Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 98

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

Archive 99

Archive 100

→

Archive 105

English club notability

Is there any chance we could set definite paremeters for the notability of clubs in England? For years we've had discussions regarding whether clubs that have competed in the FA Vase are notable. (here, here and here amongst many others).

The semi-agreed consensus has always been that a club that has competed in the FA Cup, Trophy, Amateur Cup or Vase is worthy of an article.

There are thousands upon thousands of clubs who have competed in one of the above four competitions. Hundreds of these will have played fewer than a handful of games in front of fewer than a handful of fans - and these are supposed to be notable?

Personally, I believe only clubs that have competed in the FA Cup should be notable, as this is THE national cup (not sure why the Trophy, Amateur Cup and Vase qualify for this)

If we are going to continue to allow clubs that have played in the Trophy, Amateur Cup and Vase to be deemed notable, I think we should at least have a cut-off point to weed out those who only played a few games in the qualifying rounds.

My proposal would be for clubs to have made it to the First Round proper of the Trophy, Amateur Cup or Vase to be deemed notable.

Clubs that have played in the Trophy should have played in the FA Cup anyway. Clubs that haven't reached the 1st Round of the Amateur Cup or Vase, and have never played in the FA Cup, should not be eligible for an article in my opinion.

Are we up for reaching a consensus on this one?

As shown in the links I posted earlier, there seems to be an appetite to change the rules, but we never seem to actually get anywhere! Kivo (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the current consensus, and certainly no reason why it needs to become more restrictive. I'm slightly bemused by the claim that there seems to be appetite to change the rules, as I don't see any. Number 57 13:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, here is a list of clubs who played just one game in the FA Amateur Cup -

• 1st Kings Dragoons Guards (1932)
• 1st Queens Royal Regiment (1926)
• 1st South Lancs Regiment (1900)
• 1st Welsh Guards (1924)
• 1st Yorkshire Regiment (1900)
• 2nd Royal Fusiliers (1904)
• 2nd Training Battalion RAOC (1951)
• 37th Company GRA (1910)
• 5th Company BB OB (1925)
• 12th London Regiment Rangers (1924)
• 16th Company RGA (1910)

As you can see, the above is an alphabetical list of clubs (before you even get to A...) that played just one game in the FA Amateur Cup. Are they notable? There are hundreds of these clubs in the Amateur Cup alone, before even starting with the Vase. I think a cut-off point of 1st Round proper would cut down on the amount of pointless articles. Kivo (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone written articles on these clubs? If not, then what's the problem. If so, then what do they look like? Number 57 13:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

They haven't, but they could, and they could for the other hundreds like them - there would be little to no information on them other than that they had played one game on a field somewhere over a century ago. Do we really need articles like that?Kivo (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's see what the articles look like if and when they are created. Although they may have only played one match in the FA Amateur Cup, perhaps they have a more distinguished history in other competitions. I think you're trying to legislate for an imagined problem at the moment. Number 57 15:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, we shouldn't be worrying about issues that haven't cropped up yet (and most likely never will), seeing as we have more than enough issues that -have- already cropped up. Madcynic (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have always interpreted club notability to be limited to the one national cup in each country (which in England, is obviously the FA Cup). I think that makes the most sense. If articles have been created for clubs which have not played the national cup of a country, they can always be put up for deletion and a decision can be made then. Equineducklings (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Nazareth Illit football clubs naming

I'd appreciate some help with the following issue: There are two football clubs in Nazareth Illit, currently going by the names Hapoel Nazareth Illit (in Liga Leumit) and F.C. Nazareth Illit (in Liga Gimel. The problem is that Hapoel was known for several seasons as F.C. Nazareth Illit, while the other F.C. Nazareth Illit (formerly Maccabi Nazareth Illit) was known as F.C. Nazareth Illit Hanan Ohayon, as it was named after firefighter Hanan Ohayon. However, recently Ohayon's family asked the club to remove the name off the club, which the club did and registered to play in 2015–16 season as F.C. Nazareth Illit.
Complying to the family's request, F.C. Nazareth Illit Hanan Ohayon's article name should be changed to F.C. Nazareth Illit, which would create a problem with the current article under this name (which should be moved to Hapoel Nazareth Illit F.C. anyway, as I reckon). What can I do to sort it all out?--Eranrabl (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Hapoel article should be moved, and the F.C. Nazareth Illit article moved to that title. It can have a hatnote on it redirecting users to the Hapoel article too. Number 57 08:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Colourful Navboxes

Per the MOS I made this edit [1] (admittedly I made a mess of the edit summary). Given sports projects tenancy to have local consensus to ignore parts of the MOS, I thought I'd ask what users think .

For me honestly it is difficult to read this template when it's coloured and it's not even one of the worst. For the minor if any value of having the same colour as the team's kit would it not be better to keep these clear? Gnevin (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit, input the values Foreground color: #00a050 , Background color: #f7f408 from {{Norwich_City_F.C.}} to see a fail on the contrast checker [2] . Gnevin (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

True, some color schemes could provide a WP:ACCESS issue. In general, I think that the schemes should be amended for better contrast; if that is not possible with the club colors, either incorporate white as background or text color or switch to the default. As for the particular template in question, how about just switching red with black? Or is it equally difficult to read? – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Black on Red or Red on Black both result in 3 fails Gnevin (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Use white text, it is contrasting against both red and black and it's the club's tertiary colour. VEO^onefive 11:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Why use the colours at all? Gnevin (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else? Gnevin (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You may consider the colours decorative or garish or whatever, but if you pick the right colours, they can make the article look at least half-decent. Having a row of navboxes at the bottom of the page all the same colour makes the page look a little bit stale, and having the correct colours can help you pick out the navbox you want at a glance. Obviously we have accessibility issues to take into account, but as long as those are dealt with, there shouldn't be a problem. – PeeJay 15:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I do consider the colour garish but more importantly I struggle to read them.

While having the 'right' colour may lead to a 'half decent' look the apposite is also true having rows of conflicting navboxes after a name player has played and coached for dozens of teams makes the page look terrible again Giovanni Trapattoni managerial positions for example .

How do they help you pick items at a glance? Does anyone actually think he played for Scotland I'll look for Blue and Navy? Also its seems like this project has taken the wise decision to group similar boxes using {{navboxes}} which negates this somewhat

Standard colours prevent any access issues, prevent issues with multiple conflicting colours and with no lose to the project Gnevin (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

French football season articles

Does anyone here have the time to gather information for and complete the 2014–15 and 2015–16 French football season articles? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Santiago Island League (South) and Senegal Premier League vs. WP:FPL

Does anybody know whether the Santiago Island League (South) and especially the Senegal Premier League are fully pro? Both are not listed at WP:FPL. The answer on these questions would affect the treatment of 2014–15 Boavista (Cape Verde) football season and 2013–14 ASC Diaraf season. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Santiago League is definitely not. Senegal Premier League is also not professional to me, as I could not find any sources proving its professionalism. MYS77 ^✉ 23:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Being fully professional is not really a deciding factor. Both teams played in their countries top league in the respective years, so would appear to meet WP:NSEASONS. Fenix down (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think our project's interpretation of WP:NSEASONS is that it only applies to FPLs, regardless of whether they are top divisions or not. Number 57 15:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

FPL, then all players would be notable. NSeasons also says "should consist mainly of well sourced prose". But i guess 90% of all season articles don't achieve that. :-). -Koppapa (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Just 90 percent? ;-) Anyway, thanks for input. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Arna Ásgrímsdóttir

Hi all, I had a dispute regarding Arna Ásgrímsdóttir's position. At UEFA and Soccerway site, she is listed as a midfielder, but at her club site, she is listed as defender. Which source should be used to determine her position? Thank you. MbahGondrong (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

For position/height i would go club first. Kante4 (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you are now asking properly, instead of edit-warring and making lame pidgin-English threats, she converted to a centre half in 2011. When Gothenburg signed her they said "we are in need of a good defender". While you're here, perhaps some more eyes can be put on your conduct. You lazily churn out hundreds of dreadful sub-stubs and have an over reliance on Soccerway, which in itself is clearly not a suitable source to hang an article on. Målfarlig! (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@MbahGondrong and Målfarlig!: I am also very concernced about the really poor creations that can hardly count as stubs, and I have informed MbahGondrong about this before. If the creations are not improved a topic ban from creating articles could be a good idea. Qed237 (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a pity that Målfarlig! couldn't have added the source for her being a defender to the article. It has none. Plus, nor is there any source to verify their changes to her Þór Akureyri stats. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've done it now, although I am very tired of continually having to do this and basically wipe this clown's backside for him. Since Qed237 and I made our intervention, MbahGondrong has waged a lame campaign of harassment and edit-warring. He suddenly developed a radical interpretation of WP:INFOBOXREF and decided to apply it very rigidly... but only (!) to articles I'd recently been active on. The result was stupid edits - usually garbled/badly-written sentence fragments in the lede, as well as in the infobox. It isn't even a WP:competence issue because it's vexatious: defacing articles and deliberately introducing factual errors. As I see it we've got nothing to lose and everything to gain with a topic ban for MbahGondrong. His edits are pointless - at best - and his stubs are almost always worse than a red link. Unfortunately, it will take decent editors like me months if not years to clean up the mess he has already made. Målfarlig! (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Målfarlig!: Is it that hard to add the source and sentence in the article that mentions she plays as a defender? That was what I asked for in the reverts I made. I have always asked properly on any of our previous debate and I don't think that I used the threat words on you. If you think that my actions are unacceptable or even disruptive, why don't you just report me? It's as simple as that. It is clear now that for you, every edit I made will be always wrong or incorrect, since you added the source to the article after Struway2 mentioned about it. User:Qed237: If you think that a topic ban is required for me, then request for it and we will see what will happen. At least you are not talking to me with arrogant words, but with a constructive approach, that I genuinely appreciate. MbahGondrong (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Målfarlig!: According to the player's page at the KSI website, she appears to have 135 league appearances, not the 129 that you added to the infobox. What am I misunderstanding? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Cristiano Ronaldo

