Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 90

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85 ← Archive 88 Archive 89 Archive 90 Archive 91 Archive 92 → Archive 95

Template name for bulgarian league.

Hi, I just saw {{2014–15 A group table (First phase)}} being created and I do not think the name is clear enough to what it actually is, so I thought I should come here for comments on the name. It is the league table for the bulgarian top division 2014–15 A PFG so that info should in my opinion be in the name. The reason for group I believe is because after every team has met, the table is split and the top and bottom teams play a separate but there is no need for both group and first phase. I have a few suggestions (name in italics to improve reading in this discussion)

  1. 2014–15 A PFG table (next stage could be 2014–15 A PFG Championship group table and 2014–15 A PFG Relegation group table)
  2. 2014–15 A PFG table (next stage could be 2014–15 A PFG Championship table and 2014–15 A PFG Relegation table)
  3. 2014–15 A PFG table (first phase) (next stage could be 2014–15 A PFG table (Championship phase) and 2014–15 A PFG table (Relegation phase))
  4. 2014–15 A PFG table (first phase) (next stage could be 2014–15 A PFG table (Championship) and 2014–15 A PFG table (Relegation))
  5. or many other alternatives (for example include bulgarian for clarification, but that is not used for other tables).

To put in context other leagues has the season, league name and then table, for example {{2014–15 Premier League table}}, {{2014–15 Eredivisie table}} and and so on. QED237 (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I just saw that article is placed at 2014–15 A PFG but in article it says many different things such as 2014–15 A Group as league names which may be way the template has the name it does but I think we should name template according to official league name and what is used on other articles which is A PFG (A professional football group). QED237 (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Fore sure it should be more descriptive. If this is the only country with a PFG, then Bulgarian can be omitted in my opinion.. I would go for option 2, possibly with the first table listed as 2014–15 A PFG first phase table. CRwikiCA talk 15:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Name doesn't really matter. I changed the use of fb cl team to fb cl2 team. -Koppapa (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

TPE/ROC national team

I want to know when precisely the Taiwanese team competed under what name ("Taiwan", "Republic of China", "Chinese Taipei") and under what flag (this one, this one, this one, or something else). This isn't adequately explained at Chinese Taipei national football team. --Theurgist (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, what's happened to the latter two flags since I linked to them? They seem to have been deleted, but why? There are a lot of red links now where flags are meant to be displayed. --Theurgist (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but the two files in question were deleted on Commons as copyright violations. Jared Preston (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's too bad. Can we not still use the flags even if they're copyrighted? If not, the options would be either to use incorrect flags or placeholder flags for Chinese Taipei, which would be quite unsatisfactory. Aside, I still need some information on the original question, it'll be much appreciated. --Theurgist (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The team's name is "Republic of China National Football Team" up to 1981. "Chinese Taipei National Football Team" after 1981 because Nagoya Resolution.
The flag in international events is the National Flag of the Republic of China up to 1981. The flag of Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee(CTOC) instead of the national flag after 1981 because Nagoya Resolution.
This yellow flag is the flag of Chinese Taipei Football Association(CTFA) up to 2006. This flag was probably just used for the Association but not an equivalent of the national flag in international events.
This white flag was showed on FIFA website to represent Chinese Taipei until 2012. But there are almost not any real flags showed on photoes or other media. This image was probably a mistaken combination of the Flag of CTOC and the former one of the CTFA.--Jitcji (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jitcji: Thanks a lot. So you're saying that the team itself probably never actually used any of the flag variants that pass here for "football flags", and never actually competed as "Taiwan". The article on the FA agrees with what you're saying about the names, while the article on the team says the association re-joined FIFA in 1954 as "Taiwan", competed at the 1960 AFC Asian Cup still as "Taiwan", and was renamed to "Republic of China" at a later point. Either of these should be corrected, they can't both be true. Although I wanted this information for a page in my userspace that is just for fun and is not part of the encyclopedia, your information could be helpful for the articles as well. --Theurgist (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
@Theurgist: You're welcome. I'm not sure if the association or team joined FIFA or any event under the name "Taiwan" very much. I'll check more data and information in a few days.--Jitcji (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Honduran Maradona

Some guy is claiming to have made up the "Honduran Maradona" tag and fabricated some details on the Alexander López page. It appears to be largely ok now but someone who knows something about this subject may need to check. Article is here. Hack (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned up further. GiantSnowman 18:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Honours

Hello all! Is there a consensus on how to order multiple honours. For instance, should it be in chronological order, or should domestic honours come first starting with the league and then domestic cup or should continental and international honours come first. Cheers. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Honours won; 2. Importance; 3. Region. For example: Champions League, Europa League, Intercontinental Cup, European Supercup, League, Cup, League Cup, Supercup. SLBedit (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Akwetey Mensah

Can the page Akwety Mensah be renamed to Akwetey Mensah. From all indications the proper spelling of his name is Akwetey Mensah, the only place where his name is spelled Akwety is in the title of his Wikipedia page. After doing research, I have come to the conclusion that this must have been made in error and that there are not multiple spellings to his name. Thanks for any help and insight that anyone can provide. Rupert1904 (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The spelling does not appear to be an error, but is taken from his FIFA profile where he is callded Akwety. That being said, Akwetey does appear to be the more commonly used spelling, so I have moved the article accordingly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Oops I must have missed the FIFA profile, I never trust FIFA anyway [ ;) ]. Thanks for the help Sputnik! Rupert1904 (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability of playing in a cup

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#WP:NFOOTY - Competitive Competitions. GiantSnowman 09:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Monaco country flag

Hello to all of you. I was wondering about whether a consensus had ever been reached on which flag to use along with AS Monaco in a National team squad table ? In the 2014 FIFA WC squads talk page, PeeJay2K3 gave me an explanation related to the FA affiliation. I wanted to know your opinion on what to use here : FRA or MON ? Tuttiseme (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Search back through the archives of this page and I'm sure you'll find something. Club flags always relate to the national association to which the club is affiliated (or, in the case of Swansea in the Europa League, the national association that the club is representing in that competition). Since AS Monaco is both affiliated to the French Football Federation and plays in the French league, the French flag is the only appropriate flag for that club. – PeeJay 07:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I can only agree but I've seen so many edits of users reverting the FRA to MON lately that I thought I missed a recent consensus. Thanks again.Tuttiseme (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
It should be france flag as they represent france association and play in europe on a spot from france. QED237 (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tuttiseme: Any chance you could link us to some articles where people have changed the flag to Monaco? – PeeJay 13:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd say almost on almost every national teams with a player from AS Monaco. For example, these edits in the squads for Tunisia, Ivory Coast, France U-20 (although all three are done by the same user, he's not the only one I've witnessed editing this way on WP). I also see that Croatia, Portugal, Morocco, Nigeria, Belgium or even Brazil use the Monaco flag. Tuttiseme (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Standard colours (colors) for season articles

Different templates seem to use different colours within individual season articles, sometimes even in violation of WP:CONTRAST. These colours occur in tables and results overview. Based on current usage and practice I have the following proposals to ensure greater colour consistency within one page and between pages. CRwikiCA talk 20:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggested colours

With the exception of team-specific colours, these five base colours with different levels of brightness are preferred as table highlighting:

Alternative 1

Level Green Blue Yellow Red Black
Level 1 CCFFCC 97DEFF FFFF97 FFCCCC CCCCCC
Level 2 DFFFDF BBEBFF FFFFBB FFE6E6 E6E6E6
Level 3 EFFFEF CCF3FF FFFFD0 FFF3F3 F3F3F3
Level 4 FCFFEF D9FCFF FFFFE6 FFF9F9 F9F9F9
White White White White White White

Alternative 2

Level Green Blue Yellow Red Black
Level 1 CCFFCC CCCCFF FFFFCC FFCCCC CCCCCC
Level 2 E6FFE6 E6E6FF FFFFE6 FFE6E6 E6E6E6
Level 3 F3FFF3 F3F3FF FFFFF3 FFF3F3 F3F3F3
Level 4 F9FFF9 F9F9FF FFFFF9 FFF9F9 F9F9F9
White White White White White White

Alternative 3 (colors a bit stronger)

Level Green Blue Yellow Red Black
Level 1 BBFFBB BBBBFF FFFFBB FFBBBB BBBBBB
Level 2 DDFFDD DDDDFF FFFFDD FFDDDD DDDDDD
Level 3 EEFFEE EEEEFF FFFFEE FFEEEE EEEEEE
Level 4 F6FFF6 F6F6FF FFFFF6 FFF6F6 F6F6F6
White White White White White White


  • Support as proposer CRwikiCA talk 20:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
@CRwikiCA: I added two alternatives after your vote. QED237 (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I support Alt2 to not have the colour too bright. CRwikiCA talk 23:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I added two alternatives based on similarities in the letters and numbers in the colorcode. Alternative 3 is an attempt to make the difference between levels a bit stronger. Here the blue has turned purple which is the color often used in group stages and qualifications, while the color in league tables has been a little more blue. QED237 (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I prefer Alternative 2 as the colorcodes seem easier to remember and are more similar to each other. Alternative 3 would be my second choice, though Level 1 seems too bold for all but exceptional use. The blue of Alternative 1 could be confused for green amongst color-blind individuals. -- Jkudlick (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

New colour suggestion

The lighter shades in Alt 2 (the prefered version seem slightly too light, so I would propose the following:

Level Green Blue Yellow Red Black
Level 1 CCFFCC CCCCFF FFFFCC FFCCCC CCCCCC
Level 2 D9FFD9 D9D9FF FFFFD9 FFD9D9 D9D9D9
Level 3 E6FFE6 E6E6FF FFFFE6 FFE6E6 E6E6E6
Level 4 F3FFF3 F3F3FF FFFFF3 FFF3F3 F3F3F3
White White White White White White

@Qed237 and Jkudlick: Would you support this alternative? CRwikiCA talk 21:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@CRwikiCA: After investigation and testing at sandbox of premier league table I would say no, It was to hard to differ between green1 and green2 that looked almost the same and in this case I believe it is better to see the differences even if level3 and level4 gets slightly to bright. This is also reason for my alternative3 since I wanted to be able to see the differences in color levels as well as not have it to bright. QED237 (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay forget about this suggestion then. CRwikiCA talk 14:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing comments colours

Barring any potential additional comments, consensus is to use Alternative 2

Level Green Blue Yellow Red Black
Level 1 CCFFCC CCCCFF FFFFCC FFCCCC CCCCCC
Level 2 E6FFE6 E6E6FF FFFFE6 FFE6E6 E6E6E6
Level 3 F3FFF3 F3F3FF FFFFF3 FFF3F3 F3F3F3
Level 4 F9FFF9 F9F9FF FFFFF9 FFF9F9 F9F9F9
White White White White White White

throughout this WikiProject. CRwikiCA talk 14:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

W/D/L colours

When it comes to highlighting of results, green level 1 should be used for wins, blue or yellow level 1 for ties (draws), red level 1 for losses and black level 1 for cancellations (and other reasons the game is not played).

  • Support as proposer CRwikiCA talk 20:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support we needc consistency over the pages and choosing level 1 colors is a good idea (no matter what alternative we choose). Ties (draws) I believe should be yellow and not blue. QED237 (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Consistency is definitely needed. As with Qed237, I support yellow for draws and the use of Level 1 colors. -- Jkudlick (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing comments W/D/L

Barring any potential additional comments, consensus is (based on votes and current practice) to use green level 1 for wins, yellow level 1 for ties (draws), red level 1 for losses and black level 1 for cancellations (and other reasons the game is not played). CRwikiCA talk 14:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Table colours

When table positions are to be highlighted (with potential additional text), green should be used for the top-level positive event (promotion, champions league, qualification, advancing to next round), blue for the second-level positive events (promotion play-offs when direct promotion exists, play-offs when direct qualification exist, secondary continental tournament), red for bottom-level negative events (relegation) and yellow for other level events (e.g. pre-1999 European football with European Cup [green], Cup Winners Cup [blue], UEFA Cup [yellow]). In addition, lower level colours should be used when teams qualify for different rounds (with lower levels corresponding to entry in lower rounds.)
Added before first comment: Also, black should be used when teams do not play a full season and their results are expunged or void.

  • Support as proposer CRwikiCA talk 20:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I dont think anything special needs to be said. It is how the colors are used today, green is qualified, blue is next round or second tournament and red is elimination. Yellow can be used in tournaments with a lot of scenarios such as "can not reach knockout phase but may reach europa league" as usually done in champions league. QED237 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Agreed that nothing special needs to be said regarding what the colors mean since they are pretty much standardized. -- Jkudlick (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I am less concerned with which colors are chosen than I am that the ones chosen are used across WP:FOOTY. I looked around and found at least 4 different variations of color groupings, and I only looked in European leagues. I will go with whichever ones are agreed upon (these are fine with me), and I hope the ones chosen will be uniformly implemented.Equineducklings (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Having a standardized list with these kind of colours will hopefully help with this. CRwikiCA talk 18:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing comments table

Barring any potential additional comments, consensus is (based on votes and current practice) to accept the proposal as worded above. CRwikiCA talk 14:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it? What are the levels supposed to mean? Is level 1 to be used now? -Koppapa (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, level one is supposed to be used. It is like the current colour schedule, only now we have a formal standard that also works with WP:ACCESS demands. I am currently also developing a Lua-based module to create tables (so that doesn't need three different templates), this further standardization would then hopefully make it easier for people to create and maintain tables (including the more advanced functionality). I am putting the finishing touches on this and will hopefully present it to this WikiProject this year after all functionality is added and proper documentation is written. CRwikiCA talk 18:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Application

Dear WikiProject Football,

Is there any way of applying to become a member of this project? If you look at my contributions you'll see that I am extremely keen and eager to constantly update and validate football-related material to the best of my ability, and am very much intrigued by the prospect of your project.

Regards,

UnknownBrick22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownBrick22 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Just add your name to the end of the list here, and you're "signed up." It's that simple. -- Jkudlick (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

CfD - American men's basketball players

There is a discussion underway about this category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 11#American men's basketball players. I realize this is not a soccer/footy category, but as soccer is similarly structured (both genders play, but typically not in the same leagues) I would like to request input as I believe there are implications of precedence for your sport. This category was created about a year ago and currently has about 60 articles in it (obviously very underpopulated). I would like to see strong representation from people who actually work sports artices to weigh in as this would essentially signal a new category structure to be built and implemented (for example, 50 state-specific men's and 50 state-specific women's categories). There are pros and cons to the structure, but whatever your views I would like to ensure that the decision reached is one reached by robust dialogue and careful consideration. Especially as this did not occur the last time this category was CfD'ed. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Júlio César's height

As you can see in history page of Júlio César, his height has been changed at least 17 times by IP addresses. What to do? SLBedit (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

(Replying to myself) I will request page protection next time. SLBedit (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Brian Wakefield

The only GB squad member at the 1960 Olympics not to have an article - which I am hoping to change. Quick sandbox created, any further help/sources appreciated as he is nowhere meeting GNG, yet given his history in the amateur sport (and he seems to still be active!) I am convinved of notability. GiantSnowman 17:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Middlesex Wanderers, not Wanderers FC. Are you sure non-playing squad members are notable without having to demonstrate something approaching GNG? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
He's not notable per WP:NFOOTBALL and needs to meet GNG - which the draft currently doesn't, and which is why it's sat in my sandbox as opposed to mainspace. GiantSnowman 18:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I have put some refs on the talk page but it's still very wooly, sorry. Nanonic (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Andrew (Joey) Johnstone

Is this guy (Andrew (Joey) Johnstone) for real? I'm starting to suspect this is a hoax. He is not #17 of 442's 2013 list, despite what the article says. I would appreciate input from someone who knows more about football than I do. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Undoubtedly a hoax. To be in the £70,000 a week bracket, you would have to be an international footballer. And if a £25 million bid was made or rejected, it would have made the news all over the world. LRD 02:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The article has already had a WP:BLPPROD tag attached, so it will likely be gone within seven days. -- Jkudlick (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Article has been deleted thanks to some fast work from admin. LRD 02:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

International caps

Hello there,

without further ado: in NFT.com, there are two fields with caps, FIFA MATCHES and NON-FIFA MATCHES. In your opinion, what does the latter mean: 1 - Friendlies; 2 - games that are (as the name implies) not sanctioned by FIFA and thus do not award cap?

If it's the former and not the latter as i though, i may have incurred in several errors in players' infoboxes, removing one cap (in some cases two). Sorry for any inconvenience, was only trying to help.

