I can see. Big Dom 19:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

GNG is subjective, however the coverage of that match is no way routine in anyway the sources in the article are more than adequate but there are plenty of others . In regards to enduring notability these sources all mention it in some way some small others larger in the years following [24] buffet[25] [26],[27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. I suggest you nominate it for deletion if you feel the way you do.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of those sources you've given are examples of enduring notability, which begs the question: why are they not used in the article rather than a few routine match reports all dating from a couple of days after the game? Then again, this leads to a dangerous (IMO) precedent that every match that gets mentioned again some time afterwards would be notable by your standards. Big Dom 21:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't think every match is notable at all. In fact most are not, but i feel we have to accept that some will be. In regards to why they aren't in the article i dont know but they should be. I would update myself but to be honest don't have the time and it the interest in English football to do so. To me there should be no precident for match articles they must meet GNG like other articles, that creates a problem in itself as GNG is subjective. Edinburgh Wanderer 08:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles on matches

~~After seeing this AfD,~~ I'm wondering, what is stopping someone from mass creating match articles, for example creating articles about every Premier League match this year. Those matches would apparently be notable since the only current guideline is GNG. Should there be a new guideline made preventing this? -- BCS (t · c · !) 23:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Did every Premier League match this year bring about a FIFA investigation after a very suspicious 10-0 score line? TonyStarks (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, missed that. I still think a new notability guideline should be made, though. -- BCS (t · c · !) 03:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I dobt a random Premier League game is notable. Basically talks about it stop at last a week after it was played. -Koppapa (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think common sense should be enough. Any match whose coverage goes beyond routine reporting deserves an article. Also bear in mind that WP:GNG prevails over all project-based notability criteria, so the creation of articles which satisfy GNG and not FOOTYN cannot be prevented. – Kosm1 fent 07:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

For ordinary matches (i.e. no match fixing etc.) should the test not be if it has lasting notability. IMO there are many articles, particularly on Premier League games, which don't seem to show evidence of lasting notability; Battle of the Buffet, Battle of Old Trafford, Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C., UEFA Celebration Match. Maybe some of them do and I haven't looked thouroughly ennough but I would say a few of these articles should be deleted. Adam4267 (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of the Buffet, Battle of Old Trafford are notable the sources are there and more are easily found this makes them pass WP:GNG. Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C. has a claim of importance as the the largest away win in the history of the Premier League, although poorly sourced. Same with UEFA Celebration Match Edinburgh Wanderer 18:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken I think match articles have to show "enduring notability" or something to that effect. And there doesn't "appear" to be any sources on the two Man U v Arsenal matches which are mainly about the match but a year or two after. I think the Man U Nott Forest match would have to be ref'd aswell because who says that 'biggest away victory' is an actual record. If we have articles for things that aren't official records then you could create articles for any first/record, (Most goals in first ten mins, biggest win with 10 men etc.) Adam4267 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned they meet WP:GNG by showing significant sources in multiple reliable sources and as thats the highest guideline they are eligible for inclusion. And as it says in the guideline one a topic has received significant coverage it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Any guideline we create will be a minimum requirement and if they meet GNG but not another then GNG overrules. Thats my take on it anyway. In regards to the latter Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C. it certainly does need sources to back the claim at the moment its a claim to notability rather than positive notability like the first two. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but with that logic virtually every match ever played could be included. I'm pretty certain the 'enduring notability' consensus is already in place but I'm not certain where that would be written down. Adam4267 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

GNG overrules any other guideline. Anyway has already proved in another thread Battle of the buffet has enduring notability. Edinburgh Wanderer 07:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. However, as Wikipedia is not a newspaper, that does not imply that anything which makes the front page of a national paper is notable for all time. The difference is typically a level of critical or analytical analysis from outside of the normal news channels, or some wider impact that the game had. The Battle of Old Trafford had a number of such: new records were set for unbeaten runs, simultanously by both teams in this case, and there was a significant violent element to the match which had significant repercussions on players from both sides afterwards. A hell of a lot was written about those in isolation from the actual gameplay. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the links Chris but I still disagree, in my opinion a match needs to have lasting notability. There are a huge number of matches which could easily be similarly if not more notable than these ones at the time they were played, and even for a year or so after but are not permenantly notable. If the criteria is that a lot was written about the match in isolation from the gameplay then I could think of about 5 Celtic matches from the past two years which would be equally notable as these matches. And what about the Evra/Suarez, Terry/Ferdinand events. With the way the press is now saying that lots of in-depth coverage at the time of the event makes it notable is naive and unworkable. I'm sure every fan of any team could write loads of articles on matches that were notable outside the gameplay, but not permanatly notable. I think there does need to be a fairly high standard set for match articles. Firstly to ensure that only notable matches are included but also to stop bias from happening. i.e. lots of English/British people would know about these matches, but a similar match from another country would unlikely to be made or survive deletion. Adam4267 (talk) 14

24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Most independent matches aren't notable but there will always be a few that are. Any guideline we create here will always be overruled by GNG as its a higher level. As GNG clearly states notability is permenant and long standing notability is not required we need to go with that. What comes into it more is if the coverage is just routine. In the battle of the buffet and battle of old Trafford i don't see that. In the other thread re matches I spent less than two minutes looking for sources from the years after the battle of the buffet and found loads. So really rather than just looking at the sources in the article that's what needs to happen. We can't really set a precident re this and matches should be looked at individually on face value and when someone feels it does not it should be taken to AFD. Edinburgh Wanderer 07:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Return of the living dead

This sounds like a wikiprimadonna at work (goes, does not go, all i want is attention, blah, blah, blah :)), but it's not: after thinking it out and also after seeing the letter of demise of User:Fastily, i have returned with a new resolve: 1 - less edits per day; 2 - NEVER again feeding the trolls; 3 - overall making this a better place as someone else once aptly put it.