Is this template (and this one) necessary? User:Davykamanzi claims it's to avoid statistical errors between the players' individual articles and the one about their rivalry, but I think this is a little excessive. Thoughts? – PeeJay 15:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I think it would save time having to constantly update their templates on the three articles, especially with the involvement of IPs in doing so. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 15:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I get that, but to call an extra template (which itself has another template embedded in it) just to avoid the odd statistical error seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. – PeeJay 15:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking the same as PeeJay. Also, when going to the talkpage there is absolutely no access to the template (often there is v,t,e buttons), so extra work is required to actual find it and edit it, which may lead to editors not doing the updating. Qed237 (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

And reducing from editing on three places, to two places is not really that much when considering that it becomes template inside template that is hard to access. Qed237 (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Are the respective full infoboxes needed on the rivalry article anyway.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

No. This template should be deleted, the infobox use only in the Ronaldo article. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Matty. We don't need their templates in the rivalry article. MYS77 ^✉ 22:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 10#Template:Infobox Lionel Messi now... JMHamo (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

St. Mary's Young Men's Association

Isn't this just an earlier incarnation of the modern Southampton F.C.? If so, there's no reason for it to have a separate article. Opinions......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging article creator @Kő Cloch: -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Should be merged with Southampton/History of Southampton if it's the same organisation just renamed. Number 57 08:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this article text should be used to expand History of Southampton F.C., so redirect St. Mary's Young Men's Association... JMHamo (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay @ChrisTheDude: -- Kő Cloch (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC) take a look at this article on Thames Ironworks F.C., a club that would later become West Ham United F.C.. St. Mary's Y.M.A. draws in links with the modern-day Southampton side and delves further into the history of the football club, such as how Southampton came to be and how they adopted the nickname "the Saints". The article should not cease to exist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kő Cloch (talk • contribs)

Why should it continue to exist? You're citing West Ham as some great example of why articles on precursor clubs should exist, but we don't have separate articles on Newton Heath LYR F.C. or Ardwick F.C. You should integrate the content on St Mary's YMA into the Southampton articles. – PeeJay 18:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have had a look at the Thames Ironworks article as requested and I don't believe there is any reason why a separate article should exist there either -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The West Ham United article is already at 147kb. WP:TOOBIG suggest splitting off at 100kb. Adding in Thames Ironworks compounds the issue.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The amount of coverage of TIW in the main West Ham article is probably already appropriate. The content in the current TIW article could be condensed (the detail of each individual season is far too much given that separate season articles also exist) and merged into History of West Ham United F.C. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

TIW was formally wound up before WHU being formed to replace it, so they are, technically, different clubs. There's no consistency about whether we have one or two pages for clubs in that situation. For clubs with a long and distant past, and with the benefit of hindsight, we tend to accept that it makes sense to treat them together: Chesterfield Town were in the Football League and then folded before the First World War, and Chesterfield Municipal founded 1919 that became the current Chesterfield F.C. These days we usually have two pages: Darlington F.C. and Darlington 1883, for instance. But where a club just changes its name, as St Mary's YMA did to Southampton, or New Brompton to Gillingham, or Small Heath Alliance to Small Heath to Birmingham to Birmingham City, it's always been one and the same club, so that's how we treat it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Also agreed about the Thames Ironworks article being merged – I've always wondered why there was a separate article. Number 57 09:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: if the same level of detail (or slightly less) could be put together for the entire history of Southampton F.C., this could work as part of a series of History of Southampton F.C. articles, similar to the ones that made up the Liverpool F.C. featured topic. – PeeJay 09:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks as if the content of the St Mary's YMA article is pretty well copypasted from History of Southampton F.C. and 1885–86 St. Mary's Y.M.A. season anyway, so I don't think anything would be lost by redirecting it. In the longer term, PeeJay's idea could work, if enough additional content was available. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I was bold and redirected the article to History of Southampton F.C. JMHamo (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• You may be interested in a discussion concerning the redirect St. Mary's Y.M.A. F.C. which currently targets this article[/redirect]. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 11#St. Mary's Y.M.A. F.C.. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

National football team match results

I am planning to add the matches prior 1990 to this page, therefore it will soon need a breakdown. What should I consider as a fair period for each group of results (ten years, twenty years...)? Also, what would it be the correct title? Italy national football team xxxx–xxxx results, Italy national football team results (xxxx–xxxx) or something else? --Tanonero (msg) 17:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think twenty years is standard, see {{England national football team results}}. GiantSnowman 18:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks GiantSnowman, this is my long-term objective then. --Tanonero (msg) 18:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Are there other instances of this 20-year standard? Belgium, for example, is using decades (10 years) (it actually has all 700+ matches on 1 page, but details per decade). It would be interesting to see whether there is some sort of consensus about the best way to group them. As for the Italian page, I would say the main issue is that there are so many different sections within that article. You may be able to stay with a single page for a bit longer by using fewer tables, e.g. grouping per 5 years (just a suggestion). —Sygmoral (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I like the way Belgium pages are organised, they look neat. However, the titles are different from other "grouping" pages, such as the England's ones (England national football team results (1980–99) vs Belgium national football team results – 1980s. It's not a big deal, but in my opinion uniformity should be pursued. In the Italian pages, I started to change all the old tables with the football box template, which is nicer, more comprehensive and has a slot for a report. Unfortunately, this is quite time-consuming. With regards to the presence of sections per year, on one hand the page would surely be less busy-looking without them, on the other hand they allow an easier consultation. --Tanonero (msg) 18:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree of course that we should try to get some uniformity in these kind of articles. The question then is which one to follow! France and England seem to have copied each other's layout (going per 20 years), but Spain is going per decade just like Belgium is. The Netherlands simply has one article per year (gosh). One benefit of "1980s" versus "1980-1989" then is that is looks more readable and suffers from less 'numerism' :) It's very repetitive and a little chaotic to see ...0-...9 on every line. But of course you can't do that shortening on periods of 20 years (although England's page actually says 2000s, despite also including the 2010s). Anyway, to conclude: I very much like that template France and England are using on the top right of every such article, but I would personally go with "1980s" etcetera. Those titles are more prose-like which makes it more Wikipedia-like (I think), and the 10-year periods are more easily digestible. Just my opinion! —Sygmoral (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the 20-year period is used more often (I also see it on Scotland, Wales, Portugal). So they are consistent with each other, but I guess the question remains whether that makes it the most suitable format (in terms of 'best Wikipedia practices')? —Sygmoral (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion sorting page

I do not regularly contribute to soccer related articles, but I suspect that the page WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football should be moved to WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Association football, given that the article about the form of football covered by this delsort page is titled association football, not football. I could move it myself, but first I want to know what those who know more about this subject than I do think. Everymorning (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

There is already a delsort section at WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football to cover gridiron football, though there is not a section for Australian football. Keep in mind that WP:DELSORT is its own wikiproject, so this idea should also be discussed there. I do know that there are a number of delsort scripts that would need to be updated (for example, I use WP:FWDS), so this would take more than just a page move. I'm not necessarily against the idea, but I don't see a need to do it if there isn't a pressing need. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Stadium in Bordeaux

Hi, I saw that the Stadium in Bordeaux has been moved a few days ago from 'Nouveau Stade de Bordeaux' to Matmut Atlantique without any motivation so I need help to determine the correct name. UEFA calls the stadium 'Nouveau Stade de Bordeaux' (see this matchreport as an example), but this article (from stadiumdb.com, is that source reliable?) says that name will officially change to 'Matmut Atlantique' for 10 years after a sponsor deal.