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a 'non-FIFA' game is not recignised by FIFA. Most friendlies are if they are between two FIFA-recognised nations. We should only count FIFA-recignised games. GiantSnowman 15:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Dash bot

Hi, I'm not as well versed in Wikipedia culture as I once was, so asking this here rather than attempting to negotiate technical discussion areas. So yes - have we considered commissioning a bot that creates a redirect using a - whenever we have an article containing an –? For instance, once 2015–16 Watford F.C. season is created, the bot would near immediately create the redirect from 2015-16 Watford F.C. season. I suppose the bot could do the reverse and create a redirect if someone creates an article using a normal -.

The reason I ask is because I quite frequently bash in the search term "2014-15 [x club] season" and nothing comes up on the auto-complete, so I have to go through to a search where what is basically the exact search term I entered is top of the list. Also, in the app, if you don't put in the exact article name, you seemingly can't find a page, so a lot of season articles don't show up. We have loads of these articles, so it'd do us good, but there'd be no harm in letting it loose elsewhere given redirects are cheap. All thoughts/advice welcome! HornetMike (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The MovePages feature under DASHBot might be able to do the work but we will have to speak to its creditor, User:Tim1357, to see if it is feasible. Basically, we need a bot to create a 'hyphen' redirect to the 'endash' main page if there isn't one, and to move 'hyphen' main articles to their 'endash' pages e.g.:
LRD 17:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Indonesian league club articles

Could someone please look at Persib Bandung and other articles in the league? This one is long, unreferenced and repeats a lot of information. Not sure about the others but suspect they won't be much better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, a few eyes on at least that article would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've had this problem with Indonesian articles/editors in the past... GiantSnowman 12:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I would usually add a tag on the article linking it to the Indonesian version for more support, but it's completely unreferenced! Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The editor returned a short while ago and added a few references, but it's still a problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, there is quite a lot of work to be done in the Persib Bandung article. I noticed that some of the informations doesnt match with references and it does seems too long and repetitive. I will try to make some edits to make it look better and correct. MbahGondrong (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I have made a trimmed and corrected translated version of the Persib Bandung article from the references mentioned there in my sandbox page here. Can I get any review from the others? Is it good enough to replace the real article? I know there are many editing needs to be done for other Indonesian club articles, hopefully this article could be somekind of template for other clubs. Other than that, help from other editors (especially Indonesian) is always welcomed. Cheers!! MbahGondrong (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of brand name

In a European Cup match played in 1971 a player was hit by a Coca Cola can. Now is it relevant to mention the brand name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.10.150 (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"Soft drinks can". Brand doesn't come in unless we can prove a Coca Cola can causes more damage than, say, a Pepsi can. LRD 04:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Aleksandar Đurić

This concerns the record of the player who has retired from international football. According to reliable sources, Duric has:

  • 54 caps/27 goals as officially recognised by FIFA.[1]
  • 53 caps/24 goals as officially recognised by the Football Association of Singapore,[2] (46 caps/23 goals til 21 Nov 2012, further appearances from NFT for the total) the AFF,[3] and the AFC.[4] (pdf, p. 18)
  • 58 international appearances and 27 goals, including matches not officially recognised by the governing bodies i.e. FIFA, FAS, AFC

In order to resolve any dispute and to seek clarity over the figures, it was decided that a footnote be listed besides the international caps, explaining the other two set of numbers.

Should the international caps and goals be listed according to

A. official FIFA records, with a footnote explaining the official FAS/AFF/AFC numbers and the total appearances/goals, including unofficial/non-recognised games?
B. official FAS/AFF/AFC records, with a footnote explaining the official FIFA numbers and the total appearances/goals, including unofficial/non-recognised games?
C. the total appearances/goals, including unofficial/non-recognised games, with a footnote explaining the official FIFA numbers and the official FAS/AFF/AFC numbers?

Thank you. LRD 18:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I would say go with FIFA, however we should definitely not include un-official/non-recognized games. GiantSnowman 18:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
This is getting really irritating! I've mentioned this before and I'll mention it yet again! AN INTERNATIONAL MATCH BEING AN 'A' INTERNATIONAL ISN'T DEPENDENT ON IT BEING RECOGNIZED BY FIFA!! I've also posted this before and everyone, LRD and especially you WP:FOOTY people should read it [5]. It's even more ridiculous on LRD's part because as I've told him, ALL of Duric's appearances bar two are FIFA RECOGNIZED MATCHES! One of those non-FIFA games is counted as official by the FA of Singapore therefore players that appeared in that match get a cap! Yet he insists that he appeared in four non-FIFA matches. He also accepts the 101 caps of Fandi Ahmad given by RSSSF which is part of that link I provided. Some of those aren't FIFA recognized. #Inconsistent #Epicfail #Boneheaded Mas y mas (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@Giantsnowman – As per the link I provided, can you actually come up with a definitive/universal meaning of what an "un-official/non-recognized games" are? I don't think you can! I bet all you're gonna say is that it has to be "FIFA recognized" and from there we're back at square one where I tell you to read that link I provided regarding 'A' internationals. Mas y mas (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
An 'A' international match obviously depends on FIFA recognition. If not the world governing body, who else should award the caps - RSSSF?
As mentioned previously, Fandi's problem arose after FIFA applied a retrospective ruling on international matches in 1999, 2 years after he had played his last match. Hence the dispute by FIFA and the FAS. It should be noted that his caps were recognised by the AFC too.
For Duric, no such ambiguity exists. The reliable sources provided clearly states he has 53 or 54 official caps according to FAS/AFC and FIFA respectively. Any other international games were not officially recognised by any of the governing bodies. A footnote was also included to inform the readers of the reasons behind the different figures. LRD 09:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I was invited by LRD NO to contribute to the discussion, which was at the time on their talk page. Wonder if it might have been an idea to copy that conversation here, if people wanted to broaden the participation, rather than start it again? Anyway. What we can't do, is make a collection of random sources of differing reliability to "prove" one set of figures. That falls clearly under original research. Presumably the FA of Singapore keep records of who's played for them; FIFA don't, as is shown by the disclaimer on their search page. Personally, I'd go with the FAS. Caps/goals on a squad list submitted by the FAS to the AFF for an official competition, especially given the AFC magazine and the major local newspaper repeat their figures, ought to be more accurate than a short piece on the FIFA website. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I am willing to go with either of the official records, with a footnote to supplement the other figures. The only question was whether to use the official FIFA or FAS/AFF/AFC records, both of which have their own merits and in this case, probably needs wider project participation for an answer.
I have no issues with copying the talk page conversation here, if it helps in further understanding of the topic. LRD 09:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@Struway Some clarity needed here - what is your opinion on the 'total' 58 caps inclusive of unofficial matches? Do you think they should be included in the footnote? LRD 09:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
On the 58 caps: not sure what I can say, really. All I see is a long list of matches cited to various sources, plus three years worth of NFT, which is a very useful but not WP:RS personal website, a site which isn't always transparent about its omissions and which has its own definition of what counts as a "FIFA match" and what doesn't (relevant previous discussions include this and this). By all means use that list of matches to note that Mr Đurić appears to have played more matches for his country than suggested by either official source, but personally, I don't see evidence for a total of specifically 58. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Struway2 that the FAS would be the preferable source for the number of caps (as opposed to FIFA). LRD NO asks the rhetorical question "If not the world governing body, who else should award the caps - RSSSF?" The actual answer is the FAS - domestic FAs are the ones that award caps, as they are the ones that call the players up. Number 57 12:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, #57. I think this brings up one of the broader questions, that in the event of conflicting caps/goals by FIFA and the relevant football association, which record should take precedence in the player infobox? With the benefit of a footnote to explain the other official record of course. LRD 12:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
LRD, you need to get your checked out asap! You harp on about how accurate the mere figure of 54 caps given by the articles you've used and go to [erroneously] say that Duric appeared in four non-FIFA matches, but now, Struway2 has basically agreed with what I'm saying and then Number57 basically says the same, you revert on your original stance and go with what is now becoming the consensus which is caps should be followed as per FA's (if available). Nowhere does it say from the FAS that he only has 54 or all of a sudden only 53! Where did that even come from?! Consensus hasn't even been reached yet and you change it (reduced) on the article to only 53. Absolutely Ridiculous!!! Mas y mas (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I can only go by what was available as reliable sources. A further check revealed the FAS official team sheet for the AFF Suzuki Cup, and other references. That is as official as it gets. Struway and Number57 made valid points as to why the FAS record is preferred over the FIFA record and that forms the basis of the subsequent changes to the article. LRD 10:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Struway2 – "All I see is a long list of matches cited to various sources, plus three years worth of NFT"... the fact that you're questioning the reliability of the sources provided to prove that Duric appeared in those matches, you're basically saying that those cites plucked those line-ups out of thin air. Also, as I've stated on LRD's talk page, I made a mistake for one match which Duric actually didn't appear in and went on to say that it should be 57 caps. Once again, ALL of Duric's appearances are from FIFA recognized matches except two! The Vietnam Challenge Trophy fixtures in November 2008 and the Denmark League XI friendly in January 2010. But also yet again, the former is recognized as official for the FAS! Therefore that match plus all his other apps from FIFA recognized matches add up to 57. As I've also stated on LRD's talk page, there should be a note that it could possibly be 58 if the FAS recognize the Denmark friendly as official, if they do it would match the 58 that RSSSF list for Duric! Mas y mas (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

As per LRD's update at the Duric article talk page. As it seems somewhat clear to people now that we should also consider what FA's consider as official which is good but regarding the FAS, I don't know if they've gotten lazy or what but LRD posted a link to the FAS with their squad for the 2012 Suzuki Cup which lists caps and is dated 21 November 2012.[6] However, here's a diff of the Duric article dated 19 November 2012 [7]. The next edit was on the 23rd. If you look at the squad, which lists caps and is of after their last friendly for the October international break. The caps on this edit is pretty much the same listed on the squad list for the Suzuki Cup for the players involved of course. But Singapore played two preparatory friendlies on 15 and 19 November. If you even just take one player such as Daniel Bennett, who appeared in both those friendlies, those are an additional two caps which if for arguments sake the 115 listed is accurate then he should've been on 117 just before the Suzuki Cup but was still listed at 115. After those friendlies Bennett made a further nine apps before his international career ended which would only make him at 124. That's less than his FIFA century club figure of 128!! Again, I don't know if it's laziness or whatever, but those caps listed on their squad before the Suzuki are inaccurate! There's still no substitute in finding reliable sources which prove or disprove a player's appearance which I did for Duric's from 07-09 and then NFT already has everything else after. The correct figure yet again should be 57 with a note that it might be 58! End of really! Mas y mas (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The press release by the FAS was dated 21 November 2012, along with the official squad list. The 53 caps/24 goals was supported by AFF and AFC, the next higher governing bodies too. You can't say 'let's go by the FAs' and when we do, suitably supported by reliable sources, go 'somebody must have been lasy'. As for using diffs itself to support your case, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. LRD 10:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mas y mas: - an "unofficial/non-recognised game" is when a country plays a club in a friendly, for example, such as this. Not an 'A' international. GiantSnowman 11:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's pretty obvious. But how would you be able to consider an "unofficial/non-recognized game" when it's between two full national teams? Again, recognizing an actual full 'A' international isn't clear cut as per that RSSSF file I provided. Therefore what isn't an 'A' international isn't clear cut either. Whether LRD or anyone else trying to shove the idea in people's faces that just because a match isn't a full FIFA match it's automatically unofficial regardless if an FA, in this the Singapore FA, recognizing it as official. Mas y mas (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
... regardless if an FA, in this the Singapore FA, recognizing it as official.
The FAS said 53 caps, 24 goals though. And the agreement is that unofficial appearances not recognised by any of the governing bodies should not be included. RSSSF is not the be-all-and-end-all authority on international caps. LRD 10:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Where does it say 53 caps & 24 goals. Nothing from the FAS states that!! "The agreement"? What agreement?!? This is the thing..... define "unofficial"?!?!?!?! The match against Vietnam in November 2008 is OFFICIAL FOR THE FAS!!! As I've told Giantsnowman, you can't just shove the notion in people's faces that if it's not FIFA recognized, it's automatically unofficial! RSSSF, FIFA, or whatever the hell else aide, I've also already shown you with sources that Duric made 24 apps from 07-09 plus all his appearances which are already on NFT from 10-12, which total 33 with one unofficial game (vs. Denmark in 2010). All are FIFA recognized bar that Vietnam game but yet again it's official for the FAS! Even in your own messed up world where FIFA recognized matches are the only definition of official, then he sure as hell has more than 54 or now all of a sudden 53!! Furthermore, how the hell does he have only 24 goals? Prior to the start of the 2012 Suzuki Cup he already scored 26 of his 27 goals!! Funnily enough you already listed all 27 of his goals with references (mainly FAS articles) but decided to remove it because of your issues about you needing to be correct and all you other complex issues which I can't even wrap my head around! Mas y mas (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The references are clearly provided for every editor to see. Three editors, including me, agreed that the FAS record should be used based on WP:RS and WP:V. All four editors agreed that only official matches should be included. The 27 goals were removed because there is no definitive way that we know whether each goal is FAS- or FIFA-sanctioned, and fails WP:OR. Maybe GiantSnowman, Struway2 or Number 57 would like to enlighten you on the finer details of this discussion.
"there is no definitive way that we know whether each goal is FAS- or FIFA-sanctioned," You're clearly a newbie and know f-all. What are you talking about that there no definitive way whether each goal he scored is FIFA sanctioned?!??! That is so obvious and you're clearly the dumb card because you yet again want to be right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You harp on that "we don't include unofficial matches" yet I've been trying to get in your thick head all his caps come from FIFA recognized matches bar the Vietnam game in 2008 (this is official for the FAS) and Denmark League XI friendly in 2010. You can clearly check for yourself, there's no science to it!! How do we know this? Simple and specifically for your benefit. If a match is listed on FIFA's fixtures and results page then it is FIFA recognized/sanctioned! Simple as!!!!!! So yet again.... ALL... that's right ALL his 27 goals come from FIFA recognized matches therefore this idiotic idea that he only has 24 goals from only 53 needs to stop and you need to wake the hell up!!!! Mas y mas (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
We are talking about using the FAS record so unless there's reliable sources stating which goal is FAS-recognised and which are the other three that are FIFA-cecognised only or even those in unofficial games, the goals table had to be removed. As such, the limited FIFA list is of no help and what we need is a list of FAS-recognised goals (which we do not have). I have seen 'newbies' exhibit more understanding of policies and guidelines, and talk more sense than more 'experienced' editors btw. I don't think I'm the one being stubborn either. Lastly, do not go against consensus by amending the article or its related talk page section. You will be reported along with your personal abuse if you persist in doing so. LRD 08:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow!!! More inconsistency on your part! "We need FAS recognized goals". If you can't get that then there's no way in hell you can sit there and say that 53 caps is definitive! You're a joke!! All his goals from FIFA recognized matches are fAS recognized! Take Daniel Bennett for instance. You seem to be perfectly fine with 128 caps from FIFA recognized matches as that's his total for FIFA's century club. Funnily enough, Duric appeared in a bunch of the same matches as Bennett from 2007-2012. Yet you sit there trying to make it seem like 53 caps and only 24 goals is accurate. JOKE!!! Mas y mas (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The references were provided early in the discussion and accepted by other editors. We've agreed to list his FAS record of 24 goals, which is why any goals table should be listed according to the 24 FAS goals in order not to confuse the readers. As of now, there is not way to know which are the 24 FAS goals or that if any of the goals came from unofficial games so they had to be removed per WP:OR. You are making a lot of assumptions here, and Wikipedia works on reliability of sources and verifiability, not speculation. The editors have agreed that only official records should be listed, which is what we are doing for Duric, so why would Bennett's official record be any irony? LRD 09:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah excellent! Now you're gonna be inconsistent and list an inaccurate figure for Duric because of your belief that 24 goals and 53 caps is the FAS' official figure for him. But then have no problem FIFA's 128 caps for Bennett as he's in their century club. The irony you ask? Bennett appeared in ALL the matches in which Duric scored except for one, the 2010 Suzuki Cup match against Myanmar on 5-12-10 but that of course is an official match as that is part of the ASEAN Championship. ALL of those appearances are part of his 128 total for FIFA's century club. So how can you sit there and continue to spout out nonsense about supposed "official" records when you it's clear as day your confused and are running around in circles. I've also asked you before where the FAS actually says Duric has 53 caps... yet you fail provide a source. Even then I've yet again debunked your belief of "official records". And what assumptions am I making? All I've done is try to debunk your belief of that the figures you're quoting are wrong!! I'm haven't pulled anything out of thin air! There's no science involved in what I'm trying to explain to you such as the simple fact that if a fixtures is listed on FIFA's fixtures and results list, that match is "FIFA recognized/sanctioned". And have went on to say that all of Duric's appearances and goals are from such matches but you keep spouting the same crap about "well, we don't know which is official or unofficial, therefore he has this amount of caps/goals". Absolutely comical! Mas y mas (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Bennett appeared in ALL the matches in which Duric scored except for one ... ALL of those appearances are part of his 128 total for FIFA's century club
So 24 minus 1 or 27 minus 1 depending on which official source, actual matches in which Duric scored is around 20. Bennett played in all those (20) matches bar one and that's counted towards his FIFA record. There is no logical co-relation with Duric's 53 FAS/AFC caps, nor the 24 goals FAS/AFC record. You have also been told many times that the references are listed in the opening post.
I see nothing constructive in engaging you anymore and any further discussion will be most likely endless with plenty of name-calling involved. For the record, I agree with Struway's and Number57's assessment for the FAS record to be used so that's three editors concurring with that option. Once again, you are reminded to stick to consensus. Any editing in violation of the consensus will be reported along with your personal abuse and uncivil behaviour. Thank you. LRD 14:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
OMG!!!! You clearly don't know what you're talking about!! You absolutely have no capacity to understand that 1+1=2. Duric scored 27 not 24!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You even listed all 27 with sources before you removed them!! Bennett appeared in all those matches in which Duric scored except the Suzuki Cup match against Myanmar in 2010! If those are counted towards Bennett's record, then it means it's counted towards all Singapore players as who appeared in those matches including Duric! Now if Duric has 27 goals he has as hell has more caps than 53!!! It's that simple yet it completely passes you like wind and all you do come up with something even more ridiculous! Mas y mas (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
FAS says 53/24, a one-liner in a FIFA article says 54/27 (54>53 btw). The FAS record was accepted by editors due to better reliability from the sources, and was listed as his international record in the article. Any goals table listed should be per FAS record and not FIFA record. No good evidence suggests he has a record of more than official 53 caps (FAS) or 54 caps (FIFA). As per agreement, only official matches should be used and the FAS official record was adopted for reasons explained in this discussion. Lastly, nobody should let their rage affect constructive reasoning. And I don't think anyone needs to explain the consequences of consensus violation a third time. With that, I end my participation in this discussion. Great weather outside! LRD 14:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Lastly, please refrain from personal abuse which has been ongoing for a good while or you may find yourself in some bother. My advice is to keep to the discussion at hand, like all the other good editors on here do. Thank you. LRD 00:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@Mas y mas: - yes, if you cannot be WP:CIVIL then you will be blocked. You have been warned before. GiantSnowman 12:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for bumping discussion, but I would like to add my two cents. I agree with Mas y mas on the subject that international cap for a player does not depend on match FIFA recognition. FIFA recognition is merely a criteria for including a match in FIFA Ranking, it shouldn't have anything to do with individual player's statistic. Let's say, a player Forward McStriker played 15 games in Nowhere Premier League, only to have his team bankrupt mid-season and excluded from the table. Will any of his appearances influence the season outcome? No. Should he have these appearances counted in his infobox? Hell yes! What's the difference with NT? -BlameRuiner (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

