Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 80

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 75

←

Archive 78

→

Alessandro Del Piero

I am having a dispute with Marcosax3 (talk · contribs) at Alessandro Del Piero, with him reverting my removal of the 'Career totals' section from the 'Career statistics'. This content is excessive, non-standard and is against established consensus here regarding what we include in 'Career stats' sections. This seems to be a case of WP:OWN but I just want to make sure I'm right in removing this content. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirect discussion

Redirect discussion on the page Subroto Cup is taking place here. If you would like to give your opinion then please do so. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Templates about Ghana

I would like to know who were footballers who participated for Ghana at 1968 AfCoN (finalist) and 1970 AfCoN (finalist). I tell you that because I have seen two templates about Black Stars, which aren't completed. Who can give me the informations? Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how reliable it is, but there is a squad list here without squad numbers. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!!--FCNantes72 (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You can get lineups for Ghana's 1968 finals matches here 1970 finals matches here. Jogurney (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

C.D. Chivas USA moved by admin to Chivas USA despite objections from WikiProject Football

It was explained both in the discussion and in a separate section on the article's page that this logic for the move would affect several other MLS club articles and many other English-language articles. Please be prepared for the fall-out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "WP:FOOTY decides its own rules" is going to cut it when it comes to contesting the closure. "The consensus was judged incorrectly" just might have worked. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 22:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps we can focus on the precedent rather than on my stupid actions. This move opens the road for Manchester United F.C. to be moved to Manchester United, Chelsea F.C. to be moved to Chelsea, Arsenal F.C. to be moved to Arsenal, or some DAB without the football club initials in the name, and one editor stated as much. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The only precedent the Chivas USA move has established is that each football team article should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. This will probably only affect team names such as Manchester United (unless there is a good reason for the "F.C." to be included in the title), but leave others (such as Chelsea F.C. and Arsenal F.C.) unaffected given that their names without the "F.C." (or other similar abbreviation) conflict with other articles. Best Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed (although even that is a big precedent). I'm in favour of the move by the way, on the grounds that it of the main measures of article naming, "Chivas USA" is equal to or better than "C.D. Chivas USA" on four out of five counts.

If there is a general opinion that the call was iffy, we should consider Wikipedia:Move review. If there is a clearly expressed general view that the debate itself was flawed, we could relist the discussion once that move review is complete. But whatever the hell happens, in the meantime I think it would be wise to refrain from similar move requests. What we need at this point is clarity going forward; creating move requests such as Manchester United F.C. --> Manchester United until we have that clarity would be a very bad idea. I repeat, I would be in favour of that move eventually, but we should make sure we know where we are before opening the floodgates. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 13:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Walter, you stated in post-move comments, "The football project voted overwhelmingly not to move." Where did that vote occur? --BDD (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

On the article's talk page. I notified individuals here and those from the project who voted there stated that the move should not happen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd hardly call it 'overwhelmingly'; I would say it was 50/50 at best with the slight edge to moving it. If you think that the decision was incorrect then there are ways to challenge it. It strikes me that when looking at the clubs official website [[1]] they don't use the CD outside the URL.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You're missing a key word. There are people who voted there who are not active on the football project. Those who are part of the project voted against the move. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Since when do the opinions of "official" project members count more than anyone else's? Football is one of my main areas of editing; I simply don't formally attach myself to many WikiProjects. I can respectfully disagree with your position on the move itself, but this implication of a hierarchy is out of line. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we going to leave the name be? I.e. no move review etc? A lack of pushback on this matter would suggest to me that a bigger move request (such as the one mentioned above) is the logical next step. If on the other hand there is likely to be a move review in the relatively near future, it would obviously make sense to wait. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 13:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It is the logical next step and has just started: Talk:Seattle Sounders FC#RM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Repeated reverts and possible sockpuppet at Chivas USA

User:Kyumatte (contrib) is constantly reverting edits to make the lead of Chivas USA read:

Club Deportivo Chivas USA is an U.S.-based professional soccer club located in the Los Angeles suburb of Carson, California, subsidiary of the Mexican club C.D. Guadalajara, which competes in Major League Soccer (MLS).

The article should read "...an American based professional soccer club..." but Kyumatte keeps reverting it.

[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

Kyumatte isn't the only one to perform these reverts. I find it suspicious that User:Kaizjose (contrib) has done the same in the past.

[6]
[7]

Looking at both users' contributions, they are both active in Mexican articles. Could they be sockpuppets? --MicroX (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Although it certainly is suspicious that the edits of one user ends (Kaizjose) when the other begins (Kyumatte), accusing them of sockpuppetry at this point is too premature. Their disruptive behavior, if continued, should be enough of a justification for blocks (which, hopefully, won't be necessary).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

He's been blocked along with his other sockpuppet User:Scalkanes. --MicroX (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hardbody F.C

Dear football enthusiasts: Here is an old Afc submission that will soon be deleted as abandoned. Is there something worth rescuing here? Sorry, I know nothing about football. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, having played in the top division in Zimbabwe, the club is definitely notable. Number 5 7 15:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps someone here could take this on. I am not competent to do it. A football is the one with the pointy ends, right? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

this is an American football, while this one is used in "our" game. ;) Mentoz86 (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Aha! One of those almost went through my windshield the other day when I was driving past a soccer field, leaving streaks of white paint behind. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I will do it but a lot of work is going to be needed to make it look good. The references don't even work! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"Soccer" in Australia

'Tis an ongoing battle that football fans in Australia have over the use of the term "Football" in this country. Fans of other codes of football (specifically AFL and Rugby League) feel that Footy is claiming ownership of the term "football" and have successfully campaigned to have Football related articles changed from Football -> Soccer -> Association Football -> Soccer over the past 6 years or so. It is getting ridiculous. Inevitably, it has been brought up again to change all references back to "football" and I would request some assistance (be it in support or comment]] from the WP:Footy group in the discussion: Talk:Soccer in Australia#Requested move again. Even if this does get passed, I'm not sure how we can just arrive at a permanent solution. Many thanks in advance Ck786 (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It may pay to have a read of WP:CANVASSING. Hack (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Penalty miss in matchinfo

Hi

From what i understand we should not show penalties that is missed unless it is in a penalty shutout, but i cant find earlier discussions about this. I can only find this discussion and this edit. The reason i ask is that someone keeps making this edit. Can someone confirm this or should we have a discussion now? QED237 (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary IMO, unless we're going to start noting every time someone misses an open goal..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Only events that actually contributed directly to the score should be listed, so no bookings or sendings-off either, just actual goals. – Pee Jay 22:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

CfD for Women's football leagues in Norway

Hi there. Category:Women's football leagues in Norway is up for discussion here and your input is appreciated. I've listed it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves, but it looks like those TfD's and CfD's don't get that much attention. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Infobox football club

An editor has suggested some changes to {{Infobox football club}}. Probably worth getting some thoughts on the talk page. Cheers, Number 5 7 17:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Scottish Professional Football League players

OK, I'm a little confused with this category because it's showing players who played in either the Premiership, the Scottish Championship, League one or League Two. This doesn't make much sense to me. There were times when I was thinking about creating a category that only shows players who have appeared in a Scottish Premiership match which would mean that Category:Scottish Professional Football League players would feature players who have appeared in one of the lower divisions of Scottish football. But then I found out that it wouldn't work because of the fact that both the Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football League merged to form the new Scottish Professional Football League during the offseason. So for me, I think the best option would be to split this into four separate categories. One that contains players who appeared in the Scottish Premiership, another with players who appeared in the Scottish Championship, and then another with players who appeared in League 1 and one that contains players who appeared in League 2. Just my opinion, but what do you guys think? – Michael (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The SPL and the Football League were entirely different league organisations not just levels so had to be two cats. The SFL only had one player cat for all three leagues that were contained within it. Whilst i agree you could have four sub cats of Category:Scottish Professional Football League players it would be a change to previous cat convention. Had thought about doing it myself when created the main cat but had doubts about it.Blethering Scot 22:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as BS says the previous SPL/SFL were two seperate organisations (hence the two sets of categories), whereas the SPFL has united them (hence one set of categories). Giant Snowman 08:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Guys, I know the SPL/SFL were two seperate organizations. But the fact that they merged as the SPFL makes me wonder whether or not Category:Scottish Professional Football League players should be a container cat with four subcategories containing players from each division. – Michael (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there any other leagues for which we take this approach? Pretty sure we don't have separate categories for the Championship, League One and League Two......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the major continental leagues (eg France, Germany and Italy) have the top two or three divisions under the same organisation, but the player categories are separated by division (ie Bundesliga footballers, 2. Bundesliga footballers, 3. Liga footballers, etc). I guess the problem with England and Scotland (SFL) is that it would be quite hard to go back and work out which division each player actually played in. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we're on the same page here. I'm not talking about England or France or Germany or any other country. I'm talking about Scotland and the newly formed Scottish Professional Football League which is one single organization that contains the Premier League, Championship, League 1 and League 2. The English Premier League/Football League are two separate organizations and of course Jmorrison mentioned that some of the continental leagues that have multiple divisions under the same organization, which England of course has with the Championship, League 1 and League 2, but they didn't merge with the Premier League, so I'm not worrying about that. – Michael (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet it doesn't matter whether they merge as those lower leagues are all part of one organisation the Football league so they only have one cat. Ive no objection but the argument is no different whether they merge or were created as one organisation.Blethering Scot 16:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There should be one category for players in all 4 divisions of the league system, otherwise it gets far too messy. Giant Snowman 16:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Created

It seems whilst this was going on they have been created anyway as subcats.Blethering Scot 16:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:CFD? Giant Snowman 08:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Page moves over create protection

Could any admins about please move Sergiu Cristian Popovici to Sergiu Popovici and Sou Yaty (Cambodian footballer) to Sou Yaty. In both cases, the WP:Common name was create protected due to excessive sockpuppetry, but the current versions of the articles both appear to be appropriate. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Number 5 7 08:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

FC Mostransgaz Gazoprovod Speedy Deletion

Hey, I need your help!

I created the article of FC Mostransgaz Gazoprovod, a defunct club with everything (the football infobox, the achievements, the explaination for a defunct club) and it was marked for speedy deletion. I already made an argument on it, arguing that it is notable because it appeared in the other article: List of football clubs in Russia, appeared in the Russian 2002 First Round, and that it's already notable in the other languages of Wikipedia (Polish and Russian Wikipedias).

Could you please help me defeat this speedy deletion tag? Hisakiwa21 (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 15:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Heads up...

...over a user who insists on repeatedly adding unsourced content, and when asked to provide sources just mouths off. Just so anyone who comes across this user is aware they have previous. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I've had a word. Giant Snowman 18:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Khandoba Talim Mandal Football Club

Dear football fans: Above is another old draft that may be of interest. Let me know if it should just be deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be deleted, it doesn't have any indications of the notability and last sentence has said it all: "Never appeared in a official AIFF tournament" and I feel that it's created to impress the other friends anyway. Hisakiwa21 (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have tagged it. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Starting XI in Season articles

Hello.. this has been discussed here before but I just want to be 100% sure that I am right to remove Starting XI from Season articles as it's clear WP:OR. Agree with me? JMHamo (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Giant Snowman 18:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless sourced properly, but that is highly improbable. CRwikiCA talk 18:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well let's talk about 2013–14 Arsenal F.C. season for now.. I removed the Starting 11 section and it was reverted, so rather than risk 3RR, could somebody else please remove it. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Times like this I wish football had the equivalent of an American football depth chart. That would make things a lot easier. – Pee Jay 12:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A starting line up has been included in previous articles and the most frequent starters can be referenced to the appearances table in the same article in every case. So can someone explain why a consensus has been made to remove it from the article? It serves as a visual representation of the most commonly used formation which is useful when there is a healthy competition for places within a side. On what basis did people want it removed? Thanks (PS: don't take this the wrong way please - I just want an explanation :) ) Ricky Sen (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Read this archived discussion. Hopefully you get your answers here... JMHamo (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Football is not baseball or gridiron where the starting positions are essentially fixed. In football, with formations which can change from game to game plus the element of squad rotation, you could end up with a "most common starting XI" which never actually took the field together, which IMO is nonsense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

With the best will in the world, a single starting 11 is going to be misleading for reasons stated. However, I agree with the value of a visual representation being valuable.

As a positive compromise, I have found a simple appearance table showing match by match lineups could work well, ie one with dates/games down one side and a list of players across the top, then giving position codes rather than squad numbers for the player. It visually helps show how a player has been used, and the common lineups. A starting position would maybe be the best point of defining the position, with flexibility if another position is the main one used. Subs can be marked in (parenthesis). It is also possible to include say a red dot to indicate a player having an injury that excludes them for a given game. Cjwilky (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Still no - player positions are not fixed. John Smith starts the match as a right back, then is moved to centre-back after 30 mins. In the second half he is pushed up a defensive midfielder position, before being put on the wing for the last 10 minutes. What position would you mark him, where would he feature in the end-of-season Starting XI table? Giant Snowman 22:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Youth team loan deals

Oliver McBurnie is a youth player at Bradford City (he signed his first pro contract yesterday) and has been for a number of years - but last month he spent time with Man Utd, playing for them in the Milk Cup and finishing the tournament as joint top-scorer. His time at Man Utd is described as "work experience" by both the club and the local paper. Personally I treat "work experience" for young players as a loan deal, as normally it is to the first-team of a non-league team, e.g. John Marquis. However, because McBurnie's deal was between two youth teams, how should it be displayed in the infobox, if at all? Giant Snowman 11:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd just mention it in the body of the article, playing in a couple of pre-season matches for a youth team on a glorified trial doesn't seem like something important enough to go in the infobox. BigDom (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's before his first-team involvement, it can go in the youth section, if it's after then in the career section with 0 appearances and 0 goals. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Che1563

Keep an eye out for this editor. I've reverted several cringeworthy "playing style" descriptions, possibly the best of which is this one. - Dudesleeper talk 13:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've left him a message. Giant Snowman 13:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

2013–14 Manchester City F.C. season

Hi

There is something wrong with 2013–14 Manchester City F.C. season, Everything is centered. I have tried looking at it, but cant find the error. Probably I am to tired. Whould appreciate if anyone can take a look. Thanks! QED237 (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It still looks ridiculous in my opinion. I am tempted to remove it completely... JMHamo (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the jerseys where still centered. QED237 (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. But I still don't think it looks good.Maybe it's better to remove the kits?L smll 04:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Got rid of the breaks and put the kits in a single row table so that it doesn't hover over the next section. I was looking at the squad table and noticed under nationality only a flag is present. Shouldn't it be better to display

ENG or

England? The Template:Fb si player could use some changes. User:PeeJay2K3 was discussing that age, contract information, transfer fees aren't exactly relevant and I agree. The creator of that template hasn't been active since 2010 and either we could agree upon changes or just stop using it and use something simpler and more direct. --MicroX (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Football MOS

What happened to the proposal to review and update the various football MOS that was floated earlier this year? Did it progress anywhere? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/2013 review? There's been no edits for 2 months... Giant Snowman 12:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd not even seen that - to gain traction it'd need to be more visible as I'd guess most editors don't even know it's there. How to do that is another matter? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel like I dropped the ball on this one. How about we add some sort of hatnote to the project pages to increase exposure? – Pee Jay 12:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No blame intneded. Some sort of promo banner across the top of the page should hopefully serve to keep it in the general consciousness.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Problems with Juventus F.C.?

Juve10 (talk · contribs) just posted the following to my talk page:

Hello, I just wanted to bring to your attention a major issue with regard to the Juventus article. There are multiple flag images of various countries, amongst other icons in place throught the page in areas where other photos, crests, and icons are originally in place. I am not sure how this is occuring because the icons are not in Wikipedia format, nor are they in the edit history of the page. I am not sure if this vandalism is taking place any where else, but I noticed it upon updating the current squad. Interestingly, when the page first load, the regular images are there but within a second or two, these other blurred images appear. I appreciate your help and I just wanted to bring it to the attention of a senior Wikipedia member. I hope you are able to address the issue.

And on the same issue, made the following comment in an edit summary:

I would like to point out the vandalism at the top of this page. Someone added a Brazil flag covering the Juventus crest, as well as Croatian logos next to the match kits. I was unable to correct the problem.

For me the page displays normally, so I'm not entirely sure what to tell him. Is anyone else experiencing the same problem or knows what's going on here? Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any issues (like floating flags) either. Tell him to print screen what he sees and upload the image to an image hosting site so we may see. --MicroX (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I also can't see anything out of the ordinary...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither can I, though we may want to ask the user who reported the problem whether they are experiencing it on other pages. – Pee Jay 10:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Baptiste Aloè

Hello. Good name of Baptiste Aloè is Baptiste Aloé but Baptiste Aloé was deleted. So, I think I can't rename the article. If an user can do this ? Thank you.