Attentively, keep on "scoring" teammates - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Good to have you back Vasco, hope your break, albeit short, was useful. Happy editing! Giant Snowman 19:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If you start feeling stressed just avoid checking the watchlist and try to make more articles instead of patrolling the existing ones. Making articles is much less stressfull and is much more compensating. When you make one good article you feel really good. FkpCascais (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

yaaay!--Echetus Xe 21:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Good to see you back and happier. Wikibreak little and often, it works wonders. —WFC— 17:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

New stubs, sourcing is IMPORTANT!

Hello guys. We're receiving a bit of flak about the creation of stubs without "multiple reliable sources" to ensure the notability of the subject. Even if we add foreign language sources, please make sure that stubs we create have at least two different sources assuring the notability of the subject matter. Cheers all! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, have you got any examples of the flak we're receiving? Eldumpo (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:SandyGeorgia#Footballer notability, where some editors seem to feel that playing at international level isn't enough. Giant Snowman 09:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole conversation seems based around the dislike that some users have for the emphasis that society puts on footballers & not the lack of references. I don't think they realise the work that this project does establishing whether articles meet notability guidelines. The location of the conversation is also highly inappropriate & seems to stem from the user being irritated by the fact that some people with other occupations don't meet notability guidelines. I don't think we should place any importance of what was discussed. Senior internationals not notable absolute Joke. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right, but it doesn't do any harm when creating stubs to have at least two different reliable sources for the players. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear though, you're only talking about 2 sources that verify the person achieved x (e.g. played international football for Venezuela), rather than 2 sources which outright meet GNG (significant, in detail etc)? Eldumpo (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I am. The former. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with TRM's above point about not needing some sort of in depth source. While I am an outspoken critic of our notability guidelines, that's not really the issue here. It's a bone of contention for Sandy, myself and others, but the bigger issue is the quality of sourcing that NFOOTBALL is backed up by.

Let's pretend for the duration of this post that I'm a staunch defender of NFOOTBALL. The best way to defend the status quo is to do ensure that articles which rely on it adopt good practise. Creating biographies of living people and sourcing them solely to numbers does not fall into that category. In particular, let's say we want to defend the relatively contentious idea that one appearance in what NFOOTBALL deems to be a notable match justifies an article. The way to do that is to ensure that we source the article with substantive coverage of that match (and what the player in question did in the match). Surely any match important enough to pass NFOOTBALL will generate at least one detailed match report from a reliable source, even if that reliable source is the equivalent of the Watford Observer? —WFC— 16:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well we need to be sure we're meeting the encyclopaedia's guidelines. My first ministep was to ask people to provide at least two separate sources that provide some evidence that NFOOTBALL is met. This is trivial in the UK but not so easy in European/Worldwide competitions. The second ministep would be to have non-trivial coverage talking qualitatively about the player (your match reports for instance). I have a feeling it's moot because it seems that footballers of our League 2 (for instance) who will easily attract enough attention in the media to pass any kind of notability test here will still annoy people who think that professors and soldiers should be given the same courtesy. Of course they should where appropriate, but that shouldn't stop the football project from covering its own subjects appropriately. If there's an air of dissatisfaction with our endlessly debated approach, perhaps an RFC should be launched where we can seek a (new?) community consensus. Moreover, if PROF and SOLDIER need another look then perhaps those relevant projects could be engaged in a similar discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

My main problem with this was the location of the discussion which seems inappropriate to me. Secondly whether other subjects have their own guidelines is no issue to us, we have strong consensus within this project. If others want similar guidelines for soldiers or any other subject that is for them to get consensus on their issue not ours. An RFC only achieves something when it is likely a different consensus may occur and to me that seem highly unlikely at this time although that doesn't mean it isn't necessary down the line. Why pick on us because other areas don't have the aim they wish to achieve.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

@TRM Your 'second ministep' is potentially quite a major step. However, I'm not convinced that most match reports can be said to talk qualitatively about players. Any given match report could deal with one or two players with a degree of depth (depending on how they played, importance of match etc), but the majority are likely to only be mentioned in passing, or just have their name in the line-up. I think you might be right about a new RfC but we need to be careful about how we deal with AfD discussions, especially if the 'free pass' of NFootball were to disappear. Eldumpo (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, totally agree, most match reports may cover one or two or three players but there will always be the sturdy centre half who does his job week in week out with making any name in match reports, who is equally notable as the centre forward who scores twice in a season and gets two mentions. But RFC may be the only solution to stop the indignation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So what your saying based on a totally inappropriate discussion and location on one users talk page in which very few people would even be aware of let alone took part should force an RFC. Were going to change because they cant force other projects to have lesser guidelines for their notability criteria. A lot of people would say our guidelines are too strict equally as much as those would say its to lax. Of course then you go down the route of where do those new guideline apply from because as notability is permanent we cant very well backtrack and say you were notable but we don't consider that anymore and bye now. That may sound sarcastic but that really is what this is. How many discussions have been held in the past, what were those outcomes. At the end of the day we are wasting time on this yet again rather than actually improving content. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I just want to make the point that there is nothing inappropriate or underhand about one user disagreeing with another on their talk page, and that turning into a debate about an issue. Particularly when the issue in question is one that the appropriate WikiProject has failed to tackle in years. As for an RfC, there is no obligation for anyone to ask permission before starting an RfC, although for numerous reasons it's unwise to pre-emptively or unilaterally start one.