<season> in European football templates eligibility

A while ago some editor went ahead and added to these infoboxes seasons for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which were not independent states until Soviet Union broke up. (example: Template:1979–80 in European football (UEFA)). Does anyone agree that these three leagues should be removed from all templates between 1940 and 1991? -BlameRuiner (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they should definitely be removed; they weren't top flight leagues. Number 57 10:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Division and Tier colors (sweden)

Hi,

I have been looking around and I noticed that on swedish clubs on lower levels (without individual season articles) there are a table so reader can follow what tier the team played in for different seasons. Now I realized these tables have a special colorscheme I have never seen before and I wonder if there is any consensus on how the colors should be used?

The articles are for example Dalkurd FF (with many of colors since they have gone from tier 8 to 3), Qviding FIF, IFK Luleå and many others (just click on the division template at bottom and click on random team).

One of the reasons I bring this up is the consensus above at #Standard colours (colors) for season articles, regarding what colors to use in league tables and otherwise. So now I wonder if there is consensus what colors to use (such as the current colors) or if we should use the colors decided above in some way?

The problem is that there are only 5 colors but 8 (or 9) tiers in swedish football so not sure exactly how to do. I can see some alternatives but I am sure there is a even better way so please come with your suggestion.

  1. We find more colors and use one per tier. (same color for a certain tier all over wikipedia). Hard to find all colors but same legend can be used everywhere (as a template).
  2. We have different colors for the top tiers and the rest can have same color (tier7 and 8 seem to have same color for dalkurd). Almost same as above but we dont have to find 9 colors, but teams around tier7 may have same color in table although moving around in league system.
  3. We have only colors when teams are promoted and relegated (green and blue) otherwise the list have no colors (possibly have european qualification as a third color).
  4. The color changes from article to article with green being the highest tier the team has played in, blue is second highest and so on. This would make every article different becaus tier3 can have different colors for different teams and team can still need 8 colors, but may be easier in some way.

When the colors is decided I will (when I have time) go over the teams and fix colors and also add a legend to explain all colors, to clarify for the reader.

Also is this the same for other lower level teams in other countries or is this only used in Sweden?

I ping the editors who has edited in the color discussion above but I would like for as many as possible to comment. @CRwikiCA:, @Jkudlick:, @Equineducklings:, @Koppapa:

I provide one of the current tables as well so you can see how it looks.

Season Level Division Section Position Movements
2005 Tier 8 Division 6 Dalarna Mellersta 1st Promoted
2006 Tier 7 Division 5 Dalarna Södra 1st Promoted
2007 Tier 6 Division 4 Dalarna 1st Promoted
2008 Tier 5 Division 3 Södra Norrland 1st Promoted
2009 Tier 4 Division 2 Norra Svealand 1st Promoted
2010 Tier 3 Division 1 Norra 6th
2011 Tier 3 Division 1 Norra 4th
2012 Tier 3 Division 1 Norra 8th
2013 Tier 3 Division 1 Norra 2nd Promotion Playoffs

Any comment is appreciated. QED237 (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

To add information to the discussion I looked around at some of the lower-level teams in England. Some use the color from the table of that year, for example F.C. United of Manchester. Another, more minimalistic, way of doing it used for these teams (among others) List of Bolton Wanderers F.C. seasons List of Portsmouth F.C. seasons. I like colors only being used in the results column instead of the entire row. I also like that when a team is not promoted or relegated the row color stays white/blank.
The main difference between the use of colors for the Swedish teams and English teams is that the Swedish pages use the colors to represent which tier the team was in and the English pages use the colors to represent the result of that season for the team. That may need to be another thing to consider: What should the colors represent on the team pages, the tier or the result? Equineducklings (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't use colors per tier. But only to highlight promotion or relegation. -Koppapa (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the general notion that this amount of colour is overkill and to only note promotion (in green) and relegation (in red), possibly only by highlighting the position cell. CRwikiCA talk 19:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
To use a colloquialism I learned a long time ago, it looks like a crayon box exploded all over that table. There are so many colors that it is distracting. I believe the use of color to demonstrate promotion/relegation is sufficient, and the different shades of a color should be used to demonstrate different tournaments for which a club team is eligible, such as the tournaments for which the top four teams in the English Premier League qualify each season. -- Jkudlick (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
yes, looks like my three-year-old just barfed after eating a bowl of Trix covered in Skittles. Frietjes (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Same Owner = Direct Affiliation

Hallo, I would like to know if some clubs have the same owner does it automatically make the clubs affiliated? Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. GiantSnowman 09:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

A requested move has been opened for ASEAN Football Championship and its associated pages. Comments are appreciated. Thank you. LRD 11:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And I've also just started one at Talk:Huddersfield Town F.C.#Requested move. Number 57 11:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
They should be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves please. GiantSnowman 12:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: use of flag icons for international athletes

Yet another RfC has been opened on the use of flags to represent sportspeople - see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#RfC. The question is "Should flags, national icons or symbols be used to represent the nationality of sports figures? If so, under what conditions may they be used?" Have fun! Number 57 08:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Doubts

I know that these can apply to any topic on earth, but since i edit exclusively on football, i pose the questions here,

1 - overlinking explains that we are not supposed to link popular terms (hand, nose, teacher, etc) and countries, amongst other things. Speaking of the latter, does that apply to ALL countries (even the "obscure" ones, like Yemen or Swaziland)?

2 - when one does not have an account (i used to, not anymore, story of a different book), can one still e-mail other users in the realm of WP?

Attentively, thank you --84.90.219.128 (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

For the first query, see WP:OVERLINK; for the second query no I don't believe IPs can e-mail, you have to have a registered account. GiantSnowman 11:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Statistic tables

Hi, I was wondering about the statistics tables in football players' articles. They seem very muddled and cumbersome. It is hard to keep them up-to-date, and there is no consistency between players, ranging in differences in the inclusion or not of assists, the table's format, the columns (I've seen a selection of the following: League, Cup, League Cup, Other, Finals series, Continental/International (sometimes just the continent, for example Asia) and probably some others I can't recall right now), inclusion of division or not, subtotal for all clubs or only clubs played at for more than one season. Also, in players with long careers, the tables take up a lot of room on the page and make navigating it difficult. Furthermore, most times they are completely unreferenced.

I also feel they're not very needed, as the league appearances can be found in the infobox. Maybe we should just put all appearances in the infobox and get rid of the statistics tables? and also WP:NOTSTATS

--SuperJew (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

We have a MOS, all stats tables should reflect that. No assists, no yellow or red cards, no need for column after column. Keep it simsple, keep it tidy, keep it easy to edit/update. GiantSnowman 09:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Stats from competitions other than the league can be extremely hard to source for older players, which is the reason why we only have league apps in the infobox in the first place..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Even the MOS is pretty cumbersome. 5 different competition, 15 columns. --SuperJew (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
If you don't want to get rid of it altogether, maybe create a template for this for easy usage and consistency? --SuperJew (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Trust me, the MOS is actually really quite easy to use. 'League', 'Cup' (x2, posisbly), 'Continental' (possibly), and 'Other'. There was a template but it was deleted because that was complicated! GiantSnowman 11:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
MOS is easy to use and infobox should reflect/summarise article so the section should definately exist. And no assist in that section. QED237 (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability question

Can someone who knows the structure of Australian leagues, please figure out whether Gene's Team FC is notable or not? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems impossible to find anything about the alleged club beyond our article. The single source given doesn't work. This quite recent official list of Canberra clubs doesn't include it. Even the mention of "group of College students" is weird. The term "college students" is an American one, not normally used in Australia, and whose meaning is unclear. The single editor who has added any substantive content has edited nothing else on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Possible hoax? 'Gene's Team' sounds like something somebody created for a video game... GiantSnowman 18:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I very much doubt they are notable if they play in a summer football league (if that's the same as summer football in England). They certainly fail the generally accepted criteria of playing in a national league or cup (they weren't in the 2014 FFA Cup). Number 57 18:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I WP:PRODded it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent results and upcoming fixtures

An editor is attempting to remove these sections from national rugby union team articles, and has posted a Request For Comment on the wider society, sports, and culture list. The discussion makes numerous references to the presence of these results & fixtures sections in WP:FOOTY articles. Feel free to participate in this discussion if you have views on the topic. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Zamalek SC edit war

Hi. I'm involved in a bit of an edit war at Zamalek SC, mostly concerning a load of POV, dodgy English, and MOS problems in the lead. If any third parties could take a look it might be helpful. Cheers. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Serbian-Albanian football conflict

Is 2014 Serbian-Albanian football conflict notable? QED237 (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It needs some inline references but seems notable to me. The Google News search https://www.google.com/search?q=Serbia+Albania+drone&tbm=nws gives me "About 72,500 results". That's a lot for non-English speaking countries with coverage well beyond normal WP:NOTNEWS, and this is an international political event and not just a football riot. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it's notable - it needs to be moved to a better name though, 'conflict' is inappropriate. GiantSnowman 12:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
'Controversy' might be a better word than 'conflict' for what happened. -- Jkudlick (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Ifeanyi Olebunne

Hello, football experts! Please comment about whether this is a notable player. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Soham Town Rangers and Woodford United do not play in a fully-professional league. FK Olaine, the Latvian First League club he played for, are in the second tier and the league is not in the list of fully-professional leagues. A Google search suggests that the player does not meet WP:GNG either. LRD 02:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - the article has been declined now. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move serbia and albania match

Hi, the match between serbia and albania in euro 2016 has been moved several times (latest move yesterday) and is now at Serbia v Albania on the talkpage Talk:Serbia v Albania there is now a request for move so please respon there and voice you opinions.

And how do I add this to the "football-related moves" on "our main page" Wikipedia:WikiProject Football? QED237 (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is there even an article on this? It's becoming seriously tiresome that editors seem to think a tiny bit of controversy makes a match article-worthy. I'll prod and then AfD if it's removed. Number 57 11:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Number 57: see section above, #2014 Serbian-Albanian football conflict where I asked if it was notable and apperently it was. QED237 (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, I have to say I strongly disagree. It's a classic example of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Number 57 12:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
An article about a much smaller incident was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 UEFA qualifier fan attack. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I think that is a classic case of the worst excesses of WP:RECENTISM and I very much doubt the AfD would have had the same result if it had been started a few years after the event rather than three days. I suspect an AfD on this would probably go the same way, but it wouldn't make it the right decision. Number 57 14:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
You are free to try AfD but not prod since Wikipedia:Proposed deletion says: "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected." PrimeHunter (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I prodded it earlier today, but the prod was removed. I'll wait a few weeks until the fuss has died down and it become just another abandoned game and AfD it then. Number 57 14:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Lock on Harry Kane?

There has been a ton of vandalism today on Harry Kane's page following his hat-trick and having to play goalkeeper in Tottenham's Europa League match. People were writing that he was a goalkeeper, a God, etc. While editing today, I also noticed that there was a lot of bias and sentences that begin like "Currently Kane is playing...". I edited out all of that and have had some help removing the vandalism. Do others think that his page should be on an edit lock just for confirmed users or is it more of a one-time thing since he played so well in their match? I'm just worried that if he ever scores multiple goals in a match again that this will continue to happen. Cheers! Rupert1904 (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There isn't that much going on. Good edits by the way. -Koppapa (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
As Koppapa says it was not very much going on but seeing the recent edits I went ahead and requested a page protection at WP:RPP. Now it is up to admin if they want to deny the request or protect the page. QED237 (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses/help Koppapa and Qed237. Yeah I agree, I wasn't too concerned about last night's edits, just worried that if he ever plays well again that it would continue to happen. I guess let's hope he doesn't (hahaha)! Cheers. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Penang FA

Hi, there have been disruptive editings by some IP accounts in Penang FA that keeps on adding unsourced information and putting players that doesnt belong to the team. How should I report this? Cheers!! MbahGondrong (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You could request for page protection and warn the vandals. If the disruptive editing persists, you could bring it to the attention of WP:AIV. Cheers. LRD 06:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

CAFF

Didn't know of the creation of the Central Asian Football Federation this summer. The article could use a bit of work. Aren't all six members indedd founding members? When was the exact date of creation? Should the international tournament participations be listed? Hasn't really to do with CAFF and is also covered in the AFC article anyway. Also, does the Central and South Asian Football Federation even exist, i tried to find sources for it in the past but failed. -Koppapa (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed some stuff from the first and actually prodded the latter federation. this is the only source i found it may exist, founded in 1997? But it is a only blog. -Koppapa (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Senzo Meyiwa

Senzo Meyiwa - has recently died and there's a lot of vandalism occurring. Please keep an eye on the article until it's protected. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Matchday Live

Hi, could someone please look at a article I found, Matchday Live. Apparently a football studio related to football matches in England. Notable? QED237 (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've PRODded. GiantSnowman 20:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Notable?

Barry Smith - Footballer (Born 1961) is an expired BLPprod. The article claims he played for some Football League teams during the 70s but it's not clear at what level he played, if at all. Hack (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No-one of that name/dob played in the Football League for any of those clubs, according to Neil Brown's site and Hugman's 1998 book. If he did play for them, it would have been for one of their junior teams, so not notable. The article says he played between 1974 and 1980, so he'd have only been 18/19 at the end of that period. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
A Barry Smith did play one game for Wigan in 1987/88.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
My 88-89 Rothmans shows a Barry Smith (midfielder) born 21/9/69 in Ince playing a single league game, v Northampton Town on 19/12/87.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
And here.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a Barry Joseph Smith, and as you say born 1969 and not in Bolton. Definitely not the same bloke. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Senior career start year in player infobox

Should the senior career start year be listed according to the year when the player signed professional terms, or made his professional debut?

