Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 93

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90 Archive 91 Archive 92 Archive 93 Archive 94 Archive 95 → Archive 100

Flags in Top goalscorers

Should we add nationalities to top goalscorers table in league articles? Example. SLBedit (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a noteworthy topic - we frequently read about the "top English goalscorer in the Premier League", so having nationality noted in the table helps identify this. Number 57 10:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
If nationality is relevant enough to include, can we please follow the MoS and include country name as well as flag, for the benefit of the many readers who find words easier than pictures? There's no shortage of space in that sort of table, and {{flag}} is actually less to type than {{flagicon}}. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a good reason to not include flags. The players are not representing their countries, they are representing clubs. SLBedit (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Allow me to say that flags often do help a lot in identifiying the players. Its practical. I cant understand the war against flags. FkpCascais (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for it. Kante4 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I for it as well. it would help identify players, as well as the issue of which leagues and teams have more foreigners playing for them. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you guys for including the country name? I wouldn't mind if only flags were added. SLBedit (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What about using {{fb}} (e.g.  England) which is quick to write and displays falg and country name? GiantSnowman 20:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am against for three reasons: long country names, unlinked clubs like this (but we could link clubs), table is about the players. Why link clubs and countries? SLBedit (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
{{fb}} links to the national team, which isn't really appropriate because the players aren't representing their country. Don't need to link countries, in general. And in a league season article, the clubs will probably have been linked dozens of times higher up the page, so there's no need to link them again if you don't want to. But I thought the original question was about relevance of nationality? If it's relevant, include it, but not just with flags. In that sort of goalscorers table, the player's nationality isn't the most important thing about the row, so it doesn't need to be crammed up against the player's name. Put it on the right hand side in its own column, so the length of the country name doesn't disrupt the rest of the table, but the information's still available to those readers who need a bit of help identifying flags of all nations from a very small image. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? Do we have to debate about every nonissue? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

  • This is a productive comment how, exactly? If the debate doesn't interest you, don't participate in it. Simples. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, commented at a bad time. Still stick with what I said but I know I should not have said it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@SLBedit: The fact that the players aren't representing their countries isn't relevant – of course they aren't representing their countries when they play for their club sides, but we include nationality in the fs squad template because nationality is a relevant issue to club football. As I pointed out above, nationality is even a relevant issue when it comes to top scorers, as their nationality is frequently mentioned in the media (e.g. these articles identify Charlie Austin as being the top English goalscorer in the Premier League). Number 57 22:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
2014–15 Premier League#Top scorers is the most pratical option, but uses flags. SLBedit (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Frank Lampard

BeastJ18 (talk · contribs) insists on adding large quotes and generally unsupported details on how Lampard is one of the greatest players, by (the unsupported) general consensus. I've removed once but it has been reverted without comment. Rather than edit-war, surely as per WP:QUOTEFARM, large quotes are not the way forward and definitely, eulogies require reliable references. I've done my one revert, any comments, intervention welcome.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Does not seem to be his first time adding "Chelsea's greatest ever player" if you look at this edit. And I am not a fan of quotes in general, I have seen "he is one of the best" way to many times when coaches talk about their players, and this seems POV to me. QED237 (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The phrase "... is considered by a consensus of journalists, football fans, pundits, football experts, old and current players to be one of the best midfielders and players of all time" is definitely not backed up by suitably good quality sources. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Nothing encyclopedic is added to the article by the inclusion of huge press conference type quotes like "Finally and most importantly, I would like to thank the Chelsea fans. I believe they are the greatest fans in world football. You have supported me from the moment I arrived. Not only on the pitch, but in difficult moments in my personal life off the pitch. I will never forget" (there's even more to it than that but I got bored......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

English County Cup seasons

Are they notable? I have just stumbled across this article - for the 2014–15 Cheshire Senior Cup - I'm pretty sure I had a season article for the Sheffield & Hallamshire Senior Cup deleted once Kivo (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

'Automatically' notable? No, that only really relates to fully-pro leagues/competitions (FA Cup an obvious exception). Does it meet GNG? No. Therefore it's non-notable. GiantSnowman 16:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
How about the FA Trophy and Vase? They're not fully professional comps but have lots of season articles Kivo (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The Trophy and Vase are national competitions and get a reasonable amount of media coverage, though - the County Cups get pretty much none -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Saw it at Afd now, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 Cheshire Senior Cup. QED237 (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Contention over wording at MK Dons

I've opened a new discussion at Talk:Milton Keynes Dons F.C.#Continuity to try to iron out this dispute over how to word the manner in which Milton Keynes Dons F.C. is the continuation of Wimbledon F.C.. If anyone would like to comment it would be helpful. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to comment, but I suspect that 90% of my language would be considered inappropriate. That club have **** all to do with Wimbledon. Ride the Hurricane (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC) *takes deep breath*

Belgian football history

Just though I would introduce everyone to @HistoricusBelgium: (HistoricusBelgium (talk · contribs)) who runs this site which is a very handy resource relating to early Belgian football history. If you any questions or queries send them to him! GiantSnowman 19:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Missiles

Can we get a consensus on the word "missile"? I understand that the Brits have different terminology but it's strange to read soccer articles about "missiles" being tossed around. Can't it be replaced with like "projectiles" or something? Something everyone has no issue understanding. Same with "tie". A lot of soccer articles say "tie", but could easily be replaced with "match". In Canada, at least, a "tie" is a "draw". Correctron (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Every article should use the terminology of the nation is subject is from/based in. That is why if you have an article on an American you say "American soccer player" but if it is an Englishman it would be "English footballer". --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You should use an alternative when possible. You clearly understand both. I also fail to see how articles written about countries like Egypt should be written in British English.Correctron (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
What form of English should they be written in then? GiantSnowman 10:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
When was Egypt part of the American empire? Britmax (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Opportunities for commonality[edit] Shortcuts: MOS:COMMONALITY WP:COMMONALITY WP:VNE

Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia.

Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles. For example, glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles (British English) and eyeglasses (American English); ten million is preferable to one crore (Indian English). If one variant spelling appears in an article title, make a redirect page to accommodate the other variants, as with artefact and artifact, so that all variants can be used in searches and in linking. Terms that differ between varieties of English, or that have divergent meanings, may be glossed to prevent confusion, for example, the trunk (American English) or boot (British English) of a car .... Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences (rather than alternate, use alternative or alternating depending on which sense is intended).Correctron (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Steve Harmison

Cricketer Steven Harmison has been appointed as the manager of a football club in 9th tier. So is it necessary to introduce a new userbox or there is someway to merge? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No - the standard is to have second box, without all the biographical details but listing appointments (see Ian Botham). --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Request move - Estádio Nilton Santos (Rio de Janeiro)/Estádio Olímpico João Havelange

Greetings! I have recently listed a requested move discussion at Talk:Estádio Nilton Santos (Rio de Janeiro)#Requested move 11 February 2015, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Hack (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Kit sponsor or not

Please see this edit. SLBedit (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

None was considered better. -Koppapa (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I believe there shouldn't be kit/sponsor logos due to copyright reasons. GiantSnowman 12:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
We hae discussed it in the past and found there should be no logos due to copyright. QED237 (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
S.L. Benfica and Real Madrid C.F. display the kit sponsor. SLBedit (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
That's because the only people who create the kit graphics for those teams don't care about policy and won't listen when we tell them to remove the logos on Commons. – PeeJay 10:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any tip on how to remove the logos? I wouldn't mind doing it. SLBedit (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

How can I remove the logo in Benfica away kit without uploading a new file? SLBedit (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't. GiantSnowman 17:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Uploaded. SLBedit (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I can also offer my services on this one as I used to do it a while back: if there are other articles with similar issues, give me a shout and I will assist Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 18:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
@Malpass93: Yes, there are more articles with club logos, like 1961 European Cup Final. SLBedit (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hang on a sec. Legal (copyright) issues aside, the reason sponsors pay megabucks to have their logos on team kits is to increase their brand exposure. What company in their right mind would object to it being included on Wikipedia? Have there actually been any objections/complaints? If not, IMO this is a pointless non-issue. :-/ Ride the Hurricane (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the problem, we shouldn't put trademark issues aside. SLBedit (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It can very much contribute to a kit's 'identity' though. As a Spurs fan I very much remember the 'Holsten' kits for instance, but probably would be hard pressed to place them in time without that logo. the sponsorship is also often an issue of contention amongst fans. For example, a large minority of Spurs' fans object to there being any red in our sponsor's logo due to its connection to our North London rivals. Bit petty IMO, but it exists. I only generally do minor edits (typos, grammar, clarity, spelling and whatnot) and am not au fait with all the Wikipedia policies, so I'll happily leave it up to the experts - but that's my semi-external PoV on it :)

ETA: It's also just occured to me that logos are used (presumably under 'fair use' or something) in many other Wikipedia articles. Eg the McDonalds page features their 'golden arches' logo prominently. Why is it different with football kits?  :-/Ride the Hurricane (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Australian club notability

From 2015 the FFA Cup will be open to any team affiliated to the FFA or an FFA-affiliated federation. According to WP:FOOTYN, this would mean they were all presumed notable. WP:FOOTYN needs to be modified to reflect that not all teams playing in national cups are going to be notable. Hack (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Just from looking at the page, I personally believe that clubs can become notable once they past the preliminary stages of the FFA Cup and make it to the cup proper... almost like what we do with the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup and include only the teams from first round onwards as being notable. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Where's that consensus documented? A big difference between the 2014 and 2015 FFA Cups is that the entire qualification process now comes under the FFA banner rather than the state federations. I could create an article on my local park team (who are playing in the FFA Cup) and they would meet WP:FOOTYN (GNG would be another matter entirely). Hack (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Wait, isn't that the same for the FA Cup? What is the notability when it comes to that? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
For the FA Cup, club notability has traditionally been determined as playing in the 1st round proper. GiantSnowman 19:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
So, shouldn't that be the same then for the FFA Cup? I mean, sure, the clubs in the preliminary rounds are under the FFA but that still means you are in the qualifiers and not the FFA Cup proper. If the club can qualify for the first round proper of the FFA Cup or get into the top league of the FFA Cup then they are notable, if not, they're not. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There isn't a first round proper in the FFA Cup, I assume you mean the round of 32? Hack (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yep, technically that acts as the "first round proper". --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Nemanja Matić

Hello ,

I was editing Nemanja Matic stats section and ALL his club appearances at cup for clubs Jedinstvo Ub and Košice it says 0 even if you look at slovak cup 2009 final you could easily figure out this data entry is wrong and there isn't any source to tell the exact number of appearances.

so i have deleted them from this section since we have sources for league appearances only and it is already mentioned in his infobox section. but User:Qed237 insists to put them back with ???? instead !! I mean if we don't have any source and can't find one can we go with ??? now ?if that is the case it can lead to messy tables for many other players with few sources !

thank you Adnan (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Input needed at Nemanja Matić. An editor, User:Adnan n2 wants to remove teams from early career in career stats table as no source says how many cup matches the footballer has played. I want to keep them as the number of league games and goals is sourced (we can add question marks for the cup apps and cup goals). I see no reason to remove entire team from the career stats table, and saying "already mentioned on Bio section" sounds like he says league info is already in infobox but infobox is summary of article, if removed in career stats section it is unsourced in infobox and should be removed there to. Also no need for "others" column if empty. Any comments?. QED237 (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

As a side note is has turned to (almost) an edit war and I did not realise the amount of reverts so I have now immediately stopped editing, awaiting input. QED237 (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Two sections started so I put them together. QED237 (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

but we have ALOT of players with only the infobox section for career statistics without any tables so it is just the summery for it,why do we accept it for some players? and we would still have the source which says how many league appearances so i am not seeing how both of them are related ?

i have left the sourced information but what is the point about leaving un sourced and even wrong data entry there ?whats the point from leaving only- ??? -if we don't have a number which is sourced ? i am just trying to make the page looks more accurate other than his 0 appearances which is wrong . Adnan (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL it is funny how you have said I did not realise the amount of reverts so I have now immediately stopped editing, awaiting input. then revert it once more anyway no worries I can see how this childish to keep goin i will just wait because we need someone with more sense here than keep reverting the whole day.Adnan (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOX#Purpose of an infobox says When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. QED237 (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
it is already appear on the article he played for those clubs.. Adnan (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Not the appearnces and goals if you remove it from career stats section. QED237 (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

For unknown stats in a stats table, I normally use '–' (e.g. here), while in an infobox I normally just leave blank. GiantSnowman 20:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Agee about blanks in the infobox. In the stats table, I think it might be more common to use the dash for when there weren't any matches in the particular competition that the player could play in. As mentioned in the stats table FAQs and done e.g. here. Keep zeroes for when there were matches the player could have played in but didn't, and leave the cell blank for unknown. We certainly shouldn't be using zero to mean unknown...
I wouldn't remove a whole row just because it only contained league stats, it'd be misleading. So long as the sourcing verifies everything that's there, which at Nemanja Matic, it doesn't: there's only one source above the table, and that doesn't include all the league apps in that table, let alone the cups. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
"use the dash for when there weren't any matches in the particular competition that the player could play in" Like when a player joins a club after club was eliminated from a competition? SLBedit (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, or if they're cup-tied. But mostly the obvious uses: where there's a league cup column but the club plays in a country that doesn't have one, or the club didn't play in European or "other" competitions. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Shame

As it had happened 2/3 years ago, the official Athletic Bilbao profile has crashed down due to the site going through a new configuration. This means several hundreds of players (literally, site used to display even players from the 30s, until this present decade) are now unavailable.

An example of how the display currently stands is this (please see here http://www.athletic-club.eus/cas/jugadores/23/txutxi.html). Is there any way to fix all the players, automatically or manually?

Attentively, thanks in advance --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt." Sad indeed. SLBedit (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input SLB, but I just visited some old players (for example Canito (Spanish footballer born 1931), really "vintage"), and his profile is working nicely, so is Patxi Salinas, so I imagine ALL players are fixed. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Tracking down a US team from the 30s

I came across a club linked to in 1932 National Challenge Cup, 1933 National Challenge Cup, and 1934 National Challenge Cup named "Andersons". In two cases, the link was red, and in the other, it linked to Tablers. The Tablers article and its two references don't mention anything about "Andersons", though judging by the dates, it's possible Tablers became Andersons in 1931 or 1932. Can anyone verify this, or find some information to start a stub on Andersons if it's a separate team? I provisionally redlinked Andersons (soccer). --BDD (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

According to St. Louis Soccer League, they played in that league from 1931 to 1934. Don't know if that helps. Hack (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
This calls them a new club. 3 players in the scorers list though are pretty similar named to three of the Tablers in 1931 (change year in link). -Koppapa (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It definitely sounds like the Tablers folded and Andersons was formed to fill the gap, with at least some of their players. That's still just (reasonable) speculation, though. It would be good to nail this down for sure. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

2013 AFC U-22 Championship squads

The 2013 AFC U-22 Championship squads article has been nominated for deletion. Please come and give your opinion on whether it should be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 AFC U-22 Championship squads. TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we change goals section for goalies with clean sheets ?

Isn't more significant for goalies to have clean sheets stats or goals conceded instead of goals??and for some who scored few goals we can add it as a note for the season they have scored ?

Adnan (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No - mainly per WP:NOTSTATS, but also because those kind of stats don't even exist for historical players, and also what about goalkeepers who have scored? GiantSnowman 19:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you talking about infobox stats or stats in season articles, or both? SLBedit (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I would estimate that for 90% of the keepers with articles, these stats would not be available, so you'd end up with a situation where 10% of the keepers had stats and the other 90% had blanks or questions marks or "not known" and that would look stupid -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Nope, reasons are above. Kante4 (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Whilst I support the idea (as a goalkeeper myself), I don't think we should actually put it into place for the reasons above. The statistics are often hard to find for older players, or for players playing in leagues with less info on them, and you then have the issue of needing a third column for those who have scored. I don't agree, however, that this is necessarily a NOTSTATS violation, at least, not any more than goals for goalkeepers. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Given that we already have this article, I would say that a note in sourced prose in the Career section of the players article with a link to this article to highlight the rarity of their achievement would be more useful to the average reader than additional parameters in an infobox. Fenix down (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be more interesting to add the goals conceded, or both stats. The problem is to find sources for goalkeeper stats (which depend on a good defense). SLBedit (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Marc-André ter Stegen originally had a clean sheet section in his article for months. I think what User:Adnan n2 meant was for international stats only because club stats will be hard to keep tract. - GoldenBoy25 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Determination of what country an article relates to, and MOSNUM consequences

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There being no evident consensus to change anything, the status quo will presumably continue. If what you wanted was a casting vote (and I don't think you did), then I'd go for metric on the basis that otherwise I'd be cashiered from the engineers' Trade Union, but am happy to console myself with the wise view that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". It is simply not possible to conjure a consensus of any meaningful kind out of this discussion. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


The recent debate over whether metric units or imperial units should be first in a player's infobox has brought an interesting conundrum to my attention: some countries which have largely converted to the metric system still primarily use imperial units when describing a person's height and weight, specifically the UK and Canada. I also understand that absent a consensus or other permission, certain changes to a UK player's details are not permitted, and an editor faces general sanctions. Therefore, to expand upon what I stated in the debate, I propose that –
Given:

  1. MOSNUM specifically states that while metric units are preferred, certain details in articles relating to certain countries should use imperial units in the "primary" position;
  2. There is presently no true "definition" for which country is related to a particular footballer's article;
  3. Some reliable sources may report personal information in "non-preferred" units; and
  4. {{convert}} uses |order=flip to allow "preferred" units to be placed first when information is provided in "non-preferred" units;

Then:

  1. Establish a consensus that:
    1. MOSNUM should be followed to provide encyclopedic consistency and to keep this WP:POLE as straight as possible;
    2. This WikiProject will use a footballer's nationality† to determine what country an article relates to; and
    3. Using that nationality, follow MOSNUM to ensure the "preferred" unit is placed first, using |order=flip as needed, e.g. |height={{convert|1.86|m|ftin|order=flip|abbr=on}} to produce 6 ft 1 in (1.86 m) for a footballer from the UK, Canada, or USA (or any other country which uses imperial units for height and weight);
  2. Publish that consensus within WP:FOOTY, and other locations as deemed appropriate; and
  3. Cite that consensus when making potentially contentious changes to a player's information.
† – A person's nationality shall be defined as the nationality under which that person is recognized by FIFA. In the case of a person with more than one nationality who has not yet been limited to one nationality by FIFA, e.g. a player with dual citizenship who has not yet played in an international tournament, the nationality shall be the one indicated as primary by the person.