(I am french WP user and Olympique de Marseille supporter) --Guiggz (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I test to rename in Baptiste Aloé and there is no problem. I change also the name in Template:Olympique de Marseille squad. Baptiste Aloè is now a redirect. --Guiggz (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello @Guiggz:. Baptiste Aloé was deleted for failing WP:GNG and I am sorry to say that the new article Baptiste Aloé is also going to fail WP:GNG in my opinion. I have tagged it for PROD. When he makes his first team début, you can then request that the article is reviewed. JMHamo (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the article under WP:CSD G4 as an almost identical recreation of an article deleted by AfD where the original reason for deletion was still valid. Wait until he makes his professional debut before creating it again. BigDom (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Assuming this is the AfD in question, the new article may well have been an almost identical recreation, but the AfD is dated August 2012, and the subject made his professional debut for OM in the Europa League group stages in October 2012. So the original reason for deletion isn't still valid, even if the recreated article didn't yet reflect that. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I did check for European appearances before deleting but the UEFA website showed he had played 0 games so I deleted it assuming that he hadn't yet made an appearance in any senior competition. Which game did he play in? I can undelete it if he did. BigDom (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Marseille 5 AEL Limassol 1. Played 90 minutes and got booked. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Against AEL, confirmed by SOccerway. Giant Snowman 15:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Fair enough, I just didn't check any further after seeing the 0 because there didn't seem any need to. An honest mistake; I'll undelete it straight away. BigDom (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dom. I'll add a sentence about his pro debut, if no-one gets there first. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need another article about someone who played a grand total of 90 minutes of professional football? Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt there's much coverage in reliable sources about him. Jogurney (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I only undeleted it because G4 was no longer applicable because he technically passes NFOOTBALL; feel free to put the article up at AfD if you like. BigDom (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

A second AFD was opened then quickly withdrawn. Giant Snowman 17:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Club nicknames

Is there a convention regarding the use of abbreviations or shortened versions of the club names in the nicknames field of the football club infobox? If not, can we set a consensus over this issue? I don't think that, for example for D.C. United, nicknames like "United" or "DCU" should be included in the infobox, since they are only variations of the club name. A recent edit such as this is the reason why I am asking this question. BaboneCar (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Are the/any nicknames supported by reliable sources? For what it's worth the Manchester United F.C. article - a Featured Article btw - does not have "United" as a 'nickname' in the infobox, even though that shortening is quite well used in the UK for them. Giant Snowman 13:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there are sources out there for that example. I remember a high profile incident where a club from Manchester played a club from Leeds, and a very well known radio commentator decided that it might be a good idea to use the word "United" to refer exclusively to one team. It did not go unnoticed in the mainstream media, although Google is not great for digging up sources in situations where every word of every plausible search term is widely used. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 00:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

So long as, e.g., "Rob" is a nickname for "Robert", then I don't see why a common shortened informal version of a team's formal name should not be considered a nickname. JohnInDC (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A club is not a person, and where do you draw the line, for both of them? Robert becomes Rob, Robbie, Bob, Bobby, Roberto, Bobert etc. Giant Snowman 15:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Clubs are not people, no, but that's sort of a non sequitur. You draw the line where the common usage ends. "Robert Burns" was known as "Robbie", not "Bob".

Also for what it's worth, Tottenham Hotspurs shows "Spurs" as an infobox nickname, and Sheffield Wednesday, "The Wednesdays". JohnInDC (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The nickname infobox field was not intended for abbreviations of the name or for words that are part the name. In the given example, "United" is exactly a part of the club's name. "Spurs" and "The Wednesdays" are good examples which differ from their clubs' names, therefore they are relevant. BaboneCar (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

How is "Spurs" not an abbreviation of "Tottenham Hotspur"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

To be more precise, I am referring to acronyms formed from the club name's initials. BaboneCar (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Before you resume removing shortened names or initials from teams' nicknames, you need to gain consensus. Judging by the existing articles there is none - lots of editors see it differently than you. E.g. Leeds City -> "City"; Manchester City -> "City", Blackburn Rovers -> "Rovers", Crystal Palace -> "Palace". (I'll bet there are scores more similar examples.) DC United had "DCU" until you removed it; Toronto FC had "TFC", until you removed it; likewise Real Salt Lake and RSL, FC Dallas and FCD, Sporting KC and SKC. A nickname is a shortened or familiar version of a name. This includes initials - FDR, JFK, RGIII. There is no consensus that that sort of common usage is inappropriate to football clubs at all, and certainly none that such usage is so inappropriate that such nicknames need to be removed on sight. Indeed the only argument I've seen here to explain why the common sense of the word "nickname" doesn't apply to football clubs like it does to people is the spurious one that clubs aren't people. JohnInDC (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why we're bickering about this. If a nickname is often used for a club, whether in prose or in a 'nickname' field in an infobox in books or magazines, we should list it here (citing the source, of course). – Pee Jay 13:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Using United, City, Palace, Rangers etc as a nickname is like saying Alfred Trotter's nickname is Trotter. A nickname is an altered name (by definition). I recently edited the list of UK club nicknames and found the number of United'd etc a bit ridiculous to have listed. Yes, Man U do "own" the United tag, but no more than Oliver Cromwell owns the Cromwell tag - it doesn't make it his nickname.Cjwilky (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And QPR etc isn't a nickname either, its an acronym. "The Wednesday" has "The" infront of the second name, so doesn't really figure either IMO, and it's the old name for the club, as such it still doesn't count as a nickname, it's a former name. If we're using such things then it should really come under "other names". <added>"Spurs" would count as a nickname.</added>

The bottom line for me is sticking true to the definition of "nickname" AND avoiding unnecessary clutter.Cjwilky (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If an acronym is commonly used to refer to a club then it's a nickname, even if it's an acronym. Lots of clubs aren't referred to with acronyms, for whatever reason (take for example the Seattle Sounders), so when they are, it is a nickname and is properly noted. It's a shortened, familiar way of talking about the club. It doesn't matter if it's an acronym, it's still a nickname. And all this hairsplitting is not only arbitrary but silly - "The Wednesdays" is a nickname because it has a "The" in it; "Spurs" is okay because it's not the whole word "Hotspurs", but "DCU" and "TFC" aren't nicknames because they're just initials. (Like, again, JFK, FDR, RGIII.) If I call them "The DCU" (as many commentators mistakenly do) is that now a nickname? JohnInDC (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Wednesday" is the clubs old name, its not that it just has a "The" in front. I guess the question there is does using a clubs old name count as a nickname if it is commonly used? I suppose so. Generally sticking a "The" in front makes no difference at all in my mind. Colchester United are known as "The U's" - that's a nickname. I don't think this is splitting hairs at all, there is so much clutter in wiki, the better articles are well weeded - see gardening ;) Cjwilky (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I question the clarity and precision of a conclusion that "The Wednesday" is okay, even though the name of the club today is "Wednesday", because the prior name of the club was "The Wednesday" (I gather - this is all news to me), but "The United" would not be okay - and must be removed! - because it's just the name of the club, and "The" doesn't make any difference. I also am still struggling to understand why acronyms - which are not universally applied to clubs (I just remembered Miami Fusion) - are not a nickname when they are applied to clubs as familiar shorthand. "Acronym" and "nickname" are not mutually exclusive categories. JohnInDC (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So what I'm reading is that nicknames must be referenced.

And what about the addition of the unbulleted lists that appear to be of increasing visibility throughout Wikipedia infoboxes with rationale of WP:UBLIST and others that I've seen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Last night's League Cup highlights

Does anyone know where I might be able to see highlights of last night's games? Thanks, --Dweller (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

BBC 1 tonight at 23:35. Number 5 7 10:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, perfect, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Out of hand Liverpool 2013-14 season article

I am having a look at the 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season article and it's really gone crazy, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK applies here for sure. I am very conscious of edit warring that can occur if I just rip out sections, so I would like to get agreement on what should be removed please. I am thinking a lot of the Squad statistics section can go for various reasons. What do you think? JMHamo (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It is concerning that there is no prose about how Liverpool fared during pre-season, what their expectations were in the incoming season and of their two league wins. I understand this can be time consuming, but for a encyclopedia this should be emphasized. Something I happened to point out here, which the dedicated editors have since addressed, albeit with keeping various tables. As for the Liverpool article, the Under-21 section is not needed -- this is about the first squad. Goalscorers, Captains, Summary under 'Squad statistics' should be removed. Why is there a 'Squad and coaching staff Information' section? Likewise Backroom staff, it could be incorporated in prose to discuss about Rodgers' appointment the previous summer, who he signed, how Liverpool fared, who they signed this season (links in with transfers), et al. Ideally there should be a MOS for season articles in place. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that there should be an MOS for club season articles. Without getting too precious about articles I spent a lot of time on in the past, I really think that the Manchester United season articles should be the model for this. I'll admit they're not perfect, but a lot of other clubs' season articles contain far too much useless info, with people treating them like stats repositories rather than anything else. Who gives a shit when Branislav Ivanovic's current Chelsea contract expires in relation to the current season? Or when Luis Suarez signed for Liverpool? In stats sections, all that matters is how many appearances and goals were recorded by each player in each competition, possibly with the inclusion of disciplinary info. There's no need for info about dates of birth, previous club, total appearances/goals for the club, results by round, starting XIs, captains or any of that bollocks; it's just not relevant. – Pee Jay 16:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. The DOB may be okay to include but the rest isn't really necessary. --MicroX (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would the DOB be OK if nothing else is? It is completely irrelevant. The players' ages have nothing to do with the club's performance during the season. – Pee Jay 01:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

True but sometimes it is interesting to know the DOB of the squad members though the age will be irrelevant years from now. It isn't a big deal to me whether DOBs are included or not. Consensus should decide. After looking at 2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season, I'd say it is a good example to emulate and less clustered than these two. --MicroX (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2013‎

I have just removed international goals and appearances in the squad-table once again that an IP-user keeps adding, saying it is just additional information. My feeling is that it is totally not relevant information to have player national stats in an liverpool article. That belong to the player pages. Does anyone agree? Feel free to help me remove this part if it keeps coming back. QED237 (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Think it's overdone but as an aside, a lot of it is unreferenced or relying on folklore for its transfer fees. Many including Andy Carroll and Stuart Downing were undisclosed by the clubs. This article seems to have decided upon some fees it likes. Additionally where are the references (if indeed the info is needed) for the contract end dates? Can't ever remember see this sort of info tabulated for any club and it isn't referenced here. Needs culling.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Could anyone help me remove it again, since the IP user reverted back again? I dont want to get to close to 3RR. QED237 (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If we are (rightly) going to do this to one article then it needs to be applied to all of the articles systematically. I just looked at the last five of the Liverpool season articles and they all have some or all of the issues described here. I'm not picking on Liverpool here, I'm sure I could pick an old season article from any team and find some of these issues. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course it should be applied universally. We just need to watch out for the articles' regular editors who might be resistant to the change. – Pee Jay 21:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I just removed starting XI in 2013–14 Newcastle United F.C. season. It was inserting again now after removal for a few days ago. Lets see if someone reverts it again. QED237 (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I welcome these changes, but shouldn't this discussion has taken place on Talk:2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season? I think it is a bad habit that we tend to come to this page for "help" when they are at 3RR, instead of discussion the matter on the talk-page which is encouraged by WP:BRD. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay now something has to be done. The page is at total protection after editwarring when me and 3 other users reverted an IP-user (who later logged in) and this user was inserting assist-table 10 times. This user has not been blocked since admin say "content dispute" and just blocked the page. So this will probably continue when page gets unblocked. What should we do? QED237 (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume this is regarding the assists table? I agree it should not be there, but where is the documentation of the consensus that it should not be there? If you can find that, you obviously have recourse for action; if not, get it. – Pee Jay 22:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is about the assist table. I have not had the time do find any documentation yet, but I am trying to. If anyone finds anything, please let me know. QED237 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If the page has been fully protected indefinitely because of edit warring, it won't be unprotected until the subject of the edit war is discussed at the article's talk page, so I'd advise doing so. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Admin help request

Are there any Admins around to revert 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season back to the last good version by GiantSnowman and block IP 109.149.12.114 for breaking 3RR? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, calling for an admin to come and block the other editor which you've reverted three times isn't exactly what WP:BRD wants us to do. Why hasn't there been any discussion about this on Talk:2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season? Mentoz86 (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus was already reached about this earlier.. JMHamo (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, then you should try to show that consensus to the admin who fully protected the article due to a content dispute, or you can try to discuss the content dispute at Talk:2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season, so that the article again will be un-protected once a consensus has been reached. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

INTERNAZIONALE vs. INTER MILAN

I admit i know of the existence of previous discussions on this subject, but i also acknowledge i never took the trouble of reading them thoroughly, i should have, would have saved me some trouble in these lines now :)

First things first: page was moved from FC INTERNAZIONALE MILANO to INTER MILAN, so most of the users feel that's how the club should be addressed in the English WP. No grey area there. However, i have been given the time of day(s, months, years?) in some players (the ones related to Portuguese football, where i edit along with Spanish football(ers)), being reverted not to FC INTERNAZIONALE MILANO, the previous name, but to INTERNAZIONALE, which if i'm not mistaken was NEVER the page name here, was it (i have been an editor since late 2006, WP has been around since before)?

I have reverted (and been reverted) more than 50 times at Fredy Guarín, by a Colombian anon IP. My reason is none other than that of the WP:COMMONNAME, what is his? Same with User:Italia2006, i have notified both of the discussion, to see where they stand.

Final thoughts: is it really a big deal? I assume it is and club should be named as INTER MILAN here, otherwise the page would not have been moved (some people make undiscussed controversial moves, but that is not the case with this club, it was discussed at length). Again with the Guarín article as example (i am THE ONLY ONE reverting the changes there, along with Rolando (Portuguese footballer) and Álvaro Pereira), if we as a community feel it's the same to have INTER MILAN or INTERNAZIONALE in storylines/infoboxes/introductions, then i'll cease this futile warring and go about my business, no problem (but then i'll never understand 1 - why was the page moved; 2 - why is stuff reverted to INTERNAZIONALE and page was never named that way).

Attentively --AL (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The RM that resulted in F.C. Internazionale Milano being moved to Inter Milan was a travesty. No evidence was presented to show that "Inter Milan" is a more common nickname than 'Inter' or 'Internazionale', but the closing admin ignored that because all people cared about was the fact that "no one calls the club 'FC Internazionale Milano'". Had that evidence been presented at the time, the RM would no doubt have been closed without moving the page due to 'no consensus'. However, because it has been moved, there's no way to move it back because there's little evidence to support such a move, despite our naming conventions indicating that it should be named F.C. Internazionale Milano. Any chance WP:FOOTY could show some common sense and help revert the move before we start worrying about the consequences of the original move? – Pee Jay 18:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's rare that the name of an article about a football club on en.wiki is what we display. The opening line of the article says "commonly referred to as Internazionale or simply Inter, and colloquially known as Inter Milan outside of Italy", which says to me that Internazionale is the normal way, and a perfectly acceptable way, of referring to it. I don't see the point of insisting on using Inter Milan just because it was moved perversely to that title and the most recent RM discussion wouldn't move it back to FC Internazionale Milano. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Would a fourth move request be overkill? --MicroX (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Might be. Instead of having a another RM trying to move it to "FC Internazionale Milano" (the last discussion from March showed that there wasn't a consensus to move), it might be an idea to try out one of the two other common names. F.C. Internazionale and even Inter (football club) would be more suiting article-titles for the club. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"F.C. Internazionale" would be a good compromise since it gets rid of the "Milano" which isn't used often in English, but isn't colloquial on the level of "Spurs". I would give it a go. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 22:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be a compromise, but I wouldn't say it's a good one. It may not be a good indicator, but the copyright info on the club's official website says "F.C. Internazionale Milano", which is the ideal title (IMO). – Pee Jay 23:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The websites that User:PeeJay2K3 used to justify his Nürnberg move support Inter Milan and Internazionale about evenly (ESPN uses both). The one I am most familiar with is Inter Milan from television coverage.

http://www.tribalfootball.com/italian-serie-a/inter-milan#.Uh6mKhush8E
http://www.goal.com/en-us/teams/italy/2/inter?ICID=OP
http://sports.yahoo.com/fbit/teams/int
http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/seriea/teams/inter-milan/488
http://www1.skysports.com/football/teams/intermilan

http://espnfc.com/team/_/id/110/inter-milan?cc=5901

http://uk.soccerway.com/teams/italy/fc-internazionale-milano/1244/
http://www.theguardian.com/football/internazionale
http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50138/profile/index.html
http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=50138/index.html

5.5 to 5.5 (ESPN being both halves)EddieV2003 (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Good research. But goal.com uses "Inter", not Inter Milan. Mentoz86 (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Even better. This only goes to prove that "Inter Milan" (while being a common name) is not the common name used to refer to the club, hence why the page should never have been used in the first place and why we should rely on the "official" name now. – Pee Jay 08:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd support the move back to the old title but there are some things concerning WP:CRITERIA. F.C. Internazionale Milano fulfills consistency (i.e. using the full name) with similar articles and precision. It isn't as concise as Inter Milan, Internazionale or F.C. Internazionale. It isn't as natural as Inter Milan or Internazionale. As for recognizability, most users would recognize Inter Milan as we see the media saturated with this name instead of F.C. Internazionale Milano. However, this is what redirects are for, right? I would support F.C. Internazionale if a compromise is required. --MicroX (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how "F.C. Internazionale Milano" is any less recognisable than "Inter Milan". Plus, the argument "that's what redirects are there for" is a bad one, IMO, since you can use it to justify having an article at pretty much any title. I'd say it's better to have the article at the "official" title with a redirect from the colloquial names, since we cannot prove that any one of the colloquial names is overwhelmingly more commonly used than the other(s). – Pee Jay 09:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Juninho Pernambucano int. caps

There's been a bit of an edit war going on between me and another user on Juninho Pernambucano's page on how many caps he's had during his international career. Both NFT and RSSSF are saying that Juninho has capped 40 times and scored 6 goals for Brazil, but there are sources that talk about him signing with the Red Bulls saying that he capped 47 times. To me, I think the RSSSF link seems pretty obvious although it hasn't been updated in months. We're gonna need some help getting this all sorted out. Did he cap 40 times for 47 times? – Michael (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"Capped 40 times..." says fifa.com -Koppapa (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matt Eliason

Hello football fans! The above article will soon be deleted as a stale draft unless someone here cares to rescue it. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL and I wouldn't say he's particularly notable. As a farmer's son, I was slightly amused by the concept of an MLS combine though. I hope it's sponsored by John Deere. Number 5 7 13:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your evaluation. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Second place honours