So what should the name of article be? I have heard we should not use temporary sponsornames and move articles around when stadiums change names? On the other hand we have other sponsornamed stadiums (WP:OSE, I know). Qed237 (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Qed237: There are stadiums like the Macron Stadium (formerly Reebok Stadium) which never had a non-sponsored name, thus they are moved when the name changes (see also Toyota Stadium, formerly Pizza Hut Park). On the other hand, the City of Manchester Stadium was called that until the Etihad sponsorship, and will revert to original when the sponsorship ends. UEFA, FIFA and the IOC use neutral names when stadiums are named after companies which are not their own sponsors, like the Ricoh Arena became the "City of Coventry Stadium". I don't know the specifics in Bordeaux, just some more information here. '''tAD''' (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Arsenal red cards under Arsène Wenger

Uhm... opinions? – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I really question the notability of the subject matter, but I will leave it to those more well versed in FA statistics to determine the proper course of action. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 08:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre. The topic itself may be notable as a "criticism" of Arsenes management style (i.e. the "I didn't see it") and failure to control his team (if you can even attribute such behaviour to the manager) but it should be dealt with within the larger context of his career rather than singling one aspect out and then going for a full blown listicle. Koncorde (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, yes. My first thought, before opening the article, was delete, as wikipedia is not a random collection of information. I have to admit, the list is impressive and very well referenced, but there are a couple of issues though: The period for the record of red card seems kind of random, unless if it is to prove some point of many or few red cards under Wengers' reign. A second issue is, the list have no link to the red card, as a red card in most cases not is notable for an article, but to players and their country of origin. But the acceptance of an article as List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney breaks down the second issue. It is no longer needed any single object at the list to be worth an own article, for concidering the list itself to be notable. I think it could be worth concidering changing the timeline for the red card list, to like for every red card in the Premier League era. If presented like this, and without any real good reasons for delete, I think I would have voted keep if nominated for deletion. Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I think it would be much more sensible to do a list of red cards either within the Premier League itself or for professional matches whilst the club has been in the Premier League. Otherwise, I can't see many other articles passing WP:GNG except for maybe United red cards under Sir Alex or Everton reds under Moyes as no one else has lasted long enough. Spiderone 09:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Now at AfD. GiantSnowman 09:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is not a random collection of information though is it? When Wenger first arrived Arsenal's disciplinary record was one of the highest in European football, let alone England. It's notable: see here, FourFourTwo, here for a start. In Palmer's autobiography of Wenger, Spurling's 'Red Letter Days', Mihir Bose's 'Game Changer' and Lawrence's account of the Invincible team the high red-card count is alluded to. Over time, the trend has declined and his player's behaviour has improved. That's the whole point to the list. But even if Arsenal are more known for their style of play now, the red card list is an interesting anomaly that should not and can never be brushed away. It wouldn't apply to Ferguson or Moyes just because of their respective longevity. Ferguson's United picked up 49 red cards from 1986 to 2013. He was never scrutinised for that, rather his player conduct and outlandish discipline which is qualitative. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you imagine having an entire article dedicated to Fergie Time? No. Instead it's part of a larger topic i.e. Alex Ferguson. How about the an article about Utd's worst start to a Premier League season? No. Instead it's part of a larger topic i.e. David Moyes. By splitting this topic from the actual content of a biography A. it neatly circumvents balance and npov B. is almost certainly undue C. contributes practically nothing.

It's an interesting biographical note that should be dealt with as part of his biography, along with discussions about how he changed Arsenal from being "boring boring", his contributions to cosmopolitan nature of the Premier League, and his title successes. Y'know. Context. Koncorde (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the list comparable to List of FIFA World Cup red cards and List of FIFA Confederations Cup red cards or not? Spiderone 16:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 16:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This is just a fairly obvious WP:COATRACK for criticising Wenger, isn't it? I can't see any other reason for creating it. Number 57 20:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Dual internationalists category

Can category:dual internationalists (football) be split into those who represented more than one country as a result of political circumstances (eg. dissolution of a unified nation) and those who switched allegiance because of personal preference? Someone like Oleg Sergeyev had no other option as to who to pick at international level whereas Nacer Chadli did. 86.14.103.40 (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That was me, was using a different browser. VEO^onefive 14:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

As long as the reason for their dual international status is addressed and sourced in the article, I don't see why not. However, can we first determine whether or not "internationalist" is actually a word? I'm pretty sure it is, just not in this context. – PeeJay 14:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel I ought to point out this recent Guardian article that recently caught my eye. It talks about people to have played for more than two national sides. As for the naming issue, the disambiguations internationalist and internationalists don't mention those to have picked up caps for national sporting sides, though a quick Google News Archive search confirms what I had suspected: that it certainly used to have that sporting context. So it's perhaps archaic, but valid for usage in articles. Whether it should be in a category title is another question entirely... Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 14:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason for it to be split as proposed by OP, though it could be split by nations similar to Category:Dual Irish international footballers - so e.g. those who played for USSR and then Russia, or Yugoslavia and then Serbia etc. GiantSnowman 16:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There are at least a couple dozen USSR/Russia cases, for example, so in my view this would probably be best with a few separate categories, following the Irish example. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the term "internationalist", it is used in some parts of the world - I know for a fact that it is the standard term used in Scotland -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Neil Brown

I know a lot of people use/have used his site as a source. I may have missed earlier comments, but it's just been brought to my attention that Neil has passed away, there is an obituary on the front page of the site. Very sad news, it seems he was only 66 which is no great age -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, very sad news indeed. RIP. GiantSnowman 12:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

RIP Neil Brown. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know if arrangements have been made to keep the site up? Hack (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding continuation of the site, his widow has put a notice on the front page saying that "If anyone wishes to contact me, I can be reached at [email protected], particularly if there is anyone out there who can continue this great website that was praised the world over." Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah jeez. Great guy and a well maintained site, I e-mailed him with a correction and he updated the page and added my name to the list of thanks at the bottom! Hope someone continues his work.--EchetusXe 23:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Icematikx & One Sure Insurance

I've noticed on the Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C. article a SPA account Icematikx (talk · contribs) has been adding Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C.#Social Media Partners repeatedly, when he has a clear COI around One Sure Insurance . Could you please keep an eye out for this kind of thing. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

World Cup qualification match

Is Malaysia v Saudi Arabia (2018 FIFA World Cup qualifying) notable? Qed237 (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No.. one for AfD... JMHamo (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we also get rid of Serbia v Albania (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying) while we're at it? Number 57 12:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Serbia v Albania seems notable to me. Plus it is quite well-sourced. Not too sure about the other one, source-wise. Madcynic (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The Serbia/Albania game caused a diplomatic feud and riots in both countries. The Malaysia/Saudi game was called off just for angry fans on one side. That's the difference. '''tAD''' (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

How about Denmark v Sweden (UEFA Euro_2008 qualifying)?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems notable to me, and is well sourced. Malaysia Saudi Arabia however I do not believe is notable.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Are Club B stats considered part of Senior Career

I'm pretty sure they are but wanted to confirm. See Kingsley Coman or Ryan Mason for example where Club B stats are listed in infobox--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

They should be included if the B team plays in the normal league system. If they play in a separate reserves section, then not. As far as I can see, the B teams of the clubs detailed do play in the normal system, so their inclusion is appropriate. Number 57 20:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by normal league system? Fox example Olympique Lyonnais Reserves and Academy the reserve team of Lyon play in the french fourth division Championnat de France Amateur which is an amateur league. Should that count as senior career or not? Seems to be a grey area.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The normal league system is as you have described it: there is a direct path by which teams may be promoted from the French 4th Division to Ligue 1, so that's part of the same league system. – PeeJay 23:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

<reduce indent> That definition only works in league systems with full promotion and relegation. I'd say that they count unless the league in which the 'B' or 'reserve' team competes is one restricted to B and reserve teams only. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Season article question

When listing the league results in the season article, how should post-poned matches be treated? I.e. what if matchday 7 was actually played -after- matchday 8? Sort the list by actual matchdate or by the matchdays? Madcynic (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

For previous events, I just sort per match date, just to avoid confusions. MbahGondrong (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ladies and gents, I give you reason #31538132 why assigning round numbers to league games is a bad idea. Just sort by date. – PeeJay 16:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorted by date, left the matchday numbering in there - matchdays ARE numbered, after all, per DFB convention. Added a note to both matchdays involved, including a source. Should suffice. Madcynic (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Why do we have List of teams promoted from the English Football League Championship and predecessors and List of teams promoted from English Football League Two and its predecessors but List of winners of English Football League One and predecessors? Not only are they inconsistent with each other, but the word "English" should not be in there, because it does not form part of the name of any of the divisions..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Because originally they were all accurately called List of winners. But then they sprawled into listing runners-up, third- and fourth-placed teams, playoff winners and anything else they could find a column for, and got renamed to List of teams promoted, except for the one that didn't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Relegation/Promotion playoff matches

Hi all, just a short question, does relegation/promotion playoff matches counts as league appearances? MbahGondrong (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No. It says so explicitly at the infobox documentation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. MbahGondrong (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

What is a "nutmeg" called in Pakistan?