Of course, I welcome any and all civil discourse. — Jkudlick tcs 11:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I support. The question here should not be whether to follow the MOS as it seems to be framed by some in the above discussion, but how best to go about following the MOS in the context of football.
I tend to find myself in these cases emphasising that the MOS on units is not intended to force a system of units where they are actively inappropriate. I believe the intention is and always has been to accept variation where there is a genuinely good article- or topic-specific reason for it. But there do not appear to be any such reasons here.
I would note that the same issues potentially arise regarding other areas where the MOS allow country-based variation (principally spelling and dates). It should probably not be possible for a player from an English-speaking country to have a different nationality for measurements and spelling, for example. Kahastok talk 16:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • And I support that too. I thought that was how it was supposed to be all the time and for English teams too. The English always say feet&inches first. I kept fixing it and others kept putting it back to meters first. I got a huge warning plastered on my page and they didnt. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The rule proposed would
  1. ensure inconsistency, especially on the top teams. Players in top English teams frequently come from both the UK, and all over the world.
  2. be burdensome. Even at this stage the proposal lists a complex set of steps to determine nationality, all to decide whether we put the metres before the feet and inches in the infobox!
A better solution would be to adjust MOSNUM so that
  • UK sports should follow the conventions of that sport, whether metric (e.g. weightlifting) or imperial (e.g. horse racing).
  • Where there is inconsistency (e.g. Association Football), either metric or imperial can come first, but the measurement must be documented from a reliable source.
  • Proposed changes of order are subject to the [WP:GS/UKU|general sanctions] if appropriate.
I really feel that this would be a better way to go.Michael Glass (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you arguing that this project should not follow the global consensus expressed at WP:MOSNUM? That's not really an option as global consensus trumps local consensus. As I noted above, the question is not whether to follow MOSNUM, but how to follow it.
On the detail of the changes you propose. First, obviously, this page cannot dictate changes to MOSNUM, so your proposal is going nowhere. I note that it includes source-based units, which you have proposed scores of times at MOSNUM and which have always been rejected. Second, even if your proposal were accepted at MOSNUM it would not remove the basis for your objections. Both WP:ENGVAR and MOS:DATETIES require exactly the same determination of nationality, and will create exactly the same burden and exactly the same degree of inconsistency between articles on different players. Third, if carried through in good faith, the result of your proposal would likely be more inconsistent and more burdensome than the proposed solution because different sources are likely to use different units.
I note also that you're making a case based on "top English teams". The list of fully-professional leagues, which is an important part of the notability guidelines for footballers, includes four divisions in England and two in Scotland. Between those divisions there are 114 teams, the vast majority of which are dominated by British players. At the same time, British players are well known for not travelling in any significant number to countries outside the UK. In that context I believe you massively overstate the degree of burden and inconsistency involved.
But actually that doesn't make a difference. The whole point of this discussion, it seems to me, is to get the "clear consensus" that the general sanctions require, so that we don't need to then get individual consensus for each case because that is totally impractical. Given that it was your WP:FAITACCOMPLI that created this problem in the first place, your post looks very much like you are trying to cement that fait accompli as impossible to change. Kahastok talk 21:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
But it applies the other way around as well; it's hardly unheard of for players from outside the UK to play on British teams, e.g. Cantona. That sounds more like what Michael said above, "Players in top English teams frequently come from ... all over the world."
I am not sure what "the measurement must be documented from a reliable source" means; of course, all information on WP should be documented from reliable sources. In terms of presenting information, WP is generally supposed to follow the practices of reliable sources (in the relevant field), but as we know, that does not mean picking a certain source and following its style (say, the Premier League website). That being said, it does somewhat call into question the assumption that such information is always given primarily in imperial measurements when a fairly major UK football website gives it exclusively in metric (I believe the exceptions to metric-first in UK articles were meant to apply only to areas where imperial is overwhelmingly the more common usage, and one could question the assumption that heights of sportspeople are overwhelmingly given in imperial, seeing how easy it is to find them given primarily or exclusively in metric, and even the Times style guide says that "The overwhelming preference is [for] sporting stories ... to be metric").
I'd also note that even MOSNUM as it stands says "If there is disagreement about the primary units used in a UK-related article, discuss the matter on the article talk-page, at MOSNUM talk, or both. If consensus cannot be reached, refer to historically stable versions of the article and retain the units used in these as the primary units." So it doesn't appear to be futile to try to reach a consensus here – given that the UK units section of MOSNUM has such caveats, it seems a bit hollow to refer to it as "global consensus", as if it were totally unambiguous and everybody agreed on it. If that were really the case, this discussion would not have started (and neither would any of the others).
To give a little bit more context, when I tried to make an article about a British railway station more compliant with the MOS, I was told that articles on older UK railway stations normally use the imperial-first style, so I relented and changed it back, although I could have insisted that the "global consensus" of the MOS demanded metric-first. So in that case, local consensus won out, if you want to put it that way. Put another way, I'm not convinced that having UK sports articles as metric-first is a "problem" – and if there is a problem, it's caused by the inconsistent mess at MOSNUM, and the discrepancy between MOSNUM and the practices of reputable sources that it's really supposed to be following. It simply doesn't make sense to read it like holy scripture, complete with threats of damnation for the Doubting Thomases among us. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Michael, I'll respond to each of your points individually:
  1. This would not insure inconsistency, as there is a proverbial boatload of inconsistency amongst British footballers' articles with some (e.g. Chris Gunter) listing imperial units first and others (e.g. Gareth Bale) listing metric units first (in apparent violation of MOSNUM), and this consensus would then create consistency amongst those articles, and amongst those articles related to other countries which use both metric and imperial units; for example, Canada uses imperial units for a person's height and weight, like the UK, but uses metric units for all distance measurements, unlike the UK. Until use of imperial units is outlawed or otherwise obviated, there will always be some level of inconsistency, but at least now there would be consistency in the inconsistency.
  2. You claim that my proposal "lists a complex set of steps to determine nationality." How complex is it to see if FIFA recognizes a nationality for the footballer, then if the footballer has multiple citizenships which one is used primarily by that footballer? Since most footballers who meet WP:NFOOTY are recognized by FIFA with a specific nationality, the second step is moot for most of those articles.
Even if we could make changes to MOSNUM from here, your recommendation to allow for changes amongst sports would introduce even more inconsistency across the whole of Wikipedia, and you don't address the very issue of inconsistency amongst the UK footballers' articles. In fact, you allow for even more inconsistency for when footballers are loaned, signed, or traded to other teams which use different units of measurement; the infobox in the footballer's article might not be changed right away. That's why my proposal was not to have the infobox based upon the footballer's team, but by nationality. A consensus made here and properly published would then provide a global consensus across the project rather than requiring permission at each individual article, and would provide clear direction for determining whether WP:GS/UKU would need to be applied. — Jkudlick tcs 04:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Jkudlick, It sounds easy and consistent to base units on nationality, but who is going to do the work to ensure that English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish heights are primarily imperial first, and that all the rest (let's leave out the Canadians for a moment) are metric first? Are you going to do all the work? If not you, who? If you can do the work, or organise others to do the work for you, best of luck. And who is going to do the work of ensuring that your edits stay in place after you get heartily sick of flipping displays?
When it comes to height, there are just two options: metric first or imperial first. Usage in the UK is divided. Speccy4eyes counted up the Premier League teams and found that 6 were metric first, 3 did not give heights (which means we have to depend on Premier League for heights, and 11 were Imperial first. At the moment on Wikipedia, several of the teams are all metric first. Are you seriously going to go through these teams and flip the displays of the British players, just on the ground of nationality? When Speccy4eyes tried to flip the displays with the Manchester City team all his efforts were swiftly reversed. Do you have the stomach to repeat that endeavour?
In 2011, I documented the heights of all but one of the Premier League teams, mostly from Premier League, and followed Premier League usage. This wasn't just a flipping of displays (many were already metric first), but a thoroughgoing documentation of the players' heights, using Premier League as my base. Despite more than three years of controversy from a few editors, these edits are largely in place today. One reason that these edits have lasted so long is that the edits were accurate. (I know that because the few that I screwed up were swiftly changed!) Now if you look at players' heights, most whether metric first or Imperial first, are documented to one source or other.
Because British usage is divided and so controversial, I believe that the best we can do is to insist that heights be documented from a reliable source. You talk about achieving consensus, but sometimes consensus is impossible to achieve. That would require Kahastok and Archon to sing from the same hymnsheet. Best of luck in achieving that!
Much as I would like to encourage consistency on a team by team basis, even that might be beyond us. We'll have our work cut out to get editors to document all the heights from a reliable source. That might well be the best that can be done in the circumstances.
And now about Canada. It appears that Canadian Rugby League uses imperial only while Canadian Soccer and Canadian Rugby Union use metric only. Please correct me if I am wrong. Michael Glass (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
My view is, who cares. Ok, so Peter Crouch is big and Messi is small, but besides that, who really talks about heights? I'd just not mess with that too much. Time is better spent elsewhere. -Koppapa (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Your only objection seems to be practical, I find. You now make no in-principle objection to using WP:MOSNUM as a basis for these articles, nor for the proposed method of determining what country an article is related to (other than for, what, the 300th? 400th? time proposing to use source-based units despite the fact that this would do nothing to resolve the problem at hand).
And that objection is not relevant or reasonable either. If we have the consensus to fix these articles then this project and others can practically fix the articles, as and when needed, in the normal course of editing. If this is a documented consensus at WP:FOOTY, then when statistics such as number of appearances are updated, this point can be fixed as well. Won't take long. It doesn't have to be the effort of one person creating a WP:FAITACCOMPLI as you did it. Wikipedia is nothing if not a collaborative effort and most of these articles can be brought up to standard as a part of the normal editing process.
I note also that you attempt once again that nonce logic that you are continually trying and put on articles, much to their detriment. You say that all Canadian football uses metric, and all Canadian rugby union uses metric and all Canadian rugby league uses imperial - based on nothing but the personal profiles on individual pages of their websites. You infer wholescale policies for entire sports (not even just their websites) based on basically nothing at all, and announce them as though they were unquestioned fact. Kahastok talk 15:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The irony being, this is precisely what you are arguing we do for entire countries. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm arguing that this project should be following WP:UNITS. But even at WT:MOSNUM I have always based my arguments on the premise that our advice should be based on an external style guide that explicitly aims to approximate usage in Britain. If I were doing as Michael does, I wouldn't be arguing that we should base advice our off an external style guide, I'd be arguing that we should base it off this page and claiming that this was automatically representative by virtue of its mere existence. The difference between the two should be obvious to anyone with even the vaguest understanding of Wikipedia policy. Kahastok talk 16:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Even leaving aside questions about how well a single newspaper's style guide can ever approximate the vagaries of actual metric/imperial usage (which I do not think is obviously much better than picking a random British website – in the end, we are picking a random British publication and claiming it's representative because it says it is), the style guide in question explicitly says "The overwhelming preference is [for] sporting stories ... to be metric", as I pointed out above and have done in the past (although that particular part of the Times style guide has oddly failed to make it into the MOS). So it's not clear, even on your premises, that the personal measurements of sportspeople should always be given in imperial first, which you seem to take as a strong general rule. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually I've never taken that as applying as a "strong general rule", only as a fall-back position where there is no topic-specific reason to prefer one system or the other. I have asked for such reasons in this case on several occasions and none have been forthcoming. On the rest, this really isn't the place for that conversation. The question here is not what should the MOS say but how should WP:FOOTY follow the MOS. Kahastok talk 19:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Kahastok, you said "Your only objection seems to be practical, I find."
  • Are you going to snap your fingers and create a consensus? Please do it. Preferably, now.
  • Are you going to snap your fingers and make all the changes you propose?
  • Are you going to persuade or induce others to make all these changes?
When you work out how you are going to do these wonders, do get back to us.
You say that I created a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. Really? Do you think I just snapped my fingers to do this? My edits largely stayed in place because they were accurate, because they were based on a generally reliable and authoritative source, Premier League, because they were consistent and because they were generally acceptable. My edits have largely remained in place for more than three years. And that is despite your perpetual personal attacks.
Rules have now changed, and edits like that can no longer be done. That's a WP:FAITACCOMPLI that I accept. However, ironically, it's a change that makes changing the order of units on UK articles much more cumbersome. And that's what you're proposing to do. My proposal is much more modest: it is to follow the sporting codes when they are consistent, with metric or imperial, and when usage is inconsistent, as it is with Association Football, to call for proper documentation. It's not ideal, but it just might be achievable, because it doesn't involve the mass changing of thousands of articles to implement it. Michael Glass (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Frankly Michael, when you've got to the point where you're trying to block consensus on the grounds that consensus isn't possible - which is what you just argued - I think it's clear you're getting desperate. Your argument doesn't even make sense in its own terms. I have answered all of these points already.
Given that you have made no coherent argument whatsoever against the proposal in its own terms - only that it would take time to carry it through (bearing in mind that if documented here there's no reason it has to be done instantaneously) - can I take it that you have no objection to following the MOS? Kahastok talk 22:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: the MOSNUM footnote says that it's permissible in disputed cases to "refer to historically stable versions of the article and retain the units used in these as the primary units", so what Michael Glass is saying is reasonably sound and not obviously inconsistent with the MOS. If it's not a "strong general rule" that personal measurements of British footballers should be given primarily in imperial, but merely a "fall-back position", then it would seem that there is no actual problem to be solved. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I said "a fall-back position where there is no topic-specific reason to prefer one system or the other", which is precisely the case here. It's perfectly reasonable to vary from the rule when there is a genuinely good reason to, but there is no such reason in this case. The MOS is perfectly clear on this point. Please do not quote me out of context. Kahastok talk 22:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Even still, the point of my comment stands; the MOS does explicitly say that it's alright to let historically stable versions of articles remain as they are in the case of dispute. That is what I ended up doing, for instance, in the case of the article about the Bristol railway station. So there's nothing fundamentally unsound about Michael Glass's point, which was the main thrust of my above comment.
Hence it isn't clear to me that the answer to "how should this WikiProject follow the MOS?" is "flip all the footballers' measurements back to imperial". I don't think a "fall-back position" by a commonsense definition of the term could really require such a sweeping change – that is what I initially referred to as "a strong general rule"; I'm sorry if I've not understood exactly what you mean by "fall-back position". Moreover, the Times style guide, on which the MOS section on UK units is largely based (and to which it refers), states that it has an overwhelming preference for metric in the context of sports. Perhaps it would be advisable to add that condition to the MOS, if it is indeed based on the Times style guide as an accurate reflection of UK unit usage. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I note that once again Kahastok has fallen back on ad hominem attacks. Such attacks diminish him more than they hurt me. Kahastok has accused me of holding out against consensus. He appears to have overlooked the fact that more than one editor has objected to the proposal. He also seems to have forgotten the many times that he has stood out against changes that he disagreed with, even when the numbers were against him. Archon has argued cogently that my position is consistent with MOSNUM as it stands at the moment.
I think that MOSNUM could be clarified to make the point more clearly. That is a difficult ask. However, it's not as hard as getting agreement for the major change that has been proposed here. Michael Glass (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
@Michael Glass:, yours is the only oppose comment so far, but it appears to be based only upon the perception that only one or two editors would be responsible for enacting it and that it must be enacted immediately, and not upon any guidelines or policies. You also point to sports outside the scope of this project (specifically rugby union and rugby league in Canada) as part of your objection, which is nothing more than a red herring. I note that driver licenses in Canada list height in centimetres, so Canadian footballers should have height and weight listed in metric units. Also, what I've proposed here is hardly a "major change," it's a clarification of guidance within this WikiProject.