I'm at 3RR with an IP at Bradford City A.F.C. who believes that coming 2nd in a major league/cup competition is not an honour. Further eyes/views appreciated please. Giant Snowman 10:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I just went to the article to add a view (FWIW, I agree with you that runners-up spots count as honours), and found no discussion or attempt at discussion on the talk page, and the anon blocked for vandalism. Are you sure you should have blocked them for vandalism over a content dispute that never went to the talk page? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a dispute, it was blanking of content. See WP:3RRNO. Giant Snowman 11:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Matter of opinion, I think. Serially excluding and re-including runners-up honours sounds pretty much like a content dispute to me... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If you feel my block was wrong please feel free to raise it at WP:AN. Giant Snowman 11:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you were a bit quick off the mark, especially after asking above for others' views, and BRD would have been a better approach. If the anon refused to discuss and kept reverting, it would have made it clear they were being disruptive. But I'm not going to report you anywhere. Surely we can express an opinion without having to do it on a drama board. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an editor who used 2 IPs to remove content 4 times before they were blocked. I posted on the talk pages of both IPs - and not just templates either - and still nothing. Should have I attempted a discussion on the article talk page? Maybe. Would it have made any difference? None at all. Giant Snowman 12:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Struway2: - now back with a third IP address... Giant Snowman 12:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Which means that in hindsight your block did no harm. You think you handled it right, I think you could have handled it better. It happens. I'd guess we're neither of us perfect. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Back to the main subject, IMO runners-up is not an honour, only winning something is. I have never included it in articles, and have removed it whenever I've edited an article. Number 5 7 18:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Silver medal at the Olympics? Giant Snowman 18:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If you can tell me which club has won a silver medal in the Olympics, then I'll change my mind. Number 5 7 18:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Brazil won silver medal at the 2012 Summer Olympics Definitely notable JMHamo (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but Brazil are an international team. We are talking about clubs here. Number 5 7 19:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So a country winning an honour is fine but a club is not? And to answer your question, the 1900 Olympic competition was competed by 3 club sides, and although no medals were officially awarded, the IOC considers that the British club won gold. Giant Snowman 19:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, honours are different for players, clubs and international teams. (and I was aware that in the early days of the Olympics club teams were entered, but they were entered to represent their countries, so the medal in theory belongs to GB not the club). Number 5 7 19:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So the players were runners-up in the FA Cup final but the club itself wasn't? Giant Snowman 20:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

TBH, I'm not sure it should be included for players either. Number 5 7 21:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I don't have a problem with the words at the club article styleguide: "Achievements of the club including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Then don't call it "second place", call it "finalist in the Blah Cup". Just getting there is noteworthy (and praiseworthy). JohnInDC (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Teams that finish second in the championship get a trophy to parade around with (and more importantly promotion) => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Struway2 and the club article style-guide. If a club has a large number of trophies then I don't see the harm in omitting second place, especially if they have placed second several times. Bradford City doesn't have that many trophies compared to other major clubs so the second-place wins should be included. Also, now that we are bringing up the matter, I have started a minor section in the talk page of the club article guide regarding how the information is presented because I noticed it was modified a while back and didn't really see a discussion. --MicroX (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up - the IP continues to block evade, and has now turned their attention to the Derby County F.C. article. Further eyes across all clubs welcome. Giant Snowman 10:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding my voice to those who agree that runner-up in a significant competition is an honour but one that may be omitted for clubs with lots of trophy wins. --Dweller (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Also present at Stoke and Forest. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 22:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This IP is at it tonight, vandalising many club articles... No honour coming second JMHamo (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to go through the full four warnings with these. Go to WP:AIV, reports them with something like:

Latest one of [[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 178.106.87.157|these serial vandals]], see history of {{la|Derby County F.C.}}, now protected against them, for more. Contrary to consensus, contrary to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs#Honours|project guidelines]] and contrary to attempted discussion [[Talk:Bradford City A.F.C.#Honour ?|here]].

and they'll be blocked. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

@Struway2: Thanks for the tip. I'll keep that in mind for next time. Do you feel the clubs targeted last night should be given semi-protection? JMHamo (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Excessive statistics/lists in 2013-14 Rangers F.C. season

Should things like international call-ups, penalties, suspensions and two separate player lists be in a season article? It seems a bit over the top to me. Adam4267 (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Adam, let's take this discussion to the Rangers talk page Talk:2013–14 Rangers F.C. season JMHamo (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

International call ups if done in prose is fine as isn't a statistic. Ive added my comment re the two squad lists as there is no need for that at all.Blethering Scot 22:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Player position wikilinks

Can we PLEASE reach a compromise on the presentation of the player position wikilinks? It's really coming to be annoying the constant paltry changes, paltry but which result in redirects.

FULL BACK was changed to FULL-BACK (same for CENTRE BACK), then changed back, then re-changed. For the past year or so it's been stable. Much worse is the MIDFIELDER positions: some of them only consisted in the removal of the word "midfielder" (i.e. MIDFIELDER#ATTACKING MIDFIELDER became MIDFIELDER#ATTACKING), but positions like central midfielder are toyed with constantly, MIDFIELDER#CENTRAL MIDFIELDER, then MIDFIELDER#CENTRE MIDFIELDER, then one then the other, etc, etc, etc.

Like i said in the opening lines, can we reach a compromise? It's important i think to avoid redirects because, when we click in a given playing position (be it defenders, midfielders or forwards), if the wikilink is correct it will "land" on the player position proper, not the player position general overview.

Thank you for your attention, cheers --AL (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of when redirects are very useful. If people use redirects such as attacking midfielder in players' articles then any change to the section headers on the midfielder article can simply be updated on the redirect page and this will mean that all the articles using that redirect will automatically link to the correct place. If a redirect isn't used then whenever the midfielder page changes, you have to go through every wikilink to that page and correct it (this can be done with AWB but it's still a hassle). BigDom (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Those redirects should also be tagged as {{R to section}}, which will allow us to more quickly spot if the section header is changed. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 00:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

League of Ireland stats

Hello, I am looking at Graham Cummins's league appearances and goals in the Infobox for his time he spent playing in Ireland and I can't find a WP:RS to back these up, what source do you use for League of Ireland? They should be (?) (?) if no source exists? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Soccerway have his Cork City stats, though they give 42 rather than 41 goals, and extratime.ie have Waterford's. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Club season articles infobox attendances

Having looked at the club season infobox template and associated talk page, it seems that the average attendance, lowest home attendance and highest home attendance parameters are pretty ambiguous. The template currently states:

{{{highest attendance}}} — The highest home attendance enjoyed by the club during the season;
{{{lowest attendance}}} — The lowest home attendance enjoyed by the club during the season;
{{{average attendance}}} — The average home attendance enjoyed by the club during the domestic season;

But the associated talk page there seems to be a minor consensus that only league matches should be considered, and a suggestion in 2008 that the discussion should be taken to WP:FOOTY, but I wasn't an editor back then. Can we define some sort of consensus on what they should be and then the parameter description can be made clearer. I would suggest changing the parameter description to:

{{{highest attendance}}} — The highest home league attendance enjoyed by the club during the season;
{{{lowest attendance}}} — The lowest home league attendance enjoyed by the club during the season;
{{{average attendance}}} — The average home league attendance enjoyed by the club during the domestic season;

It makes it clearer/less ambiguous, and is what sources online that compile this kind of data seem to use [8].
Cheers VanguardScot 11:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be for any competitive game. For many lower league teams, the highest attendance may be a cup game against a top flight opponent. The only thing that should be discounted is friendlies (although there are some clubs whose record attendance is in friendly matches). Number 5 7 11:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

When a club publish a seasons average attendance they only count league fixtures. Cup games are an anomaly (either higher or lower than usual). A couple of seasons ago the highest attendance at Bramall Lane by far was for an Under 21 FA Cup tie for example. I'd say they should be league only. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Either way we need to make a decision and stick to it, there is too much varability per article and the current guidelines are not clear. If we could all decide which makes more sense, state your decision below and give a reason. Cheers, VanguardScot 12:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

All Three - League Only for my reasons given above. Also I have never seen published results of where an average attendance for a season included non league matches, so that would be WP:OR. Cheers, VanguardScot 12:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The highest & lowest should include all competitive games, but I agree that it's probably sensible to have the average for league games only. Number 5 7 12:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
For average attendance, I use league only, because that's what the published sources do. For highest & lowest I include all competitive first-team matches (and include mention of the competition, if it wasn't a regular season league match, as here). Published sources e.g. http://stats.football365.co.uk/dom/ENG/teams/BirminghamCty.html list attendances in all comps, so there's no original research involved in using them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay it seems to be the consensus to update the parameter description to:

{{{highest attendance}}} — The highest home attendance (all competitive matches) enjoyed by the club during the season;
{{{lowest attendance}}} — The lowest home attendance (all competitive matches) enjoyed by the club during the season;
{{{average attendance}}} — The average home attendance (league matches only) enjoyed by the club during the domestic season;

cheers for the input, VanguardScot 15:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Would it make sense to change the label of the last field to "Average league attendance" just to make it clear for readers............? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would. That was one of my main points of bringing this up, it isn't clear what each attendance stat is referring to. A more experienced editor would need to update it to that though, I looked at it and I don't want to mess up the parameters. VanguardScot 15:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay I'v managed to update the infobox output to Average home league attendance, I don't think I'v messed anything up. VanguardScot 18:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Youth players..

There is currently a discussion about youth international footballers. Personally, I find this discussion completely absurd. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Privacy of personal information. – Michael (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

A long and rambling read but one with some implications for many youth football articles. For example having read England national under-16 football team, I now know the birth dates of some 15 year olds. What that helps me do I don't know! My view is that if there are quality references out there for these dates then they are available to use in Wiki. Others obviously don't think so....--Egghead06 (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Worst comes to the worst, you should just save the references from the articles so you can add DOBs later, should the need arise. Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but we do have privacy laws/Wiki-policies for a reason. – Pee Jay 08:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but sources or no sources, are we still violating the Wiki-policies? That's basically the debate here. – Michael (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What a bizarre debate. Just the usual concern trolls at ANI spouting off as usual though, nothing will come of it. BigDom (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

On the general point, if these are well-known people whose DOB is widely available in third-party sources, then IMHO there isn't a problem. If they're not, then I'd have thought WP:BLPPRIVACY would apply.

On a specific point, I've just looked at the England national under-16 football team article mentioned above. There are two sources listed above the squad, and neither contains dates of birth. Those players' individual profiles at the FA website don't contain their dates of birth. So where do they come from, and why are we listing unsourced DoB's of anyone, let alone schoolkids? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That is the trolliest thing I have ever read. Fortunately Moxy and TRPoD have got so cranked over this that it is basically impossible that any rational and applicable conclusion could come out of this massive waste of everybody's time. I identify the point at which this happened as when TRPoD remarks that actions similar to WP having the DoB of youth team footballers in some articles were what caused the paedophilia scandals in the Catholic Church and Scouts. Fenix down (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Many of these youth team footballers details are noted for example here at the admittedly non-reliable Transfermarkt.co.uk, so the info is out there and not just on Wiki.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Voetbal International

Does anybody know what is up with this site? It has had a re-design, and consequently a number of player profiles appear to have been fully deleted, as opposed to simply having had their URLs changed... Giant Snowman 11:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP information

With reference to my comments in the Youth players thread above: I've just removed the birth dates from England national under-16 football team, which were all unsourced, apart from one lad with his own article whose birthdate is sourced there (will go back and copy the source for that one across). This is a straightforward removal of completely unsourced personal information per WP:V and WP:DOB, and nothing to do with any opinion I may hold on including full DOBs for non-notable minors. Will now do the same at England under-17s, and any older ranges if they're unsourced. Please feel free to restore any that are "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object" (quote from WP:DOB), with reference. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Like Giant Snowman 13:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Outsourcing of squads to Wikidata

Is there any work ongoing concerning the outsourcing of the squads to Wikidata? Sharing the workload of updating among all Wikipedia language version would save quite a lot of time. There is currently a test quad at Wikidata that could be implemented to Template:FC Bayern Munich squad and FC Bayern Munich#Current squad in future. --Leyo 13:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Short answer - no. Giant Snowman 13:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be great the get the process started then. --Leyo 10:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's any appetite to do this. Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Bunyan brothers at the Olympics

Which of these brothers played at the 1920 Olympics? Charlie is confirmed by FIFA and Sports Reference, but Maurice is also confirmed by Sports Reference and I am extremely puzzled. Giant Snowman 19:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In the Derby Daily Telegraph, December 21, 1950 (no link, unfortunately) Charles Bunyan himself clarifies that it was his brother Maurice who competed in the Olympics. Sports Reference used to have Charlie, but they updated to Maurice. The old link survives; however, it is not connected to anything. If you click on, say, the link for the British squad, Charlie's link doesn't appear. Canadian Paul 19:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The Times, 19 August 1920, gives the squad for the Games and the only Bunyan listed there is an M. T. Bunyan of Chelsea so it appears that it was indeed Maurice who played. Full reference is The Times, Thursday, Aug 19, 1920; pg. 4; Issue 42493; col G. BigDom (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Which all seems well and good, but Maurice Bunyan didn't play for Chelsea in 1920, Charlie Bunyan did. As far as I'm aware Maurice Bunyan was still playing in Belgium at the time. Giant Snowman 10:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume he was just a member of the Chelsea club, seeing as neither of the brothers actually played a senior game for them. BigDom (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The respective articles don't seem to have references either for Charlie being at Chelsea in 1920 or for Maurice not being, as far as I can see? And apart from the Times piece mentioned above, which lists the final squad after various dropouts, the original squad announcement on 6 August 1920, published in both the Times and the Manchester Guardian in identical wording, so presumably a press release, starts off "The following players have been nominated by the Football Association to represent England [sic] in the games which will be played at Antwerp on August 29 to September 5", and includes "M. T. Bunyan (Chelsea)". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And the Daily Express of the same date discussed who they expect to start the first match, but in their opinion, M. T. Bunyan (Chelsea) is only among those "who will go to Antwerp, and who will be called on in the event of changes or injuries". If you need full refs, just ask. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I note that, in addition to everything else, the DOB listed for Bunyan on the FIFA page doesn't match the DOB we list for either brother....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

There are five men in that list with a birth date of 31 December 1899, which is either a remarkable coincidence or FIFA misinterpreting their sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a default DOB, used if the information is unknown - you'll see others on the FIFA site with a DOB of 01/01/1900. Why they can't leave it blank... Giant Snowman 11:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix club (association football)

The article Phoenix club (association football) has been nominated for deletion. If you feel that it's worth saving, feel free to update it. The article was originally created to establish what a 'phoenix' club was but has been nominated for deletion because someone has previously deleted a list of 'phoenix' clubs. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Admin help needed

I broadly edited the entry of the NF-Board and it was just undone stating that it was an "abuse". In fact most of the references are dead links, many information is just wrong and it is not even clear to me if the NF-Board is still existing in any way. The "undoer" mainly quotes the page www.nf-board.org as a source. This page states it is an official page. The page www.nf-board.com also states that. Both pages do have member lists, both lists are different and half of their "members" never existed or do not exist anymore. I have spoken to some of the FAs that are listed as members (Somaliland, Wallonie, South Lower Saxony or South Cameroon for example) and they never had a single match. Besides some of the FAs not even heard of the NF-Board before and where quite confused to be listed as an official member when I wrote them. To me, just beeing a fan who got interested in non-FIFA football, it is absolutely unclear if the NF-Board is still operating. I found out that there is an other organization (called CONIFA) which will organize a World Championship of non-FIFA teams next year. I also wrote online that the NF-Board is trying to do any legal actions against them. But I can see no evidence of the NF-Board still beeing active in football in any way.