TRM, if we are thinking seriously about an RfC, we should be clear what it is about. The statistical requirements of NFOOTBALL, or the quality of sourcing we expect NFOOTBALL to be backed up by? An RfC (or two simultaneous RfCs) on both would get messy, and would probably fail to resolve either issue. —WFC— 23:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely an inappropriate location why should the majority change because a small handful of editors decided to have a moan on the talk page. If they wanted to discuss it at this level they should have moved it to an appropriate discussion site or start the RFC. This steems from resentment that there favourite subjects aren't automatically notable an they can't make their relevant wiki project to make the change. That's actually rather spiteful. I have no objection to the two source thing hardly hard to do but i object to this kind of tactic being used especially against a project with active membership and strong consensus. All we have to do simply is add to Nfootball that all articles must be backed up with at least two sources. Edinburgh Wanderer 09:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, GiantSnowman started that discussion, and The Rambling Man started this discussion. Both active members of this project, and both started a discussion in an appropriate place as an appropriate response to something else that happened. SandyGeorgia is entitled to her opinion, and even if you don't agree with her opinion about NFOOTBALL, she makes some extremely pertinent points about the way in which it is applied. She might well be misguided (although I don't think so), and certainly she has put parts of her argument forward in an ineffective way (going full guns blazing for international footballers instead of people who have once played in a semi-famous division), but that's the extent of it. If you baselessly accuse her of acting in bad faith again, you might well learn the true meaning of "spiteful". —WFC— 14:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Im not seeing bad faith at all. Ive pointed out as others have that it was a wholly inappropriate location for a discussion and should of been moved. Ive clearly stated that there has been many a discussion on this in the past without change. She and others are clearly upset because they feel we give greater weight to footballers who routinely gain greater media coverage and are likely to meet WP:GNG easily rather than a person who may of been of greater importance but receives far less coverage. That in my opinion is spiteful which in the way i use it is a desire to vex or annoy. My use of spiteful is clearly used generally to describe a group with a pov that feel we should change because others won't. Yours is an attack. You should retract your last statement immediately because that to me appears as a blatant personal attack specifically directed at me.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it probably makes sense to try to take the ministeps TRM has proposed (or some version of it). This project did incredible work several months ago in tackling the completely unreferenced BLP problem (there are some biographies of dead people that are still unreferenced, but I don't think very many). When I have time, I often go through some of the very briefest and least referenced stubs to try to flesh them out (add some text or a reference or two aiming to get a somewhat complete description of the person's career or call to notability). This will be an even more massive undertaking than the UBLP clean-up, but we ought to give some thought to designing a process and seeking volunteers to improve these microstubs (typically articles with little more than 1 or 2 sentences and an infobox) to a more complete stub. WFC showed me how to use catscan to find these microstubs within a particular category, and I'm sure we can slice the problem up into pieces that are workable. Jogurney (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

WFC Please don't make threats on this page again, I think you should retract & apologise for your above comment. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't agree completely with our current notability guidlines, I don't think they are too bad. But any change, or proposal for change, should be more rationally and relevantly discussed than what has been going on so far. Personal attacks or threats are certainly not a good way to rationally discuss something and I think what WFC was totally uncalled for and unreasonable. Adam4267 (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, the above comment was not a threat. It was an observation that if you accuse someone with a reputation for relentlessly trying to improve standards of being spiteful, a likely outcome is that they will be more determined to follow the matter through. A self-fulfilling prophecy, if you like. There have been no threats in this thread of any kind, and the only personal attacks in this thread are on the character of three or four people who have done absolutely nothing wrong. It will be interesting to see which of the users above are big enough people to apologise for their false accusations, and which decide to band around further unwarranted insults. —WFC— 22:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Quote; If you baselessly accuse her of acting in bad faith again, you might well learn the true meaning of "spiteful" Sounds like a threat to me. You might not have intended it that way but it certainly sounded like that. I still think you should apologise to EW but if you feel you have done nothing wrong then don't. Needlessly dwelling on one comment isn't going to help the discussion so I will leave it at that. Adam4267 (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't, and therefore I won't. The last thing I have to say on this matter is that liberally throwing around accusations such as "threat" and "personal attack" cheapens their respective meanings. Over the long term, that can create an environment where genuine threats or personal attacks are seen as less of a big deal than they once were. —WFC— 13:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems I've missed quite a lot. I'm busy, so Ill be brief. It was apropriate to start the discussion at SG's talk page as it was informal, between too editors. It escalated, and has moved elsewhere, so it's fine. Personally I don't think an RfC will achieve much - we're pretty much all in agreement that the more sources an article has, the better, right? Talk of spite and threats from a number of parties here is completely inappropriate, and I'd suggest everyone calm down, remain civil, and remember we're ALL working together to improve football articles on Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 18:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you acted inappropriately at all by starting the discussion there when it was informal, however it should of been stopped or totally moved when it got to the level it did that is why i feel it was inappropriate given its nature. As i said above constant reinventing the wheel isn't improving content its holding everyone back from it and thats what this whole project is about is it not. So why does a strong project with longstanding strong consensus and the ability to greatly improve content look to change when the real heart of the problem strongly appears to be consensus of other projects because they don't give greater weight to their subjects. Sourcing isn't the main issue here but again as is said above two sources is hardly difficult. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you GS, in the sense that we shouldn't start an RfC for an RfC's sake. But in a nutshell, "borderline" (deliberately vague) notable articles backed up solely by statistical sourcing do not do this project or that guideline any favours, and I don't think simply a consensus that we should have two sources will solve that.