I just saw this edit, and I'm not sure whether it's accurate: from a quick search, it seems that "Panna" is a term used for nutmegging, but I can't find any source for "Chadda". --Slashme (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"Panna" seems the most common name around the world. Nutmeg is widely used in English-speaking countries, while in Brazil it is known by caneta or rolinho. I couldn't find any reliable sources to prove this other term, and I don't think it's accurate too. MYS77 ^✉ 20:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP issue

Read something which is probably a violation of WP:BLP in the first post-lead paragraph of Jerry-Christian Tchuissé AND the corresponding talk page. Could someone take a look at it, please? Thanks, C679 21:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Uncited, questionable, and the editor directed users to the chapter leader of the KKK. Out of courtesy I have blanked the accusations but admin could purge. Koncorde (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Cristiano Ronaldo hat-tricks

Are there any opinions on List of Cristiano Ronaldo hat-tricks? – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 05:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be WP:LISTCRUFT to me, specifically points 1, 2, 3, and 5 (possibly 8 and 12). — Jkudlick ^tc_s 08:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Utter nonsense, but then further exploration reveals dozens of these travesties. I have listed them all at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japan national football team hat-tricks Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What a ridiculous over-reaction. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Premier League hat-tricks, for one, is a long-standing FL...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have closed the AfD as fundamentally too complicated to produce a worthwhile consensus. This is not to say that any of the lists are notable or not and renomination may take place for any of them without prejudice. However, further discussion should take place here first on the inherent notability of hat tricks as list material and renominations made in useable batches (i.e. players, clubs, national teams, leagues) to enable sensible discussion. I simply don't believe that a couple of brief comments here are sufficient to warrant the mass nomination of these lists. Its fundamentally not helpful for a discussion to start here and then a mass nomination take place before this thread has had time to reach any conclusions. Fenix down (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: I suggest you re-nominate the player hat-tick article(s) for AFD, as they look to be non-notable - but I agree with @Fenix down: that further discussion is needed regarding leagues/national teams before further AFDs on those articles are created. GiantSnowman 11:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the relisting of this article; I have made other appropriate relistings ! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Why have you gone ahead and relisted all of the other articles, without any meaningful discussion? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Because that's what deletion discussions are for? I think that these articles should be deleted and started a discussion to see if others agree. If consensus is against me, then that's fine, but my understanding was that that was the point of having the AfD!Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You've ignored comments from two users (Fenix Down and GiantSnowman) that we should have a discussion at WP:FOOTY first. As WP:BEFORE notes, subject-specific guidelines should be checked. I don't think we have previously had a discussion here about the notability of hat-trick lists, therefore a discussion was needed here first before placing all of the articles on AfD. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll be honest - I scanned GiantSnowman and Fenix down's comments and didn't in either case read the final sentence until your comments prompted me to come back and look at them more closely. If I had seen those comments, I would probably have not listed. I was also not familiar with WP:BEFORE. Sorry for both of those errors. Equally, it's only a deletion discussion - I don't see the harm in listing them and thought that was the best thing to do if I felt that the articles ought to be deleted - I'm not really sure why you're having a go at me when I was doing what I thought was right! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The only way I can see this type of list being accepted is if we set a firm boundary. For example, if a player has scored 30 hat-tricks in professional football then they are eligible for such an article. Does this sound like an idea that might work? Spiderone 09:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Chancel Mbemba

Can someone please have a look at this edit on the Chancel Mbemba article. I added the CNN article on his multiple date of births (the article has photos of documents) to the article but a user has recently removed the section saying it was at the request of the player. I don't want to start an 'edit war' so I'm requesting a third party decide on whether it merits a mention in the article. TheBigJagielka (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, you should bring it back. CNN is a reliable source and true or untrue, the investigation did exist. MYS77 ^✉ 19:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Still mentioned in the article. So i guess it's ok. I re-added the link for further reading. -Koppapa (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

common name of Hellas Verona

common name of Hellas Verona F.C. was in fact Verona. Please refer to La repubblica (2) of this year. Hellas Verona may be used, but Hellas Verona had a long history as the only major team of Verona. It just silly to force people to stop calling A.C. Milan as Milan but starting to add useless edit to wikipedia by changing Milan to AC Milan.

If you need a voting game, just wake up the Italian task force of WikiProject Football. If you want a constructive discussion, point me out with some citation that Hellas Verona became the most common name of the club. Matthew_hk tc 20:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Oldest football clubs

I recently discovered the article Oldest football clubs. This page lists clubs founded before 1890 amongst all codes of football. I assume the list is far from complete because it seems primarily focused on Great Britain and Ireland. I, however, particularly noticed the article is lacking information on association football in South America.

The article only mentions Club Mercedes as the oldest club currently competing in any Argentine association football league. The source used for this claim is the website of the club itself, which however only mentions the foundation of Club Mercedes as a social club in 1875. It is not clear if the football section – which merged with the social club during the interbellum – was also established in that year. So it might be possible even older clubs exist in Argentina and South America.

And more important, the article does not mention the oldest club currently playing professional association football in South America.

Is there someone with a specific interest in the history of Latin American football that can elaborate this article? — 37 ^(talk) 03:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sporting nationality, again

I wonder if someone could point me to any consensus we have that covers the sporting nationality (as in, what country to list him with in his club's squad list) of Shane Lowry. Mr Lowry was born and raised in Australia. His parents are Irish, and he represented the Republic of Ireland at several under-age levels. He then declared for Australia, explicitly and with enthusiasm, and has been picked for the senior squad, sat on the bench for the senior squad, but is still uncapped, i.e. hasn't yet taken the field.

I listed him as Australian, despite the Irish caps, because I thought his declaration for Australia would override his under-age caps for Ireland, and I thought the wording of MOS:SPORTFLAGS "Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with. For example, if a sportsperson has represented a nation or has declared for a nation, then the national flag as determined by the sport governing body should be used" supported that view. Another editor has changed to Ireland, because they thought his playing for Ireland under-age teams overrode his declaration for Australia given he hasn't actually played for Australia, which is a not unreasonable way to look at it.

Do we have an established consensus that covers this? Pinging @Simione001: cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

He hasn't actually appeared on the pitch for Australia, but as you say, since playing for the Ireland under-age teams he has explicitly declared for Australia and, perhaps more pertinently in the sporting context, accepted call-ups to more than one full Australia squad and appeared on the Australia teamsheet on matchday. Though he didn't come off the bench on any of these occasions, this does in my mind amount to "representing" Football Federation Australia in line with the wording at MOS:SPORTFLAGS. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Declaring for Australia is evidence enough, but when combined with the AUS call-ups which post-date the IRL youth caps it's crystal clear. He's Australian. GiantSnowman 11:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Let' say he never winds up representing Australia. Should we ignore the fact that he played for Ireland because he's declared for a country he has never played for? That doesn't seem to make sense to me. The infobox says he's represented Ireland yet he's an Australian footballer... that doesn't seem logical to me either. At this moment his highest level of representation is Ireland not Australia therefore in my opinion he should be listed as Irish. I think the fact that he's played for Ireland makes him more an Irish footballer than Australian. Simione001 (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I would say he should be changed to Australian (although flags are a big bag o pish anyway). MOS Flags gives a few hints;

• "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." he is choosing to represent Australia, whether he has played or not is irrelevant.
• "Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with" he is associated with Senior International football team, which supercedes junior level representation.
• "If these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then a reliable source should be used to show who the sportsperson has chosen to represent." He is eligible to choose either nation (and likely elligible to choose others depending on his exact family line) so the reliable sources should take precedence based upon his choice.

So I would side with that. Koncorde (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with those saying "Australian" - it's 100% clear who he intends to play for and that should be represented - the reasons above from MOS flags are particularly relevant. If his Ireland caps don't carry weight with FIFA such that he is free to play for his country of choice (Australia), I don't thin they should carry that much weight here either. Macosal (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently just sitting on the bench is not enough to be tied to a particular nation. There is the case of Andrew Durante who sat on the bench for Australia in an Asian Cup qualifier but later played for New Zealand. In the case of Lowry, as he was an Irish international, Football Federation Australia would have put in an application to FIFA to switch nationalities. Hack (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I’m more concerned with factual mistakes in articles. The apps mentioned in Shane Lowry’s infobox differ from those cited in 2009–10 Leeds United F.C. season (11 vs. 12) and 2011–12 Millwall F.C. season (9 vs. 22). — 37 ^(talk) 12:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

So would I be... As for Leeds, the season article lists him with 12 apps in total: 11 league apps and 1 in the FL Trophy, which is what the career stats table on his article gives him. The infobox stats are only for league matches, so correctly list 11. As to Millwall, he had a loan spell during the 2011/12 season and then signed permanently. His infobox lists 9 apps on loan and then goes on to the permanent spell; his career stats clearly separate 11/12 into 9 loan and 13 permanent = 22 altogether. As far as I can tell, there are no errors in any of the pages. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! It indeed seems like the 13 appearances he made during the 2011–12 season after he signed permanently for Millwall, are counted in the infobox as apps made during the 2012–2014 seasons. I don’t understand the logic behind this though. — 37 ^(talk) 13:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Year ranges in the infobox are just that: years, not seasons. His loans at Plymouth and Leeds were both in the 09/10 season, but one was completely contained in 2009 and the other in 2010, so that's what the infobox says. He was on loan at Millwall from Nov 2011 to Jan 2012, so the infobox says 2011–2012, and the move was made permanent in late Jan 2012, so the infobox row for his permanent spell starts with 2012. See the infobox documentation, where it defines the yearsn parameter as "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each professional club", for confirmation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Newton F.C.