To come back to the essentials of Wikipedia: About 70% of the article is wrong (Luc Misson is not the General Secretary), is a self-fulfilling prophecy (The article says it is also known as non-FIFA board. Only pages that cite Wikipedia call them non-FIFA Board. Same with their "wish to work with FIFA".), is unproven (most of the members), unclear (the "official" homepage, the president, etc.) or is just promotion ("The best VIVA World Cup ever"). I see there is some need for this article due to the great history of the NF-Board and the VIVA World Cups, but I think the article should be based on facts. And the only fact is that they do have a great history.NikauTokelau (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot agree on the article talk page, then WP:DRN may be a better venue to take it. Giant Snowman 08:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Current state looks good. Notice the weak article, and absence of actions of the Board earlier too. -Koppapa (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately the article has been filled with wrong and dubious info again. I would love to find an agreement on the talk page, but the editor who is adding the unclear info does not talk on the talk page. He is just bringing the page to the same dubious stage again and again. NikauTokelau (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: He finally contributed to the Talk page. It would still be welcome of some people could join that discussion. I am new to wiki and I am unsure if unquoted information or promotion material like "The NFB will work with FIFA" should stand. Same with the members lists. I wrote to most of them and many never heard of the NFB. Should we nevertheless just copy the NFB's list? Even if many of those FAs just exist on that list and never had a team or match ?NikauTokelau (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Backround colors in standings removed

Hi

Now the groups in 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round are getting finished and someone removed the pink/red lines for eliminated teams when some groups was finished like here and here with the argument "all group matches finished, deleted the pink borders that indicate no chance of qualification". Now there is one editor insisting on removing the pink color for elimination even on groups with all games not finished (but it is decided who win group) like here and here with argument "group is decided". My question is now, shouldnt we wait removing these pink colors until the group is finished or maybe even until all the matches in that qualification stage has been finished? I feel like we should. QED237 (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't tracked the full argument, but it seems there are two issues at play. First, the colour coding of the different stages of qualification. And second, final colouring before all games in a phase have been played. To the first issue I have replied on a talk page and I think implicit (if not formulated explicit) consensus is that the first tier of qualification in any group is green. I agree with this practice and it is my opinion it should be the case for the CAF second round as well. The second issue might be a bit more contentious, in this specific case the groups will be over in two days, so there is not necessarily a reason to fight this battle. I personally feel it is fine to state the qualification status as final once it has been decided, even though games are left to play. It is not WP:OR, because typically clinching qualification is widely published. Especially for the world cup qualifying it shouldn't be too hard to find a source for it if needed. Otherwise WP:CALC might still apply. It is probably better though to accompany the table with a note saying something to the effect of "Xxx has qualified, even though games remain to be played". CRwikiCA talk 17:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Tottenham Hotspur F.C. # Archive

I think something has gone wrong with the archiving, I really haven't paid enough attention to the project or the page to know what is going on. There are 1 to 4 archive pages pointing on the talk page and yet page 4 is rather long and goes back only too November 2012. So where is the rest going to? And why is there no new archive pages? Govvy (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The explanation is simple: The first three archives was manually archived, but after this edit it was archived by a bot and the bot will start on the next archive once the fourth becomes 100kb. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

But the first four are manuals as I did them, but after that, there are no new pages so where on earth is it arching too? Govvy (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The bots last archive was on 5 September 2013, and that was to Talk:Tottenham Hotspur F.C./Archive 4.Blethering Scot 18:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox football club

See Manchester United F.C. on the infobox where it says Capacity to the left of the field there is a small -. This appears on every article with this infobox in it. Can anyone explain the reason for this or is it an error. Thanks.Blethering Scot 18:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

appears to be from this edit. probably should be a bullet instead of a dash. the point here is probably to show that the capacity and coordinates apply to the ground. Frietjes (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly but does look very peculiar. How many club articles have the Coordinates in the infobox.Blethering Scot 18:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

the thread discussing this is on Template talk:Infobox football club‎. Frietjes (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the dash for now, agree it doesn't look right - ideally it would be indented but I'm not sure how to do that. Giant Snowman 18:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

see the thread on Template talk:Infobox football club‎. Frietjes (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to split Football hooliganism

Hello WikiProject Football. I've created a split proposal at Talk:Football hooliganism#Proposal to split. Please comment over there, especially to notify any objections. (I won't proceed if there are many.) --Stfg (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Carl Jenkinson stats table

Could somebody please revert the Carl Jenkinson stats table to the last good revision please? There is a user who thinks "optimizing" it means removing citations and info about European cup appearances, which I consider disruptive and does not improve it. I tried discussing it on the Talk page, but nothing. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted it. At least they are participating in the discussion now. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is any admins about can someone protect this page please. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Season articles

In light of the recent spate of deletion discussions involving club season articles, I'm wondering if there is actually consensus on this? I was of the belief that season articles of clubs playing in a national league (so in England, the top five tiers) were presumed notable. However, opinions seemed inclined towards articles for Football League clubs only being deemed notable. I would say the difference in level of coverage between tiers four and five is negligible, and the potential is there for high quality content to be created from season articles for fifth tier clubs. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that season articles were OK for clubs that play in the Conference Premier and above. I'm not sure about other countries, but that's the guideline I work to for English clubs. – Pee Jay 22:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I would rather that we kept in line with the fully professional league argument, than expand season articles down to the fifth teir. The Grays article is of a very good standard, but essentially there is nothing there that is not WP:ROUTINE, just well written. I can see that we could have arguments where people would want create player articles because they were prominantly mentioned in a season article. My honest view though is that WP:NSEASONS, though brief seems perfectly clear, only "top professional leagues" should have club articles. That should just be the top league in each country and that seems fair to me as a primary criteria as they contain clubs whose seasons are more likely to attract non-routine coverage. I would not argue that this should be exclusive, GNG will always trump any other guideline, but of the three articles noted above, what is genuinely notable about those clubs seasons? The Stevenage one is a promotion winning season, so I could readily accept that as being a genuinely notable season attracting more coverage than normal. The other two, regardless of their written quality are a relegation finish and a play-off final loss season, neither of which, at the fifth level of English football, I would say were particularly notable. Fenix down (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There was consensus for years that Conference National club seasons were considered notable, so I'm not sure where this recent spate of AfD's has come from (although it is worth noting that the nominator's rationale in most of them is "I don't like it"). The fact is that these clubs get plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources such as BBC Sport, The Non-League Paper, NonLeagueDaily.com and many more, and that should easily be enough to pass GNG. If you're going to bring ROUTINE into it, then we would have to delete 99% of not only season articles but player articles too. BigDom (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I share Fenix down's opinion - we need a cut-off point, and I think having it at the same point as players would seem sensible. Number 5 7 08:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I think we should bring ROUTINE into and that that would mean the deletion of the vast majority of these articles, but I also appreciate that there probably isn't the consensus for that, though it would be good to gain agreement on what the cut off point should be for such articles, and not just for England. Fenix down (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I was also under the impression that Conference Premier season articles were considered notable. The fact that for the 2010–11, 2011–12 and 2012–13 seasons there are twelve, fifteen and fourteen articles respectively certainly suggests that this was previously the case. T 88 R (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the cut-off should be relegation out of the Football League. But I have no problem with well written Conference Premier season articles like Hyde or Luton. I'm happy for there to be exceptions to the rule. I just object to the red links in the template, which suggests that articles should be created. Articles such as 2012–13 Braintree Town F.C. season should be deleted straight away, there is just no content.--Echetus Xe 20:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

May I ask, why do you place the cut-off above the Conference? It's a national league that we use as a notability threshold in other circumstances, so why not here? – Pee Jay 20:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The notability threshold for players is above the Conference, what other circumstances are cut-off below that level?--Echetus Xe 06:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think a Div 2 cut off makes more sense. Essentially by having this difference we are saying that a player who spends his career in the conference can have hundreds of words written about him in his club's season articles, but is not notable for an article himself. This doesn't make any sense to me, and I don't like the application of the criterion "national league" to season articles, but "fully professional league" to players. I believe we need some uniformity here. That being said, i still believe any club could have season article if they met GNG. I would have no problem accepting a season article on a club below level 5 if they achieved something very notable, like a record level of points, unbeaten season, or something else that got more coverage than would normally be expected at that level. Fenix down (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

My bad, I thought we still used the Conference as the cut-off for player notability. I need to catch up! – Pee Jay 09:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can remember (going back to 2006), we've never used the Conference as a cut-off point - it's always been considered a non fully-pro league. Number 5 7 10:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

In Scotland the mileage seems to be different, where we have season articles for all teams, even semi-pro and amateur: Template:2012–13 in Scottish football. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that as well but at least some of those articles have some decent content unlike absolute wastes of space like this and this. Surely we should concentrate on getting rid of or sorting out the existing crap articles first and foremost? BigDom (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This response is admittedly largely about never missing an opportunity. My views on bit-part lower league players having full blown articles when there is nothing of note to say about them are pretty well known. But am I alone in thinking that a difference in standards between season articles and player articles does make sense? Hardly anyone thinks that the career of one of last season's Hatters warrants a stand-alone article (unless he had a significant history in the Football League), but the exploits of Conference teams over an entire season regularly do attract significant coverage in reliable national sources, both at the sharp end and at the bottom (even mid-table clubs get significant attention). —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 21:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely. It obviously (to me at least) makes sense to have a slightly lower notability threshold for season articles because clubs' seasons in general get more coverage than the individual players. This is the exact point I've been trying to make all week, here and in deletion discussions, but no-one seems to listen. BigDom (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually not one of the teams in Template:2012–13 in Scottish football is amateur. They are all part of the football league in Scotland and are pro or semi pro of which there is enough coverage to make these meet GNG. Only teams below that level could even slightly be considered amateur which there are many if you go down to Scottish junior level which despite the name is still senior football and the highland leagues and such. Interesting that Clavdia chauchat is again pushing a pov on others just like she has at Rangers and tried to prove with a very silly AFD.Blethering Scot 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, Queen's Park are amateurs but yeah I agree that all teams in the SFL receive enough coverage during a season to have their own articles. It's obvious that a different notability threshold is needed than the one we use for players. BigDom (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Forgot about Queens, i have no idea why they play under that guise as not even the junior teams do however i could from sources make there season meet GNG so the point remains at that level its verifiable. There are several junior teams that get a vast amount of coverage but i wouldn't go that far.Blethering Scot 22:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Also i agree player notability threshold shoud not and isnt the same as club or season notability. A clubs will achieve over the course of a season far more coverage than one player does.Blethering Scot 21:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wind your neck in, Blethering Scot. You can take an opposing viewpoint without making personal attacks. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you wind your neck in Clavdia chauchat as you are yet to apologise or justify your clearly disruptive and pointy AFD were you failed to carry out WP:Before just to prove a point similar to above on an article that clearly met GNG which was wrong and stupid. There is a difference to making a point and going around different talk pages (not cool) continually using the same old and against common consensus views. Such as Rangers are a Pheonix Club.Blethering Scot 23:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You would both probably get more out of this discussion if you refrained from personal attacks and rather than debating whether individual users followed procedure, instead debtate whether any of the season articles in Scotland contain anything other than WP:ROUTINE and whether any of them avoid contravening WP:NOT#STATS. If they show non-routine coverage (i.e. not just brief match reports from the usual sources) and contain significant amounts of sourced prose rather than simply a list of results and players, then it doesn't matter what level they play at or whether they are pro or not or in a professional league, they will almost certainly pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Format

What would be more helpful is a Manual of style for club season articles at the moment they are a mess, and even one season to the next can be totally different. Ive suggested doing this several times and it would be really good to get one done.Blethering Scot 22:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Was anyone aware of this pages existence Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons. I ask because i have raised creating an mos before and never been pointed to this and its not linked to in the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Football infobox where the others are. Also its not that great.Blethering Scot 22:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

We have MoS for almost everything, but they aren't used as much as they should be. What we should do is start a broad discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Club seasons on what should be included in a season article, and what shouldn't be included in a season article. That way, the "content dispute" at 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season wouldn't have been a content dispute, as we could have showed the MoS to everyone who wanted to add this or that list of statistics, and made them start a discussion on that page if they wanted to change anything. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And all our MoS are just decent places to start from, and not followed strictly by anybody. I was at one time aware of the seasons one, but had forgotten about it. There were strong objections from an editor who preferred a stats-heavy template-based approach, which may be why no-one remembers it and it's never been developed. Again, it looks a decent place to start from, and some of the better season articles have a similar structure and content. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The MoS for Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons looks severely outdated. I shall continue the discussion of proposed changes over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Club seasons. -RedsUnited ^(Talk) 01:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not only severly outdated its very poor. Were all moaning about the state of season articles and given how poor that mos is we can hardly complain.Blethering Scot 17:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

In the below table in the majority of season articles around they are sourced by the competitive match reports included in the article. Now this is done by on a week to week basis using the match reports to add appearances which means there will be a minimum of 40 match reports or more if doubling or tripling up these refs. Now the section is clearly referenced but could be perceived as WP:OR now even if it is as this section is sourced and ultimately verifiable this shouldn't be grounds for removal unless there is another issue present. What i am asking is how we deal with this. If i add a link to the team soccerbase page for stats once the season is over it will no longer be accurate as players move on. The only way to do it would be to add a source for every player which in my view would be excessive and worse than using match reports as its as difficult to verify as going through the match reports. Once the likes of the football yearbook is out you could use that but do we need to as this will be a year down the line when most have forgotten about updating the year before's article. I always include a reference to the squad list ref to cover number, position and like but that doesn't cover the team match stats. This has been brought up twice in my view needlessly in last two weeks but as a very small percentage of season articles on here ref this section other than to the match reports we need to establish a view on it.Blethering Scot 22:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No.	Pos	Nat	Player	Total		Premiership		League Cup		Scottish Cup
No.	Pos	Nat	Player	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
1	GK	SCO	Jamie MacDonald	6	0	5+0	0	1+0	0	0+0	0

Last updated: 31 August 2013
Source: Competitive matches
Ordered by Squad Number.

Appearances (starts and substitute appearances) and goals include those in The SPL, Scottish Cup and the League Cup.

Sorry, but I don't see why the Soccerbase squad stats page for the season in question can't be used: e.g. Hearts 2013/14, Hearts 2012/13, Hearts 2011/12, etc... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't actually referring to Hearts it just happened to be one of the two season articles i update these days. I actually had no idea it kept an individual record of the club season stats, thought you could only get the stats from the individual player stats pages.Blethering Scot 22:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Another option is worldfootball.net 2013–14 Hearts Premiership. A ref tag applied to each competition's title in the template/table will cover apps and goals as well as discipline.EddieV2003 (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

is that considered a reliable source. My problem with the soccerbase one is i can prove it wrong for championship or lower nine times out of ten. Its great for most things but when the press association are involved which in scottish football is where most of these stats come from its not the best. For the premiership clubs it tends to be ok.Blethering Scot 22:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Starting 11 again

per this thread, I was convinced that this is WP:OR, but there is some disagreement on 2013–14 Real Madrid C.F. season. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, consensus is pretty clear. Giant Snowman 18:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm at 3RR, further input welcome. Giant Snowman 20:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

me too. the current edit warrior is a WP:SPA. Frietjes (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

To me it is easy. No starting XI in articles. Impossible to find WP:RS for formations. QED237 (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have seen a more objective form such as at 2013 Vancouver Whitecaps FC season#Starting 11. While it's unreferenced, it does clearly indicate how many starts each player has received and based on WP:CALC and the results listed on the same page, can be calculated. Without something like that, there's no way to include it. If it means removing them all to avoid further problems, I would have no objection. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That is just stupid; they've got Jay DeMerit, who has played a grand total of 8 minutes this season, in the first-choice starting 11. A perfect example of why we shouldn't have these sections. BigDom (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed they also have a "Start formations" subsection. Can't this also be classified as WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? Formations can change during a game and different sites could report different formations. --MicroX (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In-game formation changes would not be reflected. The section would strictly be for starting formations, which in the case of Real Madrid, are well documented under match reports at MARCA and Soccerway. The "Start formations" subsection is a numerical count of the instances in which each formation was used and the correlating matchday number of usage(s), also well documented across independent articles.

I'm in favor of keeping such a section because at worst, it'd be a murky borderline policy issue, but the information and content it provides are not inherently factual fallacies, adds to the readability, are very relevant to the subject (identifies the manner(s) in which a team plays as well as usage volume of individual players), and, through common sense, improves the overall article. Bobby (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Wikipedia is not a place for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --MicroX (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it does matter. "Start formations" is unambiguously not OR because of multiple independent sources provided above. "Starting 11" contained an image of a football field with players in positions. The argument for SYNTH was that combining the table in "Starting 11" with "Start formations" resulted in an improper synthesis. The image of the field has been removed, leaving just the table, which is just data with sources provided. Bobby (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how laying the players' names out in places on a green rectangle determined by their position code differs from laying them out in a table next to their position code, but perhaps that's just me...

The title "Starting 11", however, is absolutely OR/SYNTH. If it was called "list of players having started most times in each position", and it was independently and reliably sourced without any need for expert knowledge of the players concerned (see below), then it would at least say what it meant. But calling it "Starting 11", when it's not necessarily the case that those 11 players have ever been in the same starting eleven, misleads the reader. An example: if you take the players from 2012–13 Birmingham City F.C. season#Appearances and goals, arrange those with the most league starts in each position into a typical starting shape, that set of players only started together ONCE in that season. That may be an extreme case, but it's the first one I tried. Why would we want to display as a typical, informative, starting eleven, a set of players that rarely started together?