If the NFOOTBALL goalposts are to stay the same, we should move towards some sort of expectation of qualitative sourcing. My suggestion as a starting point would be that we always write something about a player's debut – normal enough – but crucially source it to a non-statistical source (a match report, in layman's terms). Doing so would go at least some way towards demonstrating that the events the players are competing in are notable, thus helping to demonstrate that there is a link between NFOOTBALL and the GNG, and in turn that they are probably worthy of coverage on Wikipedia. It may well be worth amending the introduction to NFOOTBALL to encourage practise along those lines. —WFC— 22:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that a change needs to be made but I'm not really sure about your proposal to be honest. I think forcing an inclusion of info on their debut would violate WP:WEIGHT. Also, to me, it doesn't really fix the problem. I believe the problem is with our guidlines, specifically the "one appearance in a fully-pro league means you meet GNG" part. And I think until that is changed anything we do will only be masking the problem rather than actually fixing it. Adam4267 (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be ideal, but any attempt to tighten up the criteria generally leaves us in either the Turkey and Christmas scenario, or with claims that anything more complicated than counting to one would be unworkable. To expand on my previous point, I'm not suggesting that we go into more detail on a player's debut (that would violate weight). My point is simply that a debut is usually mentioned in the prose in some form (even if it's something as simple as "he made his debut in April 2012"), and that having made a debut is pretty much the only thing that all notable footballers will have in common, and is therefore a common thing that we can aim to source. —WFC— 00:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think your idea makes sense, and I would just clarify that it should be the debut in a notable competition (e.g., FIFA "A" international match or notable cup match for players who haven't played in a fully-pro league) that needs sourcing. Jogurney (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand what is trying to be achieved but making it a debut is a little arbitrary. How about that there should be some reference to a particular game they have played in, with the reference to be stronger than simply showing they played in the match? To clarify, you would not need to reference a particular match if your sourcing was better than that anyway e.g. 'Jones played 20 times for Rovers that season in their push for the play-offs'. Eldumpo (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually WFC what I meant was that we should get rid of the professional league thing. I think its completely arbitrary and uselss. The leagues in which players automatically meet GNG should be decided on by how much coverage the average player in the league gets. Not by how many hours a week the average player works. Our current system is that Notability = Number of hours worked per week, rather than Notability = How notable you are. Which is what I think it should be.

I misunderstood your point on debuts. I thought you meant that a match summary of their debut was needed. But if its just saying that he made his debut on a certain date then I think that's ok. I also think having at least two sourced pieces of information in the bio would be good as well (not two sources for the same things but two sources about different things) and also having a career stats section and infobox. I think a good guidline would be that all new stubs should have; When the player made their debut, Two reliably sources peices of information, infobox and career stats table. Adam4267 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree with you about the fully professional league thing, but I'm pragmatic. There are enough people absolutely determined to defend what is effectively our opt-out of the GNG to ensure that it remains (not to mention that the process of trying to change it would be a painful one for all sides). I've concluded that a more realistic aim is to at least try to make it less blatant that NFOOTBALL is sometimes used to get around the GNG. Providing a non-statistical source would be a big step in that direction. —WFC— 13:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree about the career statistics table requirement. An article can satisfy GNG without the use of statistics, so I don't think it is necessary to have a table as part of the "minimum" requirements. Jogurney (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Our notability guidelines - NFOOTBALL - are just that, guidelines. They provide a useful starting block for editors to think what could or could not perhaps be notable. I think we'll all agree that a senior international player is notable, though we should also all be thinking that more sources can only be a better thing. I'm probably slightly guiltier than most in creation of basic stubs on international players using one or two sources, but I always try and add more sources wherever possible, and other editors contribute as well, which is surely what Wikipedia is all about - a number of editors all working together, adding bits & pieces, to improve articles. Finally, none of us should forget that GNG rightly trumps NFOOTBALL, and we should always seek to meet both GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(Jogurney) I'm not saying that all new articles have to have this. But I think it would be a good guidline (not rule as GS says above) to introduce. Adam4267 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(GiantSnowman) It's good that this project is coming to terms with the idea that not knowing any biographical information, or anything about someone's club career, probably overrides someone who statistically meets NFOOTBALL. But NFOOTY itself makes no mention that players which meet the "fully pro league" ~~or "full international"~~ test still need to meet the GNG.

I remember a couple of years back, I think it was Struway, but it might have been ChrisTheDude, mentioned an article they wrote a couple of years previously, about a player who at the time had only made one appearance in the Football League Trophy. In my personal opinion it was premature, but the article itself worked hard to justify its existence, making it far less contentious and problematic than the hundreds if not thousands of stubs with less than, say, ten qualifying appearances.

Perhaps an alternative way of doing this is to add to NFOOTBALL something along the lines of "for players who have only played a handful of games, additional sourcing should be used to help demonstrate the notability of their appearances." —WFC— 00:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If it was me, you may be thinking of Jimmy Haarhoff's one minute in the second division. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

WFC - I think slightly changing the wording of NFOOTBALL so that the GNG is given more importance is the way forward here. Your wording sounds good. Giant Snowman 07:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How many sources are we proposing then. If its more than say two that actually changes it more dramatically. Then you go down the route where older say late 1800's who may only have a small number of sources how would you propose we would deal with that. Obviously they are not BLP's do thats probably a mute question. Basicly what I'm thinking is we need to take baby steps with this and see how it goes. Edinburgh Wanderer 08:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

We are taking baby steps, and that's why we shouldn't say Player A has made X apps so only needs B amount of sources, while Player C has made Y apps so needs Z amount of sources. Just adhere by the rule that the more sources, the better. Giant Snowman 10:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well obviously the more sources the better, as I don't create articles from the past it's generally not going to be hard to add multiple sources. I still think it needs to have a minimum level however. I'd also say more sources the better is a guide rather than a rule. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