The youthyears parameter states:

A list of years that the player has been at each club as a youth, one per attribute, earliest to latest.

and the (senior career) years parameter states:

A list of years that the player has been contracted at each professional club, one per attribute, earliest to latest.

which is rather open to interpretation.

I was of the impression that the senior start year is according to the player's first appearance for the senior team. James Wilson and many other articles seem to suggest that this is so. For Chris Smalling, his senior start year at Maidstone is also not tied to any professional status.

Say, in the case of Remie Streete. He signed professional terms with Newcastle United in 2011 but was playing in the reserves and made his professional debut with Port Vale only today. Should he be listed with start year 2011 or 2014 under senior career? Cheers. LRD 16:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I always thought it should start when the player turned professional. We have had issues where non-professional youth players have played senior games but not the other way round. Players can be as old as 18,19,20,21 are only playing reserve team football but still be contracted to the club as a senior professional player. What do other people think?--EchetusXe 19:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It's a really difficult thing to draw a line on to be honest - as you say, some players make their debut at 16, others don't until they're 20. I would say getting a squad number is probably a good line in the sand these days. Number 57 22:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
My general observation is that other editors list the start of the senior career as having played their first senior game, and had listed them accordingly. Tying senior career start year to signing professional terms would not be a definitive criteria for those who start their career outside the Football League for example but I could see the other side of the coin too. I'll be happy to see what other people have to say, and if need be, amend the youthyears and years parameter statements to better reflect any outcome. LRD 00:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
In Spain, most of their better youth players are signed to professional contracts while still playing in the youth leagues. Contract status should not be considered. Raul17 (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
2011. What else did he do in 2011-14 then? Sure it is in the text, but box should give quick overview. So either take 2011 or add Newcastle II as a club there. -06:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
For players in British football, we've conventionally used either when they turn professional, or when they make their first appearance in senior (not necessarily fully professional) football, whichever comes first. So 2011. These days, getting a squad number might count the same as making a debut. Back in the day, when teams played 11-a-side, a league club's reserves, "A"-team and sometimes even more teams used to be full open-age, and it was really not unusual for a man to be in his 20s and having played football as a professional for several years before making a first-team debut.
Incidentally, and off topic, I think the wording of the |clubsn= parameter should be changed: we list all senior clubs in the infobox, not just professional ones. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
It should be year of senior debut, not when they turn professional - partly due to not knowing when older players turned pro, and partly due to the modern phenomenon of giving young players professional contracts. Also amateur/semi-pro players etc. GiantSnowman 20:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that's a good idea - as Struway says, there are players who didn't make their professional debut until their early 20s, having spent several years in the reserves. This would leave an odd gap between their youth career (which usually finishes at 18) and their club career. Number 57 20:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
As opposed to having a 'senior' career which doesn't actually exist? Who says a youth career ends at 18? GiantSnowman 21:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
A youth career usually finishes at 18 because that's when most youth team players are either signed onto professional terms or let go, at least in England. Would you class a 21 year old who has spent the last three seasons playing for the reserves (as opposed to the youth team) as still being in their youth career? Number 57 21:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a point on which mileage may vary. There are some youth leagues where players play past 18. Hack (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep, see Under-21 Premier League (England) and SPFL U20 League (Scotland), amongst others. GiantSnowman 10:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding season formats in club season articles

We are currently engaging in a debate over at the Sweden task force regarding season formats and how to best display results of autumn-spring competitions in season articles and club season articles that spans a calender year. The discussion originates in the fact that Sweden has league system that spans a calender year and a domestic cup system that spans from autumn to spring. We discovered that it is current praxis in Swedish football articles to display the results from the 2013–14 cup season while at the same time displaying the result from the 2014–15 European cup season in a 2014 club season article. This is due to the fact that Swedish clubs almost never progress to play in Europe after Christmas, (thus both the cup and European seasons ends during the same year). However we have come to the conclusion that this is fairly confusing, for example, see the infoboxes for the 2014 Malmö FF season and 2014 IFK Göteborg season articles, as well as the List of Malmö FF seasons where we display the results differently depending on the domestic cup and European competitions.

We have debated the issue and its alternatives here. We have however been unable to come up with a solution that is both logic and consistent. Further input and alternative solutions would be appreciated. Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I used the 1979 Malmö FF season article to see how a comprising solution could look like. The results for the competitions in which the club finished during the 1979 season (whether they started in 1978 or 1979) are displayed in the infobox in the top right.
In the lead it is stated that "They competed in Allsvenskan where they finished fourth, the 1978–79 European Cup where they finished as runners-up and the 1979–80 UEFA Cup where they were knocked out in the second round. Malmö FF also participated in two competitions in which the club continued playing in for the 1980 season, Svenska Cupen and the Intercontinental Cup."
In the article itself, only matches played during the 1979 season are listed. In the cases in which Malmö FF continued play from or into another season, The tournament continued from the 1978 season. or The tournament continued into the 1980 season. are displayed. Note that this is only used when Malmö FF actually participated in these competitions during two seasons, maybe the actual wording could be changed to something like Malmö FF continued playing in the tournament during the 1980 season. For example, Malmö FF failed to progress from the 1978–79 Svenska Cupen during the 1978 season and they failed to progress from the 1979-80 UEFA Cup to the 1980 season. As a result of that the 1978–79 Svenska Cupen is not mentioned in the 1979 season article and the 1979-80 UEFA Cup will not be mentioned in the 1980 season article.
This solution was originally proposed by Cliftonian in the discussion at the Sweden taskforce. My idea here was to visualize it in an article. The problem with this solution is the lack of consistency that will inevitably erupt between season articles, depending on the results of the clubs. However I think the logic is understandable and a fairly good compromise. I would appreciate comments. Is the layout/format used above a good way to solve this problem? Is it understandable? Is it less confusing than the two other alternatives; displaying only 1978–79 competitions in the 1979 season article or displaying only 1979–7980 competitions in the 1979 season article? --Reckless182 (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Reckless182, I don't think that the format in 1979 Malmö FF season really works because I think that consistency is way too important. To quote Johan Elisson: "Imagine that IFK wins CL 2016–17, fails in the qualifiers to CL 2017–18, then wins CL 2018–19 and fails in the qualifiers to CL 2019–20. Then there would be no results in the 2016 season article, double results in the 2017 season article, no results in the 2018 season article and double results in the 2019 season article. That would look very strange considering IFK played four straight seasons in the tournament, but only two season articles would contain info about it." Since the praxis in club seasons with spring-autumn is to display European competitions the calendar year they started, I think it's best to also display the domestic cup tournaments the calendar year they started. But, as we have said, there is also some disadvantages with that format, but I still think that is the "least bad" format of the three we have been discussing. // Mattias321 (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The way Reckless182 suggested looks fine for me. Mattias321: firstly, to write all club season infobox entries in the year the team fails to further qualify can also be seen as consistent, and secondly, from where have you found out that praxis? I had a look at Russian teams and at least UEFA Cup winners' articles 2008 FC Zenit Saint Petersburg season and 2005 PFC CSKA Moscow season is done in the way Reckless182 suggests. Additionally, in the CSKA Moscow season article, there is yet another solution: it contains both national cup competitions played during the year (04–05 and 05–06). / Smartskaft (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, maybe you're right, Smartskaft. But I really don't see the difference between the format that we're using now and the format that we're discussing. That was what started the whole discussion, that the format used now is too the bad and inconsistent. Now, when basically the same format is proposed it's suddenly that format which is the best. Then, the whole discussion feels a bit pointless. // Mattias321 (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
To a certain extent I disagree with your example Mattias, in that case, all Champions League matches would be detailed in each season article, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, since they would have played matches for the competitions in all these years. As I also added in the 1979 article, the lead section would specify that IFK Göteborg competed in the CL during all of these season, the exact wording would only be different from the years they progressed to the spring season to the years in which they were knocked out early. So I think this solution is considerably different from the current solution, since it adds further detail and explanation in the lead section, as well as only listing "results" in the infobox for competition that the club actually finished during that year.
Of course this only "solves" the problem with club season articles. It doesn't solve the problem with List of Malmö FF seasons, List of IFK Göteborg seasons and so on. For these we definitely need to decide if we should put the results in the season they started or the season in which the finished. For these articles I'm all in for putting the results under the season in which the competition started. The reason being that there seams to exist some sort of praxis for this, but this praxis is weak as Smartskaft pointed out. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
So, this is how it should be, Reckless182?
  • 2014 in ... football – The year that the tournament ended.
  • List of ... seasons – The year that the tournament started.
  • 2014 ... season – The year that the club was knocked out in the infobox and provide extra information in the lead. // Mattias321 (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Buriram United F.C.

An editor seems to incorrectly think that the material being restored has references. It doesn't. I think most of the articles for clubs in Asian leagues need some review to confirm that they meet WP:V at the very least. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Druryfire: seeing as that is the editor in question - why not discuss the matter on the article talk page? GiantSnowman 16:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Tackle culprit

Tony Green's career was ended by a bad tackle - his article states it was perpetrated by Mel Blyth, but his article doesn't mention the incident, and indeed the Bobby Kellard article states he was responsible... both claims are supported by the same book (Gillatt, Peter (30 November 2009). Blackpool FC on This Day: History, Facts and Figures from Every Day of the Year. Pitch Publishing Ltd. ISBN 1-905411-50-2) - can anyone please assist? GiantSnowman 17:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Green himself was quoted a couple of months ago as saying: "I was finished at the age of 25 by a tackle from Crystal Palace's Mel Blyth but I honestly think it was an accident, not malicious. He did not mean it. I was just off balance and he caught me." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I noticed this and brought it to GiantSnowman's attention. My vague recollection is that it was Blyth, but I was not at that game, & there was also some controversy surrounding Kellard at that time. Although I knew Green's career finished early, until I edited Kellard's page I'd completely forgotten it happened at Selhurst Park! I have also raised the question on the CPFC BBS Forum & will give it a few days (week at most) for a response. Otherwise probably reasonable to go with the article found. Eagleash (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Update @GiantSnowman: @Struway2: There has been some response on the CPFC forum and the consensus seems to be that it was Mel Blyth who injured Green. With this in mind I will edit Bobby Kellard's & Blyth's pages accordingly & add the ref found by Struway2 to Green & Blyth. (Unless anyone has any objection). Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Further update. @GiantSnowman: @Struway2: Someone on the CPFC BBS Forum has now come up with this. It is a bit difficult to read (even after enlarging) but seems to state that Green's injury was an awkward turn causing the knee to twist. 2 or 3 people on the forum say they were at the game & that Green went down without contact. It's always possible though that he continued after a tackle not realising the damage. The article says he had just been booked for dissent....pure speculation but I wonder if he was claiming a free kick after being tackled. Can anyone please advise how best to proceed from here. (I have already edited the articles as outlined above) Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You can't see that attachment without registering on the forum, so I did. For information, it's the Croydon Advertiser match report, and all it says is he was stretchered off after turning awkwardly, a few minutes after being booked for dissent. One reputable poster on that thread says he has a different contemporary match report that mentions Green being hurt in an apparently harmless tackle by a different player entirely. And the individual memories speak of him just running past them and going down, but personal memories aren't a reliable source. Nor are the letter to WSC from a Newcastle fan who also says he was there, or the last comment on here, or the last post on this forum page.
But as you say, if his knee was damaged in a tackle, he tried to play on, and within seconds or minutes of activity his knee collapsed, then the various versions could all be more-or-less accurate. Incidentally, I don't know if you've seen this press photo of Green being stretchered off: the description uses the words "scythed down" by Blyth...
I think cherry-picking the word "horrendous" from the Blackpool book source is gratuitous, particularly as that source appears to attribute the tackle to Kellard, and to be the only source that does name Kellard. Especially in the light of Green's he-didn't-mean-to quote above. And I don't see the need to "blame" anyone for injuring Green. If you want to attribute it inline in the article, e.g. something like "Green's career was ended by a knee injury blah blah , an injury which Green attributes to a tackle by Blyth" with ref, then do that, though you need to be careful with keeping the wording neutral. But I don't see how we can omit from Green's article that he does reckon it was Blyth's tackle that finished him. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Struway2: Sorry, didn't realise you wouldn't be able to see the attachment without registering. Yes that's the good old Croydon Advertiser :P, but Mel Webb has (or had, I haven't read it for ages) a good rep. & yes the author of the CPFC complete record book does mention a tackle by a different player but also says it's not reliable. Agree the use of "horrendous" does not sit comfortably & I will take it out. Also that "I was there" should not be relied upon! I've already taken the ref. out of Kellard's page & it seems a good idea to re-phrase Green's along the lines you suggest, using the ref you found earlier. Thanks for your help & advice. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I would have thought that any claim from Wikipedia about who caused another player's career to end would be a massive breach of WP:BLP. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree; it's dodgy ground. It was on both Kellard's & Green's pages, but now been removed. Eagleash (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

San Jose Earthquakes Taskforce created

Hey, just wanted to announce the creation of San Jose Earthquakes taskforce. If anyone here has an interest in the Quakes, please feel free to join in as we will start tagging articles after our banner is approved for use under the WikiProject Football lead. Having a taskforce veteran or two to help push the group off would be great. Thanks.

--Christiangamer7 (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you please link me to the page where this task force was proposed for creation? It is my understanding that all task forces have to be approved before they are created, but I don't see any record of approval being granted for this one. – PeeJay 12:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep, we definitely don't need one. Having a US/Canada taskforce is more than sufficient. GiantSnowman 13:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far, GS. We have task forces for DC United and the Seattle Sounders, after all. I'm just saying this one could have done with demonstrating its worth before being created, as (I believe) the others did. – PeeJay 13:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Club-specific taskforces are overkill and set a dangerous precedent, for all but the big clubs with a long history (Barcelona, Man Utd etc.) GiantSnowman 16:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment about football tables