I recently created a page for Newton F.C., a side that played in the North West Counties League and FA Vase, but it was put up for deletion, and despite my protestations, it was given the hook. I have explained my reasons on the deleters talk page and he has put it back on, but with a speedy deletion tag still on - I would appreciate it if others with a bit more clout could help with contesting the deletion as it the only club to have played in the NWCFL's top two divisions not to have an article! Kivo (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The club's Football Club History Database page is here Kivo (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy deletion tag, but I have to ask why you are creating articles like this. If you're going to start an article, at least make sure you can put together a few paragraphs. Number 57 20:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Zlatan Ibrahimović albanian?

Hi, there is a discussion btetween me and User:Jjapanesitalianbritish on article Zlatan Ibrahimović. The editor insists on Zlatan being Albanian after this keepingscore.blogs.time.com. Zlatan is born in Sweden to Bosnian father and Croatian but I have never heard anything about him being Albanian. Can we trust this source or do we need more sources for this claim? Qed237 (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Not reliable source. Looks like the albanian nationalists are back adding stuff that player are Albanians... Kante4 (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. It's a blog, even if it's on TIME and by a respected journalist. Koncorde (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Blogs are unreliable because are written by random people, this is written by a journalist and you don't know half the stuff he knows. Do you really understand that you are calling an article for the most readed news source in the world and written by one of the best journalist "unreliable". Plus I have sources that he used to communicate in Albanian with his Albanian team mate at Malmo and also supported Albanians against Serbia. You never heard of it because it wasn't special in Sweden but I've heard of it. Jjapanesitalianbritish (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that it's a self-published source. verifiability policy explicitly says: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. (Emphasis original). Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

How can it be a self-published source it's an article he got admission to post it. Plus it's not even a blog, you can't discuss there you can only read it. I also have sources that he speaks Albanian. Jjapanesitalianbritish (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Either present the sources you claim to have or stop wasting everybody's time. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is one [3]. Jjapanesitalianbritish (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Your source only says that he can speak Albanian, not that he is one. As no other reliable sources were included in here, he is not Albanian. MYS77 ^✉ 07:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

According to Time.com journalist he is one and according to Albanian source he can speak Albanian and loves Albanians. Jjapanesitalianbritish (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you describe (and prove) exactly how he is Albanian? It's not a state of mind, so if it's true, he must have an Albanian ancestor. You cannot just claim it. Maybe you should visit ancestry.com ... HandsomeFella (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Well according to one of the best journalist of Time.com and specialized on Blakan (Zlatan's origin) he is Albanian, he speaks Albanian and loves Albanians. Even in the neighborhood he was born is full of Albanians. Croatia has an enormous Albanian community (Arbanasi) especially in Zadar (the place his mother comes from) and in Bosnia the Albanian lived there before even Sandzak. We have the sources I'm not saying he isn't Bosnian or Croatian, I'm saying he has some Albanian origin. Jjapanesitalianbritish (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's verifiability policy says a couple of pertinent things. At WP:NEWSBLOG, it says "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." At WP:REDFLAG, it says that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" (highlighting original), going on to say that this section may be relevant to "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". I see no multiple high-quality sources describing Mr Ibrahimovic as ethnically Albanian.

The biographies of living persons policy requires us to write conservatively about living people, and to ensure that we use high-quality sources. It also refers to media-hosted blogs, at WP:BLPSPS, with a slightly different emphasis: "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Unless you can confirm that blog to have been subject to TIME magazine's full editorial control, including fact-checking, it can't be used on a BLP.

Personally, I don't care whether Mr Ibrahimovic has Albanian ethnicity or not. I suspect that if he had, it would have been widely reported, because there are enough people sufficiently obsessed with such matters to make sure it was widely reported. I do care about people wasting the time of this encyclopedia's volunteers by forcing them to defend it from editors trying to impose their own obsessions on it, whether in good faith or otherwise. Thank you for listening. Struway2 (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the article is written by one of the most professional journalists of Time.com (which is the most readed news source in the world), it was written by him and the posted by Time.com because it's posted in their offical cite, plus there are other sources that he can speak Albanian, loves Albanians and born in a neighbourhood full of Albanians (the sources are the most reliable newspapers in Albania). Jjapanesitalianbritish (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, your arguments are always the same. You want to claim that he is Albanian (like most editors from Albania), but he is not Albanian or this would have been known already. Don't waste everyone's time and move on... Trying to add Albanian stuff on other articles aswell. Heard this story before (Ramos comes to mind). Kante4 (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I've readed the discussion about Ramos too but that's another case. The sources were all Albanian ones and the ethnicity wasn't citated. We have a great journalist here. And about Muhammad Ali, all Albanians know that he was Albanian. You base you thoughts only on your own belive not in the reliable sources, it seems that you just don't want to belive it. I'm tired of listening to you, why don't you just accept the fact that this claim is supported by Time.com and other reliable Albanian sources. The same case with Ramos, you disaggred with the user only because you never herd of it (I also don't belive the Albanian origin of Ramos), I also never heard the Spanish origin of Messi or the Japanese origin of David Silva but that dosen't mean they aren't. Jjapanesitalianbritish (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you perhaps show another reference other than the time blog. One brief throwaway mention in one article is certainly something that could reasonably be expected to be challenged. Fenix down (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that say that he can speak Albanian. Jjapanesitalianbritish (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

So what? Speaking Albanian does not make him Albanian. Please provide other sources indicating ethnic heritage. Fenix down (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know other sources other than the Time.com. Jjapanesitalianbritish (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"Numerous sources" "I don't know other sources other than the Time.com." Case closed i say. Editor tries to push it throught without sources, no one agrees with him. So, stop it. Kante4 (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Well the "numerous sources" I had were about the speaking Albanian part, because I thought that Time.com was all It needed, I don't think you "belive" it, because everything that you belive it's true end everything that you don't belive it's not true. I don't want to waste my time anymore with you, you just don't want to belive it. It seems I have the sources but you just dont want to belive it. Time.com is the most reliable source and it's witten by a jounralist so it makes it reliable other numerous sources were about speaking Albanian, loving Albanians and born in a neighbourhood full of Albanians. Belive it or not I don't care. Jjapanesitalianbritish (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ONE source and that's a blog. If he's albanian there should be plenty of other sources but there aren't. WP:DROPTHESTICK Kante4 (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I just said that I don't care anymore. Jjapanesitalianbritish (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, you are saying you don't care now because there are no evidences (in fact, they never exist) to prove that he is Albanian. Speaking and loving is one thing, being is another thing very different. MYS77 ^✉ 14:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked as yet another sock of the previous Albanian pushers. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Club notability in women's football

A notability tag was placed on a number of women's football clubs today: Tranmere Rovers L.F.C., Crewe Alexandra L.F.C., AFC Wimbledon Ladies. Does the club notability criterion "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria" apply to both the men's and women's game? U+003F^? 14:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

What sort of coverage do they get in reliable sources? Hack (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Tranmere were in the top division for a while (FA Women's Premier National), so I can't see how they wouldn't be notable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all three have played in the FA Women's Cup, which meets the informal agreement noted at WP:FOOTYN. Wimbledon played at the second level for a few seasons, so I would say that is an additional notability claim. Number 57 14:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

They are notable per WP:FOOTYN. Although not a guideline, I have never seen an AfD where a team meeting its criteria was not kept. We should consider these clubs notable. I have removed the tags accordingly Fenix down (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. As a question, when it says "national cup", I am assuming the first round proper? Because a team down to Step W5 (Level 7) can enter the qualifying/preliminary rounds. -- KTC (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. But it's not a problem anyway. Aside from like Germany, France, England, Scotland most UEFA countries at most only have articles for clubs that have been national champions. -Koppapa (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2016 qualification (3rd place)

An other discussion I would like input from this project. In Template:UEFA Euro 2016 qualification (3rd place) and that talkpage there is a discussion if the point deduction Croatia has been given by UEFA also applies to the ranking of third-placed teams. Please add your opinion there. Qed237 (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That's obvious, and crystal clear. Croatia's deducted by 1 point. So they have 14 points in their group. The ranking of the 3rd placed teams based on the team's group points minus the goals and the points against the last placed team. So Croatia have 14-3 points for the 3rd placed table. You shouldn't even consider the apply, because it's not a case. It doesn't "apply" here. It manifests in their group, and everything else depends on that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.215.41 (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Gonçalo Quinaz

Check his PERSONAL LIFE section, is this encyclopedical and worth keeping? Certes, it bears relation to the self-proclaimed best, second-best and third-best player in the world, but methinks not.