@Archon 2488: If you're going to quote the footnote, at least give the full context. "If there is disagreement about the primary units used in a UK-related article, discuss the matter on the article talk-page, at MOSNUM talk, or both. If consensus cannot be reached, refer to historically stable versions of the article and retain the units used in these as the primary units." What I proposed here is to gain consensus to determining how this WikiProject determines what country an article is related to regarding individual footballers, and applying MOSNUM accordingly. I have taken the liberty of posting a link to this discussion on the MOSNUM talk page to invite further comment. — Jkudlick tcs 02:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Point taken about the opinions expressed. Archon has commented here but he has not so far indicated either support or opposition to your proposal.
  • Glad you clarified your thinking about Canadian usage. As I understand it, the implication for your proposed policy would be that Canadian players in British teams should have their height expressed metric first. This demonstrates that Canadian usage would have a direct implication on the way the proposed policy worked. It is therefore not a red herring.
  • My opposition to the proposed policy is based on both practicality and also on the effect it would have. Please see below;
  • Take Chelsea, Crystal Palace and Manchester City. The last time I checked these teams on Wikipedia the team profiles were all metric-first. Are you seriously going to recruit a squad of flippers to flip the display of the British team members to be feet and inches first? Do you really think that improves Wikipedia?
  • Now take Hull City. In this case it was about a fifty-fifty split. Is your flipper squad going to check the metric-first profiles for stray Britishers, and flip their displays back to feet and inches? And will your flipper squad be equally assiduous in checking the imperial-first profiles for stray foreigners, and flip their displays back to metric?
  • If this does become policy, it gives every appearance of being designed by Monty Python rather than common sense. You would make Wikipedia a laughingstock.
Seriously, dividing the teams into British and American (feet and inches) and the rest (metric) sends precisely the wrong message about team unity. If there is to be a change, it needs to apply to British sports as a whole. By all means use imperial if the sport in the UK uses imperial and use metrics if the UK sport uses metric measures. However, when usage is mixed, as it is in several sports, it's best to leave it to the editors to decide. And that would be a change that could only come from MOSNUM. Michael Glass (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
First, the red herring was your injection of rugby union and rugby league into a discussion about practices in association football articles. Inclusion of practices in other sports is an inherent attempt to deflect attention away from the issue at hand, and this WikiProject is not primarily concerned with how the articles of other sports are structured. I understand that some sports, such as wrestling and judo, have weight classes expressed in kilograms, and that provides a legitimate reason to override WP:UNITS and express metric units first in articles related to those sports. If you can show me a legitimate reason to do so for association football, then I will rescind my proposal and help begin the process of changing infoboxes accordingly across this WikiProject. And if you really want the same set of primary units to be used across all sports, then please submit your proposal at WT:MOSNUM, but be prepared to defend why you feel that all sports figures should be expressed in metric (imperial) while others individual could still be expressed in imperial (metric).
Second, I'm not proposing any changes to team articles, I'm proposing a clear guideline for individual footballers. Under my proposal, a footballer with UK nationality would have his/her details listed in imperial units with a metric conversion, regardless of the team. Likewise a footballer with Spanish nationality would have his/her details listed in metric units with an imperial conversion, again regardless of the team. Your idea of keeping it consistent with the team would mean that hypothetical Spanish footballer Juan Pablo Footoya would have his details in imperial (metric) if playing in the MLS, but possibly switched to metric (imperial) if loaned or signed to BPL (depending upon the club), or definitely switched to metric (imperial) if loaned or signed to the Bundesliga. What if he retires from playing while in the MLS, as Thierry Henry just did? I note that his details are provided in metric (imperial), despite the fact that he was playing in the United States.
Third, calling it my "flipper squad" indicates to me that you feel that I am claiming ownership of this whole process. Let me assure you that is certainly not the case. I have proposed and am seeking consensus on a guideline to be applied throughout this WikiProject and which could be cited to help avoid having to implement WP:GS/UKU. Your continued tone towards me is bordering on being uncivil as it feels like it is becoming a personal attack.
Fourth, don't worry about me making Wikipedia into a laughingstock. This project pretty much is one already, as edit warring in this project contributed to the general sanctions, as noted by a comment at WT:MOSNUM, "Oh, for heaven's sake, does this football fussing never end?" — Jkudlick tcs 10:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Jkudlick, I'll deal with your points in reverse order.
  • I agree that the constant disputing does Wikipedia no good. However, having Imperial first for UK and US footballers and metric first for everybody else really does sound like a skit from Monty Python.
  • I'm sorry that you took offence at my reference to the "flipper squad." No offence was intended. I disagree with your idea, but I respect your efforts to find a solution to the problem. It's just that your solution, in my opinion, would make the problem even worse.
  • Why propose a change if you're not proposing any changes? The problem is not that British footballers use feet and inches while most of the rest use metric measures. The problem is that British sporting usage is divided. The Premier League and six of the teams giving the players' heights in metric units, three teams give no heights at all and 11 teams are imperial first. That's a division between teams and the Premier League rather than a division on nationality. This leaves Wikipedia with three possible choices: all metric, all imperial or something in-between. We both agree that it should be something in-between, but unfortunately we disagree on what this should be.
  • I don't believe that Association Football profiles should be all metric. It plainly is not. However, because there is a division in usage, this should be accommodated. Yes, I believe that this would be ideally dealt with at the MOSNUM level, but I take your point about the mention of other codes being a bit of a red herring in a discussion in this forum.
  • Finally, you have challenged me to produce the killer argument that will convince you to change your mind! I probably can't do that, but I would like you to consider these points:
    • A change has to be better than the status quo, where whole teams are metric first, other teams are partly metric and partly imperial first and others are predominantly, though not as far as I am aware, exclusively, Imperial first. I don't believe that proposing a division on nationality would improve this situation. In fact, I believe a division on the grounds of nationality it would make the situation far worse.
    • A change, to be successful, has to be feasible. If a change of policy has little or no chance of being fulfilled, why even bother making it?
    • A change has to make things better. It is up to the proposer to demonstrate that things would be better if foreign players always had their heights in metric and UK and US players always had their heights in Imperial. I don't think that you have achieved this aim. In fact, the more I think about it the more opposed to it I become.
Finally, while I respect your efforts to change the policy, I feel that the change you have proposed would make things worse. Michael Glass (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
It's obvious that we will just have to agree to disagree. My, this was a lively debate. Cheers! :) — Jkudlick tcs 02:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pretty much as described by Jkudlick. Although I generally prefer SI units myself, I see the need to support the idiosyncratic situation that is the reality in the UK and which is accommodated by MOS:NUM thus: "the primary units for personal height and weight are feet​/inches and stones/​pounds". Baaarny (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I avoided the discussion because it looked like yet another rehash, but if there's any danger of its achieving something, I'd like to add my support for the proposal, if it's not too late. It seems clear to me that the determinant of personal height as per MOSNUM should be the nationality of the person, not the nationality of their current employer. We don't suddenly translate the article on an Australian academic into American English if he goes to work at UCLA. If this project chooses to use FIFA nationality as its determinant, then it's a choice consistent with other football-related nationality usages. I see no topic-based reason for overriding the MoS. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
FWIW our sole opponent is now systematically going through articles on Premier League players whose heights and weights are imperial-first, and who are not British, and arguing to switch order based on their nationality, e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. In other words, the proposal is already being applied by the only person who opposes it.
Do you think we can take this as a withdrawal of his opposition, and thus now close with unopposed consensus in favour? Kahastok talk 23:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Not quite your sole opponent, my friend. FWIW I was previously told off in a most patronising manner for complaining about "my opponents". I would say such people are not "my" opponents so much as they are opponents of science and reason. In any case, it seems I must restate my opposition to the preferential use of medieval units, on a website which is sustained by rather non-medieval technology – technology informed by science which makes use of the very measures which are under sanction. I call out and condemn utterly these attempts to monolithically describe as relics of the stone age everyone who was born on a certain island. That would include many people who are not disgracefully ignorant, such as myself. I am entitled to speak in my defence, as a scientifically literate human being.
I would moreover call upon everyone who opposes scientific units of measurement to look carefully at themselves, considering every single instance in which they have profited from the enterprise of the Enlightenment and the gradual rise of science from medieval ignorance to describing the universe in the picoseconds (if SI is even permissible here, amidst the usual Luddite protestations) after the Big Bang. What units are associated with this enterprise? Why are some people happy to profit from it, yet so reluctant to lift a finger to defend it?
Renounce ignorance and support science. That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. Archon 2488 (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of preferring imperial over SI, this is a matter of defining how footballers' articles will conform to MOSNUM. I'm American, and I would rather switch to the SI system because it makes more sense – it's all powers of 10, not 12 of this and 16 of that. However, until that happens, we still refer to people being X ft Y in tall weighing Z pounds. The UK still uses feet, inches, and pounds in describing a person, as well as using miles for roadways, though they use litres for petrol. If you want to use SI units for UK persons, bring that up for discussion at MOSNUM. — Jkudlick tcs 08:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
(For the record: I was using the term "opponent" in the sense one who opposes the proposal, not in the sense attributed to me. Kahastok talk 13:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC))

Consensus

I count four supports, and one oppose on the basis that the discussion will end in no consensus. What are others' views on whether this is sufficient for consensus given the above discussion? Kahastok talk 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion was about a proposal to decide the order of units on the basis of the players' nationality. Michael Glass (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
And given your opposition - indeed, your dismissal of the proposal (to actually follow MOSNUM, which splits articles based on country) as "a joke from Monty Python" - it is fascinating that you use nationality as a basis for metricating articles on various footballers. [6] [7] [8] [9] Apparently you feel it's fine to use nationality to move to metric-first but not away from metric-first as required by MOSNUM.
FWIW I have listed this discussion for closure at WP:ANRFC. Kahastok talk 14:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Kahastok, for providing those links. They were very helpful. Please note the following:
  • All of the links were to proposals and my proposals were supported by other editors.
  • I still regard a split along the grounds of nationality as undesirable. However, all the proposed edits were to help bring the displays closer to consistency.
  • As you know well, changes of units in UK articles now have to be done by agreement. If you want to change units in the way that you have mentioned, try your luck.Michael Glass (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
They have to be done by agreement yes. Agreement may be found, for example, based on the discussion above re: style guides for this Wikiproject, which will apply across the board and will not need further discussion on individual articles. That is, I believe, the whole point of the above discussion - to reach such a consensus as per the general sanctions so that we don't need to get consensus at every individual article.
I note that in all of those cases, there was support from other editors in the above discussion, explicitly on the basis of nationality: [10] [11] [12]
The fact remains, you are arguing to change these articles to metric based on nationality, but refuse to countenance moves to imperial based on nationality or any other metric as required by WP:UNITS. That is a clear and obvious double standard on your part. Kahastok talk 18:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Kahastok, don't try to order me about. Do your own edits. Michael Glass (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
What edits are you talking about? I'm referring to the fact that you are - simultaneously - opposing the principle proposed above where it prefers imperial units and explicitly implementing it where it prefers metric units. It is interesting that you entirely fail to comment on what is a blindingly obvious double standard on your part. Kahastok talk 23:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Kahastok, I never agreed to the proposal but I will use it to make the player profiles more consistent. If you want other edits, do them yourself. Michael Glass (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hasn't this been confirmed yet? Who has to do this please?

I don't understand why any people here don't want to obey the Wikipedia MOS guidelines which says use feet and inches first for English people. Nobody seems to be able to give a straight reason. The footballer's trade union, the Professional Footballers' Association, produce the football bible called "The PFA Footballers' Who's Who" and that uses only feet and inches for heights with no meters. We should follow the English customs and the WP rules I think. I have started discussions for each of the English Man City players that uses meters first so that I can change them to the correct English way (without getting sanctions I hope!). Speccy4Eyes (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally think there's a pretty clear consensus for the proposal here. I particularly note that people who are not regulars at WP:MOSNUM have uniformly supported or been indifferent, and that opponents of the proposal have been using precisely the same argument as a basis for their edits. That said, it may be safer to leave wait until it gets closed by an outside editor (and the discussion is listed at WP:ANRFC) before relying too much on it. If it gets closed with consensus there is no reason not to implement it uniformly (in both directions in accordance with WP:UNITS) and if someone did follow an editor around reverting changes that are in line with the proposal (as is not impossible) they would be editing against consensus and thus would be likely to be blocked under the general sanctions. Kahastok talk 19:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Canadian Champions League qualifiers in the MLS table

Just trying to get a logical consensus passed here.

The 2014 MLS table shows Vancouver as a qualifier for the CONCACAF Champions League. Due to the realignment of the Canadian Championship, the Canadian CONCACAF spot is determined by the highest placed Canadian MLS team. I get that this is shown on the MLS table, but surely logic would dictate that if the winners of the FA Cup are shown on the EPL table as having qualified for the Europa League, then surely the Canadian CONCACAF Champions League qualifier should also be shown on seasons of the MLS, as this is their domestic season?

I tried editing it to show this, but had to deal with someone wanting to have an edit war. It doesn't matter that they're a Canadian club winner, the MLS is a domestic tournament for BOTH the US and Canada. The Canadian Cup winner should therefore be shown on the MLS table, as it is the Canadian domestic season, aswell. - J man708 (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the Canadian Championship is a separate mini-tournament outside of MLS and NASL. The two Canadian NASL clubs play a First Round match, and the winner goes on to face one of the three Canadian MLS clubs in the semifinals. The 2014 season was a one-off which was accurately described in the tables and articles. — Jkudlick tcs 07:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It was only part of league play in 2014 and should not be in any other season. Similarly the Open Cup should not be included nor should qualification from previous CC play. This is standard in European tables as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jkudlick: Yes, but it's still the domestic season of Vancouver. The FA Cup is shown on the EPL, even though the English Premier League article states "The competition formed as the FA Premier League on 20 February 1992 following the decision of clubs in the Football League First Division TO BREAK AWAY from the Football League, which was originally founded in 1888, and take advantage of a lucrative television rights deal..." If the FA Cup winner's Europa League spot is shown on the EPL page, then this surely must be on the MLS page.
@Walter Görlitz: And the Lemar Open Cup? Is there any reason why that wasn't originally shown on the MLS table prior to my edit today? That "league play" excuse is crap. As I've said a few times already, the FA Cup is outside of the English Premier League, but that is shown - J man708 (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
EDIT - @Jkudlick: What you're agreeing with is that the 2013 MLS Table SHOULDN'T show Vancouver as a CONCACAF qualifier, even though they are and this is their domestic season? - J man708 (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The Open Cup wasn't shown because it's a separate tournament just like FA cup, DFB Pokal, etc. If the winners of the national cups qualified for CL play, they would not be shown in league tables either.
2014 should include the Vancouver win because it was determined that for that year only, the top Canadian MLS team would qualify. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: They are though? The winners of the FA Cup win a spot into the Europa League. Hence why thus Birmingham being shown with blue here and also Hull here - J man708 (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Not just England - See Bilbao here - J man708 (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jkudlick: - If you're saying that the MLS had to be who the Canadians won qualified through, then we gotta strike out Liverpool, when UEFA gave them a spot in the Champions League, which had nothing to do with the FA. - J man708 (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was trying to edit my post, but y'all type faster than I can hunt and peck on my phone. The Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup winner is listed because they could also end up winning their conference regular season title, in which case the next best U.S. team in the conference would qualify. The Canadian Championship winner cannot claim a spot from a U.S. team, so should not be designated. The notes make it clear which clubs qualify to the CCL, and that if a Canadian club occupies one of the qualifying positions, that the next best U.S. team qualifies. Besides, there is a much better chance that a Canadian NASL club will win the Canadian Championship than a U.S. NASL club would win the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. — Jkudlick tcs 07:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jkudlick: Could you possibly ping me when you respond? I had to look back here blindly to see your reply. Cheers. :P
I feel like what you've mentioned is kinda a moot point. I know what you're saying, but I feel that it doesn't address the issue at hand. If Canadian teams aren't shown on their own domestic table for a CONCACAF spot (which wasn't given to them by MLS), then why was Liverpool in 2005, whose spot was given to them not by the EPL, but by UEFA itself? If one goes, the other must surely too.
What I said earlier was that the Lamar Cup winner currently ISN'T listed and that I only edited that in today. The Lamar Open Cup is a national cup, just like the FA Cup. If the FA Cup winners are shown to qualify for the Europa League in the EPL table, then surely the Lamar Cup winner needs to be shown with their CONCACAF spot, too. This much is obvious. If the Canadian Champions' domestic season is the MLS, then they should be shown on the MLS table as a CONCACAF qualifier (Undoubtedly with a small side note next to their qualification linking to a sentence under the table itself to show why they're shown in green. - J man708 (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion all teams that has qualified should be in the domestic league table. This is how it is done in England (where both FA Cup winner and League Cup winner is shown) and on all other league tables I have been editing (and it was like that before I started editing). It feels natural doing it that way since those positions/qualifications can sometimes/often be handed out through league position since winner of cup has already qualified so it is best to always show what teams has qualified for (and add a note to explain) even if they earnt qualification during a cup. QED237 (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237:, would you include the Canadian MLS teams into this, too? - J man708 (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

National cup winners have not been displayed in the MLS tables. This one season would be an outlier. Part of the reason may be that MLS is sanctioned by USSF and the Canadian Championship is not. I'm not sure why the Open Cup has not been listed. For the record, Bundesliga results don't show DFB Pokal winners. Similarly with Template:2014–15 La Liga table, Template:2014–15 Serie A table, Template:2014–15 Ligue 1 table, but then again, many of those leagues' clubs show inappropriate flags, crests and logos on the various articles. It appears that 1) only premier league includes national cup winners in the league table and 2) that only the premier league doesn't use a template for season results (so that just goes to show you how out-of-the-normal they are). In short, MLS has only listed league play CL qualification in the season per the majority of European leagues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:You seem to be mistaken. Of course they're not shown on those season results as the competitions haven't been completed yet. We can't show who won those tournaments because they're all still currently at about the Round of 16 stage, give or take. We can't show a qualifier from a tournament that is still ongoing. Use those same tables from last season as a better example. The Bundesliga also does show this from 2013-14 - 2013–14_Bundesliga#League_table, Template:2013–14 La Liga table shows it with subnote 1, Template:2013–14 Serie A table with subnote 1, Template:2013–14 Ligue 1 table with 2014 Coupe de France champions Guingamp. It's not just these leagues, either. Here's the Dutch one for good measure, showing PEC Zwolle - Template:2013–14 Eredivisie table. @Qed237: (To notify you of the response)
If it's more of the direct version you want, look at Schalke here. They qualified as winners of the DFB Pokal. Surely I've proven my point? - J man708 (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
EDIT - If you're going to mention that these are Euro leagues only, here is the Japanese league, showing Kashiwa Reysol qualifying as Emperor's Cup winners and the Korean, showing Seongnam FC qualifying as winners of the Korean FA Cup. - J man708 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Apples to apples please: Template:2013–14 Ligue 1 table. The templates have disappeared for France and Italy. If you're going to damage the specif year you've selected, wreck them all please. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: What do you mean "the templates have disappeared"? As J man says the cup champions has always been shown in previous tables and you can use this season as there are no cup winners this season yet. QED237 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The subnote might be missing in that example for Guingamp, but the point is still valid. They're shown in blue for a reason. You don't miraculously get a Europa League spot in France for finishing specifically 16th and barely avoiding relegation. You get it for winning the French Cup.
Damage the templates? Wreck them all? Do you understand the way they work? You know that the MLS seasons are the ones that are wrecked by not showing what every other league in the world shows?
I intended to do all the MLS seasons yesterday, but you kicked up a few hour's worth of fuss over it that I lost the time that I had to check out who won what and edit each season's articles accordingly. If you want continuity, perhaps you should back date them rather than dictating that I should? I'm not your servant, champ. - J man708 (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz and Qed237: I've edited the tables from 2011 to show this. Before the 2014 season, the Canadian Champions were given entry into that year's Champions League. Because the Canadian Championship ran in calendar year say 2012, I've included this onto the 2012 MLS table. The Canadian qualifiers are shown on the league table to be a year behind the American Qualifiers, which is being aligned for this season, as seen here
- J man708 (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

First and second teams

I have some questions which were caused by an edit in Oscar Lewicki's article. An editor wants to add an entry for Bayern Munich (with zero appearances and goals) even though Lewicki only played for the second team (Bayern Munich II), saying he was formally a Bayern Munich player during that time and that otherwise it may be confusing for the readers who do not understand the reserve system. Lewicki played for Bayern's youth teams and did not make it into the first squad, so in my opinion such an entry gives some skewed view on his career. I think that adding such an entry is even more wrong for players that were specifically contracted to play for the second team (like for example Tobias Schweinsteiger or Thomas Linke after his return to Munich).