Currently a wide variety of templates are used to build one individual football table, because of this it had been suggested to build a Lua-module that would combine all these options into one. During this process several things have been determined by consensus in this football project. The default colour scheme was chosen and it was determined that the current format of group tables violates the Manual of Style and there should be no distinction between group and league tables.
Qed237 and myself worked on this harmonization and created a fully working Lua-version at Module:Sports table. This format has been implemented in Template:2014–15 Eredivisie table, 2014–15 Eerste Divisie, 2014–15 BeNe League and 2015 UEFA European Under-17 Championship qualifying round to see it's effect. It is designed to be more user-friendly and it fixes several issues that existed with the old templates. Advanced functions, such as partial tables on team season pages and footnote handling are also fully implemented and handled by the Lua-code. Please take a look and see whether you have any additional suggestions/comments with regard to this format. The goal is to implement this feedback and then form consensus to implement the Module throughout the project. CRwikiCA talk 20:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Great job guys, this makes it a lot easier to update, especially for less experienced users. Is this template only meant for current seasons or should we delete and replace each template on the season articles and club season articles when the season is finished? Or just leave the templates as they are? --Reckless182 (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Please could you make the notes (the things lettered a and b below the table at 2014–15 Eerste Divisie#League table) the same size font as the rest of the wording below the table. We're supposed to minimise (no pun intended) use of small fonts, and print that size is approaching unreadable for those of us without perfect vision. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Great job! I'll be playing with it in my sandbox for a while to get a better feel for it so I can make better comments. I did notice an error in the documentation, though. You state that "As a default a win is worth 3 points, a draw 2 points and a loss 0 points..." when it actually defaults to the standard 3, 1 and 0. Probably just a missed typo. -- Jkudlick (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
One more thing I just noticed. I was testing to duplicate Template:2015 FIFA Women's World Cup Group A table, but I don't see how to add borders or otherwise color the splits between rows. Is there a way to add that, or does it already exist but just isn't documented? What I have is here. -- Jkudlick (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
To reply to all these comments: Thanks for the positive feedback. I'll work on the footnote size, I'll probably need a trick to get it to the same size, but it will happen. I fixed the typo. The borders in group tables are actually against WP:ACCESS, so a previous discussion (see last archive page) concluded that group tables should use the same format as league table. (An example is at 2015 UEFA European Under-17 Championship qualifying round). So it would not use the colour red, but only the letter E to indicate elimination, I added a suggested implementation on your test page as well. CRwikiCA talk 14:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Reckless182: Previous TfD's has led to the templates being substituted and deleted, but in my opion they should stay as it is easier for me to have the templates on watchlist than all individual articles to easier spot vandalism and also I see no harm in keeping them. QED237 (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Also some leagues has had a "current league table" which to me is not very good because I have seen tables being updated to new season but not substituted on old club season articles so for the article about "2013-14 Team Foo F.C." is the current table for "2014-15 Foo League". QED237 (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@CRwikiCA: - Thanks for the suggestion on my sandbox. Would I be correct in my presumption that the colors would not be introduced until the teams are definitely advancing to the next round or to playoffs? -- Jkudlick (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jkudlick: -Sorry if you wanted CRwikiCA to answer but thought I could answer as well. In this new tables we always show the colors and then we add the extra letters when teams are eliminated (E) or has assured they will advance (A). This is the way it has been done in league tables and it was decided to do it in group tables as well. Please take a look at 2015 UEFA European Under-17 Championship qualifying round where this is done. Some groups has not yet started (but still has colors) and some groups are finished (and the letters are used). For some groups also there is decided third team can not go through so then blue is removed and on one group the blue has turned green since that team advances to next round. QED237 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Qed237: - Thank you for the response. I agree that continuity throughout the project is important, and since there are far more league tables than group/tournament tables, that's what should take precedence. I'll update the WWC group tables with the new code and some additional comment lines for those who don't read module/template documentation. -- Jkudlick (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Qed237 answered the questions already, let me know if you would run into any trouble creating these tables. Also note the example of third-place team rankings on the 2015 UEFA European Under-17 Championship qualifying round, which might be of use to you. CRwikiCA talk 15:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
No trouble with the templates - they're already done. I like how the "Elite Round" is extended for 3rd place teams which are advancing, and the "Elite Round or elimination" is removed from 3rd place teams which cannot advance. -- Jkudlick (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jkudlick: Please note that templates should often have documentation (at least it is a good idea to help those not used to edit templates. This to explain how to update the teamplates and to explain optional parameters. When having a doc page categories belongs in the documentation page within includeonly tags. You can read more at WP:TDOC and look at {{2014–15 Eredivisie table}} for example of documentation. We have not been very good at documentation at wikipedia but it might be something to consider. QED237 (talk)
I don't have anything in particular to add. I just wanted to say I have been using this as well and find it to be much quicker for editing. I have been waiting to begin adding it to more articles, but it has worked well where I have been using it. Equineducklings (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Qed237: Thanks for the reminder. I did documentation when I created a number of card templates on the Killer Bunnies wikia site, but I forgot to add it here. I'll get that as soon as possible, but it will be a few days. -- Jkudlick (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jkudlick: No problem, as long as it is in place when people start to edit table, when tournament starts (or at the draw). We are in general lazy when it comes to documentation at wikipedia, but in this case it might be a good idea especially since it is a new format. Can be good to have very clear explanations to things. Maybe more than currently at the eredivisie table. QED237 (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added documentation to {{2015 FIFA Women's World Cup Group A table}}, and the documentation for Groups B-F direct the editor to review the documentation for Group A. Feel free to review and make any necessary edits. -- Jkudlick (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment on Template:2014–15 Eredivisie table this could be just a documentation problem but the examples given show team names in full using |team= but in the actual code it uses the 3 letter abbreviation and |showteam=. Keith D (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Keith D: Documentation has not been properly updated since change to module it seems (it was team before). I will take a look. QED237 (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237 and Struway2: The font size of the notes now match the text from the table, in particular the note list is already drawn from the css properties, the other text under the table is now sized to this as well (this is 90% by default, but can be edited by individual users to their liking). This should make it easier to read. CRwikiCA talk 16:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Notable? 2

@GiantSnowman: and others, is this notable? Jim Carter 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jim Cartar: yes, meets WP:NFOOTBALL as an international player. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 20:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, football expert. I hope members of this WikiProject will improve it. Thanks again, Jim Carter 20:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The un redirect of Bangalore ISL team

So I just noticed that if you type in Bangalore ISL team in the search bar then you are redirected to the Chennaiyin FC page. I understand why that would happen as Chennaiyin are the replacement for Bangalore in the Indian Super League but they are both two different entities so I don't know why there should be a redirect. You do not see Sydney Rovers FC redirected to Western Sydney Wanderers... they are both two different teams, one just happens to play. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it a little different though, because Bangalore never played? Unless they did and then that would be strange. If the Bangalore team never played any games then I understand the redirect as well and would suggest that the history section of Chennaiyin have a detailed account about the team initially being based in Bangalore before moving to Chennaiyin and maybe putting in the initial crest of the club, if it's licensed. Rupert1904 (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
If Bangalore's team disbanded before they ever played a match, why should there be an article for that team? I agree with Rupert1904 that the Chennaiyin article should include a section explaining that they replaced Bangalore as one of the inaugural teams and the (very) brief history of the Bangalore team. Then the redirect page could point to that particular section instead of the whole article. -- Jkudlick (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Both the Bangalore team and the Chennaiyin teams are two different teams entirely. Bangalore was going to be owned by SUN Group but due to a dispute over JSW Group and their involvement with Bangalore the team was dropped as SUN Group withdrew. The team name was rumored to be done however, a stadium selected, and players already "signed". Chennaiyin FC is a completely new team with brand new owners. It is like Chivas USA and Los Angeles FC for a recent example or the Western Sydney example I gave above. Sure, I can add some details in the Chennaiyin article but both teams are separate and I believe that for when the new Bangalore team comes in this page could be used as a continuation of Bangalore in the Indian Super League. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The Bangalore team disbanded before playing a single match. I'd have to say that makes the team's history quite insignificant, and certainly not notable. Since the Chennaiyin team was awarded only after the Bangalore team disbanded, a section in the Chennaiyin team's page about the Bangalore team being awarded then disbanding seems much more appropriate. -- Jkudlick (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I guess I can be fine about that. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:AFC Champions League - speedy deletion under WP:G4?

Hello football people.
Template:AFC Champions League has been put up for speedy deletion. I don't know from templates. There was a deletion discussion about similar templates, but it didn't include this one. Paging @Sir Sputnik: and @GiantSnowman:, paging Sir Sputnik and GiantSnowman.
Pete "one of the vast Melbourne-based conspiracy to keep football in Australia named as soccer in Australia" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC) PS: A few months ago, my family were going seven different ways at once taking children to Saturday morning sport. I checked in with my sister-in-law, and asked, I'm taking <niece's name> to football, right? and she said, no you're taking her to soccer.

The CSD#G4 tag was not appropriate, I have removed it. The deletion discussion linked to related to a completely different (though similar) template! GiantSnowman 09:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It is an unneeded template though, just as the UEFA version. And it is still used on 10/11, 11/12 and 12/13 seaosn articles because it gets constantly overwritten. -Koppapa (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Therefore take it to TFD, citing the consensus and precedent from the UEFA template. GiantSnowman 12:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Done]. -Koppapa (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Football Kit Designing

My recent edits of attempting to submit club football kits onto their respective season pages have come under scrutiny for the apparent use of manufacturer 'logos' (e.g. Nike, adidas), despite their being mere pixelated representations - does anyone know how to remove logos from the shirt designs, or alternatively, enter in a new design that would feature no logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownBrick22 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ricardo Ferreira

Kind of silly, but would this player be notable enough because of this incident if I created a page for him? Here is a link to a BBC article about what happened. BBC Rupert1904 (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No. -Koppapa (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the wonderful insight. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Similar case. WP:ONEEVENT should cover it. -Koppapa (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with the above response - definitely not notable. Number 57 23:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Davit Hakobyan

Dear football experts: One more old AfC draft - Is this person a notable player? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming the content of the draft is accurate, then he is notable as an Armenian international. However, the only reference in the article is an unreliable source, so additional citations are needed to confirm notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
According to Soccerway, he's only appeared as an unused substitute, so non-notable. JMHamo (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's the match report, which shows he didn't play. JMHamo (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone; it's been deleted now under db-g13, but can be refunded if his status should cha nge. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

European association football club records

Check out the mess in European association football club records. SLBedit (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What is your specific problem with it? Nothing was blatantly obvious as I scrolled through. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not my problem. Check the history page. SLBedit (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
So you have had to revise a couple of people? Do you want the page to be protected? Rupert1904 (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
If the unexplained edits continue, yes. SLBedit (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Not everyone is up to date on knowing to explain edits, that doesn't mean they are causing a problem though or are vandalizing a page. Out of the most recent 50 edits on Eduardo Salvio you have made over 30 of them and only explained one edit. Does that mean we should protect his page and block your account? Rupert1904 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course not but you are comparing an account with random IP addresses, and in different articles. About Salvio that means I didn't make controversial changes and that, apparently, I am the only one interested in keeping the article updated. If updating stats without explaining is a bad thing then no one will update them. SLBedit (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Most of the content in the article is unsourced. It should be "nuked". SLBedit (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Reikan or Rikan

The article name is Avi Reikan, but in there, the spelling Avi Rikan is used. What shall be done? --Leyo 23:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the article. Judging by his Twitter account, this is how he spells his name. Plus a Google search shows it to be four times more common than "Reikan". Number 57 23:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

what constitutes an affiliation between clubs?

I have started a discussion at Talk:Persib Bandung because editors claim that there is an affiliation between that club, Inter Milan and D.C. United because one man "owns" them all. I believe that traditional affiliations stem from an exchange of players, staff or facilities, not through ownership. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Mutual ownership has not traditionally denoted affiliation; for example, the same person owns the Washington Capitals, the Washington Wizards, and the Washington Mystics, but that does not mean the teams are affiliated. Unless there is a contractual agreement amongst the teams, they are not affiliated. I'll post this in the other discussion as well. -- Jkudlick (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

List of association football families

A mess. That needs sorting. Murry1975 (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Another article that needs sorting is Retired numbers in association football, perhaps by date of birth? SLBedit (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Are retired numbers even notable? Maybe a sidenote at the club's article. But as a collection in an own article? -Koppapa (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know but dying while playing professional football isn't or shouldn't be common. SLBedit (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

autocollapse

User:Unikalinho changed lots of templates to collapse by default. Is this acceptable? SLBedit (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Twelve hours doing almost nothing but setting |state=collapsed in various football related footer templates with no justification provided. This is just my opinion, but that seems a little excessive and unacceptable. However, I believe a consensus amongst the other editors here is appropriate before a campaign of undoing everything begins. -- Jkudlick (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I reverted 3 edits. SLBedit (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there's a guideline about leaving navboxes set to 'autocollapse'. User:Unikalinho should not have made those edits and they should now be reverted. – PeeJay 13:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
"there's a guideline about leaving navboxes set to 'autocollapse'" — WHERE is it?--Unikalinho (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure about a guideline, but autocollapse is the default behavior if the state parameter is not defined. If there isn't a need to have a navbox collapsed all the time, why change the value? Changing that many navboxes all at once may border on WP:DISRUPT. -- Jkudlick (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm ready to undo all the edits. SLBedit (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
This has been occurring in multiple projects for a couple months now. Unikalinho was advised on {{navbox}} (talk) to discuss such changes on project talk pages in the future. I've already undone a number of changes myself, so feel free to continue undoing. -- Jkudlick (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. SLBedit (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Team divisions on player pages

Moved here from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

An omission from the huge Wikipedia wealth of information in soccer player biographies and soccer teams, is an easy way to find out which division a team was in, in each year/season.

This makes reading the history of a player difficult since the teams that he played for might have been in the English Premier League (erstwhile the "First Division" of the English Football Association) at the time a player was on that team, but now, that team could be in the lower leagues, through recent successive relegations (e.g. Leeds United and Johnny Giles/Billy Bremner).

One possible solution is that when a team page is opened, from a league which involves relegation and promotion, that page should have a bar graph layout similar to what Wikipedia uses currently on music group/band pages, to display who played each instrument and during which years.

For the people who update the Wikipedia soccer league information, this should be trivial, since there are much fewer teams than players, approximately 80-90 spread across the 4 English leagues, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeneas32 (talk • contribs)

Do you mean like the chart displayed here?: Gillingham_F.C.#Statistics_and_records Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be an even better representation of the data. Is that where the team ended the season each year ? These charts should be maintained separately from the Team page, and should be directly accessible from the Player page, either through hover over the Teams (for which that player played) or through a small button next to the Teams listed on the Player page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeneas32 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"These charts should be maintained separately from the Team page, and should be directly accessible from the Player page, either through hover over the Teams (for which that player played) or through a small button next to the Teams listed on the Player page" - is that even possible?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a simpler solution would simply be to include the club's division in the standard statistics table that is on player articles (e.g. the table at Wayne Rooney#Career statistics would have another column after season noting the division the club was in that year). That would mean you wouldn't have to click through to another article to work out which division the club was in that season. Number 57 17:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
As per the player article suggested layout. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't even realise it was like that - clearly great minds think alike :) I've just edited Paul Ince#Statistics to add that column as an example. Number 57 17:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If a whole Career table is present on every Player page, then that would be a solution. On the Gillingham graphic, which ranges 100 years, it may be difficult to see the specific years this specific player played there, unless the graphic was blown up almost fullscreen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeneas32 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

For almost every player/club on wikipedia, the first sentence of the lead section says "John Doe plays for Such and Such Club in Such and Such Division" or "the club plays in such and such division, having been promoted or relegated in such and such year." Then, in the body of the article, promotion and relegation, if applicable are discussed and the relevant honours are included. And for many of the professional clubs in England there is a lengthy history section or its' own separate page that discusses this information. I understand where the idea is coming from but is a graph on every page really necessary? And as Aeneas pointed out, many of these graphs already exist, a couple more examples being Ipswich Stats and AZ Alkmaar league standings. But if such a table is deemed necessary, I would say that the Alkmaar one is better/clearer and the graphic would not need to be blown up to full screen to comprehend it. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Another possible enhancement that should be considered here is to try to recreate, based on this Player/Year data, the squad that a Team had in a particular Year. For instance, by clicking on the Gillingham graph, it should be possible to direct the SQL behind this data to find all Players who are linked to that Team, during that Year. That would be a great feature, mostly accomplished by the SQL engine and more thought now about how the data needs to be entered in the database to achieve this.Aeneas32 (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is already included in the season articles for clubs (e.g. 2013–14 Gillingham F.C. season). Number 57 18:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The page "Creating 2013–14 Gillingham F.C. season" exists, but there is no data on that page. Also, in response to an earlier message, not all Player page intros mention the division. For example, this is Billy Bremner's intro: "William John "Billy" Bremner (9 December 1942 – 7 December 1997) was a Scottish professional footballer, most noted for his captaincy of the Leeds United team of the 1960s and 1970s. He has since been voted Leeds United's greatest player of all time and has a statue outside the South East corner of Elland Road. He has also been included in the Football League 100 Legends and is a member of the English Football Hall of Fame." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeneas32 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say every player, just most. And since it's not there already, that information could definitely and probably should be included. I know Bremner captained Leeds to a lot of honours, so that should probably be in the lead intro. Plus Billy Bremner's page does include a table with all of his stats and includes which division Leeds were playing in during the time. And did you miss the second part of my response? Check out the table for AZ Alkmaar's league standings from 1976 to 2009. I think that is a very clear graph and could definitely be used on club pages. As you say, each year could be linked to a club season page that has a player table of the players that played for the club that season, transfers in & out, league fixtures, standings, cup performances, etc. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The solutions being proposed above sound insanely technical/complicated. Would it not be easier just to try and improve article to say "Fred Example joined Example FC, then in the First Division, in 1964. Two years later the club was relegated to the Second Division" etc etc............? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not a Leeds or Bremner supporter; his team Leeds seems to have

been relegated a few times and gone through hard times recently, thus the juxtaposition is misleading of his Career. Thus he and Leeds are a good example of why this information is necessary. Sounds like you are suggesting that all these Team/Year pages be pre-generated and represent static data. Fine, and this would allow further information and embellishment of the Team/Data information, if the manhours are available for the 80-90 Teams times 100 Years equals around 8500 pages. The AZ Alkmaar graph is closer to the visualization I was thinking about and is easier to read, mainly because it is restricted to fewer years. In all Player pages, I want to know how the Teams he played for were doing when the Player played for them.Aeneas32 (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs), but it seems like there is support for the idea. That's why I argued that most pages already or should just say "John Doe plays for Such and Such Club in Such and Such Division" or "the club plays in such and such division, having been promoted or relegated in such and such year." Rupert1904 (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Correction: The Gillingham graph is easier to read quickly, but the Alkmaar looks better (because it is restricted to fewer Years) -- that is what I meant to say. I prefer the Gillingham with No Legend needed.Aeneas32 (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