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say no, but there's two reliable sources to prove it. Then, it would be worth keeping. MYS77 ^✉ 18:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Referee notability

Please consider commenting at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Referee_notability on the simple question: how can we determine if a referee is notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

They used to be included in #1 of WP:NFOOTY but the wording was removed in January after the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 19#Referees- criteria for notability. The same was done for American Football, Rugby League and Rugby Union. It was felt that there wasn't enough non-routine coverage to presume notability for all referees at a certain level or of a certain league and that they'd have to individually show notability. Nanonic (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This means that most of those articles are ready for deletion; I don't see much to indicate their notability outside their profession (based on the links present in most of the bios I have sampled). I'd suggest a wikiproject-wide effort here to review those bios. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Bristol City and Michael Turnbull

According to his article, Michael Turnbull was signed by Bristol City for three years at some point in the first half of the last decade before work permit issues scuppered the deal. Can someone confirm whether this is the case? Hack (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence he signed from the time (there are several newspaper articles from the past couple of years that mention it, but they could have been based on Wikipedia), but this article states he was in talks with the club during Brian Tinnion's reign (2004–5) and he is listed on a fan site as a player who never made as an appearance. Number 57 09:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

That same page appears on all FootyMad sites: it doesn't associate him with the particular club, see e.g. the Man Utd version. Certainly true that Tinnion was looking at him in late July 2005, but a couple of weeks later they took Saul Deeney on trial as potential backup for Steve Phillips, and they ended up signing Rob Burch on loan to put pressure on Phillips. Added to which, his name doesn't occur in the BBC's monthly lists of transfers, so I don't believe he can have actually signed for them.

Daresay it's possible that they might have offered him a contract if he was likely to qualify for a work permit, but when they realised he wouldn't, they didn't proceed. Normally, if work permit problems only surface when the club tries to register the player, it gets reported on at the time, but I can't find anything either on the BCFC site or anywhere else contemporary. Incidentally, they spell him TurnbAll on the Bristol City site, presumably a typo but it does occur on other sites as well. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems unlikely (although I suppose possible) that a player of his age would be on a club's books for three whole years without ever playing........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Think it's supposed to mean he signed the piece of paper on a 3-year deal, but work permit issues stopped it being registered. If that was the case, then the contract would have become null and void. Tinnion was dead keen on him, so if he ever had been registered for them, I'm guessing he would have played, and by mid-2006 he was at New Zealand Knights. The last contemporary reference I can find, on 11 August 2005 in the Bristol Evening Post, can't do an accessible URL, says "And Tinnion admits City are no nearer agreeing personal terms with Australian keeper Michael Turnball and says 'other options' may now be explored in the hunt for a No 2 to Steve Phillips." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The background to this is that Turnbull appeared on the Australian version of The Bachelorette and made some claims about his career that have drawn attention to some possible padding of his resume, some of which crept into his Wikipedia page.[4][5][6] Hack (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Fastest hat-tricks, etc

If a player scores four goals: first in 5', then in 75' (completing a brace), then in 78' (completing a hat-trick), and then in 80', can he be said to have achieved a 2-minute brace (78' to 80') or a 5-minute hat-trick (75' to 80'), for the purposes of determining the fastest braces/hat-tricks? --Theurgist (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Good question. My first thought is that a hat-trick is counted from the first goal scored. I guess it's how the record books define it though. Number 57 16:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

RS question

Do people in this project think this website is a reliable source?

• http://www.worldfootball.net/alltime_goalgetter/wm/tore/1/

I am working on getting FIFA World Cup top goalscorers a FL so I would appreciate any feedback at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/FIFA World Cup top goalscorers/archive2. Nergaal (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, worldfootball.net is not a reliable source, as it follows the same principles of generating content as Wikipedia, i.e. an user-based approach. The same applies for transfermarkt.com, by the way. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I know that transfermarkt is not reliable, but I did not know that worldfootball.net is considered not reliable. Do you have some sources for this? worldfootball.net link in their copyright notice to Heim:Spiel which claim to be a supplier for sports data so I don't see where the user-based approach is. --Jaellee (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

So you think it can be used? Nergaal (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. The data is provided by Heim:Spiel who show a list of prominent customers and partners. I found no sign of user-generated content and I haven't seen anything else which would disqualify it. --Jaellee (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A draft at AFC needs help

Please evaluate Draft:Jason Goodliffe for notability, is the press coverage enough to reach notability (WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY). Please post your opinions on the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Doubt

Question to my teammates, some of many years: is it possible I stop writing summaries altogether to avoid the slightest controversy (if not, do you have any suggestions?)? I'd like to go on a "one-man show", working alone unless it is extremely necessary (if someone asks for my help I won't deny it of course)?

After the run-in about Quique Sánchez Flores, the same three years later: an assertive but polite message to User:Alechuncho after something wrong I felt he had made in Nolito's article (I merely asked for respect for EVERYBODY's work, not just mine, because I am a bit fed up with major edits that remove bits from text or box not having any explanation in the summary box; that, and I was always polite in my tone) resulted in severe insults towards my person (i.e. my "f***ing mother" was "kindly" remembered of her existence).

Inputs please, thank you in advance (P.S. surely you folks don't think I am going to notify this person about this thread after seeing there is no love lost between us, why? Ask HIM! P.S.2 after reading his last tirade, I lost it and responded in kind; I regretted it immediately and reverted myself, but I notify any admin that happens to make acquaintance with this situation to block me as well if they see fit) --84.90.219.128 (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to write edit summaries - but it's preferable that you do so. Simply write something simple ("update league stats", "add reference") and don't respond to other editor's winding you up - report them. GiantSnowman 10:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

What he said. Restrict your summaries to a brief and accurate note of what your edit did. Don't use them to refer to other editors or complain about the quality of their work. "Revert vandalism" or "rvv" is enough, if that's what you're doing. There's no need for words like "human waste", "lousy scumbag" or worse, or for sarcasm like "watch and learn" or "(redirect muuuuuuuuuuch? Of course "not")". Well, you did ask. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Although I can understand your frustration sometimes, it is better to avoid these types of users. Agreed with GS and Struway. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 12:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep cool, but if you can't take, take a step back. As has been said, edit summaries are just that: a concise summary of what your contribution included. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sarcasm isn't the best thing to do. On the other hand, if I see one of those summaries I know it's you immediately, so I can go say hi to you. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Arsenal honours

Davefelmer (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Who added all these regional and reserve trophies to the club's trophy haul? This is a farce and isnt corroborated by the club (http://www.arsenal.com/first-team/honours), UEFA (http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=52280/profile/) or FIFA as well as the link to the most successful clubs at the top of the page! This is not to deny arsenal havent physically won those "trophies" but they do not count as honours by any credible source and unless someone can provide evidence to the countrary, then they will be removed. Wikipedia is supposed to represent factual and accepted information, and these "honours" dont fall in either category.

All honours seem to be sourced.. I don't see what the problem is personally. JMHamo (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It has to be said that I wouldn't have thought that Arsenal reserves / academy teams are notable enough in their own right to have a wikipedia page but that's an altogether different argument. From what I can see everything is kept to their own pages and don't appear to be causing any unnecessary cluttering of the existing list of honours, and all are sourced. Seems fine. Koncorde (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In my eyes it clutters. Also putting in a bold (record) after a friendly cup that was only held once or one that was held five times and won by five different teams is a joke. No one would ever call Arsenal the record holders of that cup. -Koppapa (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Surely any reserve honours belong on Arsenal F.C. Reserves#Honours. I guess a link to that can be added to the section rather than cluttering it. Number 57 12:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)sourcing based off "research" by an Arsenal fan blog is not neutral, credible or reliable. It is not a source. The honours list doesnt match that of Fifa, Uefa, the club website or even the link at the top of the page! small local and regional tournaments, won frequently by reserve sides, have no place on the main honours page and should and will be removed. Imagine if this was edited in for all clubs, like United adding their 32 Manchester Cups, 14 Lancashire Senior Cups etc. It would be a cluttered mess.

Nobody has agreed with you so far other than Reserve competitions, so any removals would be reverted as they are sourced and are historic. The fact Man Utd don't list their Lancashire titles is irrelevant. Koncorde (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)you have not provided a single sourced honours table to reflect this as an accepted honour. all you have done is relatively proven that arsenal won such competitions in the past. but not every cup a club wins is constituted as an honour. UEFA, FIFA, the club, the links on the page and all media sources do not corroborate these as honours. Thus they will have to be removed. Wikipedia is for factual and accepted information, neither of which these competitions reflect.