Coming back to OR: According to 2013–14 Real Madrid C.F. season#Starting 11 after 3 games, Modric had three starts at defensive midfielder and Isco three starts at attacking midfielder. How do you decide just from these three sources that Modric played defensive midfield and Isco attacking midfield against Betis? The images display them identically. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see it improves readability; it's just a table with a diagram, so there's really nothing to read. Also, I don't see how you can "identify the manner in which a team plays" by their formation and most commonly used players. Two teams might play 4-4-2 and play in completely different styles to each other, which wouldn't be immediately obvious, even if you knew which players they used, since you'd have to have pretty much expert knowledge of the players to know how they play. In short, the starting formations sections are bogus and should be deleted. – Pee Jay 08:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see how that Whitecaps table is supposed to work. If Leveron has had 16 starts, why isn't he included.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with ChrisTheDude that example is really bad and I think that table probably should be removed. QED237 (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Also I must say that User:PeeJay2K3 response was very good. I totally agree with that. QED237 (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@Xboxandhalo2: - there is clear consensus (once again!) that these graphics/tables are simply not suitable, regardless of how they are displayed. Why can you not accept that? Giant Snowman 09:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Struway2 has it nailed. The "starting XI" is, at best, confusing and, at worst, totally misleading. I would advocate a "destroy on sight" policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree with the comments about a "starting XI", "most used XI" etc. I have a different view on (for instance) the actual starting lineups on the first and last day of the season, particularly for clubs that have gone through a lot of transition. Take Watford last season: started out in a 4-4-2 which strongly resembled Sean Dyche's team, and finished up 3-5-2 with a lineup representative of what Zola had used through the season. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 15:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I recently came to know this "starting 11" dillema, I created some articles and added a starting 11 section based on the "Almanaque" I bought which is a club official product, it has a drawing of the most used eleven in the season, so my question is, does starting 11 from this reference is also unappropriate?--Threeohsix (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This may remove the original research argument, but others remain. I am not sure about copyrights on copying the work somebody else has published in this case. Many reasons for the removal of these sections are still present. As others have mentioned, does it represent how the season was really played? The original research part was not the whole argument against Starting 11s being in the articles. EddieV2003 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

And what other problems are? Can you explain them?--Threeohsix (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

These are quotations from the threads I showed you yesterday:

"Football is not baseball or gridiron where the starting positions are essentially fixed. In football, with formations which can change from game to game plus the element of squad rotation, you could end up with a "most common starting XI" which never actually took the field together, which IMO is nonsense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)"

"player positions are not fixed. John Smith starts the match as a right back, then is moved to centre-back after 30 mins. In the second half he is pushed up a defensive midfielder position, before being put on the wing for the last 10 minutes. What position would you mark him, where would he feature in the end-of-season Starting XI table? GiantSnowman 22:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)"

"There is no such concept as a "starting XI". This is enshrined in the sport's rules, which dictate that managers need name their outfield lineup only in the period immediately before kickoff. Let's not entertain any more of this fanzine nonsense. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)"

"I believe the "starting XI" is nonsense and should be removed absolutely. We have injuries, we have rotation systems, we have competitions that remove players from league play for a month, the concept of an "average starting XI" is pure original research and should be excised on sight. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)"

Even if the club publishes an image of a starting 11, it is something that does not represent anything related to how matches are played.EddieV2003 (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand, I advise you not to claim OR, when removing it, better "Recent consensus in Wikifootball" or something close, because otherwise in can lead to confusions. Personally I feel this just diminuish the quality of the articles, as graphic with most used squad is helpful for someone non related to the subject, but the bosses here have decided it, let it be.--Threeohsix (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Potential problem at New York Cosmos (2010)

I know how some editors like to keep the original NASL's history separate from the modern teams that have the same name. Those editors may want to review the edits at New York Cosmos (2010) that imply that the modern team is a "reestablished" version the original team and the nav template, Template:New York Cosmos completely links both. As the editor making these changes has taken offence at me pointing out that images are not to be added to nav templates and already doesn't like me, I'd prefer if other editors could 1) deal with this issue and 2) mentor the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Having them in the same navbox isn't that big a deal. The name itself is like a brand but the club articles should remain separate. --MicroX (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it is. They are two completely seperate clubs and the fact they have the same name is utterly irrelevant, as is any claim the new club may make to the old club's history/legacy/heritage. Giant Snowman 08:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the full story - but the US franchise and naming system is a little strange when it comes to this sort of stuff, so it's entirely possible for them to be the "same team" if the NASL recognises them as such (in the same way the Cleveland Browns are the Cleveland Browns with all the history by NFL rules). However if the NASL of today is in no way linked to the original NASL (I have no idea of such finer things tbh so trust that GiantSnowman is right, and that this is what his point rests on) then they are completely separate entities with the same name as homage. Koncorde (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the legality of it, but apparently the current club owners purchased the name from someone who was in management with the original club. I'm not sure how he gained possession of the rights to the team name, but it is stated that he ran some soccer camps under the Beckenbauer's name and it was somehow affiliated with the original club. Since the US is very litigious and protective of trademarks and branding, I doubt that they are using the name without legal authority.

That the current NASL and the earlier incarnation are unrelated is true and undisputed, even if they bought the Soccer Cup, which was the old trophy used with the original NASL.

How many European clubs ceased operation only to be "resurrected" by different parties years later? How many merged with other clubs and yet we keep the history in one location? Why is it that we have this insanity for North American teams and not from other locations? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

League of Ireland second-tier players

Hello, for those that monitor PRODs - This morning I added 18 players from the League of Ireland First Division (second-tier), which is not a fully pro league and fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Was expecting these to be players who'd only played in the second tier, what with the rationale Plays in the second tier of League of Ireland football - not a fully professional league, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, and PROD being for uncontroversial deletions. Most of them, if not all, have played in the top tier as well.

I've dePRODded a couple. Derek O'Brien, who was in the 2007 PFAI Premier Division Team of the Year and helped St Pat's reach the rounds proper of the UEFA Cup, and John Frost, who had a long career in the LoI and played in three FAI Cup finals, once on the winning side, would IMO pass GNG comfortably. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

And another procedural removal: Davin O'Neill was kept at the multiple AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark McNulty (footballer), so is ineligible for PROD (as was Derek O'Brien, I thought I remembered him from somewhere). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Struway2. I didn't see an AfD nomination notice on the Davin O'Neill talk page, but I see you've added this now. I have also added the AfD nomination notice to Derek O'Brien JMHamo (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, should have done that when I noticed him. Rather than relying on talk page templates, which often aren't there, it's a good idea to check the article history edit summaries for mention of prod or AfD, or click on What links here, Wikipedia namespace. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

flatlist in infoboxes

Apparently unbulleted lists are a previously established guideline according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, yet I don't see any acceptance of them at the clubs page and the docs do not support their use. There has been no evidence at MoS/Lists that they are in any way better for any purpose, and they're grammatically incorrect in lists, which should be separated by commas.

My question is, should we move to their use in the infobox, and if so, would someone please clearly indicate that in the documentation there? If not, I would like to clearly state our opposition to this wave in the documentation there as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No comment? Leave as is? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Australian seasons

Currently all National Soccer League and A-League seasons articles (contained under Category:A-League seasons and Category:National Soccer League (Australia) seasons) are titled with the format YYYY-YY <league name> without the word season in the title. Is there any policy reason why I shouldn't move all of these to include the word season? Hack (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season says the word "season" should only be used if there are two seperate championships played during that season i.e. the Apertura/Clausura system in South America. Giant Snowman 11:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The second part of that sentence says "OR the season is decided by a knock-out tournament after the conclusion of the regular season (e.g. Major League Soccer, Australian A-League), the word "season" should be attached to the title." I'm guessing that means season should be used for all A-League seasons and most NSL seasons. Hack (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In that case - yes, you're right. Giant Snowman 11:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The wording of that page suggests it's a proposal. Just wondering if it ever got anywhere towards being more formal. Hack (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm usnure if it ever was formally 'approved' but it's been there for 3 years and is listed as one of our Manual of Style, so I would presume so. Giant Snowman 13:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Two sources, two versions

Hi, few days ago I posted a specialized question on the help desk (here), and John Broughton suggested me to ask here. This is the issue:

3 days ago, after the end of matches listed in the article 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Fourth Round, I waited for the end of various updates to make some technical controls. In a match, Honduras-Panama (2-2), the FIFA report (both in index and final report forms) assigns the 2nd Panamanian goal to Gabriel Torres, min. 90'. CONCACAF report assings it to Roberto Chen, min. 90+2' (see live commentary), after an assist... Yesterday I reverted an anon edit (this one) explaining the reasons in the summary and preferring FIFA version to CONCACAF's one because, in the doubt, FIFA's is the one linked in the article. By now I've seen this edits but I've not reverted them. Well, I've not reverted for some reasons: to avoid a possible edit war because the anon could be right (CONCACAF report) and, btw, the IP seems to come from Panama... and he/she could have seen the match on TV... Well, in cases as this one what is the report to follow? It's just a help request to a most experienced user in this field. Thanx for listening. --Dэя-Бøяg 16:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Addition: In the help desk question Fuhghettaboutit linked to me this video showing the scoring Examinating it, and seeing the portraits of both Panamanian players involved (Chen - Torres), it seems to me that the anon was right. The action is really rapid and not perfectly clear but it seems that the scorer was Roberto Chen after an assist of Luis Henríquez (img) (number 17). --Dэя-Бøяg 16:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the majority of sources indicate Roberto Chen scored the second goal, including the network that aired the match in the US (see here: [9]). Jogurney (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources including both the Panama and Honduras federations. If it were me, I'd give it to Chen, and add a visible note below the match details box, including links to as many reliable sources as you think necessary, saying that FIFA are on their own in awarding the goal to Torres. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

11v11

I've used this site occasionally, but I am now getting Malware warnings from Google, so please be careful in case it's been compromised a la In The Mad Crowd. Giant Snowman 19:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/World football club attendances

Dear footballers: This Afc submission may be of interest. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, look at that, every team's average attendance is an exact multiple of thousand, what are the odds of that happening? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Its creation was rejected a month or so ago. This is not of interest, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is this even being brought up here? If the creation of this article was declined 33 days ago (as I can plainly see on the AfC page), it should have been scrubbed from the list of AfCs. – Pee Jay 10:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume it's being brought here because the original submitter has lost interest, to see if there's anything a subject expert might want to salvage before it does get removed. Constructive thing to do, in my opinion, as most people here never go anywhere near AfC and there was a spate of PROD/AfDs resulting from one particular (no longer active) reviewer's acceptances of clearly non-notable submissions. This one's clearly a WP:NOTSTATS failure, even if properly referenced. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So what about these or Average_attendances_of_European_football_clubs? -Koppapa (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What about them? In my purely personal opinion, the first lot are mostly unsourced with pretty random content, and they all fail NOTSTATS, which says "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources", and that "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader."

The last one is sourced, and beautifully laid out, but the text, in its entirety, reads "The following is a table showing average attendances for football clubs in Europe in domestic league matches. The specific seasons are listed alongside each team, with the default being the 2012–13 season. Teams are included if they achieve a 25,000 average." Not sure how that explains why we should be interested? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged all the articles in Category:Football club attendances with PROD. Giant Snowman 12:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

And I've removed the prod tags. We have many similar articles that collect sports attendance figures, see Category:Sports attendance. If there's something specifically wrong with the football club attendances articles, that can be discussed in a group AfD, but I don't think asserting WP:NOTSTATS, by itself, is enough, and nor is it sufficiently uncontroversial to warrant erasing all these articles via PROD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Now at AFD. Giant Snowman 15:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, football fans. Although the article had been declined, it had been resubmitted. Sometimes that happens a number of times, with the submitter making improvements (hopefully) between submissions. But sometimes a submitter can have a good topic, but need some help to make the article acceptable, or a bad topic, but the only experts in the field would know. Sorry I didn't look back sooner to see the above questions until now. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. I'm not too familiar with the procedures at WP:AfC. – Pee Jay 20:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This particular article has now been moved to Record attendances in non-European club soccer which to me appears to be a bit of a strange subset of stats (why exclude europe). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 10:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixtures and results on Season page

I have seen this page 2013–14 Hong Kong First Division League and I have seen the complete fixtures and results of all season. All the edit are done by User:Fabregas0414 but I think all that fixtures and results are a little bit overkill. Stigni (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Tip

Gotta spend some time away from the computer folks, it hurts the eyes ;)

Literary recommendation: just read (again, had not done it in a few years) Among the Thugs, revolves around hooliganism but seldom focuses on football as a sport (safe for the epic duel Cambridge United-Millwall in the 1989–90 FA Cup, "waiting on a goal", those days of the endless cup replays were really something), great sociological document if i ever saw one, plus ripe with subtle humour and loads of literary references (for example to one of my all-time favorites, George Orwell).

Keep it up teammates, have a great week from Portugal --AL (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

SC Aktivist Brieske-Senftenberg

According to their respective articles, both FC Energie Cottbus and FSV Glückauf Brieske-Senftenberg were known as 'SC Aktivist Brieske-Senftenberg' in East Germany in the 1950s - but which one actually was it? Giant Snowman 16:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd ask one of our German members, User:Jaellee or User:ArtVandelay13 come to mind right now. --AL (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's both - it looks as though the first team became Energie Cottbus, and the reserves stayed in Senftenberg to become FSV Glückauf. This isn't uncommon, as the DDR authorities messed around with clubs a lot - In the 1950s, Dynamo Dresden moved to Berlin, but their reserve team stayed and became what is now Dynamo Dresden. And if you can unpick the history of the two Leipzig clubs, then you're a better man than me, and I wrote this article. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah right, well this chap played for SC Aktivist Brieske-Senftenberg and I was considering writing an article on him - but unsure which team to link to. I note that SC Aktivist Brieske-Senftenberg is a redirect, perhaps it should be its own article? Giant Snowman 17:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Glückauf are probably the more natural successors of the two, so I think a redirect is fine, particularly as that article isn't very long as it is. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brimsdown FC

FYI: One more footbally article in the Afc. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Already moved into mainspace. Non-notable. Giant Snowman 13:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Honduran league player template

I missed this TfD regarding a very unusual navbox template which reflect historical squads for every club in the league. Since the league isn't fully-pro, most of the items are permanent redlinks. Additionally, I'm not sure the template serves a purpose, unless we really expect that readers will want to navigate through the 1997–98 squad listings.

In short, I think this template should be deleted. Is it possible to re-nominate through TfD? Jogurney (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should be deleted; feel free to take back to TFD and open a new nomination. Giant Snowman 16:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I sent it (and another almost identical template) to TfD. Jogurney (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Help! Unrefrenced BLPs

Hi, all. I just added fourteen footballers to this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Unreferenced_BLPs/Full_list.

These players haven't had any citations for over three months, but I don't expect it would take you guys too long to add them, altough I expect some of the people here may not meet notability guidelines. I would do 'em myself, but I've got quite a few BLPs on my list at the moment. Your assistance would be much appreciated, cheers! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 11:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I just fixed all 4 that were in the list. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Peer review request

Please find a peer review request of the 2012 Philippine Peace Cup article, in case anybody is interested. I am posting this on behalf of FairyTailRocks (talk · contribs). Giant Snowman 11:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible COI editing

There appears to be some possible WP:Conflict of interest editing in some lower-level football clubs, as reported by one such editor during a deletion discussion:

Who do you think edits most non-league clubs' wiki page? I don't play or manage at Brimsdown, I play and manage at another team at a higher level and their wiki page is edited by the club secretary. A friend of mine is the secretary at a Ryman Premier league club and he edits his club's wiki page. Who else would do it? (as edited by Lee Okugbeni at 17:16, 17 September 2013)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brimsdown F.C. for the current version.

The question is, to what extent should people involved in such clubs and leagues be editing their own teams' articles and/or the articles of other teams in their leagues? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ideally, they shouldn't be editing the articles of teams/players they are involved with at all. Giant Snowman 19:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this editor helping to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia? If not, they're in a CoI. If they are, even if they're editing their own club's article, they're not. I know some editors, such as GiantSnowman, feel they shouldn't touch articles they have an outside association with, if they're being good editors, it's not a clear conflict of interest. If they're adding outrageous claims or puffing-up articles they're writing with trivia, regardless of how reliably sourced they are, then it's not neutral and within the scope of creating an encyclopedia. I didn't check this editor's edits so I won't comment on this specific case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ISSA Manning Cup Football Competition (2013)

One more football article for you from the Afc. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I would say no; looks to be a non-notable tournament for high school teams. Giant Snowman 19:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with GiantSnowman, an under-age amateur national tournament, it fails to meet requirements with single reference- its own. Murry1975 (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Definitely agreeing, a clearly non-notable tournament, and looks like a NOTSTATS violation as well to boot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

On the strength of your comments I declined it. Thanks again for your help. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, now some new references have been added. Would anyone like to take another look? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

References, or lack of, was not an issue - notability was, and that has not changed. Giant Snowman 20:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Addressing Icelandic footballers

I noticed that many competition articles record the second name (the patronymic) of the goalscorers from Iceland. This is not correct. Most Icelandic people do not have a family name; they only have a patronymic (occasionally matronymic) second name. More info about Icelandic names. They are properly addressed by their first name. E.g. Kári Árnason is properly addressed as Kári, not Árnason (which mean means Árna's son). However, if you look at, e.g. this world cup qualification page, you see that they are all listed by their second names.

Ethiopian names are similar, no family names, and properly addressed by the first name. However, by contrast, in WP, at least as far as I observed, Ethiopian people are always properly addressed. For example, in this world cup qualification page, Getaneh Kebede is properly listed as Getaneh, Saladin Said is properly listed as Saladin.

Why does WP address Ethiopian people properly, but not Icelandic people (at least for footballers)? FootballStatWhore (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine it is partly to do with the sources and partly to do with the names on the back of the shirt. If you look at the source (FIFA) it lists all players second names in capitals giving those names prominence. If you look here you will see that Gylfi Sigurdsson has 'Sigurdsson' on the back of his shirt.