For info, Billy Bremner's article already includes a table showing which division his team played in for each season of his career..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, as a reader of Player pages information, I want to know how the Team was doing at the time he played for them, and the more instant the representation of that data, when looking at the top right Career box of the Player Page, the better. Often, there may be 10 Teams for which the Player played, and digging through detailed prose in each Team page is not the solution here. Again, my concerns are not specific to Billy Bremner or Giles or Peter Lorimer etc.Aeneas32 (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that it is most often found on the player page. You risk overlinking and overcomplicating it by introducing all these charts and tables into the pages. Players have stat boxes that say which division they play in and in the prose of the player article it will say which divisions he played in with which teams. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Aeneas32: Sorry, I assumed the Gillingham season article existed and was editing in a public library in a hurry. See 2012–13 Ipswich Town F.C. season instead, which lists players playing that season. Number 57 20:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
With respect, we can't include everything in the infobox. The career stats table (when there is one) on a player page illustrates their progress through the divisions. Where there is no stats table, we read the prose, which many readers wouldn't want to be buried in a swathe of statistics. It isn't feasible to aim at a techically clever graphical solution, which would involve not only a huge amount of work but also massive accessibility issues, when a few words of prose will tell the reader exactly which divisions a player has appeared in and how he arrived in them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The Ipswich Year page is informative, but again I want to make sure to refocus on the primary goal, which is that when reading the Player page top-right Career box, I want to know how those Teams were doing in the Year that this Player played for them, and the faster that information can be conveyed, which is most likely in a Team/Year graph, the better. All of these other embellishments like Team/Year pages are possible enhancements which could result from database operations on the primary Player/Team/Year data which already have been entered into the Wikipedia database. Creating the page with the graph data graphic (missing from that Ipswich Year page, by the way) does allow enthusiasts and others to add data about that Team/Year to that page.Aeneas32 (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Again I repeat what Struway, Chris and I said. This information is usually found in the lead section, and if not there, is found in the prose of the article and the stats table. You risk overcomplicating and creating accessibility issues by having such a table on every player/club page. Plus, the reason why there are season tables on club pages is for this exact reason, if people wish to see how the club did during a certain year or era all they have to do is click on the image and it will expand. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The Team/Year graphs are essential and should be generated for all 80-90 Teams. As I suggested, the graphs should be created and maintained separately, allowing the user to quickly Link from the Player pages and the Team pages to those graphs, often one after the other, in quick succession.Aeneas32 (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't just be 80-90 clubs though, it's hundreds of clubs that you would have to do this for in England, both professionally, semi-pro and amateur. And than thousands of clubs in leagues across the world. It's just not feasible, there is already a strong system in place where you can find out which division the club was playing in while the player played for that club. There are already many club season pages as other users have linked to and there are tables that show what division the club played in during which years as I have showed you in reference to Ipswich and AZ. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I just want the top 4 English leagues. Response can be gauged and then Spanish Ligas and Italian Serie can also be implemented. I am in the US reading these Player pages, and I assume that if you are in the UK, you may have better recognition of what league each Team was in during which Years. For many readers who are not in the country of origin, this Team/Year data may be more important. Initial work is 80-90 graphs, with direct Links to each. Aeneas32 (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Covering the division that a player is playing/has played in within the main body of text and a stats table seems plenty to me. Linking to divisions in infoboxes could be really complex when players have stayed with one team through numerous promotions/relegations, and anyone that's been out on loan adds to complications. Looking at parallel situations, should articles covering leaders of countries/empires/etc. have some kind of descriptor of the boundaries, economic power, etc. of their nation (or whatever) represented in a similar fashion? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't see any way in which including teams' division(s) in a player's infobox would work. For Ian Ashbee we'd have to have four separate rows for Hull City, which would look stupid. And what about when divisions change names? For every player who was in the First Division in 2003/04 and then the Championship in 2004/05 with the same club, would that require two separate rows? Totally unworkable and IMO unnecessary -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

As I recommended already, the simplest way to include this division information would be to put a small button next to each Team listed in the Player career box labeled "Divisions" or "Standings By Year" or "Divs" or "Team Info" which would open a new IE browser window which would contain the graph of the season end standings of this Team over its Years of existence. Each "Team Info" button would link to one of the 80-90 graphs already discussed. The reader would remain on the same Player page and would close the new Team window when he pleases. This "Team Info" button would distinct from the adjacent Team name button-link, which would link through to the full Team page.Aeneas32 (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)68.111.210.179 (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ideally every player article should have a statistics table, included in which is a column to say which division the club/s were competing in throughout the seasons.--EchetusXe 20:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
"As I recommended already, the simplest way to include this division information would be to put a small button next to each Team listed in the Player career box labeled "Divisions" or "Standings By Year" or "Divs" or "Team Info" which would open a new IE browser window which would contain the graph of the season end standings of this Team over its Years of existence." - although you claim that this would be "simple", I'm pretty sure that the above is in fact impossible to do with Wiki code, so it's a total non-starter..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
There have been at least 144 cubs, maybe more, that have played in the top four divisions of English football since it was formed in the 1880s. Plus many players have bounced between semi-pro leagues/non-league football and the top four divisions, so you would have to include every football division in England which has hundreds of clubs. Totally impossible. And like I have said many times before, the league in which players or club plays in are in the first sentence, prose of the article and/or the stats table. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

When a Player has played for 10 Teams and they are listed in his history box, the reader has to have some way of quickly recognizing what playing for that Team meant during those Years. Claiming this is "impossible" is absurd. Putting a button next to each Team listed which links to that team's standings graph is in fact trivial. Even if 150 graphs of Teams who have played seasons in the top 4 leagues have to be produced, that is minor compared to the amount of work which has already been invested in the Player and Team pages. A TV commentator, for instance, played for Wimbledon during his playing career -- how would the reader quickly recognize the significance of that without this feature. What league is Wimbledon in today ? Often people do not have the time to read the full description of all 10 Teams for which a Player may have played. (I found reading about the Crazy Gang to be interesting reading, mind you.) These quick-access Team standings graphs are essential.Aeneas32 (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Not suitable in my view. Not everything has to be in the infobox. I like the season's placings graph on the team pages. Maybe a matchday placing graph on a season article. But not connected to the player. There probably are external websites just for that. -Koppapa (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
"Putting a button next to each Team listed which links to that team's standings graph is in fact trivial" - since you are so adamant that this would be easy to do, perhaps you could enlighten us as to how it would be done, because I've been editing WP for nearly a decade and I certainly can't think of a way to accomplish what you're describing above......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous methods to open an image in a new window. One is "<A HREF="Leeds_graph.jpg" target="_blank"></A>". Another is to use a javascript onClick window.open scrollbars=yes ,resizable=yes sequence. I do not do web programming though.Aeneas32 (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not Wikipedia code though. Articles on WP are written entirely using WP code and editors are not required to know how to write javascript and stuff like that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
It is disappointing to note that Aeneas32 is being quite insistent on this being done, but is yet to contribute to Wikipedia outside of this discussion. I recommend that the editor has a go at editing some articles, and in doing this it may help them find a solution to the problem that they perceive. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not really jumped on the discussion before, but I am adding my two cents now. How is it even relevant to the players article what the full team history is? If you are interested in that history, then simply go to the team page which often not only includes prose, but also a graphical representation. The fact that you think this is important, does not make it so. It is not one of the key points of the player career and therefore it should not be included in the infobox. Clicking through to the team page is sufficient, linking to a graph cannot be done in an easy-to-understand way. CRwikiCA talk 16:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I always assumed that the FA's for the various countries were contributing to the editing of those Player and Team pages. Most Team pages do not have any such graph.Aeneas32 (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

But if those graphs would be created, why would it not suffice to include them on the team page? (Of course in an ideal world all team pages would be structured the same, such that such a graph would always be in the same place.) CRwikiCA talk 21:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It is important that the graphs be generated with identical methods, so that additional universal features could be added later. As mentioned, looking at a miniaturized 100 Year graph could be hard to read. Thus, when the graph is displayed, an important feature would be to draw a vertical line in red perhaps, based on the Gillingham graph exemplar, on the exact first Year of the player's stint at that Team. This again, is a reason why the display of this graph should be oriented from the Player page, to ensure that methods can be implemented to clarify the position on the graph that this stint represents. And note also that a Player might have 2 or more stints at the same club, and each invocation of the graph would identify the specific Year range on the graph, mouse-clicked from the specific horizontal line in the Player page career box. On the Team page, the smaller version of the graph should be at the top which when clicked would be zoomlinked to the full size new page.Aeneas32 (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As pretty much everyone else has already said, I really don't think this is needed. All we need to do is to make sure every player has the statistics table on their article and that it's filled out correctly (i.e. including the league). This seems to be approaching WP:DEADHORSE territory. Number 57 10:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Re-editing every Player page with that additional Team/Division data detail is a lot more work than what I am suggesting. If you are confident that that statistics table will be added to each Player page, then that may be another solution to this Player page readability problem. The purpose of the graphs proposal is to reduce the work of data entry people and thus generate a better likelihood that it would be done, and provide a instant visual representation of the history, glorious or inglorious, of the Team(s) listed next to the Player name, (and this Player's role within that history), Teams which most people reading the Player pages around the world have never heard of. If another solution is chosen by WP leadership, then fine.Aeneas32 (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to help complete this task! Number 57 12:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The requested move at Talk:Huddersfield Town F.C.#Requested move has been relisted due to lack of input. Further opinions would be welcome. Cheers, Number 57 14:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the name has got to be changed to A.F.C. Their own website is abbreviated as HTAFC and the club's twitter account is labelled The OFFICIAL #HTAFC tweet!. Don't really understand why anyone could have objections to renaming their wiki page to the correct name of the club. Hope my input helps. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Rupert1904: You need to make that comment at the talk page, not here. Cheers, Number 57 15:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Got it, will do. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ditto for Talk:Singapore Lions#Requested move. Any input is appreciated. Cheers. LRD 23:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

2014_Dhaka_Senior_Division_League

is Bangladesh 3rd tier level football league notable? @NnAs (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:NFOOTY and WP:FPL. Generally, a 3rd-tier league would not be considered notable unless it was fully professional, and even then there would have to be a great deal of independent coverage to build notability. I can't seem to find much secondary information about the league apart from a few small newspaper articles saying that the 2014 season started, so my answer would have to be "No," but perhaps other editors have more information about the league than I do. -- Jkudlick (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Jkudlick: You're confusing players and leagues - those two guidelines are not relevant to league notability. I would say a third tier league is generally likely to be notable (I can't think of any country where we have not considered them notable (we have, for instance, an article on 2. deild, the third level in the Faroes). A more pertinent question is whether a season article is appropriate for this league. Given that we have season articles on league down to level 10 in England, I think it would be WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS to deny such an article for a third-tier league in Bangladesh. Number 57 13:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Number 57: I must learn to read carefully before inserting my foot into my mouth. A lot of cleanup for that article is required, then. -- Jkudlick (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I think from the comments above that this is a clear WP:GNG failure. The Dhaka League I would say is notable as essentially being for at least a period, the de facto top national league, and I wouldn't have a problem with season articles for the period when it was the top league, but now it is simply a regional league. @Number 57: do we have season articles in England down to level 10? I thought the cut off was League 2 as that was a fully professional league. In this instance as there is almost no doubt this is not a fully professional league and is not the top league in a country. Unless a cleanup produces significant sourced prose then a PROD seems the only likely outcome. Fenix down (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
@Fenix down: Yes, we have loads (e.g. 2013–14 Eastern Counties Football League, 2013–14 North West Counties Football League. I think you're thinking of the cutoff for club season articles, which it is generally agreed is restricted to those playing in fully pro leagues. Number 57 17:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh yeah! I think that is more a case of listcruft than systematic bias, but I have long questioned the purpose of those stat dumps, but daren't prod or anything for fear of the total s***storm that that would create! Fenix down (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Jamesa40

Might be worth keeping an eye on the contributions of this editor, who has apparently got hold of an old book and started copying chunks of players' profiles in the book directly into the prose of their articles, most of it in an unecyclopedic style and much of it written in the present tense even though it's talking about stuff from 50+ years ago, For example, he's added to the article on Cliff Jones "For a while Jones couldn't strike his best at Spurs. Then he broke a leg. Since recovering, he proved he was worth every penny of his £35,000 fee. Juventus were reported to have offered Spurs £100,000 for this brilliant player, whom most critics rate the finest winger in the country." I've tried to engage on his talk page but had no response as yet..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Many edits are pure 1950s and 60s. "Nailed-down a place", "brilliant player", etc. Copied directly, all very cliché ridden, enthusiastic and non encyclopedic.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
And he's only on 'B'........--Egghead06 (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

FIFA data vs. Club data

Let's take the example of Ramires, there is a dispute because FIFA link shows 1.81m and Chelsea link shows 1.80m. What to choose? The most recent link or the most "reliable" link? Is FIFA data more reliable than club X data? SLBedit (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. -Koppapa (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I would go with the club's ref as the player plays for them and they know his height. Kante4 (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
1cm doesn't make that much of a difference, but I agree with Kante4 - I'd use the club data as they have the most up-to-date data. -- Jkudlick (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What do the majority of reliable sources say? There are more out there than FIFA and club! GiantSnowman 16:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

How can a person lose 1cm in a few months? :) SLBedit (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

UEFA also says 1.80 and the Premier League says 1.8 (They never add the zero). ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
2 reliable sources against 1 reliable source.
Resolved

SLBedit (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Tournament hoax vandal

User:GiantSnowman and others, I have blocked user:Fredy901 and deleted all his contributions. I think he is a new reincarantion of the vandal that created numerous hoax articles about tournaments (youth tournaments and the like). As the search on Wikipedia is down, I can't easily find references to his master account. If someone can have a look and confirm my conclusions, I would rest easier :-) Fram (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that his only visible (but reverted) edit[8] was also a piece of vandalism. Fram (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: It doesn't ring any bells, should we try SPI? GiantSnowman 11:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, search works again. Reminds me of User:FIFAWorldCupFan / User:FallandSpringOlympics. Fram (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I now have blocked another one, but that one appears to be a sock of User:Mauricio80. I wonder whether we have two sockfarms, or whether they are one and the same. FallandSpirng has some 60 listed socks (and more unlisted ones), and Mauricio80 also has some 60 socks. Intriguing... No matter who theyare a sock from, BRI is still the best approach, but perhaps it owuld be easier to spot them if we have more information? Fram (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mauricio80 confirmed that these two were Mauricio80 socks, together with a third new one. Please keep an extra eye on all new football tournament articles (squads, teams, ...), as chances are that they will seem plausible but are a complete invention (sometimes a tournament that doesn't exist, or not in that year, sometimes a tournament that is likely to happen but with a completely bogus list of competitors, and so on). Fram (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is a Request for Comment about "Chronological Summaries of the Olympics" and you're invited! Becky Sayles (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Scott Kashket

Young Orient player with a new article. I've put the guy's birthdate in the article per Soccerbase [9] and the Orient official website [10] (6 July 1995). A guy has appeared claiming to be Kashket's brother saying it's 25 February 1996, and he's reverted repeatedly but hasn't provided any verification other than "ino more then the internet" [11]. He might well be legit, but how do we know? What's the procedure? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

He was 17 as of 25 February 2014, which means the 25 February 1996 DOB the 'brother' is trying to add is a year out - but it means 6 July 1995 supported by Soccerbase is also wrong (presuming, of course, that that article is accurate)...however seeing as Wikipedia uses reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people, we go with what the sources say (for now!). GiantSnowman 20:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, makes sense. But I've now been tapped up by the guy on twitter, and he is clearly Scott's brother. He actually sent me a photo of Kashket's (provisional) driving licence (has a photo on it), his middle name is Connor and the birthdate is 25-2-96. I asked why Orient had their own player's birthdate wrong and he said that Hércules lied about Kashket's age so he could get international clearance. So what happens when the reliable sources are wrong, as they seem to be here? Murky! Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, a tricky one - for now I have removed the DOB completely and protected the article to prevent further editing (largely to prevent @Zack kashket: from being blocked for disruptive editing) - the matter needs to be discussed on the article talk page. Once agreement is reached I will un-protect the article. GiantSnowman 21:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, GS, that seems like the best plan. I'm not sure if he broke 3RR but he must have been close. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary

Does anybody have an idiom in English for a person with few or little skills for a given sport? I'm currently working on Harvey Esajas and his mind-blowing story, adding some refs (hopefully they will be deemed reliable, I know La Gazzetta dello Sport is, not sure about the others though).