I'd also like to know how to deal with Category:FC Bayern Munich footballers and Category:FC Bayern Munich II players in that case. When is someone considered a Bayern Munich player? I thought that the consensus was that if a player is contracted to play for the first team, the category for the first team should be added, even if has not played for that team (yet). If he is contracted to play for the second team, then only the category for the second team should be added. Lewicki is currently [13] only listed in the Category:FC Bayern Munich II players, but not in Category:FC Bayern Munich footballers which is really strange if you argue that he was formally a Bayern Munich player.

Another editor pointed out there is a similar issue for Martin Ødegaard who is listed in the Category:Real Madrid C.F. players but not in the Category:Real Madrid Castilla footballers even if he only played for Real Madrid Castilla so far. So what is consensus in this case? --Jaellee (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd personally go with Bayern II, as the infobox is named teams and not clubs. -Koppapa (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
My argument here is twofold, first I see the risk for confusion for readers who lack knowledge regarding football and the German reserve team system more specifically. As I stated in the discussion with Jaellee here and here I see the risk that an inexperienced reader might very well believe that Lewicki started his senior career at an independent club named "Bayern Munich II", when in reality Lewicki started his senior career for the reserve team of Bayern Munich, an entity called "Bayern Munich II", although formally under contract for the main club. The situation could be compared to a loan. That's my second point, it is indisputable fact that Lewicki was under contract for Bayern Munich. I therefore believe it to be both confusing and incorrect not to show Bayern Munich in the infobox for the years when he was under contract for the club. Or am I wrong in believing that it is praxis to include clubs in the infobox even though the player made no appearances for them? --Reckless182 (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I have always worked under the idea and thought that the contract counts (and not the appearance). For example Fernando Torres has AC Milan as club even if he has not played for them and is at Athletico Madrid. Also years-parameter in infobox is always supposed to be adapted to when contract was signed/ended so when a player played his last match in december but was sold in January we display 2012-15 and not 2012-14 because contract ended/he signed witgh new club in 2015. If he has a contract With Bayern Munich that should be shown in infobox. QED237 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree we should list both when the player have contract with the main team, and plays matches with a recruit team, like it is done in the mentioned article for Ødegaard. Otherways we also have to exclude the possibility that the player may have played in any cups or friendlies with the main team. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding infoboxes, I would be inclined to have the second team only (i.e. Real Madrid B, Bayern Munich II, Jong Ajax etc.) until such time as they actually play for the first team. Regarding categories, I would say include in both. GiantSnowman 10:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Grrahnbahr brings up a good point regarding participating in activities with the main team. GiantSnowman, do you have any particular reason for wanting to exclude the main club? --Reckless182 (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Because they're not playing for the 1st team... GiantSnowman 17:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but they are still contracted by the first team, and exactly like a player on loan they are still a part of that team. We display the main club for players that have loan spells away from a club even though they never play for the main club, so how is this any different? --Reckless182 (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for help - Naomi Bakr

Hello, I stumbled over this article (reading some random articles) and noticed that most of its content was an accidental copy of Sarah Hagen by a fairly new user User:Karaoke96. Unfortunately this user never edited again after August 2014. I tried to clean up the mess and deleted all Hagen-related content, and moved the article from Inam Bakr to Naomi Bakr (that's her name mentioned in the only good source I found on a quick search, see article). However, I am not a football expert and this article could use a lot more knowledgeable editing:

  • Is the name "Inam Bakr" her nickname? If not, the redirect Inam Bakr needs deleting.
  • I left only the infobox and a lead intro, but even those should be double-checked for accuracy.
  • User:Karaoke96 listed Bakr as new member in Egypt women's national football team and overwrote an old entry with her name, but didn't change the other information in the table (like birth date). Is she really still a member of the Egyptian national squad? If yes, her entry needs updating - one of the birth dates must be wrong (probably the one in the squad table, the whole table row seems to be wrong).
  • Speaking of, User:Karaoke96's complete change in Egypt women's national football team from August 2014 needs double-checking for accuracy.

Sorry for the lengthy essay, but fixing those issues goes way beyond my minimal football knowledge. Maybe someone here could help cleaning up the remaining problems? Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Article Alerts

If Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article alerts is to be believed, no one had prodded an article since Wednesday, or AFDed one since Tuesday. As this seems unlikely, is this broken? Is there an easy way to kick it? Nfitz (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nfitz: A quick look at the contributions for AAlertBot (talk · contribs) shows that its not just our page, but the entirety of the Article Alerts project that hasn't been updated in a few days. Presumably, the two guys running the bot have taken a short break or haven't had the chance to run the bot the last few days for some other reason. It's also not the first time this sort of thing has happened. If the past is any indication, it'll be back up and running again fairly soon. Someone else has already informed one of the operators of the bots inactivity (see this comment), so even if it is a bug, all we can do at this point is wait. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah ... I should have thought of looking at the edit history for the subpage. I have no idea how these automagic bots work. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Korean Youth Football articles

I've just stumbled into a mass of articles about kids' football in Korea. I've AfDd two of them (U12 and U15 leagues in 2009) then spotted there was also an U19 from 2009, a master 2009 article (here) and then when I found more from 2010, I stopped in horror. Can someone who understands how to do these things procedurally close one of my AfDs and then bung all of them into the other one? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I just AfDd the lot of them. --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nam Nguyễn Thành

Hmmm, anyone what to comment about this page which is up for speedy deletion? A hoax maybe? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yorkshire Football League

I'm seeking some clarification regarding the notability of the Yorkshire Football League. Could I start season articles for it? Are any clubs that competed in it notable? Was it important enough? Kivo (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't suggest it. I can imagine someone will claim it as not notable and quickly AFD it. In saying that, WPF does seem to for some unknown reason think that all English Leagues are notable, even if they're at Level 10 or under on the Pyramid. Is there a lot of independent news articles about it? How easy is it to find info for it from unrelated sources to the league itself? - J man708 (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Barry Hugman's player records

up to and including 2013/14 are now available online, on what the home page asserts to be his own website. Wonder what effect that'll have on Neil Brown's site? This afternoon I shall mostly be inspecting the discrepancies between his figures and those on certain lists I may have contributed to in the past... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Overcategorization or not?

I have seen, in Uruguayan and Argentine footballers both the UNDER-20 INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALLERS and the YOUTH INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALLERS. However, in most cases, what we have available is YOUTH and UNDER-21, other than obvious category for full internationals.

Isn't youth and under-20 pretty much the same? Many many players, when they appear at the FIFA U-20 World Cup, are still not seniors and have not yet appeared in a pro league. You could argue that some have, but I "counter-argue" that some, even younger, start playing as seniors.

My main question is (hoping that I did not make a mess with my question and the message was put forth): should the youth and under-20 international categories not be merged? Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

They don't have under-21s in South American international football. The senior youth category is under-20 so, no, they shouldn't be merged. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, forgot that part, but it should be noted that, as of earlier this year (or later into last one) Brazil now has an under-21 side. Cheers --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That may be so, but while CONMEBOL's major under-age tournament remains an under-20 competition, the under-20 side will remain the major under-age category. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football club

Please give your input about the template's hidden parameter. SLBedit (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

More input is needed. SLBedit (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Albania

Just walked in to another editor insterting "albanian origin" on several places. Anyone wnat to take a look at Uber56 (talk · contribs), i dont have time or energy to do it. QED237 (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but that's alright as long as I use reliable sources my friend. Uber56 (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The question is what sources are reliable. Albanian media in general is in these cases often not reliable as they are biased and has previously reported some people being "albanian" after using "albanian goal celebration" which is in no way proof that the person is albanian. Also there is no way to confirm sources as they are written in albanian language. QED237 (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@Uber56: How about this source for kovacic? Correct me if I am wrong but does it say he is albanian because he made a special gesture? QED237 (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The relevant bit in the cited source for Marko Arnautović, "një djalosh me mbiemrin Arnautoviç të kujton ndonjë shqiptar", Google-translates as something like "a man whose surname, Arnautovic, is like an Albanian". In that case, it doesn't matter whether it's reliable or not, it doesn't verify his being of Albanian descent. I'll remove it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, now I really think you have to remove it. You're right. Uber56 (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And, as mentioned above, the source for Kovacic is indeed a photograph showing him, the player Xherdan Shaqiri, and another man posing with their hands in a shape that could be the Albanian eagle. That doesn't verify Kovacic as being of Albanian descent. I've removed that as well. Please understand that not only do you have to use reliable sources, you have to use reliable sources that clearly verify the associated content. That's an absolute requirement for biographies of living persons. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
This kinda annoys me that this has to be included in seemingly every article about a player of Slavic origin. Should we edit the pages of Australian or American footballers to show their British heritage? What about mentioning the vast Germanic backgrounds of players from England, Germany and France? It just seems to be a thing of pride, rather than a thing of information. Is it really worth mentioning that someone's grandmother was born there? - J man708 (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

FC Barcelona Userbox

Can anyone help me out about the template of FC Barcelona userbox??? Currently I can't find one in Wikipedia. Arka 92 06:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Right here. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 11:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks you :) Arka 92 01:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Page move discussion

Please see this discussion which may be of interest. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Showcase

I am spending a little extra time working on and assessing higher-quality articles before getting destroyed in the Wikicup in round two or three. Another editor nominated Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Diego Costa/archive1 but there was an error in adding it to FAC so it might be a little behind in the review process. It would be appreciated if anyone has a minute to take a look and throw your suggestions or support behind it.

On a more selfish note, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final/archive1 could use another review or two. I would love it if everything could be addressed before 2008 UEFA Champions League Final blows every other match specific article out of the water (that article should go FAC, PeeJay 2K3).Cptnono (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Youth careers in infobox

Am I correct in thinking, that once a player makes his pro-debut, his youth career date in the infobox ends on that date/in that year? For example, Conor Chaplin is still playing academy football, but has made his professional debut. Should his Youth career read 2011–2014 and professional career then start from 2014, despite him still being a youth player for Pompey? Cheers, --Jimbo[online] 13:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes; we should not have parallel 'youth/senior' careers in the infobox, too confusing. GiantSnowman 13:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
However, Chaplin is playing for Portsmouth's first team and the Academy at the same time, as Jack Whatmough did too (played for the Academy until 2014, but made his first team debut in 2013). It is something to be considered, because if we put this information, we're writing false data into the articles.
Even if this is confusing, "excluding" some years with the youth setup is wrong. MYS77 ✉ 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

José Manuel García Maurin made his SENIOR debut for CA Osasuna when he still had/has several years to go in his youth career. Why should the infobox tell a lie (ending his youth spell when it has not ended)? Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well take, as an example, Jonás Gutiérrez - recently played for Newcastle's youth team at the age of 31 - should we add 'youth' years back to his infobox? No, course not. Same goes for any player who makes a senior debut and is on the fringes of the first team but plays more 'youth' football (e.g. Oli McBurnie who was making regular sub appearances for the senior team at the same time as being a regular starter for the youth team). GiantSnowman 18:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Not that I'm doubting you GS, just curious about the technicality as I don't know about that rule in the English FA: how is it possible that a 31-year-old plays youth football? Didn't they have the reserves championship for that? Cheers, thanks for your input. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Vasco here. FA should not allow any player who is more than 18 play for the Academy. And he played for the under-21's (who is a "type" of B-team in England). In Spain things are different, as the reserve team play in a senior division, not in a separated one. Cheers, MYS77 ✉ 19:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Nope, you are showing complete ignorance here - firstly yes you can get youth players over-18 (who haven't played for the first-team yet), and no the under-21 is not a 'type of B team', please don't confuse the Spanish system with the rest of the world. As stated, having parallel youth and senior careers is ridiculous, a player still playing for the youth team after he has made his senior debut does not matter. GiantSnowman 20:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Since you both missed the question about the under-21s in England, I'll explain it. Basically, a couple of years ago, the FA, in their infinite wisdom, did away with reserve team football for the professional clubs, and instead started a few under-21 leagues. However, each team is allowed to name up to 3 over-age players in their squad for each match. Hope that clears up the issue (unless I messed up). In my experience, youth years in the infobox usually refer to when a player is 18 or under - but that's because they've generally broken into the first team somewhere at that point, even if it is whilst away on loan. I'm inclined to agree with GS on when they should stop being listed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, historically the Youth to Senior shift usually denotes a change in employment status (at least in the UK) i.e. the signing of a "senior" or "professional" contract usually ends your youth career. Most players before 18 are on Schoolboy contracts (historical name), YTS schemes (even older term long dead). That's not to say a player cannot continue to play for a youth team on a senior contract. How wikipedia reflects the shift from Youth to Senior is based on editor preference at the time. Koncorde (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment on User:ILikeCheese01450/sandbox

I have no clue if User:ILikeCheese01450/sandbox is the list we all have been waiting for, but I imagine some of you guys/gals have an opinion, and would like to add your comment either in the draft using {{Afc comment}} or here so I can pass it on. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 13:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply)

We already have individual lists of matches from those World Cups, so god knows why we'd need all of them combined into one page. – PeeJay 16:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, PeeJay. -- Sam Sing! 17:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

How to deal with a fraud

I am currently looking to redo the Eelco Schattorie article and while doing so I saw that one of the references was this. While this is not good enough for a source on wikipedia, does not mean I can not do some more research to verify what he put down there but then I noticed some weird things. For example, he claims that he was the head coach at VVV-Venlo and his article has that he was their for almost a decade but after doing research, he was never the head coach... at best he worked as a coach with the first-team but never head coach! I then started to doubt all the other things he has on that resume but I can not find any reliable sources that don't go against what he has and I know these sources I am finding are wrong because they all pretty much say that he was coach at VVV-Venlo when he obviously was not! In the meantime, I have decided that I will redo the article but only with information about his past experience in India because at least that stuff I can find proper sources for that don't lie. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately as with most other professions/CVs, football coaches will also 'big up' themselves...that is why we use reliable, third-party sources. GiantSnowman 08:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
He was interim head coach after Jan Versleijen went to Japan in January 1996 and before Joop Brand who was appointed head coach ca. 1 March. [14] Cattivi (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Hm, interesting... I shall add that in but the rest needs to be verified. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Cups and player notability

Hi,

Just a question about notability, A player is generally notable if he/she has played in a fully proffesional league. How is it when it comes to cups organized by national association. For example players is a team that has reached main tournament in their nation like 2014–15 FA Cup or 2014–15 Svenska Cupen. Are those players notable? I am currently editing Svenska Cupen and was thinking wheter or not I should add redlinks to those players who may be notable. QED237 (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, playing in a national cup is usually only enough if the match in question is between two fully-professional teams, unless of course the general notability guideline is met. If the team "has reached the main tournament" then it would seem their players would not automatically be notable. C679 21:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. The only time I could see an exception would be if some team made it to a very, very notable round... like a Conference team making the semi-finals or the final of the FA Cup. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Risto Mitrevski

Someone had created that article recently and something like a week ago the article was deleted. He made his debut today in the Serban SuperLiga, can some admin please restore the article? Let me know and I will add the new data. Thanks in advance. FkpCascais (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais:  Done. GiantSnowman 19:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Great, many thanks! FkpCascais (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

More evidence of the huge amount of time wasted deleting articles for experienced players who have just signed for fully professional leagues. We'd be better to show some WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:WAIT to see what happens, rather than following non-existent rules. Nfitz (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Or see that this is just one example of WAIT while there are so many others that would not apply for that. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Are there so many? It's not that common a case where a player who has experience in other semi-pro leagues gets signed to a fully professional league, in a clear capacity where they will be getting starts. In this case, the club that loaned him out, noted that it was so he could get playing time. And yet even then, if one were to have mentioned that, others would have been shouting Crystal Ball like some kind of talisman to ward off evil. If it's a 16-year old who goes to a club with an extensive non-professional reserve league, then no ... Nfitz (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Competition naming

Hi all, I would like to ask about naming of competitions. Persib Bandung participated this year in the 2015 AFC Champions League, they participated also in 1995 when the competition was still known as Asian Club Championship. As seen in this section, should the 1995 row use Asian Club Championship in competition column as known in 1995? or use AFC Champions League, as it is right now? MbahGondrong (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

In that kind of table it is probably fine to use the 'current' name, maybe with a footnote explaining the name change. As long as the article is at 1995 Asian Club Championship, that is the main thing! GiantSnowman 19:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's standard practice for an encyclopedia to use historically correct names. We wouldn't say Aston Villa won the Champions League in 1982, because there wouldn't be any such thing for another ten years; they won the European Cup that year. A footnote explaining that it's the same competition would do no harm. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Are we saying that's a definite rule? If so, the article at 1961–62 Intertoto Cup should probably be at the currently red linked 1961–62 International Football Cup. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 20:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Malpass93: - yes, we always use the historically accurate name. GiantSnowman 20:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Asian Club Championship. -Koppapa (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The name as it was at the time should be used, as would be the case with any subject, not just a football competition. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Not disagreeing but where is that documented? Hack (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It just seems common sense to me............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It's definitely in the MOS somewehere as I've used it before, trying to locate it but sruggling to, will take a proper look tonight if I have time. GiantSnowman 13:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess WP:MODERNPLACENAME applies even though the page is geared towards geographical names. Hack (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was looking for! GiantSnowman 13:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Egyptian "user"

Thought he had desisted, but here he is, inventing player positions and categories is his only wiki-purpose (last known IP here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.42.226.173). Throw the dog a bone or something...