There is no desire to use full names in the places you are raising the issue with so they have been shortened in accordance with these. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 08:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And not every Icelandic player has a patronym i.e. Eiður Guðjohnsen. Giant Snowman 08:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be wrong to assume that just because an Icelander has a family name that he should be addressed by it. Icelanders never address each other by last names, not even when they have family names. When Icelanders use only last names it's always for the benefit of foreigners. When Iceland competed in the Euro U-21s in 2011 players wore their first names on their shirts, but for some reason the senior team now just has the last names. Not that surprising since Icelanders never (or rarely, at least) demand to be addressed by their first name, you don't insult an Icelander by referring to him by his patronym, you just confirm you're a foreigner that's used to addressing people by their last names. finval (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Whenever I've done articles about Icelandic football I have always used the full name because that is the proper way to address Icelandic people. It's just wrong and meaningless to only use the patronymic or matronymic, and even Icelanders who have family names are adressed by their first name(s). That's why we have {{Icelandic name}}. <pedantry>FootballStatWhore, just a minor point: Árnason actually means Árni's son (Árna is the genitive of Árni)</pedantry> BigDom (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that the Ethiopian footballers print their first name on the shirt. In this video at 26", you can see Getaneh is on the back. But FIFA always records the second name in their report. What an asshole. FootballStatWhore (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

We have a lot of Icelandic footballers in Norway, and even though I know that the "right thing" is to refer to them with their first name, I primarily use their patronyms because that is what reliable sources in Norway use. To use Template:Sarpsborg 08 FF squad as an example, where there are three Icelandic players, these three players are known as Björnsson, Valdimarsson and Þórarinsson in Norway- not Haraldur, Þórarinn and Guðmundur. Shouldn't Wikipedia call people what reliable sources call them? Mentoz86 (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, nobody is saying that we shouldn't use patronymics/matronymics/family names at all, just that they shouldn't be used on their own. Obviously the article titles should include the last names, but it's not correct to only use that in any context. BigDom (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Are Icelandic sources irrelevant then, or shouldn't they be more relevant in this case, as this deals with the Icelandic language itself? And shouldn't we eradicate special characters as well when we're at it? Petr Čech who? Eiður Smári Guðjohnsen who? And let's not stop at sports people. What about politicians and artists? Or are the only notable Icelandic people on Wikipedia footballers? Shouldn't there be a consensus on what to call Icelanders, by their name or by what a different culture wants their name to be? Iker Casillas isn't known as Iker Fernandez just because an Englishman with no knowledge of Spain or the Spanish-speaking world could write it. The difference is that a lot of people use Spanish naming customs, as opposed to Icelandic. If an Englishman reading a Spanish source, with no real knowledge nor respect for Spanish naming customs, would refer to Iker Casillas as Iker Fernandez in a reliable source, having picked up his full name in a Spanish source and decided to go with what he's accustomed to, should Wikipedia pick it up, even if it's wrong? It's the same situation with Icelandic naming customs. finval (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned a Spanish example, because that only proves the point that Wikipedia uses what reliable sources call people. Reliable sources does call "Iker Casillas Fernandez" for Iker Casillas, reliable sources also call "José Enrique Sánchez Diaz" for "José Enrique" and his name on the shirt is "Enrique", (the article is located at José Enrique Sánchez, if anyone wants to open an RM) despite Spanish naming rules. Are you going to go into every Liverpool season article and change Enrique to Sanchez, because that is what Spanish naming rules says is right? Wikipedia should report what reliable sources reports, and when reliable sources does it "wrong" we should too. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

But the Spanish press call them Iker Casillas and José Enrique too. Icelandic media would never call a player by only their last name and the only reason English-language media does is through ignorance. BigDom (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ignorance or not, we use the COMMONNAME - I mean look at the debacle that was the Inter Milan page move. Giant Snowman 10:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Surely the Inter Milan example is an argument against using common names... BigDom (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it shows that there is Wikipedia-wide consensus for use of COMMONNAME, even if it goes against everything we at FOOTY know/like/want. Giant Snowman 11:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. It's a red herring argument anyway, CN is about article titles and that's not the issue here. BigDom (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Nationality of Emran Barakzai

A couple of weeks ago I went to the Jong Ajax page and saw that one of the players, Emran Barakzai, had an Afghanistan flag next to his name. However, when I look at sources which we consider reliable like soccerway and the like they say that he is Dutch and that there was no indication that he was born in Afghanistan. So I went ahead changing the flag from an Afghan one to the Dutch one. However, User:Subzzee undid my edit stating that this source says that he was born in Kabul and thus meaning Emran is from Afghanistan. Now my question is though, is this a reliable source? From the looks of it, this is just a fan owned page so I do not know whether I should take this pages word or not on the nationality of Emran. So I am asking what you guys think. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Place of birth does not confer footballing nationality, reliable sources do. worldfootball.net, soccerway.com and elfvoetbal.nl all say he is Dutch; the ajaxinside.nl site used by Subzzee (talk · contribs) looks to be a fan site and probably doesn't count as a RS. Conclusion - he is Dutch. Giant Snowman 15:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thought so. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

He is an Afghani who is a naturalized Dutch citizen who was born in Kabul, Afghanistan and lives in Amersfoort, Netherlands. He has never played for the Dutch national team on any youth level, and has been with Ajax youth for some years now. I know him and I simply picked a reference that had it right, which is the official Ajax Supportersgroup website, and not just any fan page. He does have Dutch citizenship as well, but the sources you mentioned all state that he was born in the Netherlands which is not true, he is from Afghanistan, and if you want his email address to ask him yourself let me know. --Subzzee (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

E-mail would be cool but how would we source that? Also, I fully believe he is Afghan, whether through being born there or from being a descendent but if he did hold any kind of Afghan citizenship etc I would have guessed he would have at least played for the Afghan national team at senior or youth level. They already have players from Germany, the US etc on their national teams so why not Emran, a guy who plays for one of the best Academies in the world? Has he played for the Dutch by any chance at youth level? If so then it should it should be a Dutch flag. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, place of birth/heritage is irrelevant here. RS say he is Dutch, so as far as we are concerned he is Dutch. There was a similar situation with Norair Mamedov, born in Armenia but every source said he was Dutch (dual-national). We used the Dutch flag until he played international football for Armenia. Giant Snowman 17:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I seriously do not get that. I would understand if it was an Indian born who is an English national because that means he has given up his Indian passport to become an English citizen (as per rules in India). We would put an English flag then but in this case Emran, if he was born in Afghanistan would hold both an Afghan and Dutch passport and would be eligible for both sides. Now, as far as I am concerned, when we decide flags, it is first based on where he was born. However, if there are sources saying he has played internationally for a country at senior or youth level then we put that country. Also, if a player has not played internationally but has a different passport (duel etc) we still place country of birth as his nation. At least that is how I have always done it in my 3.5 years on wikipedia and no one has told me otherwise till now. I agree, for now Emran should be Dutch as that is what the RS's say but for future situations I want a clear consensus on how nation flags should be added. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No, we use reliable sources to determine information on Wikipedia. Just being born in a certain place does not mean you are that nationality; what about if you were born in X because your parents from Y were visiting/working there, and you spent the rest of your life in Y? Giant Snowman 18:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason I selected the Afghan nationality, is because he was born there and has Afghan citizenship, and has NEVER played for the Netherlands on any youth level, I will switch it to Dutch in a heart beat if he ever gets a call up from them, but so far he hasn't. I can tell you why Emran has not played for Afghanistan either is because he is soooo young. He practically jumped from the B1 selection (U-16) right into the reserves squad, skipping U-19 all together. I have been listing the nationality according to the place of birth first and foremost, unless playing for a different national team. In Emrans case he hasn't yet, but is eligible seeing how he has dual citizenship. Take Sinan Keskin for example on the other hand, has dual citizenship he played for Turkey U-16, Netherlands U-17 and currently plays for Turkey U-19, so his flag is Turkish, while Abdel El Hasnaoui is Moroccan and Dutch, and plays for Netherlands U-19, and his flag is Dutch. This is pretty much my logic behind selecting the representative nation, and was how I was instructed to do so on Wikipedia a while back. I am a bit disappointed in Soccerway and Worldfootball.net for getting ahead of themselves, Those sites are excellent sources, but cross referencing is necessary, because they got this one terribly wrong (probably in haste, it is a reserves team after all) I am sure they will have it corrected soon because Emran was NOT born in the Netherlands. But after all we are discussing a player who has not yet made his professional debut, but is a member of the Jong Ajax squad competing in the Dutch Eerste Divisie. Subzzee Subzzee 20:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

But he has never played for Afghanistan at any level either as far as I am aware, so your argument about Dutch national teams is pointless. Technically, basing nationality on place of birth is WP:OR - especially when reliable sources say he is Dutch. It really is that simple! Giant Snowman 19:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Correct he has not played for either the Netherlands or Afghanistan and is eligible for both having both passports. It doesn't really matter to me honestly he has Dutch nationality as well. BUT when ArsenalFan700 initially changed the nationality of the player, he stated that according to those websites (Soccerway etc.) Emran was born in the Netherlands, which is not the case!! He was not born in the Netherlands in fact he was born in Kabul, Afghanistan and those references are wrong. If necessary I can provide more sources that state he was in fact born in Kabul. Subzzee Subzzee 19:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not doubting where he was born - I don't care, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that reliable sources are saying he is Dutch. Giant Snowman 19:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you not think it ought to matter, as they appear to be basing that nationality on a mistaken assumption of birthplace? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Only Soccerway says he was born in the Netherlands, and while it could well be that they are basing one on the other, who knows which way around it is? It could be that he is Dutch and they have therefore assumed he is native-born. Furthermore, VI also says he is Dutch. Giant Snowman 20:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Worldfootball.net also says he was born in the Netherlands. Whichever way round they're making assumptions, it seems pretty likely that they are making assumptions. Given that there is a doubt as to Mr Barakzai's nationality of choice, the question is: from a BLP point of view, should we be attributing nationality on the say-so of stats databases, when you know as well as I do that such sites have a habit of preferring to put something rather than leave a field blank. And not just databases: you were getting irritated only a few days ago at FIFA putting default dates of birth rather than leaving the field blank when they didn't know. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Soccerway is terrible for places of birth/nationality. They use a "default" country of birth/nationality for players where they don't know their place of birth because they need to create players when they make an appearance for their team. A young player making his debut in the Dutch league will be given Dutch nationality .. and sometimes they never go back to fix their mistake. There's tons of mistakes on the website when it comes to that and personally I would not use them as a primary source for that sort of stuff. On the other hand, their stats are excellent. For example, Nabil Fekir: according to Soccerway he's born in Algeria and is Algerian, while Lyon's official site states that he's born in Lyon. TonyStarks (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I do have to agree with you Tony here. While I love soccerway, specially that now they do Indian football stats as well, they do have a tendency to get the nationalities wrong. The amount of footballers in the Indian who were automatically either Indian or Nigerian is staggering.--ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't the best thing would be to remove all flags across Wikipedia for footballers that hasn't represented any country at youth or senior level? But in this case it seems that common sense would be to list him with an Afghan flag. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

We all know that wouldn't work. Also why is it "common sense" to give him an Afghan flag? Reliable sources say he is Dutch. Giant Snowman 10:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I found a Facebook profile that at least claims to be this guy, and it says that he is from Kabul. Obviously, that's not a reliable source. Football.com says he's Dutch, as does this and this. No comment on whether they're all reliable or not, but the only place reporting him as being Afghan is the fan site as far as I can see. Of course, if Ajax had profiles on their youth players, then that would make it so much easier... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Again - being born in Afghanistan doesn't mean he isn't Dutch. I was born in Canada and hold a Canadian passport - yet if I was professional (one day...!) then I would have an English flag as I have lived here nearly my entire life. Giant Snowman 10:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I never said that I thought he wasn't Dutch. I brought up the Facebook profile as there was some question about his place of birth above :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

He is Afghani and has naturalized Dutch citizenship. Anyone of those would be correct. We went through a similar argument here some years ago about Aras Özbiliz, who was born in Istanbul, and has Dutch and Armenian citizenship. This was before Aras had made any international appearances, and his nationality was still unclear. It was decided to have his flag be Turkish, since he was born in Istanbul, even though other sites listed him as a Dutch national, simply going by his place of birth since he had not yet made any appearances for a national team either. Later Aras flag was changed to Dutch when it was public knowledge that he does not hold Turkish citizenship, until he decided to represent Armenia upon which we changed his flag again. Since Emran was born in Kabul, I have made his flag Afghani until he makes an international appearance for any team simply going by his place of birth. I thought that was the logic, unless you give up your citizenship of course, or never possessed citizenship of the country you were born in. But if we are going by those sites you mention, they are wrong. Yes he has Dutch citizenship. No he was not born in the Netherlands as those sites claim he was. (Emran is still very young, and has not even sat on the bench yet this season) He was simply registered as a member of the squad for Jong Ajax this season, and if I'm not mistaken he is currently playing for the A1 squad (U-19), I am sure there will be more clarity on the player as the season moves along after he makes his debut.) Subzzee (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Position By Round Table for Major League Soccer

Walter Görlitz has advised me to inquire here about adding a Position by Round Table for Major League Soccer 2012 and 2013 season pages. I have extensive spreadsheets for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 MLS seasons, in which I have separate standings tables for each "round" which only takes the first X games played by each team, excluding more recent results. It took a lot of time and effort to make the edit and I would love to include it in the page. Walter Görlitz thought I should come see what others in the community think about adding such a table, and furthermore, how I can verify the data. I can provide screenshots and a Numbers file with all the date and calculations. --Murgittroyd (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that his methods are sound and per WP:CALC, he may have a valid position to include this. My concern is WP:V is thwarted by the lack of access to his spreadsheet and as MLS does not keep historical point totals, only current. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

FlashScore.com has an MLS archive available with every match result since the league's inception in 1998, so could I use that as the source, and then we can call the tables good via WP:CALC. If we don't think the calculations are obvious enough to form consensus, I may be able to find a way to post the spreadsheets to a webpage or something, "publish" them in some way, but I'm not sure if that's any more verifiable. --Murgittroyd (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, MLS was founded in 1996, not 1998. 109.173.211.121 (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, my mistake. The first two seasons are not archived on FlashScore.com --Murgittroyd (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, they can be found at weltfussball.de, among other websites. 109.173.211.121 (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Same category?

Hello. Are these two categories the same? Category:Stormvogels Telstar players, Category:Telstar (football club) players Xaris333 (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they need merging via WP:CFD. Giant Snowman 20:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

But they are categories, not templates. Xaris333 (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok WP:CFD. Murry1975 (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, typo. Giant Snowman 15:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Year format in dissolved clubs

After looking at some of the clubs in the phoenix club page, I noticed that on the one hand Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) displays the year the club was founded in parentheses and on the other hand past NASL clubs Seattle Sounders (1974–83) display the years the team was active. Shouldn't there be some consistency? --MicroX (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Any comments? --MicroX (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong assertion in FA Cup articles

Most if not all FA Cup articles include the following boilerplate text: "Some matches, however, might be rescheduled for the [sic] Sunday or other days..." Historically no football could have been played on Sundays due to the Sunday Observance Act 1780 prohibiting the sale of tickets and advertising for public entertainments. Football was finally excluded from this prohibition in 1974, even though the act was technically only repealed in 2005. 109.173.211.121 (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed them, There were only 20-odd with the incorrect wording, fortunately. Thank you for pointing it out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Jack Burkett and The IRA

Sometime ago I added this, which is an extract from his book, to his article as detail of his time managing a League of Ireland club particularly the section which states "some of his players at St Patricks Athletic were members of the IRA. They kept guns and balaclavas in their holdalls along with their playing kit". Seems like a notable statement to me and relevant to his time as manager and is accompanied by a picture of the player himself but an IP is removing this on the grounds that it is made up for the naïve English reader to sell Burkett's book. Rather than edit war (I have already reverted several times), any views on the next step?--Egghead06 (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If you can't reach agreement on the article talk page then try WP:DR. Giant Snowman 08:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a very contentious statement, so, as per WP:BLP, I'd advise you to find more reliable sources, or just leave it out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree it is very contentious, I would like to see multiple sources backing such a comment up. Plus it also seems like nonsense to me. What were they doing, playing a game and then nipping out for a quick kneecapping? Seems a bit stupid to bring guns and balaclavas along to a game where you will be away from your bag for 90 mins and anyone could look in there. Sounds more like a symbolic comment that there were players whose support of the IRA was so open that, even if they weren ot members, they might as well have had guns and balaclavas in their bags. Fenix down (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Guess it is contentious but I can find no other sources than Burkett's book itself. Would suggest this would be a reliable source but it's not worth my time to fight for this to be included - So it's out from me.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Arabic clubs' names

Hi everyone, I'm a user from the Italian Wiki. I was wondering... some of the most important Arabic clubs are called "Al Ahly", "Al Ittihad", "Al Nassr" and so on... So my question is: do these names need a "-", I mean: do we have to write them "Al-Ahly", "Al-Ittihad", "Al-Nassr" and so on? Or are both versions accepted? Thanks --VAN ZANT (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the club and whether they have an officially transliterated version of their name. For example, for Al Ahly SC of Egypt, the club logo says Al Ahly without the dash (-). However, Al-Ahli SC (Jeddah) of Saudi Arabia, has a dash in the club logo. It just depends on the club. Clubs in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries will generally have a dash in the club name.TonyStarks (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanks for your explanation. --VAN ZANT (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. If you need any more help let me know. TonyStarks (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Moved article reappered to avoid fullprotection 2013-14 Liverpool F.C. season

Hi.

I just saw that 2013-14 Liverpool F.C. season that earlier was moved to 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season (with correct dash) when created has now been "activated". Someone took all data from the "real article" and copy-and-pasted it to this new page. This problay as a way to get around the full protection on 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season. The revision history is seen at 2013-14 Liverpool F.C. season and it is only 4 edits. This content must me removed? We cannot have two Liverpool season articles. What should I do? QED237 (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've protected the redirect as it is, so it can't be converted to an article. We don't need to do anything further to it. Number 5 7 10:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"Notable Players"

Lists of "Notable Players"

I added a famous tag to this article's list of notable players, which has been challenged, so thought it would be useful to try to get consensus here. Although there are inclusion criteria, they seem fundamentally not clear to me. The inclusion criteria are as follows:

Played at least 100 games in Serbian top league. - I have no inherent problem with this criterion, particularly as it specifies league games.
Played at least 80 games for the club. - This seems pointless as it negates the first criteria. It is also open to abuse as it can, by definition include friendlies, reeserve game, youth games etc, that fundamentally don't count and are very difficult to verify.
Set a club record or won an individual award while at the club. - Inherently begs the question, what record and what award? There is difference between winning the golden boot and receiving a random supporters award at the end of the season.
Played at least one international match for their national team at any time. - This one makes no sense to me at all. It essentially says a player can make one substitute appearance for the first team as a kid for Team A, then after a long and winding career play once internationally while at Team B and suddenly become much more notable for Team A. How does an achievement at one club reflect on their notability at another?

I also tagged this article, which has to my opinion a ridiculously long list of notable players (over 120 players). It has the same criteria above, and it seems obvious to me that they are just too vague. The fact that +100 players fulfill them inherently dimishes whatever notability the section is attempting to highlight.

Overall, I am not against these sections, but the criteria should be extremely strict. It is preferable that such players are mentioned in sourced prose in the article, but where unavoidable the list should be kept very short so only the most notable players at a club, by whatever criteria are included. Thoughts? Fenix down (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I am fine to drop the points 2 and 3, leaving basically the plus 100 league appearances, and the players which were capped for a senior national team.

PS: Sorry to challenge you Fenix, I allways agreed on putting some clear inclusion criteriums for those lists, but:

1- These lists have an inclusion criterium, which you disagree with some points, OK, but they do have them.