The word in Spanish is "torpe", which could be translated into English like "clumsy", but I'm looking for something more sports-related. Attentively, thank you in advance. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No comments yet, but a removal already (I have relocated one link as ref, maybe that'll suffice)... For the word about lack of skills, does "maladroit" make the cut? --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Awkward"? GiantSnowman 18:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"Maladroit" may be an appropriate word, but "inept" is more likely to be understood by the general public. -- Jkudlick (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks mates, both of you, i'll duly alter it. About the stats chart removal, don't worry GS, I know you are doing it for the best of the project :) --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Assessment Question

I'm starting to work on player articles and reaching the point where I was needing to have some assessed, and after looking at this wikiproject's assessment page I had a question.

Should we have a group of users listed as those that will (usually) be assessing articles? The furthest back an article needing assessment was several months, with a few other recent ones untouched. Is it okay to leave articles without being assessed for long periods of time? I know requests for assessment are periodically posted, but it may be a "chicken and egg" situation where people don't post requests because they see the articles haven't been assessed for awhile.

I'm a bit new to Wikiprojects, so any new information would be great. Thanks. Christiangamer7 (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no harm having articles unassessed. -Koppapa (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Well even if it isn't "harmful" it certainly doesn't help in the long term goal of having more football related articles reach Featured-Article status. Christiangamer7 (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
No, all WP members should (ideally) be able to properly assess relevant articles. GiantSnowman 12:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Al I'm saying is people don't assess the articles that are most relevant, the ones requesting assessment in this Wikiproject. I guess we don't need a list of people doing it, but to me it's disappointing to see it be inactive. Christiangamer7 (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
A lot of stuff that should get done doesn't - welcome to Wikipedia! :) GiantSnowman 17:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, well I'll do my part and assess articles I haven't contributed a lot to. Mine will hopefully be assessed within a few years haha Christiangamer7 (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
You can assess the articles you start you know... GiantSnowman 08:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Thought you were advised not to, but alright TIL Christiangamer7 (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Football rankings

First time i see the webpage footballdatabase.com used. Has media picked the page up anywhere or is someone pushing there website? -Koppapa (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That table appears to have been added on 16 March 2014 by Barryjjoyce. As I see there was no discussion about it on the talk page, it appears to be someone who just added it of his own accord. I also cannot determine how that website determines their rankings; at least IFFHS has a table showing how points are tabulated (despite the fact their club rankings have not been updated since 4 June). I think discussion on the article's talk page before removing the table is warranted; if someone can provide a link to the method used by Football Fatabase to determine their rankings, it will lend some credibility. I just found a third site which uses yet another (secret) formula to determine club rankings, which are in a different order from the other two sites. -- JKudlick tcs 13:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I started a discussion on this issue here. -- Jkudlick tcs 15:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Kris Bright - Move to India or no?

So apparently I got a friend of this player reverting my edit that he has joined an I-League team in India. Apparently I can ask him myself but looking at Brights twitter, would I even get a response? What should I do here? I do have a source and personally I got my own "inside sources" from the AIFF who have confirmed (and disparaged) the news of Bright coming to India but I can't source those. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The source you used says "The 28-year old striker is set to join the latest entrant to the country’s premier league... Kris Bright has agreed to join Kalyani Group’s I-League side for the 2014-15 season, Goal can reveal." (my bolding) It doesn't say he has signed. Suggest you wait until there are sources more reliable than "Goal can reveal" for him actually signing, before adding anything to the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I am sure that once the Super League is finished and the I-League becomes a focus again we will find a better update of the Bright situation. For now I am taking it as "speculation". Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained changes

It would seem that football is thought exempt from the need to explain changes by random editors who alter player listings for no apparent reason. They find out somewhere that a player changes club or mysteriously changes position or nationality (I say mysteriously as a lot of these changes are not explained, even with a rudimentary edit summary). To stop these edits from subtly moving the encyclopedia away from reality they should IMO be ruthlessly purged on sight. If this blight spreads with no-one realising we may as well dump the whole project, so those who would try such random changes should be in no doubt that unexplained changes will be removed within minutes and are a waste of time. Any argument with such reversions should be met with the response "you obviously saw this change somewhere. If you repeat your edit, please tell us where". Opinions? Britmax (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You make a valid point. I must admit to also being guilty of not documenting some of my edits, but I also try to find where the information in undocumented edits came from before undoing or correcting, unless it's obviously incorrect, disruptive, or vandalism. I agree that a note of "where is this information" could be appropriate. Of course, if an inline reference is provided, this is moot. -- Jkudlick tcs 14:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
All unreferenced changes could/should be challenged and, if necessary, removed/reverted - especially concerning BLPs. GiantSnowman 14:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Note WP:PRESERVE, maybe make a quick effort to see if a fact is true or not before deleting it. Macosal (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation in intro / Honours

1 - I remember a discussion two or three months ago, and it was decided that some commas were needed when it involved the words "on loan" and "X national team", so the reader would not be mislead into thinking a national team was loaning a player (i.e. "Bojan Krkic is a Spanish footballer who plays for English club Stoke City on loan from Barcelona, and the Spanish national team, as a striker").

However, when we are talking just clubs, why would we need the commas? Example: "Tozé is a Portuguese footballer who plays for Estoril on loan from Porto as a midfielder". Why on earth do some write "Tozé is a Portuguese footballer who plays for Estoril, on loan from Porto, as a midfielder"? No grey area there, and when the loan ends we have to remove the commas, then add them again if another loan ensues. Simply put: is the first version wrong (encyclopedically, grammatically)?

2 - are youth/indoor honours suitable for insertion in an ASSOCIATION FOOTBALLER's list of accolades. Does not make much sense, does it?

Attentively, happy weekend all --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. The punctuation in your first example is a mess, and lends itself to confusion. The comma before "as a striker" is wrong in British English, and if you're having a comma after "on loan from Barcelona", you need one before it as well. "Bojan Krkic is a Spanish footballer who plays as a striker for English club Stoke City, on loan from Barcelona, and for the Spanish national team" is clear, precise, and minimises commas. In your second example, including the commas is probably preferable, but if you put the playing position first, you wouldn't really need one: "Tozé is a Portuguese footballer who plays as a midfielder for Estoril on loan from Porto".
  2. As to youth, if I was writing about a player who'd won the FA Youth Cup or the FIFA Under-17 World Cup, I'd include it, but if we're talking local primary schools cups, I wouldn't. It's a judgment call as to where the boundary lies. Indoor, probably, if it's a proper competition. Indoor football was very big in the US for a time. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric Bicfalvi's misspelled name

Eric Bicfalvi is a Romanian footballer that also has Hungarian ancestry. Should the misspelled name Bikfalvi Erikused by some Hungarian sites be included here or not (considering that this is English Wikipedia and English sources use the correct name Eric Bicfalvi)?

There is a reply to your Help desk post at Wikipedia:Help desk#Eric Bicfalvi's misspelled name. —teb728 t c 08:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
User:TEB728, I'd be interested in your own opinion. 37.143.14.157 (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
OK. My own opinion is that the mention of the Hungarian spelling in the lede as it is in the article is in accord with the Manual of Style at MOS:FORLANG and likely would be helpful to readers particularly in light of the fact that the Hungarian spelling is used by some Hungarian sites. Most importantly, in discussing it on the article talk page (which is the place to discuss it), I would not characterize it as a “mis”-spelling. —teb728 t c 09:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Leeds United moves

I'd like to raise attention to a multiple RM because it might require a lot of work and cleaning up. Please see Talk:Leeds United A.F.C. Reserves and Youth Team. Regards IJA (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox spacings

After seeing several run-ins regarding the title of this message, my question is the following:

is there any MOS for the infobox layout, or is it just a matter of preference? I tend to prefer layout as seen on for example Bruno Soriano, all lined-up. I have seen the layout present on several players, including Gabriel Heinze, more often than I would like to; so, we have them of all colours and shapes, thus I repeat: preference or consensus?

Attentively, thank you in advance --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus regarding the layout of parameters, and preferences vary. It is however necessary for the relevant parameters to be grouped by clubs e.g. years1, clubs1, caps1, goals1, for ease of updating statistics. In the cases listed above, the alignment in the Gabriel Heinze page is superior than that used in Bruno Soriano in locating the specific field by being less compact and aligned neatly with the corresponding parameters. LRD 00:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
As above, if we're just talking spacing. Changing to one's own personal preference is generally pointless, and if someone does it, and it gets reverted to the original version, then leave it. Anybody edit-warring on something as terminally trivial as infobox spacing clearly hasn't grasped what this encyclopedia is here for. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Could not agree more Struway, could not agree more. Cheers back --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

We should match {{Infobox football biography}} as closely as possible. GiantSnowman 13:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure there's anything sacred about the way someone laid out the documentation years ago: so long as we obey the instructions about keeping the sets together, as at Template:Infobox football biography/doc#Usage, I don't see any problem with laying them out vertically or horizontally. What is annoying is when people list all the yearsn first, followed by all the clubsn, etc, so that when an editor goes to update the stats, the relevant fields are nowhere near each other. Can't think of an example offhand, or I'd link one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Concur with what Struway said. Here's your example btw. LRD 15:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Updated. :) SLBedit (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics

An editor has suggested that specifying column width and adding footnotes on appearances in career statistics tables goes against the MOS. I fail to see how adjusting column width and adding footnotes to elaborate on appearances is a violation of the MOS. Thoughts? LRD 16:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you LRD NO. That's the way it should be done. The MoS needs to be updated to reflect this. JMHamo (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I am the editor in question - thanks for notifying me about this discussion by the way. Your edits contravene the current MOS - as I have said I would not be opposed to amending said MOS if there is consensus to do so. However disruptively editing, contrary to MOS, to push your personal preference is wrong. GiantSnowman 17:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Something came up and I had to afk for a while. There is no way that adjusting column width or adding footnotes contravene any MOS nor is it disruptive to elaborate what we can't add in a cell. Nothing is done against the principles of the MOS and there is no need to be pedantic about sticking strictly to every single detail, or lack of, in the career statistics table. LRD 17:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how adding footnotes can violate the current MoS. The third of the notes below the example table on the MoS page refers to a now archived talk page discussion, which mentions adding explanatory footnotes (at the answer to Q5), which are mentioned in a thread higher up that page as a relatively new but spreading way of giving the reader helpful information (dated September 2013, so nothing new about it now).
As to column width, I'm not sure. I remember being told by an accessibility-savvy editor to let the browser choose the width. Don't know if there's any general MoS that says that, haven't got time at the minute to look it up. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Column width should definitely not be changed - though as for in-line notes, why don't we add an actual separate column ("Notes" or something) onto the end of each 'season' for in-line citations and explanatory notes? GiantSnowman 17:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any good reason why column width cannot be adjusted. I did a quick search and it did not turn up anything about sticking to default width. However, the examples at MOS:TABLE utilise column width, which I doubt they would allow if it contravenes policy. If Struway2 could find the specific MOS or discussion saying we should stick to default width, we could take a second look. Regarding footnotes, we have to consider that a note in the relevant cell(s) would be easier for the reader. LRD 18:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Re:width, as Struway2 has already said there are potential readability/display issues. Re:footnotes, any evidence they would be easier for the reader? As I have already said the in-cell note messes with display and alignment, whereas a note in its own column doesn't have thatb problem. GiantSnowman 18:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Thinking about it further (sorry, I'm juggling cooking my tea with trying to think about MoS, and the two don't mix very well :-), we must be allowed to change column width, to even up comparable columns within a table or comparable tables below one another, for instance. Perhaps I was told I shouldn't set a specific width just because it looked better on my specific display, ignoring what it might do on other shapes and sizes? Can't remember...
As to a separate column for notes and references, I'd probably be against it: I do prefer referencing/annotating at the point of use, for text-source integrity. Having the general source for each row after the season is clear enough, implying "this source covers the season's worth of stats". But the link/reference/note for anything specific, such as which "other" competitions were played in a specific season, ought to be inline, i.e. immediately next to the thing it's sourcing or annotating. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Setting column width doesn't cause any accessibility issues and it is not discouraged by MOS:ACCESS. It does, however, set a fixed width, which might both prevent and induce line wrapping depending on the club's text width and the screen width. That said, there is nothing inherently wrong with automatically setting the width, forcing a column width might be beneficiary to have a uniform appearance. Regardless, I cannot find any MoS reason why one would be preferred over the other. Furthermore, the way this table is set up in general is not following the accessibility part of the MoS per MOS:DTAB. CRwikiCA talk 18:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware it needs row and column headers and scopes, and the totals rows aren't right, but I and probably plenty more of us know much less about accessibility requirements than we should. It'd be really helpful, if you have the time, if you could give us an outline of what would need doing to make it accessible. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Struway2: As far as I can see it is the scopes are missing from both the rows and columns (both the initial header and the Apps/Goals sub column headers). Using the exclamation marks to bold/highlight rows is also sloppy at best, those cells are not column headers and shouldn't be seen as such (a style parameter could set both the background colour and bolding). I believe from previous discussions that people did not want to use a template for this. Without a template or module it would, however, be extremely hard to maintain a fixed format, because novice editors wouldn't necessarily always use the scopes and use uniform formatting. CRwikiCA talk 21:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for belated reply. It also needs a caption. Adding the scopes is straightforward (if we're sure which field is the row header, anyway). Replacing the exclamation marks is also straightforward. Is it OK to have the "Total" wording spanning 2 or 3 columns?
As to a template/module, you're probably right. IIRC, the old template was a) fiddly to use, and b) inflexible, which is why most editors with any grasp at all of wikitables ended up using them instead. Personally, I'd have no problem with a template/module, if what it did was impose correct and consistent table formatting without adding swathes of extra parameters to fill in or additional restrictions on wording of column headings or which columns to include: e.g. for players only having played in England, we have FA Cup, League Cup, optional Europe, Other; while players with a different career history might just need the generic National Cup or a different named cup, Continental, Other; or whatever breakdown their sources support. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I never saw anything against row or col spans in the accessibility guidelines, so the total would be okay. Obviously some flexibility would be needed for building the table, so I think a Module would be the way to go in that case. I think there is consensus about the way it should look. Do you have an example article with a more complex table (i.e. a player that played in different countries/back at the same club etc). I am a little preoccupied with implementing some of the other Module I recently wrote, but after I get that kind of settled, I can give writing a module for this a try. CRwikiCA talk 15:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
As to consensus... I don't know if you've seen the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 83#Group season in statistics tables by club or list them chronologically, which was about whether loan spells should be grouped after the loaning club's rows, as at Darren Randolph, or interspersed in strict chronological order, but it stemmed from an article being changed from the interspersed method to the grouped method, citing consensus at the Player MoS, and all of a sudden people said they had no knowledge of any such consensus, and whatever... (no offence intended if I've misrepresented anybody, it was just an illustration of what tends to happen). Don't know how much work is involved in constructing a module, but I'm not sure I'd start work on anything without being fairly sure that regular editors were going to buy into it.
As to more complex tables, Randolph as mentioned has loan spells, and has played in 2 countries, Paul Caddis likewise, and had a loan spell that converted to a permanent move the next season. Robbie Keane has played in several countries and two confederations, and has more than one loan spell, and the table there is an example of what the old template used to produce, with subheadings on change of country, totals by country but not by club, and rowspanning anything that'd stand still long enough. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Some of these tables do tend to get pretty complex, which might be tricky to harmonize when there sometimes is no consensus on what would be seen as the proper format. Let's see whether anyone else has an opinion about this. CRwikiCA talk 17:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Upmerging footballer categories

There are two discussions taking place at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 18 which project members may have a view on. Sionk (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

League in lead

Please remind me, have we agreed that the league a player plays in should NOT be included in the article lead? JMHamo (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

League (Premier League), or nation (English) is fine. The latter wouldn't need updating if the club were promoted or relgated. Again, preferences vary here. LRD 10:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we should use league - in my experience they are rarely updated when clubs get promoted/relegated, and sponsored names are often used. Country is sufficient! Oh and we should definitely not use both e.g. "Dutch Eredivisie" - makes me want to pull my hair out! GiantSnowman 10:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
If people want to update it, it's fine. It is good info. -Koppapa (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
What it looks like when I searched archieve about a week ago when I did not agree with another user, we have never agreed on consensus about this. My personal thoughts is that league should be avoided, especially due to promotion and relegation. On articles for players not very famous, for example in english tier 3 they might not be updated when teams are relegated, until when player change club then a editor that supports new club updates it. I agree with GS that we should definately not use both so I would use "english club FOO FC". I would not use "FOO FC in england" as I have seen on some places, that implies club only play in england but they can participate in other matches like a match in spain in champions league. As I said "english club FOO FC" is my choice. QED237 (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, The thing is sometimes you need the country for differentiation. For example both the Australian and American top women's tier is called "W-League". --SuperJew (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
So, in answer to the original question, basically, no, there is no such consensus. Some people prefer "English club FOO FC", some people prefer the additional information of "Premier League club FOO FC", some people don't care. But as Qed237 says, please not "FOO FC in England". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no consensus so do not remove the league information if it is up to date (and not in breach of silliness such as the guys above have mentioned).--EchetusXe 21:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK and International football tournaments

I was surprised to be reverted at 2015 Africa Cup of Nations, when I added a link to Equatorial Guinea in the introduction, on the grounds of WP:OVERLINK. Having looked around other major tournaments, it seems like not linking to the host country in the intro/infobox is common practiec. To me, this seems wholly flawed and misguided. I appreciate the relevance of the sentence "the names of major geographic features and locations" in WP:OVERLINK, but this to be balanced against:

  • The highlighting of 'major' in the guideline
  • The principle that "In general, links should be created to: relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully"

To me, information about the host nation seems an extremely relevant connection in helping understand a tournament. Certainly, I initially made the edit on the basis that I don't know very much about Equatorial Guinea, and that I'd be able to better read the article with context on eg the language spoken, its relative wealth, its infrastructure... all of these shape the experience and nature of major international tournament. 'Major' in the guideline is deliberately vague, and highlighted - in other words, they're saying 'MAJOR', that is, very large features, and I believe that this should be contextual. In the context of articles on tournaments between nations, I'd argue that 'Africa' would be inappropriately large but a nation is the geographical unit of international football.