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Players sold without a single day of training, but 2015 season is referred anyway?

So, if a player is sold on 1 January 2015, user Qed237 says that I must write on the table that he spent the 2015 season in that club.

Now, 2015 Swedish season starts in March/April. Why on the player page should be written that he played the 2015 season with that team? He did only one day of holiday, he didn't have a single friendly match, or A SINGLE DAY OF TRAINING.

IMHO it's a big, big, big bullshit that fools who is reading. It is a rule? Ok, let's change this wrong rule I'd say. --OLW älskare (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

He was contracted to the club for that season, wasn't he? It doesn't matter if he is released on the first day of the contract. GiantSnowman 12:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
That seems a bit needless Snowman. If the official season is over (Sweden is March to November if my Champ Man memory serves me) and the player is sold during the offseason, why would they need to be included in the subsequent seasons stats? To my knowledge the convention is based on if the player makes representative appearance during a specific season or being with the club after the season starts. Based on your rule it'd be a bit wonky if we had to include Luis Suarez in the Liverpool 2014-15 as you seem to suggest. Koncorde (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
No, the fact is that he was contracted with the club, not including that in the infobox means we are displaying an incomplete career history. GiantSnowman 12:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
So Suarez was contract to Liverpool for the 2014/15 season as he was still with them the end of 2013/14 then even though he left a few days into the offseason? To clarify do you believe the infobox reflects the "seasons" or the "year" he was with a team. I would argue it is the seasons, but maybe I've always been looking at it wonky. Koncorde (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Traditionally for leagues that run over two calendar years (i.e. 2014–15, like in England) we use the actual dates in the infobox; for leagues that run in the summer only (i.e. 2015, like in Sweden or the USA) we use the seasons. So a player might sign a contract with a Swedish club in November 2014 for the 2015 season, but as he does not join the club until 1 January 2015 we only display '2015–' in the infobox. Does that make sense? GiantSnowman 12:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
...but the Swedish transfer window only opens on the 8th of January? So if he is released on day 7? Bearing in mind I have no idea about which player we are on about, I'm just wary that we're creating a wonderfully bizarre system that is reflecting the year a contract existed for even if it wasn't possible for the player to make any appearances as it was the offseason. It kind of makes sense for leagues over two calendar years as we naturally "break" it in our heads, but for summer leagues it seems a bit bizarre. This convention is not followed for Rugby Super League it must be said. Koncorde (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the player in question is Sharbel Touma - if he left after the 2014 season (albeit it on the 1 January 2015) then the infobox should display '2011–2014' in my opinion. GiantSnowman 13:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yay, I'm not insane then. I was getting worried that I might have to disagree with you over something. :) Koncorde (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Haha, nope! I thought this was about a player who had signed for a club and then been released, not a player leaving a pre-existing long-term contract. GiantSnowman 14:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: How about Johan Larsson (footballer)? He is also a Swedish footballer, but was bought by new club and signed with the new club on 2 February 2015. Should Elfsborg be -2014 or -2015? He was with club in training and training camp in 2015 (dont know about training matches) almost same situation as Touma and I have always gone under the contract years as that is what we do in general but the "ruling" on Touma had me questioning. QED237 (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Also you say we have one rule for players with winter season, and one rule for summer season teams. So what about Isaac Kiese Thelin who went from summer season to winter season in January? Then the two rules collide, which is why I believe we should be consistent. QED237 (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I have never known it to be "contract" years, I always viewed it as the season a players registration was held and / or appearances made in that season or calendar year (but that's my own interpretation probably). So a player registered to a team that never plays would still be registered, but a player released without playing prior to the season would not register. For instance David Unsworth made a reserve appearance for Aston Villa and so is included for them in 1998, but that's the weakest justification I can imagine for inclusion. If he'd never made any appearances then I am not sure I would have Aston Villa in the infobox. But maybe that's just me. Koncorde (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
As for Thelin, I see no collision of rules, did he make any appearances for Malmo in 2015 (i.e. Champions League or similar competition)? If so then he gets 2015 for Malmo. Koncorde (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess that depends on what articles you edit, I edit a lot of players articles, mostly winter seasons as they are by far most common in Europe and then taka for example Fernando Torres, he got signed by Milan but is loaned out to athletico madrid but we still show Milan in infobox because he has a contract with them. And what about player being injured missing a whole season. Should we not display that season because they did not make an appearance?. It is the contract that has to be shown. QED237 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Milan still own Torres registration, they have sold the rights to his registration for this season. The convention with Loan players is to differentiate when they spend time from their parent club, not to remove their parent club. An injured player is still a player registered to the club for that season. I would agree with your "contract" argument if you were applying it to players that take part in some element of the "season" with that club. Your application here appears to be "Because he was still employed by X until 01/01/2015 he should have 2015 in his record". I'm not aware of that being the consensus. Koncorde (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
For example, Kostas Katsouranis signed for his new club in 2014 but started playing in 2015, therefore we use 2014. SLBedit (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd guess the consensus that "Because he was still employed by X until 01/01/2015 he should have 2015 in his record" comes from the infobox documentation, which has for as long as I can remember defined |yearsn= as "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each professional club, one per attribute, earliest to latest" (my highlighting). Though I'd agree that people do tend to use seasons rather than years when a player moves from one summer-season club to another. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The transaition from a summer league to a winter league, or vice versa, is not as problematic as @Qed237: is making it out to be, see Henrik Larsson as an example off the top of my head, as well as all the European players who have gone to MLS. GiantSnowman 09:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice Snowman. Suarez, Katsouranis, Torres, Liverpool, Barcelona, Aston Villa, all these examples start their own season in 2014, and they finish in 2015. Swedish championship is different, is all played in one single year. Another example written above, Kiese Thelin. He was sold from Malmö to Bordeaux in January, but when will Malmö play his first championship match? April 6, 2015... so why should be wrote that he spent a part of 2015 season in Malmö? Also the official website of Swedish FA doesn't mention Kiese Thelin for 2015 season! (source here) IMHO it should be made an exception for some leagues, in case we can discuss if a cup match is enough or if only championship matches are accepted... My proposal is: have you played an official match in 2015 with that team? --OLW älskare (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
@OLW älskare: Have you read the discussion? You can not just say "have you played an official match in 2015 with that team", what about injured players, they should not be shown because of they have not played? QED237 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: Oh, it's not a problem. Championship/Cup starts on April 6? If you were part of the team on that day, you deserve to be in (even if you were injured). Have you been sold on January/February? You have only spent some holidays, not a season. I repeat, my proposal is only for Norway/Sweden/Finland/etc, not for other classic championships. We mustn't write wrong news, an exception for these leagues is necessary, because there is no continuation of time between 2014 and 2015 (contrary to the rest of Europe). --OLW älskare (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering, if a player comes from a league that runs a tournament that ends in December of 2014 and then signs on January 1st for a different team in a league that has a 2014-15 season ongoing, without having done anything club related for his old club in those three days, is this mentioned as him at Team A for until 2014 or 2015? If it's 2015, that's rather... Misleading... - J man708 (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
As User:Struway2 says the template documentation clearly states A list of years that the player has been contracted at each professional club QED237 (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Qed237, the documentation clearly doesn't mention 3 nordic leagues with a small consideration in the world. And i'm asking for an exception for this purpose. They are the only countries where players are not playing in winter (maybe MLS also).
Thank you J man708 (really) for you collaboration, in your specific case I'd say 2015 because he started to play in that team since 2015, but we can discuss about this example. But about nordic leagues, i've opened this discussion precisely because i was felt fooled reading wrong years in the nordic players' pages. :) --OLW älskare (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Titles and source.

Hi,

Could someone take a look at Valencia CF and Atletico Madrid. An IP is disagreeing with me and adds content with wilipedia as source for "third most succesful" and so on. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. QED237 (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, even speaking as a Valencia fan, the ip is more correct than the people reverting. Atletico have won more La Liga titles than us and more European trophies. It should be a simple matter of sourcing those facts and dropping the POV "most successful" stuff. The question of "most supported club" is more problematic. It would be better to simply reword that more neutrally to saying that Atletico had the third highest attendance in 2013/2014, Valencia had the fourth highest attendance etc. Valenciano (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not the content here, it is the sourceing, with the editor removing reliable source and add content with wikipedia as source. All content not reliable sourced, I will revert. QED237 (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - we rely on reliable, third-party sources. GiantSnowman 12:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@QED, as I said, it's a simple matter of sourcing those facts and writing it in a neutral way. Valenciano (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, probably but without proper source I can not know it is true and as long as it is not properly sourced and can be verified it can be removed. Especially since sources was removed, the original content can be restored as it was sourced. QED237 (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please check the other source from UEFA Atletico profile. Which is added additional to wiki. Its clear that atleti has more trophies when u compare it with Valencia profile of UEFA. So no need more than this source. 95.186.216.95 (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Try this source, in Spanish, from Marca. It's from 2012 and says that Atletico had won 9 titles at that point. They won the tenth last year. (Source.) Marca also mentions Bilbao's eight league titles and Valencia's six titles. Based on the Marca article, the question of who has won more European titles is trickier. Atletico had won 4 European trophies at the time of the Marca article and added the Europa league of 2012 subsequent to that. The Marca article mentions 6 European trophies for Valencia, which they say includes 2 Fairs Cups, so it's down to whether they're considered official or not. Safer to dispense with the idea of "third/fourth most successful club in Europe" altogether and simply state the facts, which can be sourced to the above. Valenciano (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
As you said, probably best to remove comparison. There is no reliable source comparing the two clubs without it being WP:OR and having to do the math outrselves and compare clubs. Also it may easily become outdated. QED237 (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Need help for move

Arifović Ibrahim has this strange name because some time ago some user insistently was creating and recreating his article so he ended up making this article with a changed sequence of surname+name instead of name+surname. The aorrect title should be Ibrahim Arifović, but only an admin can make that move. He passes now notability. Can someone please do it? FkpCascais (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. GiantSnowman 13:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks! FkpCascais (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Emmanuel Sonupe

Hello, question regarding Emmanuel Sonupe, he's gone on loan to St Mirren recently but has never played for the Tottenham Hotspur first team, so does his "senior career" start for Spurs in the Infobox? You'll see :years1 is not dated; should it be?.. Thanks in advance... JMHamo (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Either 2014 (start of 'senior' season, my preferred choice), 2015 (when his senior career actually started), or perhaps an earlier year (when he turned professional) - it definitely shouldn't be blank. GiantSnowman 18:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

JS Kabylie

Eyes on JS Kabylie please. I removed 40k of unreferenced and poorly-written material, have been reverted and my edit labelled as "vandalism". Have re-removed but now stepping away. Thanks, C679 17:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that a lot of it is unreferenced and very poorly worded (clearly translated from French by someone who doesn't speak English very well), the information is relevant, it just needs references. Also, some sections (like titles, CAF performances and former players) can stay, even without references. I've started working on the article but it'll take some time but it'll be easier to keep all the details as they are and fix them instead of removing them and starting over. TonyStarks (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It does look like a bit too much was removed, the notable players listing has clear criteria and can be confirmed to individual articles, likewise the honours section. I don't think it is right to add back the large amounts of unsourced prose though as they have been challenged. Feel free Tony to take them to your userspace and add the relevant sources there then add back once you have done that. Fenix down (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That works for me TonyStarks (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Question about WP:NFOOTBALL

Per WP:NFOOTBALL players who've played in top flight leagues[fully professional leagues] automatically meet notability standards. Do individual seasons of a top flight league also automatically meet notability standards? I ask because there's a whole load of articles I want to put up for deletion, and I want to make sure I'm not doing something stupid. Bosstopher (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Also worth noting though that the player qualification only applies to top flight leagues that are fully professional. For leagues. pro status is irrelevant, and we have series of articles on leagues well down national pyramids. Number 57 17:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Players in top flight does not automatically meet notablility standard, only those who have played in a fullty professional league does. Individual seasons should be based on WP:GNG I believe? QED237 (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Generally, a countries top level is deemed notable for a season article as are club articles on a particular season if they fulfill WP:NSEASONS. Fenix down (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
To clarify the articles in question are 1945 Jordan League - 1979 Jordan League, they're all based off of the same RSSSF webpage, which merely states which team won the season. Bosstopher (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

- "Per WP:NFOOTBALL players who've played in top flight leagues automatically meet notability standard" = incorrect. GiantSnowman 18:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, corrected now.Bosstopher (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the season articles, they are still the top league in Jordan so are notable. I would argue that they need expanding not deleting though I accept this might be difficult to do. Just because an article is very short is not a reason in itself to delete. Fenix down (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Most likely impossible to do. No byte of information is lost if the article is replaced by a redirect to Jordan league. Those articles just were created to fill the seasons template. I have even seen worse examples, like when RSSSF had a question mark after the champion. The article read like "x/y was the second or third season of the league (one doesn't know). Maybe z won the championship." Lol. Can't remember the country though. Prodded similar articles once, was reverted because "the season is notable", didn't care again for those. -Koppapa (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Bosstopher: - I think the real question is, why would you want to put "a whole load" of seasons articles up for Deletion? If these articles only have the same RSSSF website as their only source, don't you think your time and effort would be much better spent trying to find new sources/ references to add to the articles and expand them instead of trying to delete them? Deleting articles doesn't make wikipedia a better encyclopaedia, adding references to existing articles and expanding them does. IJA (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Old Trafford

I'm having a bit of a rough time settling a dispute with an increasingly belligerent user at Talk:Battle of Old Trafford. Would anyone care to weigh in with a third opinion on some of the issues we're having? – PeeJay 00:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, this is getting silly now. I need someone else to add to the discussion before I explode from saying all the things I'm not allowed to say as a Wikipedian. – PeeJay 19:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to help out. —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Attention needed at Adam Johnson (footballer) - high level of IP BLP abuse

A series of IP users are adding material that violates WP:BLP. Hack (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Semi-protected for 10 days and some revisions deleted from the history per BLP. BencherliteTalk 17:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Lnhbm's templates

Please take a look at the templates created by Lnhbm (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to raise at WP:TFD, I agree they should be deleted. GiantSnowman 13:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I've put them up at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 2#Champions League/European Cup winning squads. Please provide your input there. --Jaellee (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Nineteen (19) separate championship football team navboxes have been nominated for deletion in the TfD discussion @ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 2#Champions League/European Cup winning squads. As this is a subject area in which members of WikiProject Football might be expected to have an interest and background knowledge, your participation in this TfD discussion is invited. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Wales

If the current flag of Wales was introduced in 1959, should pages reporting Welsh teams' results from before that date be displaying File:Flag of Wales (1953-1959).svg? See the German and the Italian articles on the 1958 World Cup, which are both using that flag version precisely. And what was the Welsh flag prior to 1953? --Theurgist (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That last question sounds like one for WP:WALES. I do agree that the 1953-59 flag should be in use for matches played between those years though. – PeeJay 12:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Historical flags have always been used (i.e. different German/Italian flags for historical World Cup squads) and this should be no different - though I will admit I had no idea there was a different flag before 1959! GiantSnowman 13:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Have asked on Ref Desk re:pre1953 flag at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Welsh flag - pre 1953. Nanonic (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I found out that the German article de:Flagge von Wales lists the following three flags:

  • 1807–1953
    1807–1953
  • 1953–1959
    1953–1959
  • since 1959
    since 1959

And de:British Home Championship uses the three of them (each one for the relevant dates). There seems to be a description of the first one - File:Flag of Wales, 1807-1953.svg - at Flag of Wales#Modern use, though the image isn't there. --Theurgist (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Wales#Modern use says that "In 1807 the red dragon on a green mount was adopted as the Royal Badge of Wales, and on 11 March 1953 the motto Y Ddraig goch ddyry cychwyn [...] was added. The badge was the basis of a flag of Wales in which it was placed on a horizontal white and green bicolour" - that could be read as saying that prior to 1953 the flag was the same as it is now, then they added the motto ribbon in 1953, then took it off again in 1959. The wording, though, is highly ambiguous...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This BBC article says that "in Caernarfon in 1911, at the investiture of Edward, Prince of Wales, the flag appeared in its current form, helping its rise to prominence", but again that's quite ambiguous -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I was confused by the statements that the current flag "was officially recognised as the Welsh national flag in 1959" and "was granted official status in 1959" - does that mean it was created in 1959, or did it already exist, albeit not as an official one, prior to that date? --Theurgist (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This film of the 1958 Commonwealth Games shows (at 9:26) the "1959 flag" in "official" use at that time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

But the third one is actually File:Flag of Wales 2.svg, which is different from File:Flag of Wales.svg. Why are there two variants and what's the difference between the two? --Theurgist (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

They both have the same heraldic elements - the differences are not significant. Alansplodge (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
"Cumberland Clark’s... 1934 book ‘The Flags of Britain’ has; ‘Those who happen to be in Wales on Saint David’s Day will catch a glimpse of a British banner that is rarely seen beyond the boundaries of Cambria. The national flag of Wales has a horizontally halved white over green background, with the famous Red Dragon over all.’" History of Y Ddraig Goch. Alansplodge (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
So prior to 1953 the flag was the same as it is now, then.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It certainly reads that way. Clarity is not a strong point of any of the references though. Alansplodge (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So shall we be using either or both of the variants (particularly the 1953 one)? In order for this to be possible, Template:Country data Wales needs to be adjusted. I requested that on the template talk page, but an admin declined to do it. --Theurgist (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

We've always used historical flags in a historical context, Wales should be no different. IJA (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree with that. The question is whether it's sufficiently certain that these flags are indeed the "correct" ones for the specified dates (1807–1953 and 1953–1959).
In any case, first an admin needs to adjust the template. Then, I'll take care of making the necessary changes throughout the articles. I've done that sort of thing on several occasions already. --Theurgist (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for new standard table colours

Module:Sports table has been introduced with great success. As part of the implementation several long standing traditions were formalized and unified in general consensus for all football articles. We all knew some finetuning could be in order. Current consensus is to colour season results in order of importance, regardless of the type of competition. Some have argued that this causes ambiguity from year-to-year and league-to-league because the same colour might mean different things. The proposal is to use the following colour scheme going forward to reduce ambiguity:

Type Green Blue Yellow Red Black
National club
Top flight		 Champions League/Copa Libertadores
Top in country green1, lighter green for earlier rounds		 Second continental tournament
Top in country blue1, lighter blue for earlier rounds		 Tertiary continental tournament
National play-offs/post-league play		 Relegation and relegation play-offs
Lighter colours depending on rounds		 Teams does not play a full season and/or their results are expunged or void
National club
Lower divisions		 Direct promotion Reserved for cup wins
(qualification for continental tournament)		 Promotion play-offs Relegation and relegation play-offs
Lighter colours depending on rounds		 Teams does not play a full season and/or their results are expunged or void
International club Direct to next round Secondary result (play-off or lower tournament) Tertiary result (play-off or lower tournament) Relegation (if applicable) Teams does not play a full season and/or their results are expunged or void
National teams Direct to next round Secondary result (e.g. play-off) Tertiary result Relegation (if applicable) Teams does not play a full season and/or their results are expunged or void

The following users have participated in related discussions: @Qed237, J man708, Equineducklings, Jkudlick, Arbero, Brudder Andrusha, Kante4, Struway2, and Koppapa: Please list your opinions below. CRwikiCA talk 19:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@CRwikiCA: @J man708: @Equineducklings: @Jkudlick: @Arbero: @Brudder Andrusha: @Kante4: @Struway2: @Koppapa: QED237 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think ping didn't work, I am repinging the editors that haven't replied yet, because I assume they didn't see this thread. Besides the opinion is split in the discussion right now, so more input is desired. @Equineducklings, Arbero, Brudder Andrusha, Kante4, Struway2, and Koppapa: CRwikiCA talk 15:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Current consensus is "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 [green1 first, then green2, etc].) Black should be used when teams do not play a full season and their results are expunged or void. This consensus exists to have a uniform table appearance across Wikipedia." I think ths should be mentioned. QED237 (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal A: The colour coding table should be used

The colour coding table above should be used instead of using green/blue/yellow in order of importance within a table.