2- Replacing the lists with prose is something that has been discussed here several times, and the conclusion was that at the end some sort of lists are usefull, even if the player names are included in the prose.

3- Players wich were capped for senior national teams are often the easiest way to make that sort of lists for medium and minor clubs, even if they made their international caps when playing for another club, neverless, those players became notable as internationals, and they played in X or Y club. FkpCascais (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly dislike these sorts of lists. I think we should have "List of X FC players (100+ appearances)" and "List of X FC players (50–99 appearances)" instead. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I am more against "List of X FC players (100+ appearances)" type articles than a small section in the club article for the reasons that firstly, I see them as a direct contravention of WP:NOT#STATS as they are seem to me to be simple listcruft and secondly that they divide into sections an overall list that can effectively be communicated to a readerwith a simple link to the player category for a specific club. Anyway, that is a different discussion.

Thanks for your comments FKP. Regarding your point about capped players, using this player as an example, you say that as he was capped internationally he is now deserving of special attention in the [[FK Rad] article. Do you not think however, that his inclusion actually achieves the opposite of what it intends to? A look at his player article shows he received his only two caps some three years after he left Rad that actually he was not of international standard when he was at the club and is therefore not that notable for FK Rad. Where a club plays in a low league and only very rarely has internationals on their books, maybe one cap is enough to warrant a special mention. However here, and in the other article noted above the clubs play in the top division in their country. I would expect to see a significant number of capped players over their history and therefore that simply being capped, particularly if we are including caps at any time in a players career, is inherently not that notable. I don't think it is possible to establish specific guidelines for all clubs, but for those in top divisions, perhaps at least 10-20 caps would be better? Fenix down (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand the complexity of this, and I also know that listing players with national team caps will create situations like the one you mentioned (players with litlle impact in the club but included just because they played for the national team). However, that was a practical way to make these lists cause usually the players with national team caps are the most notable ones generally, and it is interesting to have them listed as having played for some club. Obviously, I am talking here about medium or minor sized clubs which don´t have an already established official "Hall of fame" or some sort of official "Notable players lists" as many British or major worldwide clubs often have. For instance, for Serbian medium and minor sized clubs I initially included only national team capped players as the most practical way. Later, another user added those other criteriums about 100+ league apperaences so non national team capped players, but important for the club, could be added as well. So the combination of the two ends up being fair in my view. An exemple could also be found as not all national teams are equal, so you could see listed some minor, lets say Bosnian, player just because he played in their national team, and you could be missing some years-long Brazilian who was important for the club but who didn´t played for Brazil. It´s complicated to have everyone pleased on this matter... It would be really good if more people could express their view and we could reach some consensus. The trouth is that by now, as far as I remember, the only consensus is that those lists need a inclusion criterum to stay, but we never got into detail about what the inclusion criterium should be, but rather particular editors, working in particular articles, made the criteriums hich would someho work. FkpCascais (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree that inclusion criteria can be either / or, os either 100+ league games or international caps, but I do think that the player should firstly have to be capped whilst at the club and secondly that on a narticle by article basis the unmber of caps should be considered. If having a criterion of one cap leads to the addition of twenty or so players, then perhaps it is not high enough, but this is something that I don't think we can have overarching criteria for. Fenix down (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Fenix here - a player should be capped while playing for the club in question if he should be listed as "notable". Mentoz86 (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That would leave all but 3 Serbian clubs with an empty section, as all are capped when moving to Partizan or Red Star or abroad... I can´t see that working for medium and small sized clubs. FkpCascais (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I take it we are talking about sections on the club's article, and not seperate List of X players articles? If so, then I do not like inclusion criteria set by ourselves i.e. 50/100/200 club appearances and/or a 'major' trophy winner and/or international. It is much better to use criteria set by a reliable source, such as if the club / newspaper / book released a 'Best 100 club players' list (as happened to my team, where the local paper released a list). Giant Snowman 13:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I do think that is preferable, if there is an all-time XI or something then that would more than suffice for a section in a club article and where there is one used in an article there should be no other lists of notable players within the club article (personally I think the Bradford listing is a bit long in the club article, but it is from a reliable source and a club of that age is bound to have more notable players than a younger one). I think the problem is that firstly most clubs won't have one of these and secondly, with the large number of club articles and people editing it is going to be difficult to control something like this. It would be useful to try to reach some form of consensus as to what is acceptable at a base level. Fenix down (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is no appropriate external, reliable list, then we do not need to include a fully-populated "notable players" section in the club article. Simply have a heading saying 'Former players' and link to the relevant player category. We should not be deciding that X amount of appearances for a club makes someone 'notable' but less than does not. It is not based on anything. Giant Snowman 14:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely fine with me. If this is a consensus that we could reach then I would be more than happy to support it. It would certainly get rid of a lot of the listcruft that can dominate club articles. Would be useful to get other opinions on this proposition specifically. Fenix down (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Most of Serbian medium or minor sized clubs actually list in their comemorative books (the ones they have them published) the players that played in the club and earned national team caps. That is the most common kind of player list found in their books. Some beside this one have mentioned the generations that, for exemple, won some trophy such as league, cup, or played in Europe if that is a rare archivement for the club, and some have also a list of players that played in the club and later moved to the major leagues. Among all of this, I found most practical to have the natinal team capped players listed, as that way the list usually isn´t much long and is easily verifiable. I understand editors prefer maybe something else, but I think it has been working out fine for numerus medium and small size clubs around the world. Regarding the +100 or +X appearences, I am OK to drop them, however I don´t see a problem about national team appearances, even if they happend before or after the player played in that paticular club. Why can´t we leave the national team players as for many medium and small clubs the list isn´t long and anyway I usually add the category link just next to it? FkpCascais (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think what you are referring to sounds more like wide-ranging lists of players than a top XI or hall of fame list. GS does have a good point and you have kind of illustrated it with the comment that for many medium and small clubs the list isn´t long. Already there is a subjective element here in determining what is medium or small sized in terms of club. For the clubs you have been editing maybe there aren't that many players, but you can't say that this is an acceptable set of criteria for one club but not for another, as that is the decision of the editor rather than the inclusion of sourced material. I try to think of it like this, you might be ableto apply those criteria to FK Rad, but how would you apply them to Barcelona? Almost everyone who plays for them is capped at some point in their careers. Fenix down (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that ends up being exactly my point: that clubs that have a Hall of Fame which can be sourced, they should use it (cases of Barcelona and many major clubs), but clubs that don´t have such lists, mosly the medium and minor clubs from minor leagues, can use some other criterium just to have visible some players that have been in the club. Basically what I am proposing is to use a sourced list of notable players when available, and set some criterium for the ones which don´t have. What we are discussing re the cases of clubs which don´t have a Hall of Fame available. FkpCascais (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If a club/other reliable source connected to the club hasn't decided that a set of players are 'Notable' then why should we? Giant Snowman 15:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The point is that you (or any other editor) are deciding what the criteria should be and these will vary depending on the editor in question and the club. That is fundamentally OR. I don't have a fundamental issue with very brief lists of a few players, but GS's point is correct. Without external sources backing up any list of players, regardless of the criteria, any unsourced list really fails to address WP:V and should be removed. Fenix down (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, so you want us to drop completely any sort of former players lists for clubs that don´t have them included in their published books or websites? (Note: there are also minor clubs without even websites). I just think a minor list of internationals that passed trough the club would be informative for any minor club. FkpCascais (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes - if a club is so minor that they do not have a website then it is unlikely they will have any internationals - and even if they do, the club article probably doesn't deserve a 'Former players' section that is anything more than a link to the relevant category. Giant Snowman 16:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

My opinion/approach (have NEVER encountered any obstacles whilst cleaning up the dozens of Portuguese/Spanish clubs i have) is that any player with 100+ official appearances and/or international status whilst at the given club should be deemed notable. Reliable sources notwithstanding, it could be a WP proceeding that we all could agree on.

If not, more hard work gone down the drain :( Attentively --AL (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with AL absolutely. I think we don´t have a consensus here, and I find excessive Fenix´s taging and removal of cases like this (historic club where the section is even written in prose), and many others. Personally, I even find former players section as important as current squad, as often one reads about some, exemple, Portuguese, Swiss, Romanian, etc. club and has as much curiosity to know which players played there as the ones that play now. I am very against the removal of this sections by the criterium defended by GS (strictly sourced) as often many countries simply don´t have the tradition of having Halls of Fame. I am aware that many of the lists should be removed as are messed up and don´t include criteriums, but I think we are here removing now indiscriminatelly all without strong reason or consensus for it by now. FkpCascais (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

But the point that neither of you seem to accept is that editor's cannot pick and choose criteria. That is fundamentally OR. If a club does not have reliable sources to indicate "famous players" it is not for WP editors to make them up. That is one of the fundamental tenets of WP. Not sure what you don't understand here. Fenix down (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That would basically leave us with only what is already written, and you are forgetting that many clubs, some of which are defunct long time before internet age, would simply be unable to have anything written about their former players. For instance, Gragjanski Skopje, existed until the end of WWII. The players from the club which were selected for the national teams, are worth mention, as in that time the nt´s usually picked the best ones. Having that info removed is of no use for WP. But it´s hard to find a source saying that those players were the best ones, because if they were internationals, that becomes obvious. Also, Kiril Simonovski was the first Macedonian to play for Yugoslavia, a relatively strong nt by then, and that by itself is a major archivement, not to mention that he was later picked for Bulgarian nt as well, when Bulgaria occupied the region, so one of rare players that played for 2 national teams. So, removing that info is not usefull in my view, the solution can be in changing the way it is inserted in the article. like changing the title to simply "former players" or just leave it in prose within the text. FkpCascais (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If there are no sources, then nothing should be written, simple as that. Highlighting international players, particularly as you want to do, players who were capped at any point in their career, is still OR as it is the editor who is deciding that someone is notable at a particular club for being capped while at another. Your comments on Kiril Simonovski are also OR, if you want to include them in an article then find some sources that discuss this. Your points around what is useful and what is not are also confusing. It is a fundamental principle of WP that unverified text is not useful. It doesn't matter how interesting you find it or how long it took to write or how many editors were involved. Unreferenced text has no place, particularly when it is lists within articles. Fenix down (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Precisely - if no reliable sources have covered the concept/topic of 'X FC's former players' then Wikipedia should not either. Editors should not take it upon themselves to pluck a figure of appearances that makes players 'notable' for a particular club out of thin air - 50/100/200 etc. Giant Snowman 15:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, EU-Football.info is a website which lists players which were capped for a national team while with the club, just saying this as information. FkpCascais (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Being capped for a national team makes somebody notable by Wikipedia's standards - but it does not automatically make that player a 'notable / famous' figure at the club. Giant Snowman 15:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand this problem here GS, but I am questioning about how much "freedom" do we editors have in adding information to articles (club articles in this case, and about their former players specifically) when that infomrmation is unavailable in RS or hard to find. It´s basically like if were talking about some art school and as if we were forbitten to create a list of artists from that school which receved awards, only because there isn´t any RS which lists it that way... For minor clubs, having players called to the national team is a major archivement, and I can find those lists in their published books, but not all are available at Google books etc. Anyway, I still beleave that removing those lists from clubs wan´t help us being informative, and the lists don´t hurt much when they have a specific inclusion criterium, it´s upon us to decide if making some inclusion criterium for clubs without sourced lists of former players is OR and thus a no-no, or a valid peace of information. Let´s not forget that we are not obligated to write only about what club sources say. FkpCascais (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If "information is unavailable in reliable sources" then we shouldn't be including it anywhere on Wikipedia, that is basic stuff. Again, saying something is a "major achievement" is your personal opinion. You need to get out of that mindset. Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory and everything and everyone - only that which is notable. An article on a small club does not need to have a 'Famous players' section, as I've already said it probably does not merit one. Linking to the relevant player category, which lists all players for that club with an article, is more than sufficient. Giant Snowman 16:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What you did here is exactly what is being suggested. I would like to think that we can all agree that if a club needs to have a famous players section, that this short section outlining a few key players linked to a reliable source is succinct and is of more use to a reader as referenced material than a braindump of many players meeting arbitrarily decided criteria. Fenix down (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe we all agree on the internationals, from what i have read. About league games, would 250+ be also considered OR? Cheers --AL (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree on the internationals - and yes 250+ would still be OR. Any number is OR. Giant Snowman 18:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for that oversight, even though you did not elaborate why you say a player turned international whilst playing for X/Y club does not confer club notability. But, switching to club matters now, read this mate: imagine a given player had 600 league games for the same club (rare, moreso nowadays, but it happens and has happened in the past for sure). If no reliable source covered that (and it's bound to be the case with players before the internet era, a way to put it), then a player with 600 LEAGUE GAMES for a club would not be notable at that club?

If you say "No he would not", them i'm beginning to see the gist of it (after SEVEN YEARS, a bit pathetic move by me :)). I'll give up on that case, and sorry for any inconvenience, was just trying to help man. Cheers --AL (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I still agree with AL because I think some of you are misisng the point when dealing with clubs who´s websites are basic and only include recent infrmation, or with defunct clubs, or with many information about the pre internet era. Basically, except for the major clubs, all medium/minor sized legues have clubs that miss having Hall of Fame or that sort of lists, and their, usually commemorative, books are often non-free on Google books or such websites. Basically, what many editors did was some research and gathering of information in those cases. Some made crazy inclusion criteriums, some other editors didn´t, but we are now suggesting dropping any inclusion criteium which is not an official Hall of Fame?

PS: Some time ago I also noteced the discussion regarding HŠK Građanski Zagreb and how Fenix wanted to erase the entire list, see here, and then this discussion happend. So obviously there are more senior editors not agreeing in just ridding off all that info just like that. FkpCascais (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Fkp - you just don't get it do you? We do NOT have to have a 'Notable players' list for all clubs, and if reliable sourced don't cover the topic of a clubs 'notable players' then Wikipedia shouldn't either. It's that simple. Giant Snowman 08:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to have a "notable players" list for all clubs, and it would be better to have this as prose. But still, Fenix' and Giant's view is still the opposite of what editors are told in the Template:Famous players: "Please help to define clear inclusion criteria and edit the list to contain only subjects that fit those criteria", that is exactly what Fkp has done in this case, and is also what is done is our FA Malmö FF#Notable players. That lists like this should have an inclusion criteria set by reliable sources is not supported by any policy is it? Mentoz86 (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well if you ignore WP:OR and WP:NPOV...oh, and that template is 'damage limitation' in the same way {{Match in progress}} is. If I see an unsourced list of 'Notable players' - with or without the template - I remove it. Giant Snowman 09:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

But there is a difference between an inclusion criteria set by reliable sources, and an inclusion criteria set by Wikipedia-editor and supported by reliable sources. In the Malmö FF example, the criteria is set by the Wikipedia-editor, but reliable sources support that the players in the list has played 500 matches etc. I can't see any problem with that, and I believe that is what Fkp wants in this case aswell. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Why does playing 100/250/500 matches make somebody 'notable' for a club? That is an "inclusion criteria set by Wikipedia-editor" (as you say; with or without support from a reliable source) and that is what I have an issue with. If, however, there is a book/website about a club that lists 50 players that have made X number of appearances, in a section about famous/notable players, then that is acceptable. Giant Snowman 10:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Whole books, often many whole books, have been written about the topics of Wikipedia articles, but when we create or improve an article on a particular topic, we don't just copy out those books. We don't expect to find a section in a book listing the important bits of a football club's history and then copy it out as the History section. We use our judgment, based on our assessment of those books and other reliable sources, to decide what's important enough to include in a relatively short outline of the topic. How does standard practice re content creation and editing, totally normal and acceptable when we apply it to the history of a football club, suddenly get to be OR when we apply it to that club's players? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

When we are writing an article and decide something is worthy of inclusion that is not saying that anything not in an article is not worthy, merely that it is not in the article, any other editor can add it at a later date. When an editor independant of sources, creates a list of criteria and then applies those to a list of players that he creates, the editor is saying, what is included is worthy and then everything not include is not worthy and this then cannot be changed by another editor in the future. Therefore the criteria applied by the initial editor to the list of notable players is the OR because it is not based on any reliable source and prohibits any further additions / removals by other editors that go against the initial criteria, so I am not sure your point above is really the same thing as is being discussed here. Fenix down (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we're all agreed that unsourced content is a no-no. But I think I was agreeing with Mentoz slightly higher up: that there's a "difference between an inclusion criteria set by reliable sources, and an inclusion criteria set by Wikipedia-editor and supported by reliable sources"; and disagreeing with what GS seemed to imply and perhaps I misunderstood: that we not only have to have RS for content, we also have to have RS for inclusion criteria. Inclusion of content in an article can always be changed; that's how Wikipedia works. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

But Struway, simply saying 'X once played an international game' or 'X made Y number of appearances' and then listing him as a "notable player" is weak editing. Say an editor(s) decide that 100 appearances is enough. Well what about the reserve player who made 100 substitute appearances over a short career with the club, making no impact, winning ho honours etc.? He would be included, but a player with 99 appearances who scored 150 goals, won 2 cups etc. wouldn't? We risk inclusion criteria which are so complicated that they are constantly tweaked in order to accomodate players that fans believe should be included. Giant Snowman 12:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If we're talking edge cases, what about the player valuable-to-the-club but boring or active so long ago that there are few easy-access sources, who gets passed over in the local journo's 25 Legends book in favour of Mr not-quite-so-valuable-to-the-club but recent, readily sourced, and much more fun to read about?

I don't have a problem with removing unsourced lists of random Notable players, and I do have a problem with the sorts of criteria that encourage the listing of dozens of names without any context. But I'm afraid I don't see how that means we can't write down the names of (for example) the top 5 (or 4, or 6, wherever a gap comes) appearance-makers, top 5 leading goalscorers, the club captain for three promotions over seven seasons, the only bloke ever to be capped for England, and the team sheet for the only time they ever won a national cup competition, together with the reliably sourced reasons for writing those names down, without a book to tell us to.