EW: does an addition to NFOOTBALL along the lines I proposed above work for you? I've rephrased it slightly: "For players who only participated a handful of games, the sourcing should demonstrate the notability of their appearances." I chose "handful" very deliberately, because even if we were to agree on some arbitrary figure, I don't think it would be helpful. —WFC— 19:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Even handful leads to an arbitrary figure in peoples minds. I personally don't think we should be bringing number of appearances into it, at least not without more discussion. Previous discussions have gone down the no of appearance route have gone nowhere. Personally it should say all articles must include a minimum of two sources. Articles should contain as many sources as possible in order to help link NFOOTBALL to GNG. The rest should stay the same, however this is just my personal opinion and i think that is more in line with what Ramblingman's original post was intending like he said below multiple, reliable sources i.e. more than one. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TRM on most things, but he has gone down a completely illogical track here. Let's say we're writing an article on a League One player who has made three appearances, sourced to Soccerbase. Assuming those stats are complete, adding the corresponding ESPN statistics does precisely nothing for verifiability or notability. By contrast, adding a source to demonstrate that an organisation like ESPN, Sky, the BBC or a national press outlet have seen fit to write detailed reports, provide live commentary and televised highlights (delete as applicable) about those matches, goes a long way towards showing that this guy is more than just numbers, and might even throw up something worth writing that statistics alone would have missed. —WFC— 22:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

TLDR?

Just lost a long post (technical glitch). I'm struggling here, because of lack of time, a geologically slow computer and TLDR (between the above and the reams at SG's user talk). Stripping away the tangents, is this a call to editors to include two sources with new articles? If so, I'm not sure how two help. One source is enough to avoid speedy, but then again, so is a reasonable claim to notability. Two sources may help at AfD, but I'm sure we've all seen articles with two, three or more sources that pass our notability guidelines get deleted at AfD. What problem is this trying to fix? --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I assume the idea is that the barrier to entry would hopefully prevent us having train-wreck BLPs along the same lines as the folk who churn out 2345235 articles on Botswanan campsites based on pulling material from some database. Not fundamentally a bad idea, and I wouldn't shed a tear if ever DB-dump substub on the encyclopedia were deleted, but not one which is likely to ever get more than voluntary buy-in at this point considering the entrenchment of a part of the community which already believes insisting on one source is extreme. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Dweller - are there actually examples of player articles that meet NFootball being deleted at AFD? Eldumpo (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I know this AfD involved an article that passed NFOOTBALL, but I'm not aware of many others. Jogurney (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That AfD is a perfect example of an article technically meeting NFOOTBALL but community consensus realising it would never meet GNG and therefore it was deleted. It was correct to create the article, and it was also correct to delete it. Giant Snowman 17:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If NFOOTBALL differs (in practice) from the GNG, to the extent that people are encouraged to create many footballer microstubs which fall far short of the GNG, then why do we have NFOOTBALL at all? bobrayner (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case. I can only remember one AfD where a NFOOTBALL compliant article was deleted for being GNG non-compliant (the AfD linked above). I suspect 90% or more of NFOOTBALL compliant articles either do pass GNG or could pass GNG. We just have a lot of articles that do not comply with either. Jogurney (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In the cases where the NFOOTBALL test gives the same result as the GNG test, NFOOTBALL is merely redundant rather than actively harmful. If it's more redundant than harmful, that's an improvement I suppose, but still... why do we have NFOOTBALL at all? bobrayner (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

NFootball allows players meeting certain criteria (i.e. played in x league) to have an article without having to satisfy GNG, on the basis that the 'assumption' is that they could meet GNG, although they don't need to in practice. Eldumpo (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what? The benefit of NFOOTBALL is that we grant an assumption that footballers pass the GNG but when we find that they actually don't pass the GNG we use NFOOTBALL to keep them anyway? That's a problem. It's not a benefit. Why not just use the GNG? bobrayner (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As I've said above the problem with our NFOOTY for players is that the players notability is determined by how many hours a week they work, rather than how notable they are. Here is the list of leagues in which players a considered to meet GNG, [[34]]. Utterly ridiculous in my opinion. It seems that the people who wrote this didn't understand GNG, because only the leagues with a very large amount of coverage should automatically meet GNG. In my opinion we need to establish in which leagues the average player meets GNG (not that many) and for those ones players are automatically allowed in. Then have a second tier of leagues in which some, but not all players will meet GNG. In these cases the articles must be shown to meet GNG (not to0 strictly) through referencing. Then have a third tier in which players are very unlikely to be notable, but can have articles if they can shown to (strictly) meet GNG. When I previously proposed this I was told that tier 2 and 3 are the same, but that's the point. We need to have a grey area because it can never be black and white. Our current rules mean that many article creators are lazy and don't show them as meeting GNG. In all but the biggest leagues this will no longer be acceptable. And players in the biggest leagues are generally created with decent references or relatively quickly updated. Adam4267 (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the "fully-pro" standard was developed because editors believed it represented the bright-line for the tiers (fully-pro and not-fully-pro) you mention above. As you noted, the list of fully-pro leagues has some holes (e.g., I've never believed that the Russian or Greek third tiers belong), and I'm supportive of another bright-line if a reasonable one can be found (so far we have not been able to find one). The main purpose NFOOTBALL serves is to prevent a huge diversion of resources to AfDs since we don't need to debate GNG every single time. Jogurney (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The belief of editors you speak of was not based on any evidence as far as I'm aware, although I do understand the principle of trying to say that pro league players 'must' have inherent notability. The other problem is that 'fully pro' is not defined, and I don't see how it can be properly proven for given leagues. Eldumpo (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about Russia, but the Greek third tier is fully professional. However, it receives little coverage from solid reliable sources, comparing to the two tiers above it. Which is problematic, since it appears that being "fully pro" does not guarantee a GNG pass and can still warrant deletion. – Kosm1 fent 20:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Cosmos Munegabe was given above as an example of an international footballer who was deleted at AfD. Are there many examples of footballers who have played in a league listed at FPL, being deleted? Eldumpo (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This AfD definitely involved an article that passed NFOOTBALL and this one involved a person who very likely passed NFOOTBALL. I'm sure there's others, but they are pretty rare. Jogurney (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