  • Neutral CRwikiCA talk 19:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong agree - This doesn't create any changes involving European articles, but it helps create a standard which covers several Asian/Oceanian Leagues which incorporate or have incorporated Champions League qualifiers spots, Continental Cup qualifier spots and Finals Series qualifiers (example of how this looks). The only major change involves seasons where there is no Continental Cup qualification spots, wherein the finals series qualifiers will be kept as yellow and not upgraded to blue, as the second highest competition possible that season. - J man708 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@J man708: but this does effect many european leagues as the promotion playoffs will be yellow instead of currently blue? At least that is how I interpret the table above. QED237 (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The teams involved in promotion playoffs perhaps could be shown in a lighter form of green, as they are playing off for a green promotion spot. I made mention to this possibility at the top of the page, I do believe. In the Tasmanian National Premier Leagues competition (one of several Australian second divisions), the finals series (which doesn't promote to the A-League) is played with the Top 6 from the first division, as well as the two champions of the Northern and Southern Tasmanian Championships (third division champions) instances such as this could be shown in yellow, with promotion playoffs shown in green. (I believe this would also affect the North American Soccer League tables.
@CRwikiCA:, maybe we could have second division playoffs involving promotion (shown in European Leagues) as green, but non-promotion playoffs shown in yellow? - J man708 (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@J man708:In my opinion direct promotion and qualification to promotion play-offs are two very distinct things and should be coloured differently. The Tasmanian example shows how having fixed colours might be troublesome, because there will always be exceptions. CRwikiCA talk 15:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
There's always going to be small issues, as this really isn't a one-size fits all category. We just gotta figure out a way to cover the 99.9% and perhaps do the .1% as it comes. :P -- J man708 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose – While I am definitely in favor of standardization across leagues, I fear that if we enforce the prose as written in the table, certain league tables will not have any visual differentiation amongst the final results. For example, the notion of promotion/relegation is foreign (if not abhorrent) to United States football, and there are only two tournaments to which teams may qualify. This means that:
  1. the lack of relegation obviates the use of red;
  2. there is no promotion system to use green, although green could be used within MLS for those clubs qualifying for the CONCACAF Champions League and possibly for clubs in levels 4 and 5 which qualify for the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup;
  3. there is no secondary tournament with which blue could be used, as each U.S. club in USLPro, NASL, and MLS automatically qualifies for the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, entering in the second, third, and fourth rounds, respectively, although blue could be used instead of green for those clubs from levels 4 and 5 which qualify; and
  4. the lack of a secondary result obviates the need for yellow as a tertiary result.
Therefore, the only color which would be used in the top three levels of United States football, besides green in MLS, is black for that extremely rare occassion that a club does not complete its season for whatever reason. Please correct me if I misunderstand what this table means. — Jkudlick tcs 06:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure how the MLS works, but I would say that this proposal would see the teams on the combined table who qualify for the MLS Cup positions being coloured yellow and being upgraded to being coloured green should they win a Champions League spot. These teams would also have numbered footnote link to the bottom of the table, mentioning that they also qualified for the finals series (and another footnote for the Canadian Champions League spot). Also, the Argentine League would have yellow colours too, for the teams who were unsuccessful in gaining a Continental Cup spot from the "Liguilla Pre-Sudamericana" - J man708 (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The United States sends four clubs to the Champions League. Three of them are guaranteed to come from MLS – the MLS Cup winner and the winners of each conference regular season title (or the conference runner-up if the winner also wins the MLS Cup), thus all of those clubs are in the playoffs; the fourth club is the winner of the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, regardless of the league in which that club plays. My problem is actually with the wording specifying promotion and relegation because there is no system of automatic promotion or relegation in U.S. football. If we use the wording as specified, green will never be used in NASL or USL Pro, even though it could be used in lower leagues. I think using green1 as the "top-level" event for that particular league would be more appropriate (e.g. directly qualifying for the quarter-final round), rather than specifying promotion. If the wording in the table could be tweaked a bit then I could support it more, but it just seems too euro-centric in its current form; I could see someone citing this table to remove green, yellow, and red from all NASL and USL Pro league tables because there is no promotion or relegation, and only using blue if a club in one of those two leagues wins the U.S. Open Cup. — Jkudlick tcs 01:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking at this, all qualifiers would be Green 1, as they all Qualify for the Group Stage of the Competition. The only ones that don't are the CFU Club Championship teams, who would under this proposal be coloured as Blue 1 in their domestic leagues(or Green 2 if we're stating that they did infact qualify for the Champions League with a footnote mentioning their CFU Club Championship success). The 2014–15 OFC Champions League would be the same. Green 1 for the Group Stage, Green 2 for the Preliminary Stage. - J man708 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jkudlick:, I just re-read what you said in your last paragraph and I completely missed your point when I first read it. Sorry about that. It seems as though this is something that we've sorta failed to cover. Were you saying that an NASL team cannot qualify for the Champions League at all, or do they have the chance to qualify via the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup? Because if they can, I reckon that within itself would be enough for green to be reserved for that when it eventually occurs. The only national cup that I can think of where the champions don't qualify for the Champions League is New Zealand's Chatham Cup. NZ's CL qualifiers come exclusively from their top flight competition. - J man708 (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – I agree with what most of the consensus says, but as J man mentioned above, perhaps a lighter green colour would fit most of the world leagues. I'm not sure if the example I'm proposing right now is the best, but I believe the colour (light green enough?) the 2014–15 Belgian Pro League championship play-offs spots uses could be a fitting colour for other leagues with promotion play-offs? If anyone got any other league suggestions, then please list them. Arbero (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The Belgian example is peculiar, because every team qualifies for something. It is also an example of a league that wouldn't fit the proposed table, because there are two types of play-offs, with one clearly different from the other. It is, in my opinion, another example why you would want to use a green→blue→yellow scheme to catch all options (rather than have fixed rules). The 2014–15 Segunda División B is also something that doesn't fit within the table. (Of course exceptions can be added, but I feel that the rules will become way too long in the end). CRwikiCA talk 20:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@CRwikiCA:, the Belgian League definitely is an oddity, however I'm stumped as to why someone hasn't come along and coloured the 7th-14th places blue? If they're playing off for a Europa League spot, by the current "rules", that's gotta be coloured blue. These rules are barely conformed to at the moment even within Europe... We definitely need a set of rules on this, pronto... And hopefully one that makes national playoffs like this look far less like they've qualified for Champions League spots, and shows that they can actually qualify for the Europa League. The current set up is in shambles. Yellow disambiguates this. - J man708 (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Even with a standard, it is not trivial to have it adopted across Wikipedia. There is a clear set of rules currently, but that doesn't mean everyone is aware of them and follows them. A new consensus would probably not change compliance either. CRwikiCA talk 21:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
But it would help us stop fighting amongst ourselves, allowing us to spend more time editing pages that need it. :P Don't you find it a little mismatched that the Eredivisie and the A-League use the same colour for the CL spots, but different colours for playoffs? (Especially when Asia has a secondary continental cup tournament?) - J man708 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I suppose J man's Superleague Greece table is a good example. Other leagues with a similar system? Arbero (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal B: Levels

If proposal A is accepted, then the following should happen
Option 1:Level 1 for each colour is supposed to be used for the best round in each table, level 2 for the second-best round, etc.
Option 2:Level 1 should be used for the best achievable round across all leagues, level 2 for second best, etc.
This means that is country A qualifies a team to the group stage, the play-off round and the third qualifying round of the Champions League and country B only qualifies a team in the third qualifying round, that for country B the team should be highlighted with green1 for option 1 and with green3 for option 2. (This will also mean the number of levels of colours will need to be expanded if option 2 would be selected.)

  • Option 1 CRwikiCA talk 19:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - This one isn't of as big importance, but it seems to make more sense. What this means is:
Green 1 to be used for the Champions League Group Stage (Ie. 1st-3rd in the English Premier League)
Green 2 to be used for the Champions League Play-off Round (4th in the English Premier League)
Green 3 to be used for the Champions League Third Qualifying Round (1st-2nd in the Danish Superliga)
Green 4 to be used for the Champions League Second Qualifying Round (1st in the Scottish Premier League)
Green 5 to be used for the Champions League First Qualifying Round (1st in the Faroe Islands Premier League) - J man708 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 We have to consider that in the future rounds may change, perhaps there will be no more direct qualification to group stage, should green1 never be used? And maybe tournament will have even more qualifying rounds like 6 or 7 or even more, then there is no way to make more levels. I have worked harf with these colors and I cant see a good way to expand to more levels as level1 will be to dark, lower levels to bright/invisible and/or there will be to little difference between levels making them look the same. I stronlgy support option 1. QED237 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
To add I also think option 1 will be easier for unexperienced editors (and me) so we can just use the levels in order instead of having to find out what possible rounds there are for a special tournament and what level the table you edit should have. QED237 (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This could probably be fixed with a no-include guide listed within each table, stating which colours are designated for which stage of the tournament. - J man708 (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Were we to go with Option 2, I'd be afraid that we would have to add so many new levels of colors that there might not be enough difference between each individual level to tell them apart. As Qed stated, it would be easier for inexperienced users to work with "Level 1 is the top, level 2 is next, etc." regardless of nation or league. — Jkudlick tcs 05:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Unless I'm hugely mistaken, it would only require a Green 5. - J man708 (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@J man708: That is only the case if no further qualifying rounds are ever added. CRwikiCA talk 15:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it really that likely? It already goes down to five, dude. (From the GS to the 1st Round) - J man708 (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, I feel as though if you're saying no to this for the reason that it soon would need to be edited to show a sixth, seventh and eighth round, that within itself justifies all finals series being in yellow, as it's inevitable that each Confederation will have a secondary club cup shown in blue, and we'd soon would need to be edit all finals series to yellow? - J man708 (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@J man708: The reason I say no to it is because it put an extra burden on editors to know exactly what rounds are available for a particular tournament. A tournament like the FA Cup has seven different rounds that clubs can enter. Creating and constantly updating a detailed level table will create too much overhead in my opinion. (Did the ping work for you btw?) CRwikiCA talk 15:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@CRwikiCA: Sure did. They don't need to know beforehand what it is, I mentioned above that "This could probably be fixed with a no-include guide listed within each table, stating which colours are designated for which stage of the tournament." As for the FA Cup, that's kinda a moot point. No tables mention anything to do with FA Cup qualification. - J man708 (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I just used it as a seven-level example. Anyway, let's see whether there will be more people participating in the discussion. CRwikiCA talk 16:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 – Probably the best choice right now, makes more sense to me. Like QED said, I'm afraid option 2 would require us creating new colours, so its definitely taking the biscuit. Arbero (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Option 1 – The reader wouldn't even be able to differentiate the greens when he just looks at a single article. He wouldn't see if or why green2 is used and not green4. -Koppapa (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Closing comments

This thread has been open for over a week and I don't think any further comments are forthcoming. @Qed237, J man708, Jkudlick, Arbero, and Koppapa: have participated in the discussion. As I read it I see the following consensus:
Proposal A: two out of four support and one weak oppose. Based on this I would say, consensus is to accept the proposal, yet to tweak it to address the concerns. Based on the discussion I see the following tweaks:

  • Change the top-flight yellow description into: "Tertiary continental tournament;National play-offs/post-league play for title or continental cup entries"
  • Change the lower division green description into: "Direct promotion; Tier 1 play-offs between leagues/groups at same level when no promotion exists"
  • Change the lower division blue description into: "Cup win qualification for continental tournament; Domestic cup qualification"
  • Change the lower division yellow description into: "Promotion play-offs; Tier 2 play-offs between leagues/groups at same level when no promotion exists"