Perhaps the problem lies in the structure of the club article. If there were no Notable players subsection at all, but the Players section was expected to contain some prose instead of going straight into Current squad, then that content would be overseen like any other WP prose content and would hopefully be less likely to get out of hand. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Listing the top 5 (I'd prefer 10 actually) appearance holders and/or goal scorers, backed by reliable sources, is completely fine (and indeed welcome, it's something I see on national team articles) - as long as you don't claim them as "Notable players" for the club. Same with referenced lists of captains, and their 1905 title-winning squad. Please understand - I am not opposed to lists of players per se, but I am opposed to the title of "Notable players" being used. It implies OR and NPOV. "Former players" will suffice as a main heading. Giant Snowman 15:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

But FORMER PLAYERS is quite encompassing, because it includes ALL players for that club, since the beginning of time. I do agree that FAMOUS PLAYERS is quite POVish. --AL (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hence why you provide a link to the player category, or seperate article(s) if they exist, and then provide a summary of former players (i.e. top 10 appearance and/or goalscorers, in Struway's example.) Giant Snowman 15:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree with GS, his comments above illustrate exactly why it is not for editors to set inclusion criteria. Fenix down (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Small point... "Former players" doesn't necessarily work as a title: it's not improbable that the top appearance-maker or goalscorer is a current player. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Good point, but it's still miles better than 'Famous' or 'Notable' players, and the section would primarily be about former players. Giant Snowman 16:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Similar case

Babylon77 (talk · contribs) has added lists of notable players to loads of English non-league clubs. The lists do have inclusion criteria, but they are usually the pretty wide-ranging "Players that have played/managed in the football league or any foreign equivalent to this level (i.e. fully professional league)/Players with full international caps/Players that hold a club record or captained the club".......apart from Heybridge Swifts which also includes players who "achieved success in another sport or media career" so as to shoe-horn in Mark Wright (who played two matches for the club according to his infobox.....). Should these all go.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Definitely in my opinion. Such inclusion criteria inherently beg the question. Why should a player who played for club A be called out as prominant because they went on to a fully professional league / capped internally / etc. I believe the opinions above lean towards no list at all unless it is supported by reliable sources. I agree with this. If there is no reliable source then the only acceptable list is a link to the player category. Fenix down (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Who's decided these are 'notable players' for this particular club apart from one editor who plucked some criteria out of thing air? Giant Snowman 08:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

A practical question

When a section of a club article is spun out to its own article, History of Foo F.C. or List of Foo F.C. managers or whatever, summary style would require a summary section to remain in the club article in place of the longer content that got spun out. At Birmingham City F.C., all the spinouts have their summary sections (even Notable managers, although I probably shouldn't mention it, because I chose them myself) except Notable players. What should go in that missing section? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you do something like Bradford City A.F.C.#Former players? Giant Snowman 08:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

TBH, if I had that sort of source, the most I'd consider doing with it would be a symbol on each player's entry in the List of players. In the average best-100 type of book, there are a set of players that anybody who knew anything about that club would include, and after those the writers tend to choose players they can write something interesting about. Also, I don't see how such a very long list of random names and flags adds to the general reader's understanding of the football club.

WP:Summary style#Basic technique says "Each subtopic or child article ... contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article." In which case, perhaps I should base it on the lead of the List of BCFC players, omitting the club-related stuff. Which comes down to moving the first couple of paras from the Statistics and records section to the Notable players... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

For notable players, is there really a necessity for a summary section? If there are no reliable sources that could be used to provide a summary section as per the BIrmingham Mangers section, I would think simply a link to the article under the current squad listing would suffice, calling out any specific players without reliable sources would be OR as it would be assuming unverified prominance. I think the Bradford City section is a bit long, but it is at least reffed to a reliable source. Fenix down (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:Summary style says "The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it." (my italics) Sorry, I'm a little confused: are you saying the Managers summary is or is not Original Research? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying it is not OR because it is sourced. That is how I think any "notable / former players" section should be too. Fine to have the overall list pages and then a sourced summjary. I suppose you could have a former players section that called out the top appearances / trophy winners / goals as long as it was sourced and a hatnote to the list of players articles. Fenix down (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

So, to clarify, you think it's OK for me to decide which managers/players are mentioned, so long as anything said about them is sourced (and so long as there seem to be sensible reason(s) for mentioning them)? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the same for players. If there are reliable sources that say that so and so is generally regarded as one of the best players for the club or some other criteria I have no problem with this at all. My main problem is with the hundreds of lists with no criteria at all and then the others that have criteria that an editor has just decided are arbitrary cut off points. I think my reply to your comment in one of the sections above ties into this. Fenix down (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

As there has been quite a bit of discussion on this and so as not to waste it all, I wonder whether it is worth trying to get something down that we can achieve some consensus on and potentially add to the club MoS as the notable players section there is a bit vague? My proposal would be as follows:

The section heading "Notable Players" is to be avoided as giving potential subjective preference to those listed. "Former Players" is preferred, but if the section is a table for most apps and goals then the section heading should reflect this.
All unsourced notable / former players sections are unacceptable as inherently OR and should be removed on sight.
Where such sections exist, they should be referenced to reliable sources (i.e. club hall of fame, reliable newspaper aticles, etc)
Where clubs have "list of Foo FC players with xx-yy appearances" any "former players" information should be included in the summary section below the hatnote for such forks. Such information should be sourced or at least verified on the list of players pages. Editors should not use this section to call out their own preferences as this is inherently OR.
Where such sources do not exist and where there are no "list of players" articles, the only acceptable comment for former players is a link to the club player category.
A top ten table for appearances and goals scored is preferred, but other criteria, as long as sourced can be acceptable.
Such tables should be sourced, particularly where players appearing on them may not meet NFOOTY or GNG and so cannot be verified through their own article.
Where lists of players are included editors should be conscious of their length both on its own and in the context of the article. Even if sourced, in excessively long lists, the supposed notability is diminished in proportion to the size of the list.
Editors should not impose their own critera on such sections (i.e. played >100 games, capped, top scorer) as this is an individual editor's preference and imposes conditions on the section that actively prevent other editors from adding potentialy notable individuals (i.e. if the criteria is >100 games another editor could not add their all time top scorer who only played 99) and additionally it is not possible to have a set of overarching criteria that can be applied to all clubs.

What do people think? My view is this gives us grounds to remove all unsourced information, to avoid individual editors setting criteria whch are then difficult to change, encourages the fundamental principle of WP:V, keeps sections relatively short, at least in comparison to article length and attempts to demonstrate a preferred format for such sections whilst still leaving scope for editors to tailor such sections to individual club needs where appropriate. Fenix down (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I am OK. Just to add a question about listing players with nt appearances with a specific title "National team players" (or similar) is not desirable for minor or defunct clubs? We have the exmple at HŠK Građanski Zagreb. FkpCascais (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think a section on "Capped Players", assuming it is exhaustive is outside the scope of this discussion. I wouldn't have any fundamental issue with it as long as it was not too long in comparison to the rest of the article and did not have any subjective criteria. However, I think a "list of Foo FC players page which was tabluated with a column for caps would be a better way to show this information. Anyone else have any opinions on the proposal above? Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

From reading the discussion above, there doesn't seem to be a consensus for the third, fifth and the last criteria. We don't need a "Hall of Fame" to create such a section, and the Malmö FF article is a good way to do it: there are no sources that group these players together, but the four criteria that players in that section meet are all sourced. So basically, editors should impose their own criteria on such section, because one size doesn't fit all, and those criteria could be discussion at the individual talkpages if someone wants to change them. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Mentoz, no problem on the Malmo article with list criteria 2 and 3 as these are reliably sourced (and my "hall of fame" comment was just an example - I don't mind where the source is from as long as it is reliably sourced), but you seemed to have missed a major point of the discussion above. Several editors note that the criteria that a player has to have played > xxx games is a subjective criterion imposed by an editor. Why 500? What makes a player notable because they pass that threshold rather than say 600 or 400? The only answer is because an editor says so. Additionally, I don't believe that the third comment requires consensus here as it is a fundamental point of WP:V. Where players have their own articles I would be happy that they simply have apps sourced in their own article, but for clubs playing in non-FPLs where players have not been capped interntationally, and so wouldn't have their own article, it would be essential. Fenix down (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion archive

There's only a few of us that use the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Deletion archive#Deletion archive so I'm posting here for wider input. Would there be an outcry if we converted the archive into a table format, in order to get more info / make it sortable, something along these lines:

Article(s)	AFD	Opened	Closed	Result
John Smith (footballer born 2013)	[piped AFD link goes here]	2013-09-01	2013-09-18	Delete
Jane Smith (footballer born 2013)	[piped AFD link goes here]	2013-09-01	2013-09-18	Keep
Wiki F.C.	[piped AFD link goes here]	2013-09-01	2013-09-18	Redirect to [X]
Wiki A.F.C.	[piped AFD link goes here]	2013-09-01	2013-09-18	Merge with [X]
Wiki United F.C.	[piped AFD link goes here]	2013-09-01	2013-09-18	No consensus

I would say that multiple articles at the same AFD should have seperate entries (in the example above imagine that the three clubs were discussed at the same AFD). One benefit of a table is the direct link to the relevant articles - those that have survived an AFD are likely to be in need of improvement, so it's a good resource in that respect. Those what were deleted but have a blue link means they may have been re-created, and could therefore be candidates for CSD/another AFD. Thoughts welcome. Giant Snowman 11:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a fantastic idea. I had no idea that page existed and agree that it's a valuable tool. Making it a sortable table with additional information would be even better. Jogurney (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Super idea GS! I can't think of one negative. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems like this would make the page much more reader friendly, would definitely support this. Fenix down (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as there's been no opposition to this I'll slowly start converting to the new table format. Giant Snowman 14:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea to me as well, but I would the caveat of not adding redundant links to the same discussion. i.e something like this (assuming the articles on John and Jane Smith were considered in the same discussion). Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Article(s)	AFD	Opened	Closed	Result
John Smith (footballer born 2013)	[piped AFD link goes here]	2013-09-01	2013-09-18	Delete
Jane Smith (footballer born 2013)	[piped AFD link goes here]	2013-09-01	2013-09-18	Keep
Wiki F.C.	[piped AFD link goes here]	2013-09-01	2013-09-18	Redirect to [X]
Wiki A.F.C.	[piped AFD link goes here]	2013-09-01	2013-09-18	Merge with [X]
Wiki United F.C.	[piped AFD link goes here]	2013-09-01	2013-09-18	No consensus

Yep, that looks better. Giant Snowman 17:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Mesut Özil career stats citations

Hello all, could somebody please confirm if transfermarkt.com is a reliable source? I've noticed that Mesut Özil and a few other Arsenal players career stats are using this as the RS; I remember reading somewhere that transfermarkt.com shouldn't be used? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, it was only the profile section that was unreliable; the career statistics were OK. That said, if you can replace them with the more traditional ones (Soccerbase, Soccerway), that would resolve any issues. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No, none of the player database is reliable, see multiple discussions in the archives of WP:RSN. Giant Snowman 09:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Loan Transfer Window

I definitely think there needs to be a section on the article "Transfer window" dedicated to the Emergency Loan Transfer Windows and explaining it in detail. Anyone up for helping me? There isn't many sources which can be used as a reference. I've found this which can be used. IJA (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Premier League/BSkyB deal in 1992

Would the story of how BSkyB obtained broadcasting rights to the newly-formed Premier League warrant a standalone page? Been thinking of creating an article about the bidding process (why Sky wanted/needed football, ITV's involvement, BBC wanting to revive MOTD, Lord Sugar's "blow them out of the water" phone call), but not sure what to title it. I don't think it'll be wise to encompass everything here. Any help? Lemonade51 (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think it would - but it could be worth expanding Professionalism in association football or even creating a new, more general article about football and TV. Giant Snowman 15:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it might well. It's a justifiable spinout from Premier League, there's no shortage of sources, it's still discussed in the media today, and it certainly left a legacy... While a general article on television/broadcasting and football is a good idea, there are too few in-depth football articles on here that aren't related to matches or players. Ideally, you could do with someone willing and able to expand the football/business/political aspects of the Foundation of the Premier League article, which as it stands hardly justifies its existence as a spinout, at a similar level to what you want to do with the bidding process (good luck in finding one :-) As to naming, you'd have to go descriptive, so how about something along the lines of Television (or broadcasting) and the foundation of the Premier League. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for the replies. Did intend to expand the Foundation article, but felt more comfortable dissecting the broadcasting aspect to start with. Started writing up a draft this morning and will post it on a sandbox, at which point hopefully someone here gives it the greenlight (or until the foundation article is sufficiently expanded). I just think it is a very important episode in English football and the repercussions are still felt today -- there hasn't been any live top-flight football on terrestrial television since 1992. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

LDU Quito

Greetings folks,

I need some help. Unfortunately I have been edit warring with an anon IP user of the official name of this club. He insists is does not contain the words "de Quito" based of some exceprt from the early history section of the club's official page, while I say it does because that what is says on the Ecuadorian Football Federation's website and on FIFA's. In addition, he is editing the disambiguation page. What make this harder to settle is that there is "fact sheet" on the club's official website stating the official name. Third party sources are thus needed. Thanks in advance. Digirami (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This seems to have been an ongoing revert war between this user and an IP. The user above does seem to be correct though, but the IP refuses to enter into any form of discussion. Is there any chance an admin could review and perhaps protect the page for a little while? Fenix down (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

2013–14 Football League Cup

What are the numbers in brackets for? Some explanation is needed. 81.152.111.150 (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It refers to the level at which they play - (1) is Premiership, (2) is Championship etc. They need removing - but I'm going to bed. Giant Snowman 21:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 09:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been reverted, discussion on the talk page, further input welcome. Giant Snowman 14:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:English football squad navigational boxes

Hi, on this page for some reason the Liverpool L.F.C. players are showing in the list of tmeplates, this wasn't the case yesterday, I have looked and cannot see why myself, does anyone else know how to fix this? Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 09:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I take it you mean Category:FA WSL football club squad templates? Regardless, now fixed. Giant Snowman 09:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Both, I imagine. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the FA WSL 1, either way cheers. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 11:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There are still 5 of the players articles listed on the page. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 11:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

They should go when the server catches up with itself. Giant Snowman 11:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The template is now formatted the same as the others, so I'd agree with GS; they should disappear as and when. By the way, the template should be in both cats. Being a FA WSL or any other specific league squad is a temporary thing, whereas it's always an English football squad navbox. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I just edited Katie Williams (footballer) to fix a hyphen/endash, and that article has now (for me, anyway) gone from the category pages, so the rest will definitely go when the system gets round to noticing the change in the template. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's just me but I'm still seeing Lucy Bronze, Natasha Dowie & Sarah Gregorius listed in the L section. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 21:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. Pages that are members of a category through a transcluded template, stays in that category even if the template is changed until someone edits the page or do a null edit. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Carlos Tévez loan at Man Utd

I'm talking about the infobox only - should he have an arrow and (loan) next to his Man Utd spell? I say not, as it is too confusing/misleading, and the consensus at the time agrees with me. HonorTheKing (talk · contribs) disagrees. Giant Snowman 14:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As Tevez was MSI owned, who in 2007 loaned him for two seasons to Manchester United, then not writing "loaned from MSI" will show as if United owned him at the time. United had the option to buy him in 2009 but refused, which he then moved to City. I do not say we need the arrow bcuz it may confuse, but we should have the word loaned from MSI near Manchester United.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

A loan is only relevant to the infobox if it's from another club, though. Players have all sorts of ownership arranegements. I say leave it out. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But 'loans' are from one club to another, not from a private company to a club. The MSI arrangement should be mentioned in detail in the prose - we should not attempt to summarise a complicated situation in the infobox. Giant Snowman 14:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting discussion about sanctioning leagues

Talk:Major League Soccer#CSA has nothing to do with MLS?

The talk section was started by me and then I was corrected. It was restarted when an editor added that [the league was sanctioned by both USSF and Soccer Canada, which I reverted. The discussion has three main points.

There is no reference to support that it is sanctioned by USSF.
There is no indication that it's not sanctioned by Soccer Canada.
I could find no indication that FA sanctioned the Premier League or that DFB sanctioned the Fußball-Bundesliga. I decided not to dig further, but you can see the problem.

I know that the lower leagues are sanctioned exclusively by USSF because of the legal problems that happened between late 2009 and the start of play in 2011, but I can't find similar documentation related to the first division. Would anyone care to weigh-in either here or at the talk page article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding point three, what do you mean by sanctioned? The Premier League is legally the Football Association Premier League and has representives on various FA committees. If a league is not sanctioned by the local FIFA affiliate (the FA in the case of England), players would have some difficulty obtaining International Transfer Certificates when they change countries. Hack (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I mean. In the case of MLS, the argument is that since there are both American and Canadian teams that both associations sanction the league, but I recall discussion that it's only sanctioned by USSF. However, that's not referenced, nor is any other league's sanctioning referenced(although it may be common knowledge). Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Page move over create protection

Could any admins about please move Hector Bellerin to Héctor Bellerín. The correct title was salted after a series of premature creations, but he's now made his debut in the League so the article is appropriate. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

He has not yet played a single league match, he came on as a sub for the third round of English League Cup, were almost all players were youth players. Is that enough to make him "notable"? QED237 (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that all clubs competing in the League Cup play in the top four divisions of English football, it is a fully pro competition, which makes it sufficient for WP:NSPORT (generally speaking). Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation I totally understand (I have looked up all fully proffesional leagues list). Does this mean that the same thing dont apply in the FA Cup where there are teams from non proffesional leagues as well (every team in England can play)? QED237 (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Page moved. Number 5 7 18:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)