Honour....that word does not mean what you think it means. You will be reverted if you remove cited information based on it not meeting your personal criteria for inclusion. The "fact" is that they won those competitions. You just object to them being called an "honour" which is an entirely subjective opinion. Koncorde (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)no my friend, an honour has to be corroborated by more than the same originally researched piece by an ARSENAL FAN SITE! The site doesnt ever say that these trophies constitute honours, it is merely a fun fact for arsenal fans to know the smallest of small cups they won 100 years ago. Not every single piece of silverware a club wins is an official honour or trophy. To publish these as honours, you must have a neutral source that includes them in their trophy count for Arsenal, which you cannot seem to do. The governing body of football doesnt include them, the governing body of European football doesnt include them, the club doesnt include them and neither does the link at the top of the page! You keep saying that everyone doesnt list all their honours, but you would think ONE newspaper, media site, or governing body would do. You are making things up to try and justify a ridiculusly bloated honours total that doesnt reflect what they club or anyone else recognises officially as trophies. Unless you can provide PROOF in the form of a trophy count with those amongst Arsenal's honours, it has to be removed.

You are inventing your own criteria for inclusion of facts because you object to them being called "honours" despite consistently referring to websites that are not encyclopaedias, are not exhaustive sources, and that no rational person here would use for a source due to the demonstrated incomplete nature. "Not every single piece of silverware a club wins is an official honour or trophy" is a ridiculous assertion without evidence. Go away and come back with an actual argument. Koncorde (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)is this real life? I am using the governing body of football, the governing body of Europe, the club in question, ALL mainstream media and the link at the top of the Arsenal page as mt evidence! You are using fan blogs that do not even state the awards as honours and provde no official count with those included as trophies. No rational person would use every major football source as but would use a fan blog? I think you need a lie down mate. It is you that has decided to include a ton of mickey mouse awards as club honours on no basis besides a fan blog stating you won them once upon a time. NOBODY recognises them and so they will be removed.

I don't see why there is a problem with listing county cups, etc. For sure, they are not competitions taken that seriously by the "bigger" clubs these days, but that does not mean that they were not respected competitions earlier in the history of the organised game. They are real competitions, not friendlies, many with a long history and certainly before WWII were competed for by the first teams of professional clubs. . However, sourcing the winners of these competitions is a bit sketchy. All of the county FA sites seem to be identikits, and none carry the history of their cup competitions. Presumably this info must be out there in paper form - perhaps Rothmans? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why I am a "you". I am a West Ham fan (check out my edit history) and have no dog in this fight other than to defend an encyclopaedia from someone who wants to define "honours" based on their own special criteria. Koncorde (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)You are once again skewing the reality. YOU are basing information off an Arsenal fan blog while I am using FIFA, UEFA, Arsenl FC and the mainstream media as my sources. None of them list these competitions as honours for Arsenal so why should they be included? No relevant governing body has deemed them honours and THE CLUB THEMSELVES have not. I do not support Arsenal or a rival club either but I am keen for wikpedia to match its purpose: to report factual and accepted information, neither of which these honours are. Ilikeeatingwaffles above partially alluded to what must be done: find credible THIRD PARTY sourcing for these competitions that are not origininal research by an Arsenal fan blog. They are not even listed anywhere on the FA website, and before you attempt to once again play the "defunct trophies arent listed" rubbish again, remember that stuff like the Intercontinental Cup, the Cup Winners Cup and the Fairs Cup amongst others are listed by the relevant associations despite being defunct. these arent listed because they do not count, let alone for club honours.

You are not using FIFA, UEFA and Arsenal, you are using very specific pages of websites that are not designed to be 100% complete lists of trophies or awards. The Arsenal Historic Society "is" a reputable third party because they are used by Arsenal.com as a resource, in addition to being used by several authors in recent years for books about Arsenal. Koncorde (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)What do you mean? I am using the areas of those governing bodies and clubs' sites where they provide relevant information that revolves around the central point. FIFA and UEFA are the governing bodies of football, they are the best and most clear examples of official sourcing we have. You can argue, I accept, that they dont publish total trophy hauls but Arsenal.com most definitely does as it lists "honours", exactly what we are debating, and does not include said awards (although it does include the now-defunct Fairs Cup). This is backed up by media such as the Telegraph and Daily Mail (can source if you'd like) providing HONOURS counts for Arsenal without said awards either. Thus there is nothing neutral and third party mainstream that corroborates this count. The ARSENAL historic society cannot be THIRD-PARTY and NEUTRAL, that is just funny to even attempt to convey. And if they provide information to Arsenal.com, then note that despite this, Arsenal.com did not use their information to list said trophies as "honours".

You are using websites that demonstrably do not list everything, are inconsistent in their content, and are missing information (as informed on the Arsenal article). We would not use those articles to corroborate anything because they are demonstrably incomplete. They are not encyclopaedias, so this is not surprising. Very few sources would go into the level of depth that an encyclopaedia does, fewer still have the space or resources (or want) to display minutiae for the sake of brevity. Very few sources ever list every single competition.

You wish to define "honours" by these incomplete websites (which are far from 3rd Party or Neutral, as they are inevitably promoting their own competitions), or for us to use lists provided by similarly incomplete Tabloids or Newspapers that provide their own rationale as to what they have included which includes re-defining some things as "Major Honours".

In contrast wikipedia just reflects the fact that these victories were achieved and applies no judgement as to their value or worth (though we do have articles on the "Most Successful Clubs" which is hashed out using the POV research done by the media in their subjective evaluations). These are very rarely used within the core articles because of their incomplete nature. Koncorde (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Jackie McNamara

This might be irrelevant in the next couple of hours, but McNamara's departure from the Dundee United manager's job – widely reported on Saturday night and universally accepted by the media as a fact, for example, in this BBC report telling us who is taking over as caretaker – still hasn't been subject to any official confirmation by the club. I have noted and referenced the reports on McNamara's own article, but for the time being, should his infobox and that on the Dundee United article, etc., still describe him as manager? I think they should, have reverted changes already yesterday, but they've been changed again. Thoughts? Jellyman (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The reports in reliable sources are still noting that United haven't made a formal statement of the situation (e.g. "A formal announcement is expected later on Monday from the club. That should include the status of McNamara's coaching staff - Simon Donnelly, Darren Jackson and Craig Hinchcliffe." in that BBC story). I think you are correct to keep McNamara as the manager until there is a confirmed report of a change having actually been made. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Brazilian division cats

I see there's Category:Campeonato Brasileiro Série A players, Category:Campeonato Brasileiro Série C players and Category:Campeonato Brasileiro Série D players (the last one I created today and I pretend to expand it after some edits, as I'll do with Série C too). But Série B is different (Category:Campeonato Brasileiro Série B footballers), it was moved using this discussion as the reason. However, it was perfectly fine before the move. Should I move the category to its previous name or we need to start a RM? MYS77 ^✉ 17:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be moved back IMO. GiantSnowman 18:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: That's what I thought too. But if we move it, a bot will fix the redirects or we need to create a request? MYS77 ^✉ 18:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Try listing it at WP:CFDS. GiantSnowman 20:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Added a request there. Thank you, MYS77 ^✉ 20:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Zecke1910

Please can somebody have a word with Zecke1910 (talk · contribs), maybe someone who speaks German if language is an issue? They never make any edit summaries or reply to talk page posts; they mainly update stats, but have a history of adding unsourced content, creating non-notable articles, and re-formatting infoboxes incorrectly. Their behaviour is becoming increasingly concerning. GiantSnowman 16:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I can talk to him/her in German but I don't really know what I should say. The edits I've seen from him/her were okay: The stats were updated together with the time stamps (this is very commendable as a lot of editors just don't get it, despite telling them again and again) and the formatting changes of the infobox are annoying but I don't think the are "wrong", at least not according to the latest discussion about the infobox football biography field format (or is there a newer one?). If you could give me some examples where Zecke1910 wrong, then I'll talk to him/her. --Jaellee (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Lack of edit summaries, lack of talk page responses, addition of unsourced material about BLPs? GiantSnowman 20:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I tried it: User talk:Zecke1910#Deine Edits. --Jaellee (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! GiantSnowman 07:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

MLS team names

A style question. @Walter Görlitz: has suggested to me that the Vancouver Whitecaps FC team name should "not ever, ever, ever" be rendered (anywhere in an article, under any context) without the "FC". That is, "Vancouver Whitecaps", "Vancouver" and "Whitecaps" should never be used, only "Vancouver Whitecaps FC" or "Whitecaps FC". Presumably, this would also extend to other MLS teams, like Seattle Sounders FC or Orlando City SC. I'll allow him to explain his reasoning. But to me, it makes little sense to use "FC" in every context. Team names are shortened in articles all the time (see Manchester United F.C., which is shortened to both "Manchester United" and just "United"). Using FC every time the Whitecaps are mentioned does not sound like plain English to me. Even MLS themselves sometimes uses the name sans "FC" on its website (see here). And there appears to be a silent consensus that not using FC or SC is okay in some circumstances (see Vancouver Whitecaps FC, Seattle Sounders FC, and Orlando City SC for examples of these teams' names being rendered without FC or SC).