@Jkudlick: Would this in particular make it more applicable to the American situation (and make it less euro-centric at the same time)?
Proposal B:Consensus seems to be to go with option 1 (Option 1 has 5 votes, option 2 1 vote).
Does anyone disagree with this summary or have anything else to add? CRwikiCA talk 18:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Should we discuss the situation of national leagues with direct entry into the Club World Cup? Thankfully these are as rare as hen's teeth, so we wouldn't really need a great deal of editing to fix this. Thoughts? - J man708 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@J man708: The Club World Cup is so rare that I think we don't need to codify it. Did the ping on my prior comment work btw? CRwikiCA talk 15:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I did not cast my vote on the first proposal, because I wanted to read the arguments first before deciding. I am leaning towards being neutral or weak oppose. It does not really matter to much, but a great amount of tables have alread been converted and the proposed color change will affecvt many tables where blue for "post season playoffs" like promotion would have to be changed to yellow. We would have to change many tables. Also to change a consensus I believe there has to be clear majority and with one neutral, one weak oppose (two in the middle) I am not sure that can be seen as enough to change current consensus. QED237 (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the ping worked. I think I looked at it while half asleep, though. Hahaha. Regardless of the rarity of the competitions, they are of extreme notability and surely deserve recognition. Besides, as I said, we wouldn't need to change many articles, nor would we need to create more colours (with the failure of Proposal B). We'd literally need to change like 10 team's final position colours. This could be done in a few mins. As for the supposed lack of consensus, you failed to make note of the strong agrees, QED. - J man708 (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we should just go with yellow as decided, can't really see any other choices. Arbero (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
We would need to change a lot of tables, you can not just count top tier. Many leagues has promotion and relegation playoffs, and all of these has to be modified to yellow with this new suggestion. That is a lot of tables that can never be done in "a few minutes" I dont think you have any understanding of European football when saying it takes only a few minutes. QED237 (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Also when I count there is 2 agree, 1 nuetral, 1 oppose and since discussion had not ended, my "vote" counts to (I believe) making it 2-1-2. That is clearly not a majority needed to change current consensus (even if it should not be done by voting). QED237 (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: What do you suggest we do when Australian clubs start to take part in a secondary international club competition, demoting the finals series to a tertiary competition? (Something that is looking more and more likely when the A-League expands in, and promotion/relegation finally kick in). When a reader is cycling through the results of Australian top flight seasons, they will see something like the 1986 season, wherein green is for the Club Championship, blue is for the Cup Winners' Cup and yellow for the finals. Then say for example they see some future A-League season, wherein the colour system is the same as it was then. Then they look at the preceding years and it shows the finals series in a dynamic colouring system. This makes it difficult to follow and unnecessary. What if in the future, any league with clubs qualifying for CL, Continental Cups and Finals series were to drop the Continental Cup for a single season for some reason or another? (The AFC for instance changes not only the number of qualifiers per country year by year, but also which countries are able to enter which tournaments). What do we do if a country were to find itself juggling between having clubs qualify for the AFC Cup every second or third season and not? It would have no continuity and look appalling. QED, you seem to have voted negatively (even though your comment less than 24 hours ago stated "I am leaning towards being neutral or weak oppose") on the back of "Oh, it's a lot of articles to edit". My reaction is "So? You were happy enough to see the whole league table templates get changed and that was larger by an monumental proportion!". We can still adjust the finer points of second and subsequent divisions, to make those changes less steep, if you'd like? But once it is complete it will look a lot better for the reader to follow. - J man708 (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: Are you against the principle of fixed colours, or would you only support it if lower division wording would be changed?
@Jkudlick: Would the alternative wording work, in your opinion, for the North American system?
CRwikiCA talk 18:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, my kid's been sick, so I've been AFK all week. I think the change in wording will work for the table. Thanks! — Jkudlick tcs 19:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I like the use of green and blue, it has always been these colors, now you want to change so that in all lower levels leagues there will always be green and yellow (not a fan of using yellow). Only in top tier the blue color will be used (and some international tournaments), when blue has been so established earlier. Not sure if there is any wording that could "solve" the issue I am having, I have tried myself, but then it gets weird of top level follow one idea and lower tiers an other rule. Green followed by blue is so much easier for unexperienced editors that dont know if to use blue or yellow when starting new table if second color is always blue. QED237 (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I know you like the look of green and blue, but what I'm saying is that it's so much easier to follow competitions when they are the same colour season by season. @Qed237:, you mention "Green followed by blue is so much easier for unexperienced editors". To me incorporating a new colour template set-up and new colour system didn't seem to show a lot of regard for new users. Why should this matter now?
Do you not see the huge continuity issues when the tournaments that a club can qualify for can change year by year, but with the colours not being defined and seemingly thrown around arbitrarily? QED, what happens should Montedio Yamagata win the Emperor's Cup, but not gain promotion like last season? Who gets the Green then? That for me shows another flaw in the current system. The "system" just doesn't work for non-European and African competitions. How much more proof of this do you need?
I have to ask, why is it that you argue the point about how difficult it will be to update second divisions, but you've shown no regard for making retroactive changes on pages such as the Championship, which contain colours not to my knowledge ever voted in, but you MUST continuously revert the changes I've made on the A-League page that bring it up to maintaining continuity with the other Australian football seasons? Out of sight, out of mind?
My argument is that this new proposal fits the non-European/African Leagues much better, especially for Asia and Oceania. Your argument is that this would change a lot of second divisions. I would love to make a compromise over this. I really would.
Qed, I feel that you're not reading the points I've made. You proved this by stating "That is a lot of tables that can never be done in "a few minutes" I dont think you have any understanding of European football when saying it takes only a few minutes". This was directed at a comment I made that about incorporating a special colour for Club World Cup direct qualifiers. You proved 100% that you did not read my comment about this, as the Club World Cup has never been hosted by UEFA and therefore has nothing to do with European football. You were just looking to pull apart what I said to make me out as a fool, when you weren't even willing to make sure that you were nit-picking the correct comment.
I also feel like you're ignoring the queries I've asked of you, you've still ignored when I asked you to explain your rude comment asking "You have to learn how to count..." Can this hostility stop? Please help make a compromise and stop filibustering? I'd love your input on how this proposal could be altered in the way of second divisions. I've mentioned this several times now, dude.
Guys, you're more than welcome to assist. @CRwikiCA, Jkudlick, and Arbero:... I feel like if we can be civil and take in logical points, we will get this sorted in no time. =) - J man708 (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I will try and answer this very long message, sorry if I miss something. First of all it is so much easier to just say "first you use green for top tournament, if there is a second tournament use blue and if something else needs coloring use yellow". If new editors dont know how the tournament structure is in that region it is so much easier to follow green-blue-yellow instead of having to look up the structure and determening what color to use. The new format was to ease the way of showing parts of a table, but also to make it easier for editor, so dont say "To me incorporating a new colour template set-up and new colour system didn't seem to show a lot of regard for new users. Why should this matter now?" We have always tried to improve for editors.
I get what you are saying from season to season but in 99% of the cases it is the same from season to season and when needed you just add the color yellow, not that hard. In the emperors cup it is easy if the league has promotion (green) and promotion playoff (blue) you add yellow for the cup winner. It works fine everywhere (and the amount of winners from non-top division is like 0,1 % and "we cant cover all cases".
It is true that current table is different from older championship tables but why bring up me reverting vandalism/making correction on those? I have not modified those tables after we started using the module and I can go back in history updating every table, I so no reason to bring up that I have edited old articles. Also then there was no color consensus which we do have now.
When I said that about the few minutes I thought you had responded do my edit above yours talking about how much work it would be to update lower division tables (not only second division, in England only there are 15 table to change if needed and there are many countries...). But now I realise you may not have read and responded to my edit.
About me being aggressive and not being able to count I thought I had apologised for that, sorry. I was in the middle of conflict with a troll on a rant when you suddenly made an edit claiming no consensus for the module which was "feeding the troll" giving him more power continue. In that conflict when I was increasingly losing my patience, your edit was not exactly helping, but I am sorry for what I said.
As I said I have probably missed something. QED237 (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
AS QED said, perhaps we should just use the yellow colour for the domestic cup winner and keep the blue colour for the promotion play-offs. Otherwise, most arguments have been used in this discussion, so I don't have anything else to say. Arbero (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237 and Arbero: Sorry for my tardiness. I've been hit with a relatively nasty and energy sapping case of tonsillitis. Shit's fun, yo. Anyway, to the issue at hand. I disagree that the current system is easier than the proposal with respects to first divisions. I understand that second division competitions are probably easier using the current system, but the compromise I'm gonna ask is for when we're dealing with top flight competitions, that Green should be exclusively reserved for Champions Leagues, Blue for Continental Cups, Yellow for Finals/Playoffs Series and like always, light Red for Relegation Play-offs and the normal Red for immediate relegation. This will not extend to second divisions and the pre-existing set ups shall apply for second and subsequent divisions. For seasons when Champions League qualification isn't available, Continental Cups positions will stay as Blue 1 for the highest possibly qualifier position, Blue 2 for the second highest, etc. Where a Continental Cup isn't played, however a similar international club tournament is, this tournament shall be able to use Blue 1 - Example.
I also believe for seasons wherein a direct qualification spot for the Club World Cup is incorporated, this within itself should utilise a seperate and UNIQUE colour, to distinguish itself from Champions League qualifiers.
Failing this, I propose that Finals/Playoffs be deemed as a tertiary tournament, not secondary. With this, I feel as though Green and Blue should solely be utilised in cases of international tournaments. Teams such as Wellington Phoenix FC, Swansea City AFC, Toronto FC, FC Vaduz, etc shall for this purpose be deemed to be from the country whose national league they play in and not the nationality of the city they represent.
Please tell me that we're getting warmer? PS - I think when this is all sorted, perhaps we should work at creating a Go-To Guide for users to reference to avoid situations like this from occurring.
- J man708 (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That might work as well, especially since lower divisions have a lot of different structures. I will be afk most of this week, so I won't contribute much to the discussion. @Qed237: What is your opinion about only changing the colouring scheme for top-level leagues? CRwikiCA talk 14:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@CRwikiCA: Before you take off, what's your take again on direct CWC qualifiers having a unique colour? :P - J man708 (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: What do you reckon of the amended idea to use it for first divisions only? - J man708 (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I have started to lose "strength" and I am tired of this discussion now. I do not think we should have one rule for top tier and one for the others that does not seem right. Either we dont change or we change everything. I understand your view but we already have blue everywhere and changing to yellow would mean a lot of work. QED237 (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237:Cheers for the reply and I also agree that this is tiresome, but a lack of energy isn't much of a reason to drop a subject of conflicting interests. I get that it may not seem right, but to me it doesn't seem right that the Template:2008 Major League Soccer season table and the Template:2011 Major League Soccer season table show the Champions League in one colour and the MLS Cup in changing colours. If we only extended this to incorporate first divisions, the changes wouldn't be huge at all, especially if we did them from last season onwards only (like the way that the current all-inclusive colouring system hasn't been retroactively fitted Wikipedia-wide, due to the size of it all). I've had this discussion with another editor, @TheSelectFew: who has also agreed that yellow would disambiguate the issue. Hopefully he chooses to provide feedback here! - J man708 (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237 and J man708: I think the amount of work should not be the issue here, especially if it is going to be implemented going forward. @Arbero: makes frequent table update everywhere and might be willing to convert colours throughout for this season. I agree that if we go forward with this, then we should use the full proposed model. Qed, aside from the work that would be needed to change current tables, do you have any other objections assuming we list an unambiguous overview somewhere if accepted? As to the CWC qualifiers, I would just leave it out of the proposal and keep it green1, because it is CL qualification, the CWC is more a novelty for those teams. CRwikiCA talk 18:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Why not include it? It's literally like 10 pages that it affects. Less if we don't count situations like Gamba Osaka winning the ACL and qualifying as hosts, making Adelaide United technically hosts. We can tie up the nitty-gritty of it all. @CRwikiCA: If the original status quo was to have them included in all articles, would you be arguing for them not to be included for the same reason? I don't think they were ever included simply due to oversight, never consensus. We can also add to them a note, which could signify that they also made it into the Champions League. It might be a novelty thing, but regardless, it's of extreme notability and therefore surely has no reason not to be included. - J man708 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I suppose we can add it with the purple colour as you suggested before, it doesn't matter to me one way or another. CRwikiCA talk 19:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
It would be a shame for it to go to waste! I'll try and throw something together for that in the next couple of hours and see how it looks. Let's go back to that original topic. Those damn colours! - J man708 (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I cannot believe this subject is still going on after all these months. Seems like we have a difficult time agreeing with each other. My apologies if I didn't add much to the discussion. Arbero (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: You seem the most vocal against this, but aside from the work that would be needed to change current tables, do you have any other objections assuming we list an unambiguous overview somewhere if accepted? CRwikiCA talk 16:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry guys, been busy these last few days with other Wiki things. I really do think we've done enough to warrant this happening. Only one person has mentioned this not being a consensus. I have no idea why we've been waiting so long on this. It seems that your only concern is that this is going to be a lot of changes, which I think is kinda odd, seeing as how all the ladders themselves were changed and you didn't seem to care about that (or the fact that while consistantly reverting the colouring system on the A-League article, you never noticed that the New Zealand one has been yellow for about a month now). I'm happy to do the hard work on this one. - J man708 (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
IF you have read all comments you see that is not my only reason and as said earlier there is not the big majority needed for a change in consensus, also as said earlier. QED237 (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You don't seem to care about improving it, just saying no. Yellow disambiguates. Blue causes issues with continuity with not only other A-League pages, but other Asian pages. How about instead of just saying "No" all the time, you contribute to fixing the continuity issue? - J man708 (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course I care and I dont say no all the time, that is just ignorant to say. I would not have been such a big part in development of the module and other things all around wikipedia otherwise. What is improvement is a matter of opinion and I see no improvement in the mentioned suggestion. QED237 (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237:Right, well then please for the love of God, work with me on fixing this, rather than sticking your head in the sand. We've discussed this issue and @Arbero: seems to agree, @CRwikiCA: seems to want to bring this to a consensus. How about instead of sitting on my User Contributions page, reverting everything I do, perhaps work on something else for a change? The Club World Cup listings for example? I've been putting them together to list for CRwikiCA, as was mentioned on this page up a few thousand sentences, and also somewhere on Page 92 or similar in the archives and getting his thoughts. Perhaps you don't need to revert everything I do and actually leave it for a minute, so I can mention what I'm trying on here? - J man708 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:BRD Could you just discuss instead of re-reverting or this risk being edit war (already WP:3RR) we all want discussion to end there is no need to attack other editors saying that "they stick head in sand" and I am not fololowing you I have 5k pages on my wathlist tyhat I check out and see changes. Not need to be so agressive, we all want solution to the issue. QED237 (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
But, you actually reverted it four times in less than an hour before requesting it to be locked? If you're going to take it upon yourself to voice your opinion on here a lot, that's fine, but that doesn't grant you higher powers by thinking that you're doing the right thing. Two wrongs don't equal a right. The head in the sand comment was generally directed to the fact that this conversation has spanned months, akin to the time where you gave up on commenting on here but continued to stop the edits that this conversation was requesting. Either way, I've replied to your message. I do hope I understood what you were requesting. If not, I may have to ask you to reword what you mean. It's really late here and I can't quite put words together as well as I could during the day. - J man708 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Question about usage of the color black for abandoned leagues

I've just added the sports table module to the article on the 1998 Jordan League which was abandoned entirely midway through for unknown reasons. In this sort of situation should every team be in black, on account of none of them having played all their matches? I left the table uncolored because personally I think it wouldn't look that great, and wouldn't communicate much.Bosstopher (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: I agree, colours should only be used when applicable to part of the table. It is a very peculiar case though, was there ever an unofficial reason to cancel the end of the season? CRwikiCA talk 16:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I have no clue. The only source I have is this, which intriguingly writes "[championship abandoned?!]" and gives no further explanation. I'm guessing some news source must exist in Arabic explaining what happened, but there doesn't seem to be anything in English.Bosstopher (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I would have to agree, no need to color the entire table. Instead it should be clear in article the season was abandonned, but no need to color in the unique case. QED237 (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the above. It's not necessary to colour this, unless teams were directly relegated or kicked out of the league after this half-season. I'm guessing there was no international qualification, either? If nothing of note happened (outside of the league being disbanded for that season) and all of the teams returned for following season, I see no harm in adding the necessary information into a paragraph somewhere in the article itself.
- J man708 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

After discussions at User talk:J man708 we have reached an agreement and I will post it here for comments if anyone has any comments, otherwise this will be considered consensus.

There are three things we have agreed on, presented in the following numbered list:

  1. Use yellow color for all national competitions such as Promotion playoffs and other post-season tournament (final series), instead of current blue that will be used for secondary national competition. This according to discussion above and explained in the color table below.
  2. Use a new special color for qualification to Club World Cup, proposed as Copper color in table below. This to make a difference between Champions League so both is not green.
  3. Display all competitions in the qualification column as far as possible, for example "Qualification to Champions League Group stage and Final series" with the proper links to both tournament. This since it is not good to hide qualifications in the notes and for example if teams 1 and 2 dont show "final series" readers may think they dont participate in that tournament. The color should be color of most important tournament so first Copper followed by green and blue.
  4. Wikilinks to the tournaments should be according to discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 91#Comments. That means "2015 FIFA Club World Cup" would be "Club World Cup" and 2014-15 AFC Champions League" should be "Champions League" (with wikilink to correct season torunament like [[2014–15 UEFA Champions League#Group stage|Champions League Group stage]]). In cases with multiple tournaments rounds may also be omitted like "Qualification to Champions League and Final series" if the information gets long.

The colors can be described in the following table

Type Green Blue Yellow Red Black Extra Color
National club
Top flight		 Champions League/Copa Libertadores
Top in country green1, lighter green for earlier rounds		 Second continental tournament
Top in country blue1, lighter blue for earlier rounds		 Tertiary continental tournament
National play-offs/post-league play for title or continental cup entries		 Relegation and relegation play-offs
Lighter colours depending on rounds		 Teams does not play a full season and/or their results are expunged or void Global tournament
Club World Cup
National club
Lower divisions		 Direct promotion
Tier 1 play-offs between leagues/groups at same level when no promotion exists		 Cup win qualification for continental tournament
Domestic cup qualification		 Promotion play-offs
Tier 2 play-offs between leagues/groups at same level when no promotion exists		 Relegation and relegation play-offs
Lighter colours depending on rounds		 Teams does not play a full season and/or their results are expunged or void Extra
(if needed)
International club Direct to next round Secondary result (play-off or lower tournament) Tertiary result (play-off or lower tournament) Relegation (if applicable) Teams does not play a full season and/or their results are expunged or void Extra
(if needed)
National teams Direct to next round Secondary result (e.g. play-off) Tertiary result Relegation (if applicable) Teams does not play a full season and/or their results are expunged or void Extra
(if needed)

Any comments? QED237 (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@CRwikiCA, Arbero, Equineducklings, Jkudlick, Brudder Andrusha, Kante4, and Struway2: that has been involved earlier. QED237 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Koppapa and J man708: Apperently all did not work QED237 (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks ok. -Koppapa (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree - The more I see that bronze colour, the more I like it. This proposal would see a page such as the 2013-14 Moroccan League showing the following changes...
{{Fb cl header}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=1 |t=[[Moghreb Tétouan]]         |w=16|d=10 |l=4 |gf=36|ga=25|bc=#FEDCBA|champion=y}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=1|competition=Qualification to [[2014 FIFA Club World Cup#Play-off for quarter-finals|Club World Cup]] and [[2015 CAF Champions League|Champions League]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=2 |t=[[Raja Casablanca]]         |w=16|d=7 |l=7 |gf=40|ga=15|bc=#BBF3BB}}
{{Fb cl3 qr|rows=1 |competition=Qualification to [[2015 CAF Champions League|Champions League]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=3 |t=[[FUS Rabat]]               |w=12|d=12|l=6 |gf=31|ga=21|bc=#BBF3FF}}
{{Fb cl3 qr|rows=1 |competition=Qualification to [[2015 CAF Confederation Cup|Confederation Cup]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=4 |t=[[Kawkab Marrakech]]        |w=11|d=15|l=4 |gf=30|ga=19}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=5 |t=[[Difaâ El Jadida]]         |w=10|d=15|l=5 |gf=30|ga=19}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=6 |t=[[Wydad Casablanca]]        |w=10|d=13|l=7 |gf=34|ga=29}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=7 |t=[[FAR Rabat]]               |w=9 |d=12|l=9 |gf=30|ga=30}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=8 |t=[[Hassania Agadir]]         |w=10|d=8 |l=12|gf=36|ga=43}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=9 |t=[[RSB Berkane]]             |w=6 |d=17|l=7 |gf=24|ga=22|pn=1|bc=#BBF3FF}}
{{Fb cl3 qr|rows=1 |competition=Qualification to [[2015 CAF Confederation Cup|Confederation Cup]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=10|t=[[Chabab Rif Hoceima]]      |w=10|d=6 |l=14|gf=23|ga=32|dp=1|pn=2}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=11|t=[[Olympic Safi]]            |w=7 |d=12|l=11|gf=28|ga=30}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=12|t=[[KAC Kénitra]]             |w=6 |d=14|l=10|gf=21|ga=31}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=13|t=[[Olympique Khouribga]]     |w=8 |d=9 |l=13|gf=20|ga=35|dp=2|pn=3}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=14|t=[[Maghreb Fès]]             |w=7 |d=10|l=13|gf=27|ga=36}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=15|t=[[AS Salé]]                 |w=6 |d=11|l=13|gf=25|ga=33|bc=#FFBBBB|relegated=y}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |relegation=n |rows=2 |competition=[[Botola 2]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=16|t=[[Wydad Fès]]               |w=5 |d=11|l=14|gf=26|ga=41|bc=#FFBBBB|relegated=y}}
{{Fb cl footer |u=26 May 2014|s=Link on page |date=1 May 2014}}
<sup>1</sup>RSB Berkane qualified for the [[2015 CAF Confederation Cup]] as runners-up of the [[Coupe du Trône|2014 Coupe du Trône]] since winners FUS de Rabat qualified for the [[2015 CAF Confederation Cup]].<br>
<sup>2</sup>Chabab Rif Hoceima were deducted 1 point.<br>
<sup>3</sup>Olympique Khouribga were deducted 2 points.
This shows the tournament(s) that the teams qualify for, ordering them by importance and having the colouring system showing this additionally. It is heavily disambiguating, while not adding excessive and hard to follow information for the reader. - J man708 (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@J man708: But we said not to show Confederation? That would mean no CAF. QED237 (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
My bad. I did it at like 3:00am. - J man708 (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is a nice concise chart, and I feel that this can work. — Jkudlick tcs 15:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per prior discussion. CRwikiCA talk 19:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on the previous discussion and the unanimous consent for the consensus proposal, we can safely say this has passed and can be implemented now. CRwikiCA talk 16:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I copied the consensus to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/League_season#Table_formatting for future reference as well CRwikiCA talk 16:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

English club categories

Is it just me, or is the categorisation of English clubs a bit all over the place? Some clubs are in both "Football clubs in [county]" and "Football clubs in England" (eg Gillingham), some are in the county category but not the England category (eg Ashford United), and some are in the England category but not the county category (eg Celtic Nation). Should clubs actually be in both the county and England categories or just the county one (in which case lots of clubs need moving)?