They are few and far between but it does happen from time to time, but I'm sure that would be the case in most projects.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Break for older posts

I could be wrong, I don't think I am... but please don't ask me to remember specific examples. I'm short of time these days. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think all I was trying to reinforce was the requirement for "multiple, reliable sources", i.e. more than one.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Football league re-election

Does anyone know where I might find a reliable source for Football League re-elections? I know for sure that Watford faced re-election in 1927 and 1951, but the source I was using (which probably didn't meet WP:RS anyway) has died. It will probably be covered in the 1991 Watford history book, but I doubt I'll have access to that again for quite a while. In any case the answer will probably be useful to editors working on other clubs. Thanks in advance, —WFC— 11:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've always used this, which is probably quite reliable as several football historians use that forum, but not sure it meets WP:RS. Number 5 7 12:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the link – I'll use that as an interim measure because it's an improvement on what we have, but I agree that it doesn't meet the site's definition of an RS. Any other ideas? —WFC— 12:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got a book which has that data in, if I'm online tonight at home I will send you a ref you can cut and paste straight into an article :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be brilliant. Thanks! :-D —WFC— 15:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't get my wife and son off the %^£$&%^&*(()* computer last night, but will get you the info when next I'm on at home -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

For full coverage, the book you want is Denied F.C.: The Football League Election Struggles by Dave Twydell. However, for just 1927 and 1951, the following brief snippets from Simon Inglis' League Football and the Men Who Made It should do the trick:

(p132, about D3 South in 1927) Despite the group's recommendation that the Full Members re-elect them, Aberdare lost out in a controversial ballot to Torquay United. In the first vote, Watford (44 votes) had been unanimously returned, but Aberdare and Torquay tied, with 21 votes each. Then Sutcliffe found one spoilt ballot paper, so it was decided to take a second vote, which gave Torquay an advantage of 26 votes to 19... ...The other applicants, Kettering, Yeovil & Petters United and Ebbw Vale, mustered only 2 votes between them.

(p189, about 1951) In the Southern section, Chelmsford, Hereford United (making their first application), Llanelly, Peterborough and Yeovil also failed to attract any support, and Worcester (1), Merthyr (1) and Bath City (1) made little challenge to Watford (48) and Crystal Palace (45) who were both re-elected.

(full cite details: {{cite book|title=League Football and the Men Who Made It|first=Simon|last=Inglis|publisher=Willow Books|date=1988|isbn=0-00-218242-4}}) Oldelpaso (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Gah - you best me to it, Oldelpaso. Here's the details from the other book nonetheless: {{cite book|title=Denied F.C.: The Football League Election Struggles|first=Dave|last=Twdell|publisher=Yore Publications|date=2001|isbn=978-1-8744-2798-8|page=15}} for 1927 and page 18 for 1951. If anyone else wants details of when their team applied for re-election (far too many times in the case of my club!), just let me know..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Those are fantastic. Thanks to you both! —WFC— 20:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Just one thing: Watford F.C. currently says "Watford finished 21st in 1926–27, but were unanimously re-elected to the league after a ballot of the 44 Third Division clubs." - my understanding is that the ballot was not of Third Division clubs, but of Full Members (the clubs from the upper two divisions). Confusingly there were 44 of each. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You learn something new everyday. I've known about the re-election system for a long time, but until today had never read anything that would suggest that the voters weren't Third Division clubs. —WFC— 03:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

	Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP
	I got this message because I had commented in a RM regarding diacritics, and I thought I'd share it with all of you. If you are interested in the discussion regarding Diacritics in BLPs then feel free to go and comment. The picture is of Beyonce by the way, just in case you were wondering.

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. Adam4267 (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, I like the fact that you put Beyonce (pardon, Beyoncé) pic in it, her hair kind of reminds some diacritics, however I doubt any of us noteced her hair primarelly... FkpCascais (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

League clarification

I'm hoping someone could confirm whether National Premier Soccer League players meet WP:NFOOTY. I'm questioning the notability of this article specifically. Cheers for any help, --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on sourcing at WP:FPL, it seems the NPSL is highest level of soccer in the US that does not grant automaitc notability to players. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The players in the NPSL are not notable. I've AfD'd that article. TonyStarks (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Template help

I run a Wikia for my fantasy soccer league and I'd like to use Template:Football squad on said Wikia. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, it just doesn't work due to some issues with the navboxes and I'm not sure what to do. Can someone help me out? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 08:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Paddy McCourt

We are seeking consensus at Talk:Paddy McCourt regarding how much information about Paddy McCourt's brother should be on his article, but we only have 2 editors and 1 IP commenting. Further views would be appreciated. Giant Snowman 10:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Athletics and Portal:Sailing

I made two requests here for promotion to Featured portals. Any suggestion or contribution is welcome. Sorry for the intrusion into your project, but to promote discussion, otherwise stagnant, I was advised to do by the project coordinator. --Kasper2006 (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Order of national teams in infobox

Most players have a very logical progression when it comes to representing their country: they play for the U17's, then U18's, etc. until they reach the A team. However, what if a player makes his senior debut then goes on to play for a youth national team a year later? Do we list the senior national team first (based on year) or last (based on "seniority")? Personally, I find the first option much more aesthetically appealing but the infobox is meant to be chronological, which would support the second option. What do others think? TonyStarks (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Who says the infobox is meant to be chronological. Sure, that makes sense for the club career section, but for national teams, I usually put them in order of age group, regardless of debut date. For English national teams, I sort them in the following order:

U16
U17
U18
U19
U20
U21
England C
England B
England

Obviously England B doesn't exist right now, but there may still be players to whom it applies. There may also be instances of past players who have played for a league representative team (see Bobby Charlton). These league teams would go below any national teams. – Pee Jay 23:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you look at the "instructions" on the Template:Infobox football_biography which say under National Years: "A list of years that the player has been a participant in each national team, one per attribute, earliest to latest." (my bold). This is the only logical approach. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Does that make it "consensus"? TonyStarks (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's challenged it in years and it's by far the most widely-deployed interpretation (seeing as the documentation is not ambiguous in the slightest). So yes, it's the prevailing consensus. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough .. anyone, other than Pee, agree with me and feel like challenging this? TonyStarks (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think ordering by age group is best. -Koppapa (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"Best" for whom? Anything other than chronological ordering is both illogical and inconsistent with every existing article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, unless you've gone and changed every existing article you're wrong. Anything other than ordering by age group is just daft IMO. I think the main reason nobody has challenged the "instructions" in years is that hardly anyone has ever read them, not because they're any good. Big Dom 15:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm not particularly given to believing that articles typically go the other way at the moment, not least because it's an obscure edge case. "Just daft" doesn't address the arguments of chronology, consistency, or, well, any other arguments to the contrary either. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, chronological order is the only logical order, and ordering by age group is "daft". You could equally plausibly put up a case for arranging the clubs in alphabetical order. Why should one section (or two if the player becomes a manager) of the infobox be in chronological order and another in "age group" order? What is logical about that? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Cleanup listing

Hey folks,

Had a poke around some of our project pages and found that our automatic cleanup listing has stopped being generated. Looks like WolterBot has been offline for a couple of years. There seems to be a replacement service that we could opt into at User talk:Svick/WikiProject cleanup listing: is this something that we should be interested in doing? I imagine that the current listing is so out of date as to be useless. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, anything that means we can improve articles is always welcome. Giant Snowman 12:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If even one person finds that way of doing cleanup useful, then its a no-brainer. —WFC— 17:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Have to love cleanup. If anyone needs their cleanup fix, there is a section I set up recently here. Cloudz 679 05:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

we've got a listing, folks. A mere 43,000 pages to tackle! A quick glance suggests some excellent low-hanging fruit for a bored and curious editor to pick. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Football League articles

After seeing a few discussions on the poor state of the season articles on The Football League I decided to make some changes.

I added a small infobox at the top for navigation purposes, brought the lead section to the top and moved the maps, which were obscuring the tables and messing up the formatting to the bottom of each division section. I also removed the question marks in the infoboxes and some unnecessary text in the "Final league tables and results" section.

See the 1967–68 article and how it was before I edited it.

Since I'm planning to do this for all the Football League season articles, I'm wondering if anyone has any comments or suggestions on what else I should change. --Kafuffle (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that the league tables are too wide and shouldn't be split into home and away sections. I didn't get round to making the changes I planned due to lack of time recently... Number 5 7 16:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the home and away stats being separated is necessarily a problem, It's how the BBC display tables, for example. The width is certainly a problem at lower resolutions, but I'm not sure how to solve it without throwing away a lot of useful information (on European qualification and so on). There are the 1967–68 in English football articles which have narrower tables.--Kafuffle (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked exactly what you changed but the problems I have with it were all in the original version anyway i think- tables too wide, too much colour/detail relating to Euro etc, maps taking up too much space, and not sure we need tnis London/UK split? Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice work Kaf.--Echetus Xe 21:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Miles better! I'd like to see the end of those London maps though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Translation

Hi, I'm french WP reader. Somebody can translate me fr:Maillot de l'équipe de France de football please. Is it France national football team body right ? Thank you. --Guiggz (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's France national football team jersey. (at least that's what Google told me) – Kosm1 fent 09:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for translation. I will create on my user page and after, i will show you to correct. My english is very bad ;) --Guiggz (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

C'est vrai - "maillot" en Anglais est "jersey" ou "shirt". "Body" est "corps" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Apres avoir vu l'article en Français, je crois qu'un meilleur titre serait France national football team colours - l'article en Français traite les shorts et les bas, non seulement les maillots...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OK for France national football team colours. I create on my user page. I know it is a stub but I can't do better. If it is good, I will create and I will add "colours" in the template. Thank you for yours answers. --Guiggz (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have taken this to PROD, per WP:NOTIMAGE. Giant Snowman 16:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian Women's Premier League article titles.

Hello there. I asked this question a couple of weeks ago at the women's task force, but haven't gotten any answer, so I'm trying here insted: Some time ago I moved all Toppserien articles from "Toppserien 20**" to "20** Toppserien", but as you can see from Category:Toppserien I did not move the articles before it was named Toppserien. And the reason for not moving those is that I don't know what should be the correct name. When moving those, should I simply move from "Norwegian Premier League 19** (women's football)"" to "19** Norwegian Premier League (women's football)" or should I use another name like 19** Norwegian Women's Premier League or should I keep the paranthese like 19** Norwegian Premier League (women). Same goes for 2011 Norwegian First Division (women) (second tier), I guess the naming convention should be the same for those. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say 19** Norwegian Premier League (women) is good. But it doesn't really matter much. -Koppapa (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

For comparison, the women's Bundesliga articles are also named "xxxx–xy Fußball-Bundesliga (women)", see Category:Fußball-Bundesliga (women) seasons; your proposed naming scheme should hence be okay. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 07:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I've moved the remaining articles. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed delete France national football team colours

Hi, can a guy says me where is article deletion of this article please. I look on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 24 and I don't find it and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France national football team colours don't be created.