In other words, what I see here is a flexible principle being applied in an inflexible way which negatively affects usability. I can understand wanting to avoid overlinking in the intro, but it seems that the tournamnet infobox would be an appropriate and user-friendly way of providing such a link, without affecting readability. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how your link violates WP:OVERLINK – the specific wording of the guideline is "Specifically, unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article". To me, it's fairly clear that Equatorial Guinea is wholly relevant to the topic, seeing as they're hosting the tournament. Number 57 16:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the previous section, WP:UNDERLINK, "words are not linked that are needed to aid understanding of the article". Do I need to link to Equatorial Guinea in order to understand that this is a football tournament? I'd argue no.
The football association is hosting the tournament, link to that, not the nation. I could see the rationale that you come to an article only to see a link to the nation and then click on the nation. We have to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
We aren't talking about the application of UNDERLINK though, we're talking about the application of (and someone's rationale being) OVERLINK. Your comments about hosting are irrelevant as the specific field in the infobox is for "Host country", not Host FA. Number 57 18:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I see no harm in linking the country. -Koppapa (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
This is all a bit WP:LAME tbh. GiantSnowman 20:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It is, but the repeated reversions claiming to be in line with a guideline (when they're fairly clearly not) is symptomatic of the increasingly aggressive approach taken by a few members of the project that is increasingly putting me off Wikipedia. Number 57 22:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
1) I'm no longer a member of this project because too many editors ignored editing guidelines, MoS and refused to discuss uniformity.
2) I'm not aggressive, simply firm.
3) They're clearly part of the guideline. Go ask there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
No, as I quoted above, overlink only comes into play when the links are not specifically relevant to the topic. A host country is specifically relevant to an article on a football tournament. The guideline also states that "links may be repeated in infoboxes". I don't see why I need to "ask there", because it's spelled out in plain English. Number 57 08:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The guideline is deliberately vague, and clear that its advice is that useful information should always be linked. That would be my basis for linking in this (and all, as a principle) tournament articles. An infobox link seems to avoid many of the objections to Overlinking, and as has been pointed out by Number57 is identified as a useful place for links that do not disrupt the readability of the main text. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of the merits of OVERLINK v UNDERLINK, there is probably sufficient support here for inclusion of the wikilink in this article. GiantSnowman 12:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Omar El Haybi

Hi,

Article Omar El Haybi just created and it should be deleted? Under what criteria?

I saw it when he was added to athletico madrid squad without it being in official squad list and some google search it looks like a 14 year old and not notable.

Help would be appreciated. QED237 (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Clearly a WP:NFOOTY failure, almost certainly a WP:GNG failure given a grand total of 19 Ghits. It was speedy deleted on 10 October under WP:CSD#G7, but given the claim to play for Atletico Madrid, I can't see that being justifiable now (unless it's a hoax, which is possible given the lack of hits). Prod it and then AfD if required. Number 57 12:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
How about WP:A1? QED237 (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I would say it has sufficient context. I would say hoax is your best bet of getting a speedy deletion if there is nothing out there to prove he exists. Number 57 12:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Number 57: Looking at page log it was WP:A7 and not G7. Seems like no evidence of notability, would that be okay CSD or is PROD better? QED237 (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, CSD is probably not valid here. GiantSnowman 12:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Not even WP:A7 that was used last time? QED237 (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
"The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." A footballer contracted to a professional club is a sufficient claim to notability for A7 not to apply, does that make sense? GiantSnowman 12:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Does the claim remain credible if he was playing for Malmo City (Swedish Div 4, i.e. sixth tier) under-14s in May of this year? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes I guess it does, I am not to familiar with these deletion criterias yet, which is why I asked for help in the first place, but I am trying to learn. Thanks for all help I have gotten. I saw that someone else has BLPPROD the article now. QED237 (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Swedish div.4 (6th tier) is not a fully proffessional league, WP:FPL, so that is not enough to make player notable. QED237 (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
With CSD there's a difference between 'making a claim to notability' and 'actually being notable' - however given Struway2's research this article is probably a hoax so I will delete accordingly. GiantSnowman 13:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Template transclusions tool 403: User account expired

Hi, does anyone here know about the template transclusion tool going offline and what needs to be done to get it working again? For example : Check completeness of transclusions Birmingham City F.C. squad template. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

We're aware of the issue, but there's nothing that we can do about it here. The owner of the account needs to update the tool. -- Jkudlick tcs 18:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

International association football competitions by host

I have initiated a discussion here regarding Category:International association football competitions by host that may be of interest to this project's members. Constructive feedback and new perspectives would be most welcome. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Dani Alves

Hi,

Having a discussion with a IP at Talk:Dani Alves#Picture. The editor says he want new images on page (not what images just new one) and told me are you your the editor of this article ?, If you're not I suggest you do not meddle, if you are, I ask you to please add more new photo . I tried telling him it is not so easy and we cant just add any picture we find on google due to copyright rules, but the editor dont seem to understand. If anyone has something to add to discussion feel free to join. QED237 (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I have a similar discussion (similar as in the person doesn't really understand how Wikipedia works) on my talk page. First time I answered him and invited him to help, second time I just ignored him and anyway I'm going on vacation in a week... --SuperJew (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Club Litoral

Can someone here with more knowledge of the intricacies disentangle the web between Club Litoral and Litoral de Cochabamba? The information is somewhat overlapping, and seems to be the exact opposite of the information on the Spanish Wikipedia, es:Club Deportivo Litoral (La Paz) and es:Club Deportivo Litoral (Cochabamba). Our articles claim that Club Litoral plays in Cochabamba, while Litoral de Cochabamba plays in La Paz. It may all be correct (even that there are two champions in 1954), but I doubt it somehow... Fram (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Squad maintenance}}

The {{Squad maintenance}}, that's used in most of our squad templates does not work anymore. The toolserver got replaced by https://tools.wmflabs.org/. Can anyone that's technical help me with this and fix the template, so the squads get updated in the lists. Fredde (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The template is written to call a specific tool from the Wikimedia Tool Labs servers. Perhaps they can help rewrite the call code. -- Jkudlick tcs 15:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Question @Fredde 99: How exactly is it not working? I clicked on the links provided in several of the squad templates, and the transclusion reports and club roster links seem to work just fine. -- Jkudlick tcs 15:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If you look on [12], it says that three of the players in the Template:IF Elfsborg squad have no article. Even though Arber Zeneli were created 5 October and both Anton Andreasson and Adam Lundqvist two days later. The problem is that the transclusion reports is not updating as it should anymore. --Fredde (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand a few templates are messed up. That's nothing we can deal with here since it works properly on Wikipedia. Address your concerns to the Wikimedia Tool Labs personnel at the link in my first reply, as it is something that needs to be changed on their end. -- Jkudlick tcs 16:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It's broken. "403: User account expired". SLBedit (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I opened a discussion at the MediaWiki "Collection of issues" page. -- Jkudlick tcs 15:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Catalan nationalism on Talk:Pep Guardiola?

An editor added "Catalonia" to Pep Guardiola's birthplace parameter. I objected and started a discussion on the talk page: Talk:Pep Guardiola. Feel free to call it WP:LAME, but I have asked for other Spanish player articles where the province or region are included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of Catalan or any other type of nationalism to include the names of provinces or autonomous communities (there are no regions) of Spain when indicating a place name. The names of provinces or autonomous communities are frequently added to addresses as they are in other country (i.e., the United States) so that it is clear where a town is located. Because this is standard practice in Spain, it is also standard practice in Spain in both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia for footballers from Spain. --Cameta (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I was going to post something similar, but in the case of big cities like Barcelona, there's usually no reason to list the state/county/region/autonomous community the city is in. "Manchester, England" is usually more sufficient than "Manchester, Greater Manchester, England". – PeeJay 21:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello. It's poor form to repeatedly infer that Richard is a nationalist when he claims he isn't. It muddles the waters and casts aspersions. It's best to comment on the content and not the editor. Killiondude (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
A small town seems, to me, to call for the country subdivision and that's not an issue of nationalism, but appropriate for an encyclopedia. Boy in the bands (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Richard states that he "work(s) on Catalan Wikipedia". He may not be a nationalist, but he has an interest in the subject. He elects to work on that project (his CA contributions) more than the Spanish language project (his ES contributions). Nothing wrong with that either, but he has a special interest in promoting the topic at the very least. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that's interesting information. But if I enjoyed a given topic that also revolved around a language, I would probably edit that language's wiki a lot as well. By the way, are you, 208.81.212.222, Mr. Görlitz while logged out? You both appear to be from Vancouver. I think it's important to know so it doesn't appear as if there are more voices in this discussion than there really are. Killiondude (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, my ears are burning. Yes, well, I am interested in Spain, and I am interested in Catalonia. Hi Walter. I'm studying Yupik at the moment, being a park ranger in Alaska, but I don't think that makes me an Inuit nationalist. If I worked to create a Yupik Wikipedia, I would hope you wouldn't label me an Alaskan native extremist. That would be offensive, as would drawing any such inference here would be. I would hope my interest in Spain might be useful. Obviously I'm wrong, and I find this very disappointing. When looking at the article Pep Guardiola and seeing the town "Santpedor," I became interested because it was not a town whose name I recognized. My problem, despite the lofty talk of "consistency," is that if the name of the town were Saskatoon or Seattle, we would told immediately what province or state that town is in. The extra clarity we give to North America is not extended to Spain, a country first divided into autonomous communities (not, as noted above, "regions") and then one or more provinces. Some of these communities also are known as "nationalities," given the unique structure and history of Spain. So we are not consistent-- the United States and Canada are treated one way (and indeed so is the United Kingdom, FIFA or not)-- while Spain is treated another way. It may well be the case that adding the names of autonomous communities to Barcelona, Madrid and the like adds nothing to clarity, but certainly this is often the case in the American and Canadian context as well. My argument to Walter has been with regard to this article that indeed it would be useful *here.* I have heard it said we could follow the links or read the article, but that proves too much-- this is the case in US and Canadian examples as well. I did not know what Cameta stated-- that the names of the autonomous communities were frequently added to addresses (I'm assuming postal addresses). This makes me think that in terms of way Spain views itself geographically, it's in some degree as in the American context-- generally with the name of sub-national units included. Taking those names out doesn't "clean up" the infoboxes, it truncates the names, often to the level of not understanding the name of the town or where it is to any meaningful degree. That's not helpful, and that's not encyclopedic, even if it *were* consistent. RangerRichard (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Vancouver is a few cities away. I'm from Surrey. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If we decide that it needs to be added, I'm not opposed to it. If this is to become a precedent for that sake only, I am opposed. I don't see other football player or BLPs that do this, other than the one Richard created, but I have not looked at all BLPs or footballer articles which is why I asked for clarification. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
According to the player guideline, the correct way is only City, Country in box. Also, we (at least I and some other users) clarify the player's region in storyline or in intro. The using of region in box is unecessary, in my opinion, as it is already clarified in other places. MYS77 ✉ 10:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
And another discussion already started in Pep Guardiola, with two users (three, if you count with me) support the current "city, country" standard instead of "city, region, country". Walter Görlitz did a pretty good job in getting all Catalan internationals for a comparison, and all of them had only "city, country" with a more specific location in the very first line of the storyline. MYS77 ✉ 10:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the player MoS takes a view on the "correct" way. The example at that page has only city and country, but nobody would ever try and put London, Greater London, England in an infobox... That doesn't mean we mustn't include a county/state/whatever regardless of whether it might be helpful to the reader. The infobox documentation just says "location of the player's birth". As to football examples that do include the subdivision, there are several featured articles of various nationalities, including Steve Bruce, Duncan Edwards (which supplies a county for his place of birth, a medium-sized English town, but not for his place of death, a major German city), Robin Friday, Sigi Schmid, Thierry Henry, William McGregor... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Results

Hey, looking at the 2014–15 ASB Premiership article i see that the fixtures are listed. I thought that was "forbidden" (rightfully so) and a results table used instead. Or is there something i missed? Kante4 (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not forbidden. Except for certain leagues (like EPL) who have copyright on their fixtures before they're played and in those cases Wikipedia isn't allowed to list future games. However the consensus is based on size of league (&amount of games) (9 teams in ASB), team pages which list the same fixtures (teams in ASB don't currently have team pages except Wellington Phoenix). I see no problem with listing the games. --SuperJew (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the copyright law. The season article should give a quick overview over what happened and that's why a results table is used normally. Fixtures are listed in the team season articles (if there aren't any that is not a reason to add them to the article). But maybe i'm wrong, let's see what others have to say. Kante4 (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
If they use a regular league format with home-and-away fixtures against each of the other teams, I see no problem with a fixture table being built within the module; it is far more compact than listing every match. Otherwise, I don't feel that the full fixture schedule is appropriate for the overview article. -- Jkudlick tcs 20:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Any more opinions? @Qed237:, @GiantSnowman: etc... Kante4 (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Same type of discussion has been going on at User talk:SuperJew#2014–15 ASB Premiership league table after @SuperJew: converted the league table to new format (Module:Sports table) on that page. I do not think it is "forbidden" and I have seen it some other place (cant remember where) when there were only a few teams, but I do think that the matches should not be listed in that article simply because there are to many matches. A separate article for fixtures only should not be used either and many of those has been deleted in the past after AfD, like recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014-15 Premier League Results, and they have no use. The fixtures should be on individual club season articles if they exist.
However I strongly support use of a results table. This can be done in three ways, template like currently on many (almost all) league articles (for example at 2014–15 Premier League), together with new table with Module:Sports table (for example at UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying#Group A and example can be read here) or alone with the module called from new table module, Module:Sports results. Since the template version uses the fb team templates, we have decided to get rid of in earlier consensus (for example changed from fb cl team-template to fb cl2 team-template to remove use of fb team and use wikilinks instead) I would suggest last alternative to use Module:Sports results in a separate section below the league table and after this new table-format has been implemented around wikipedia (currently happening) I have suggested we move on and find consensus to replace the result tables with the new module as well and remove use of the templates. That is my opinion. I ping those involved in SuperJew talkpage as well, @CRwikiCA, Jkudlick, and SuperJew:. QED237 (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I do, of course, support deprecating the template format in favour of Module:Sports results. The use of colour in the template format is messy, against MOS and serves no purpose. Other than that, some people might have suggestions to improve the module. An example is implemented on 2014–15 Eredivisie#Results as well. CRwikiCA talk 19:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I concur that methods which are outdated and difficult to maintain should be deprecated in favor of something better. As we now have Module:Sports table and Module:Sports results, the use of templates and wikitables to display standings and fixtures should be curtailed, especially the use of numerous non-standard colors. -- Jkudlick tcs 11:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
So, the results should be deleted and put in a results table like everywhere else if i see it here correct? Kante4 (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_90&oldid=1137382883"