Also, defunct clubs are not in "Football clubs in England", as there is a separate category of "Defunct football clubs in England", but at county level there are no separate defunct club categories, so active and defunct clubs are lumped in together, meaning that a club like Dover are in a separate defunct clubs category at national level, but just the generic "Football clubs in [county]" category at that level - does there need to be some clean-up/re-jigging there too..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I raised this quite recently. All current clubs should be in Category:Football clubs in England as (a) county categories also contain defunct clubs and (b) it's really helpful to have a single category where you can see all the clubs (it helps me spot the non-notable ones that people add from time to time). Number 57 10:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with N57, and this applies to all countries (Brazil is one especially bad for this in my experience). GiantSnowman 11:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Young players who played first team football at a low level?

Both Melker Hallberg and Carlos Strandberg played first team football at ages 13/15 in the swedish seventh tier. The clubs that they played for (Möre BK and Hisingsbacka FC) are currently only listed in their youth career sections (which is correct, but they also represented those first teams). I had previously added that data in the "senior career" infoboxes but it has since been deleted. Should such info not be included? 2A00:801:210:98A0:F00A:3A55:670E:87FB (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes - they have started their senior career, and non-league/lower-league football is not "youth career". GiantSnowman 09:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

(Un)-reliable sources

Question: is adding a source for a match report such as this one (http://www.fcporto.pt/pt/futebol/fichas-de-jogo/Pages/FCPorto-Sporting.aspx) biased? I believe it's pretty much the same as adding an official website release for when a player is purchased, no? Just as long as the storyline that accompanies the source is not biased and/or contains POV...

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Better than no source i guess. -Koppapa (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
What Koppapa said. But third-party sources are better, and English-language third party sources are better still. The difference between this and using a club site for transfers is that the only reliable at-the-time sources for the completion of a transfer are the club(s) concerned. That's not the case with incidents in a match. If we're talking Cristian Tello, using the word "triumph", especially if combined with a source from the winning club's website, certainly makes the sentence look biased, even though I'm guessing no such implication was intended. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
84.90.219.128 took it personally when I labeled the club's source as "biased" because the player is their employee. Ligaportugal.pt is a better source for Primeira Liga matches. SLBedit (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
As I said above, I don't think that using a club source for Tello having scored all three goals in a match is biased. Might have been more tactful to say "change to independent source". But using an independent English-language reliable source is better, so long as it clearly verifies the content. I think I'll add one, and copyedit the sentence to remove "triumph", which is a much less neutral word than "win". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Dantetheperuvian

Dantetheperuvian (talk · contribs) is trying to erase corruption scandal related to Juventus. SLBedit (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete what? This template is about match fixing ("as a match is played to a completely or partially pre-determined result, violating the rules of the game and often the law") not about corruption in association football which could well include this, this and more. 2006 Italian football scandal has ZERO match fixing cases according 2 of 2 sentences in the sporting trial (2006) and 2 of 2 sentences in the ordinary trial (2007-2014), so is completely ridiculous to insist with a fully rejected theory by the Italian justice system (cf. pages 195; 199; 200-202 of the last sentence for more details). Finally, pretending to include it in the introduction of the club reminding that any article's introduction is generic and this is a very specific episode- is completely irrelevant especially when the paragraph is talking about the number of championships in the highest level of football were played. Finally, I don't see the introduction of the articles of Milan and Lazio why the decline in 1980 (when it was a truly match-fixing case) and neither in the Lazio and Fiorentina's artcles why both clubs initially were relegated in B in 2006. Security because they will not be interested...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for map help

I made an article on the Aston Villa F.C.–West Bromwich Albion F.C. rivalry. Could somebody who is clever put in a map of the West Midlands county as the lead image, with pins on Villa Park and the Hawthorns? Thank you. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

France national women football team templates

I noticed that the squad templates for the French women team uses a different bg colour than the men squad templates, although both teams uses the same jersey and national colours. Plus, I checked most of the country with both squads (W & M) and all the women's team use the same templates than the men's.

{{France squad 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup}} {{France squad 2014 FIFA World Cup}}

I was thinking about changing the France Women's squads bg colours. Do you think there are reasons I shouldn't ? Tuttiseme (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I dont see no reason why they should not have the same color. QED237 (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, seems sensible. GiantSnowman 13:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Scarborough Town F.C.

Someone has deleted Scarborough Town F.C. after a very short-lived AfD debate by a meagre score of 2-1 (WP:RAPID). I maintain that the club is a significant part of Scarborough F.C. and Scarborough Athletic F.C.'s history, as the second phoenix club almost split the fan-base in half causing a massive rift, which is not insignificant in the context of Scarborough's footballing history (WP:LASTING). Yes I know that the club has not played in a fully professional league (and how could it) but neither did Scarborough Athletic upon its formation and the assumption is they tried to emulate the original Scarborough club, i.e. they were aiming to climb up the leagues (which they did before they suddenly went bust).

For the purposes of Wiki-policy it satisfies WP:GNG:
"Significant coverage": it's had more than enough coverage in the media, mostly local but they're still independent sources
"Reliable": newspapers independent of the subject are a reliable source
"Sources"- "multiple sources are generally expected" - well it met that criteria too
Obviously it has now largely been forgotten as everyone is concentrating on Athletic's progress. However at the time the club was very much on par with Athletic in terms of coverage.

Also it is not WP:ROUTINE: The club's movements were monitored because they were a hope of rebuilding football in the town. That is comparable to Hereford F.C. who are, as of yet to even enter a league. In a hypothetical situation, if they were to fold in 3 years, I don't think that would suddenly would make the article useless (WP:NTEMP)

At the AfD discussion it said that the club has not been noted for anything. Well that's not true, it had attendances between 200-400, which may seem not much, but is very comparable to teams like 1874 Northwich and Enfield Town which are much higher up, and significant proportion of overall Scarborough fans.

Therefore I propose to restore the article Abcmaxx (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

(continued)

So the WP:Deletion review said that once the current problems are resolved the article is ready to be moved back into mainspace. I've added some reliable sources and minor tweaks here and there, anyone who fancies improving the current draft it's here: User:Abcmaxx/Scarborough Town F.C. - anyone who thinks it's ready to be moved back into mainspace, please move it.Abcmaxx (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Have they ever played in a national cup competition? I still don't think they are notable. JMHamo (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
You realise that is not the sole criteria? Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 2 Abcmaxx (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a core criteria... putting it simply this club does not pass. JMHamo (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not really a core criteria, except in terms of this project. WP:GNG is a core criteria, and there are certain clubs that do not meet the cup rule, but are clearly notable – Wallsend Boys Club being one. Scarborough Town may just about be another given the circumstances under which they were formed – they are certainly far better known than most step 7 clubs. Number 57 22:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I mean WP:GNG is a core criteria, sorry for the confusion. This has already gone through Deletion review and the new draft does not show notability in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In regards to Wallsend Boys Club, a claim that "The club is well known for producing professional footballers; more than 65 players from the club have gone on to play professionally." is something notable, which can't be said for Scarborough Town. JMHamo (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Do I really have to point out that different clubs can be notable for different reasons? Number 57 22:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Well I guess that's my point.. what makes Scarborough Town notable in your opinion (assuming you think they are notable at all)? JMHamo (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:JMHamo Surely read the draft first at least? They're notable for the same reason Hereford F.C. are notable right now Abcmaxx (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I have read (again) and added [dead link] beside the 7 citations that no longer work and 2 in the External links. JMHamo (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence of GNG here, the majority of linksare to local, i.e. town-level newspapers. Where is the significant non-routine coverage of the club outside of Scarborough? Fenix down (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Brackets

Hi,

From what I know we do not add brackets until we know all meetings (after last draw) because brackets put teams together, for example winners of quarter-final 1 and 2 have a line together for semi final 1. That is one of the reasons for This TfD of Template:2014–15 UEFA Champions League knockout phase bracket. There also already exist a hardcoded version at 2014–15 UEFA Champions League knockout phase whoch has been commented out for a reason. Please voice your opinion at the TfD if you agree or not agree. QED237 (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, serves no purpose in its current form, but ins't included anywhere and will be recreated anyway. Just letting it sit is the easiest thing to do. -Koppapa (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Steaua Bucharest goalscorers list

Hi. I'm involved in a bit of an edit war happening at FC Steaua București regarding a list of every player to ever score for the club being included on the page - I have also started a discussion at Talk:FC Steaua București#List of goalscorers. The input of third parties would be welcome. Ta. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Premier League Golden Boot & English First Division top scorers

Templates one and two overlap. It seems strange to include both in player articles, should they not be merged in some way?--EchetusXe 10:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Up until the early hours of this morning (UK time), template 2 only listed the top scorers up to 1992 (i.e. when the First Division ceased to be the top flight). An IP added in the top scorers from 1993 earlier today...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Why other Brazilian state leagues aren't fully professional?

Hi everyone,

I saw that Campeonato Paulista is listed as a fully pro competition, but Campeonato Carioca, Campeonato Mineiro and Campeonato Gaúcho and others are professional too, according to their federations.

1) In Campeonato Carioca, the first paragraph of the regulation, it says: O Campeonato Estadual de Futebol da Série A de profissionais será realizado com a participação de 16 associações a saber [...];

2) Mineiro: in the Art. 21, it says: É vedada a participação de atletas não profissionais com idade superior a 20 (vinte) anos., which means that only professional and youth players (yes, in Brazil a player can have a youth contract until his 20th birthday) can play;

3) Gauchão: The same rules as the Mineiro are applied, only with a limit of three youth players.

Can someone please shed me a light and explain why they're not fully pro? Cheers, MYS77 ✉ 14:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

They are probably missing, because noone aded them to the list. -Koppapa (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe if we reach a consensus, then we can add them to the list, right? Cheers, MYS77 ✉ 17:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is probably best off at WT:FPL. GiantSnowman 18:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Moved. Cheers, MYS77 ✉ 19:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Football at the 2015 All-Africa Games – Men's qualification

Wow, tough to find onfo on this tourney. I can't even find a section at the CAF website. All they report now is over the U20 championship. The AAG is a under-23 competition. Anyone able to find the last two missing second round fixtures? Also this had a completely different draw and structure, ie 3 rounds, strange. Second question, the women of Madagascar played most likely their first FIFA match evern in the qualifying. That seems noteworthy and should be mentioned anywhere in press right? Can't find a source. Thirdly i guess squad articles aren't needed for this one? Should the 2011 oncomplete one redirected to main tourney? -Koppapa (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Koppapa: The fixtures in the Kawowo link were for the 2015 CAF U-23 Championship qualification tournament. Many African news outlets are getting it wrong and being confused by the fact that two U23 age group competitions are taking place in the same year. It's not been advertised very well. TheBigJagielka (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Football box

I made a proposal for the football box template at Template_talk:Football_box#Google_using_Microformat_summary but I haven't had any feedback for a fortnight. Please let me know what you think. TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

GCC Champions league

The 2015 GCC Champions League page is seriously flawed and incomplete. For example, there are 4 groups, not 3. Here is the official website for the competition. Anyone interested in updating and improving the page? BTW, pages for previous editions also need improvement. Sofeshue (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sofeshue: I'll attempt to fix it after I'm done with my somewhat break. It might take a good while for me to get around to it, but I'll add it to the "To Do" list that I have on my userpage. - J man708 (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

AS Monaco

Hey guys, just wondering why AS Monaco is listed as just Monaco on their league tables. I've personally always known them to be called AS Monaco, rather like AC Milan, Malmö FF or Sporting CP. I know that in cases like Arsenal FC, we ditch the FC, but I feel as though this clubs is called AS Monaco far more often than it is referred to as just Monaco. Thoughts? - J man708 (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no codified norms for this outside of Germany (see WP:KARLSRUHER). It depends on what the local norm is. In England, where every club is either an F.C. or an A.F.C., including it would be redundant. I'm not sure what the norms in France are though, so I'm going to trust that the people who wrote the Ligue 1 season article do. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
There was a small discussion at Talk:2014–15 UEFA Champions League#AS Monaco vs Monaco and after that we have used only monaco in both international tournaments and domestic as we should have same on both places (at least I think we should be consistent). But I can agree AS Monaco is also common. Malmö FF and Sporting CP is more common than just Malmö and Sporting, while for Monaco it is almost the same. QED237 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
In my experience the clubs which @J man708: mentions are almost always referred to as "Monaco" ("AS Monaco" also used sometimes), "Milan" ("AC Milan" also used sometimes - more frequent than "AS Monaco" at least), "Malmo" (never "Malmo FF"), and "Sporting Lisbon" (never "Sporting CP") in English-language sources. We pipe appropriately. GiantSnowman 20:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Malmö I can not agree with. We have to separate Malmö FF with IFK Malmö, in sweden these are always used, for example Malmö FF in text is often refeered to as MFF, IFK Göteborg is IFK and so on because there are several teams with same city name. QED237 (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, in English-language sources 'Malmo FF' is referred to as just 'Malmo'. GiantSnowman 21:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that might be a bad example. Perhaps Sydney FC is a better example, or Vejle BK? Either way, besides the UEFA site utilising Monaco, I can honestly say that here in Australia, I've never come across it without the AS prefix. I'm not going to push for a change on this one if it doesn't get much support, but I am honestly kinda surprised if a few people don't look at the tables that AS Monaco are in and wonder where the AS is. - J man708 (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Individual citations for honours

Is it preferable to use an individual source for every honour or one "catch all" citation. See this diff on Didier Drogba. My feeling is that it's better to have individual sources when possible. JMHamo (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't really matter, but personally I think the single source is preferable, as it provides less clutter. Number 57 16:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
And on seeing the version with individual citations, I think it's clearly preferable – the individual ones look awful. Number 57 16:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Good point. Thanks for your feedback JMHamo (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Every honour needs to be cited - but if there is one source that covers multiple honours (e.g. every honour won for Barcelona), then only the one source should be used. GiantSnowman 18:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Chairpersons!?

Template:Newcastle United F.C. chairpersons - is there some Wiki directive that we have to be PC? Are they not Chairmen?--Egghead06 (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Now at TfD. GiantSnowman 10:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hello fellow football editors. Two Ballon d'Or winners, Pavel Nedvěd and Lionel Messi are at Peer Review ahead of FAC nominations. Any feedback, particularly at the review page for Nedvěd would be appreciated. Thanks, C679 12:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is Nedvěd's infobox listing club honours? I thought it was only for national team honours. SLBedit (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits to date. The example used at the template's own page, Template:Infobox football biography, uses leagues and cups of what appear to be club competitions. Thierry Henry is a FA and only lists international competitions there, but the issue isn't specifically addressed at the FAC or FAR pages. C679 14:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Most articles don't display honours in infobox. SLBedit (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I've removed them from the infobox, I can't see how they add to the quality of the article. Thanks, C679 15:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Request

As suggested by 84.90.219.128, I request that {{ForaDeJogo}} replaces ForaDeJogo.net links (in external links). SLBedit (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: BRFA filed GoingBatty (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

AmorPatiturMoras

AmorPatiturMoras created {{Football League First Division top scorers}} and replaced {{Football League Championship top scorers}} with it. SLBedit (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I've haven't really replaced it, per se. From Guy Whittingham (1993) to Andy Johnson (2004), these were the top scorers for the Football League First Division, and the rest from Nathan Ellington (2005) onwards are the top scorers for the Championship. So I just created another template for the First Division and edited the other names out for the Championship template. (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The First Division template should be merged with the original one. The Second and Third templates have almost 100 seasons missing.--EchetusXe 00:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Point taken. It's fortunate I have the rest of the Second Division seasons in my sandbox. S'pose you can put the other three templates up for deletion, then. (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@AmorPatiturMoras: - given your recent history (with a large number of your templates being deleted at TFD) - I would suggest you seek outside guidance before you start creating any more. Please also sign your posts with 4 x tildes. GiantSnowman 08:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@AmorPatiturMoras: - It is not a problem. If you use this source then you can update the two templates if you like. Then they will be well worth keeping. Cheers.--EchetusXe 11:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Now it's 86.154.59.213. SLBedit (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice work AmorPatiturMoras.--EchetusXe 00:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@AmorPatiturMoras: Please would you add your source(s) to the templates. They don't need to be visible at the player articles, but they do need to be present in the template source, and ideally visible at the template page without having to go into the edit window to see where the content comes from. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Women footballers and Positional Categories

I have noticed that very few women footballers are included in positional Categories (such as Category:Association football midfielders etc.). Should these articles be included in the general categories or should they be included in more specific ones such as Category:Association women's football midfielders? Personally I think that they should be included in the more general categories, for example just because Hope Solo and Tim Howard are different genders doesn't mean they play by the same rules and serve the same purpose for their team. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Included in the general categories. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Adnan Januzaj

Can I have an opinion on this addition to the Adnan Januzaj article. In my opinion having more yellow cards than goals means nothing and the Daily Mail is not the best of reliable sources. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Tabloid trivia and recentism. Remove. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_93&oldid=1136051745"