If it is speedy delete, I just want say you : I am french WP writer and I don't know write english, so i just put the historic of image of jerseys. I know it is a stub but you can look the french article and understand the article can be writed so much better with many parts, many references, ... and not just fifteen jerseys without text like actually. If a guy wants to write better, he can. If nobody wants write better, you can delete this article. Good afternoon. --Guiggz (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I am the editor, and the article is simply WP:PRODed. You are free to remove the tag if you disagree with the deletion. Giant Snowman 17:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Zidane youth stats

Zidane's article only lists his caps with the French senior team and does not list his stats with the French youth national teams. The French version of the article has those stats but I am not sure what the source is. Anyone know where we can find those stats? It's somewhat surprising to see that the article of such a famous player is missing information like that. TonyStarks (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

FFF website? Giant Snowman 13:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I checked there but couldn't find anything, it only has his caps with the A team. TonyStarks (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

RSSSF has a list of U21 lineups but I count 23 appearances for Zidane. Playerhistory - usually good on French stuff - has yet another figure, 18. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Champions navbox

Hey, just stumbled across Template:2008-09 Turkish Super League Winners and I seem to recall this project isn't a huge fan of league champions navboxes, so I thought I'd let you guys know about it. Jenks24 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, now at TfD. Giant Snowman 08:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of FK Lyn

A sportsclub's top-level football department is bankrupted, and the supporters and some of the players embraces the amateur section of that same sports club, which eventually is promoted to become notable on it's own. What should be done with the article(s)? Have one article which is about both the bankrupted section and the "new" section, or have two different articles about each section? Join the discussion here. (This is not canvassing, I'm just trying to get some attention to this discussion so we might reach a consensus for future cases like this) Mentoz86 (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Josep Guardiola

Just giving you guys a heads up that there's a discussion to move Guardiola's article to Pep Guardiola. Seeing as how he's a football coach, I figured the WP:FOOTY community would be best suited to provide some input. For anyone that wants to add their contribution, the discussion can be found here. TonyStarks (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Journalism?

Hi there folks, my first input since returning to active is not a complain or a project for development, but this "thoughts of brilliance" i found i'd like to share:

i don't if it's the correct word, but do you know what the TOP STORY (biggest news of the day, the one that it's the first broadcasters speak about, i think it's how you say it) was today at 13.00 pm in the SIC channel's news? "José Mourinho sees penalty shoot-out on his knees", then proceding to speak of the faith and devotion of the man!! Dead serious, did not see it my father told me, i'm lost for words at this people, not the first time i see/hear this, i remember when Cristiano Ronaldo was officially presented at the Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, the same channel started "working" with a 2 HOUR (!!) coverage of him kicking a ball and waving at the crowd...

I seriously expect users who read this and want to get into the journalism (written or spoken) world do not feel discouraged (and those already in it not insulted). However, this is not journalism, this is NOTHING! With the wars, the famine, the crisis, the politicians gambling, this is the TOP NEWS in my country? Pityful, don't these people know what the SPORTS section is :) ?

Sorry for my outburst (in a strange way, it is mildly connected to WP, if that piece was conveyed here, it would be immediately removed due to NPOV/WEASEL/whatever), if anybody feels this has to be removed from WP:FOOTY, please be my guest(s) and keep up the good work.

Attentively, good to be back - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

An example of WP:ROUTINE, maybe? Giant Snowman 16:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Could be, yes. But in my book, the top story status indicates that: Mourinho on his knees and Ronaldo with his greasedup hair waving at the crowd and showing his cuadriceps is more important than: people losing their jobs, natural disasters, the Breivik trial, politics overall (i don't care particularly - more ZERO - about the latter, but i acknowledge its HUGE impact on society). Also, if i understood something about WP:ROUTINE, it mentions something to the effect of these "light" stories being at THE END of the broadcasts, not at THE BEGINNING. Like i said my friend, pityful... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, have a peek at the main search engine in my country (here http://www.sapo.pt/) to see what's the most important thing right now happening in Portugal. The most bizzarre, there are seven sections (HEADLINES, SPORT, ECONOMY, LIFE, TECHNOLOGY, VIDEOS and LOCAL), but SPORTS often (like in 99% of the cases) go into HEADLINES instead of in their due department. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignorance has been present in our world in XL quantities, at least that is what my friend Chullage has been saying this for some time now ;) Btw, Sporting does deserve its share of news tonight. They fought bravelly and if I could I would have been in the airport cheering for them now. FkpCascais (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"[It seems] Mourinho on his knees and Ronaldo with his greasedup hair waving at the crowd and showing his cuadriceps is more important than: people losing their jobs, natural disasters, the Breivik trial, politics overall" - Bread and Circuses mate. Football is great, but it amazes me the amount of people here in Spain treating the recent double Champions League elimination as a "disaster for Spain" without having ever used the same kind of emotive language to lament the fact that the Spanish economy is in ruins (24% general unemployment, 50% of under 25s out of work and doing nothing, harsh new labour laws, austerity measures and corruption galore). Football and sport in general are great, they help us take our minds off the larger problems of life for a little while. Pathetic coverage of football celebrities and their fortunes/misfortunes should never take precidence over "real news". Headline football coverage should be restricted to stuff like major championship wins, corruption scandals or terrible disasters. The presentation of weak minded football "analysis" as headline news pisses me right off and I'm a huge footy fan. At least wikipedia tries to maintain decent content guidelines aimed at preventing this kind of lowest possible grade celebrity fixated analysis and blatant speculation even making it onto football related articles, let alone onto the Wikipedia front page. King of the North East 13:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Bergkamp

Salut -- I'm currently having a crack at cleaning up Bergkamp's article, which badly needs an 'Early life' section. While I have found the necessary sources, I'm having trouble identifying his mother's first name. Thought searching his father's name 'Wim' would lead me in the right direction but it hasn't. Likewise typing search keywords in Dutch. So, any ideas? I don't think he even has an authorised biography. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Tonnie? [35] Dr. Vicodine (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Will have a look at this now. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)