Is there anything wrong with occasionally leaving off the FC or SC in these team's names? I just want to clear this up so I don't keep getting reverted. Bmf 051 (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Whitecaps FC almost always call themselves that. However the real problem is that some editors claim that the Whitecaps that were founded in 1974, and have their own article are not the same team as the the team that played in the second division and later moved to the first division (MLS) and so we have three articles. Also, as convention, we always refer to the MLS club as Vancouver Whitecaps FC. There is a similar issue with the Sounders. In short, iot's an issue with WP:COMMOMNAME and WP:CONSENSUS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

If you've already piped the relevant Whitecaps team, then I see no issue in just using Whitecaps within the context of that section of the article. By the same token you would never in another article refer to "Ian Wright (footballer, born 1972)" to differentiate between him and Ian Wright within the body text. For the same reason when talking about Arsenal F.C. we don't constantly use F.C. to differentiate between them and Arsenal L.F.C. or Arsenal de Sarandí because the context of the article does that. I can understand using the F.C. when referring within a table of results or something, or for the initial mentioning within a paragraph or article - but it really is overkill to keep doing it unless there is a clear and obvious reason why there may be confusion, and to what extent that confusion is being created by the poor writing. For similar stances - we rarely use the full names of Inter Milan, A.C. Milan more than once, or (per a conversation higher up this page) Hellas Verona, or Bradford A.F.C, or Liverpool F.C. (Montevideo) to differentiate between similarly names entities.

I am speaking without seeing the obvious context that we are dealing with obviously, but unless there's reason to infer that it would confuse the reader then constantly using F.C. is clunky and would never really be done in any media source as it's largely assumed when talking about current events you are not referring to a historic club, or a club in a different country or competition. Koncorde (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at several of the edits now there's a significant degree of unnecessary reference to "F.C.". I have a few issues with this, and why it's (from what I can see) complete horseshit level of consensus and I use that with maximum prejudice against whatever decision was made, and not the two individuals above who are working within the confines of what other people seem to have impressed upon them. The whole situation should go to an RFC to tidy it up.

• A - Vancouver Whitecaps FC are a team with the common name "Vancouver Whitecaps FC". All player histories seem to record Vancouver Whitecaps FC, and the club records all reflect MLS titles and overall figures only.
• B - Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) were a team with the common name "Vancouver Whitecaps FC" and may well be considered the same entity as the new club. However I notice that all the player articles do not include "FC" when referring to their time with this club even though it was the same common name (just playing in two different competitions). Seems to me their article should in fact be titled Vancouver Whitecaps FC (1986-2010).

Your research is wrong. They started as Vancouver Whitecaps only. They changed their name to Vancouver Whitecaps FC when the owner of the MLS team (franchise if you must) acquired them. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• C - Vancouver Whitecaps (1974–84) were a team with the common name "Vancouver Whitecaps" apparently (although no source is provided at any time, this appears to be the case). Their players are also referred to without the "FC" so no differentiation between them and the team that became the 86'ers that became the Whitecaps again.

We apparently differentiate between A and B by not including FC in the name, even though both legal entities shared the same name (as the entity from what I can see transferred leagues and re-formed immediately with the same players etc) however we do not differentiate between B and C even though they are significantly more disconnected (and united only by a name change in the 2000's) and actually do have a difference in being FC and not FC.

I honestly can't understand how we got to the point where we're disambiguating between A and B in everything by using "FC". That seems the flimsiest and least enforceable option available given the fact that both teams share the same Common Name and leads to what I would consider more confusing historical tables for players like Jay Nolly who currently appears to have played in 2008-10 for the 1974-84 entity. We would be better served putting "(NASL)" and "(USL)" to differentiate. Koncorde (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Notice you said almost always. So even the team sometimes doesn't use FC. I don't disagree that these are separate franchises. Legally, they are. I'm saying that being separate franchises doesn't mean we must always refer to them by different names (Whitecaps FC vs. just Whitecaps or Vancouver Whitecaps FC vs. just Vancouver Whitecaps). It simply means the titles of each article should clearly identify which team is being referred to (which they do). Then, within each article, any of these common truncated names can be used, since the context will tell the reader which team is being referred to. Bmf 051 (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is Vancouver Whitecaps FC. They also use Whitecaps FC and in some cases only Vancouver Whitecaps. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

A football club

Is this a notable team? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: It's a strange copy of TSV 1860 München. Number 57 12:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah okay. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Flag & Club names

Currently in Template:fb team the flagicon is displayed after the club's name. In majority of the other football templates, the player's national flag is prior to the player's name (for example: Template:Fb in2 player, Template:Fb disc player, Template:Fb ss player, Template:Extended football squad player). So my suggestion for consistency is to move the flagicon to being prior to the club with a non-break space between the two. I do some minor discussion on this here, but I can't find any in depth discussion here on the matter. Thanks.  #FF9600  talk 16:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The fb-templates are a mess in my view. Where to find an example where you think a flag behind the name is better? -Koppapa (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Currently the flag *IS* behind the name & I'm proposing that the flag be move to before the name. ;) But ya, the FB templates are kind of messy. I'm slowly taking inventory of them & I'm thinking about cleaning them up a bit.  #FF9600  talk 15:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, but where are those used? In results tables? -Koppapa (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I first noticed it embedded in the Template:Fb in2 player when I was look at individual teams' pages on the Summer transfers. For exmaple 2015–16 Borussia Dortmund season#Transfers. FB team seems to be embedded in a lot of the templates, mainly due to the individual club fb team templates.  #FF9600  talk 16:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have always heard that we should reduce the use for the fb team template, and use wikilinks instead. For example the new league table module uses wikilinks instead. In my opinion the Borussia Dortmund table could easily be made with a normal wikitable instead. Qed237 (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the consensus of this discussion was to get rid of the fb templates, but there was no follow through. EddieV2003 (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If we start moving a lot of the statistic based info to Wikidata, as suggested below, I can see some minimized usage of fb team.  #FF9600  talk 16:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Name of Vietnamese professional league organization

Does anybody have a good suggestion for renaming The professional football league national Vietnam? The article is about the governing body for the two highest Vietnamese leagues plus the national cup competition, but the current name seems to be a bit artificial, so I'm not sure if it is the best fit as per WP:NAME... – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be V.League (Vietnam) (or, better still, just V.League given that that is a redlink), because the sub-divisions are V.League 1 and V.League 2? V-League should remain a disambig. GiantSnowman 17:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

V.League (Vietnam) was my first thought as well (with the disambiguator, because of the Japanese volleyball league of the same name), but the fact that the national cup competition is also organised by them raised a bit of a question mark. Another possibility might be Vietnam Professional Football as that is what appears on the official logo (see also the Vietnamese version of the article), however the question here is how widespread this term is in English media. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

V.League (Vietman) sounds good i think. The article could use some better translation/explaination. The cup is basically a league cup. It's comparable to FA WSL. -Koppapa (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay then – as there does not seem to be further input, could one of our sysops move the article to V.League (Vietnam) as suggested? Thanks in advance. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Romanian Football

Is someone interested to improve Romanian Football : Cupa României old seasons who does not have a page, and Liga II also. If everyone will choose a season and edit, all the seasons will be done in one week ! Thank you.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Names

It looks like someone had a fun time randomly changing names of players and managers. — 37 ^(talk) 08:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles about Armenia national football team results

User World Cup 2010 has created 22 articles (category • template) about Armenia national football team results per year. As these articles are short (~2-5 kB each) I suggest to merge them in 3 pages: Armenia national football team results (1990s), Armenia national football team results (2000s) and Armenia national football team results (2010s). Example of some very short pages: 1992 Armenia national football team results, 2002 Armenia national football team results. --XXN, 14:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, no need for so many separate articles. GiantSnowman 17:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Country seasons articles

Is there any good reason why Country seasons should use collapsible results tables rather than the simpler tables used in Club seasons? Hack (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine that it is to save space. While in a club season article, a cup may have as few as one entry (first round exit), a country season article would have all fixtures of the competition. Uncollapsed, that would be quite a scroll-fest, no? Madcynic (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Not if it used the same tables as the club seasons. The collapsible tables are a nightmare for finding information and violate MOS:COLLAPSE because they hide article content. Hack (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe because the collapsible result table shows what's more important, the result, and the rest (what is collapsed) are details. A simple table may not offer the same perspective. MYS77 ^✉ 03:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The list format used at 2014–15 Manchester United F.C. season, for example, manages to convey all of the relevant information on a single line. Hack (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

For Manchester United, yes. But for a country article, you'd need at least a second goalscorer column, and that can get out of hand quite quickly with huge margins in early rounds of cup competitions. Madcynic (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, some tables can appear in a good manner in some computer and can appear messy in others, due to resolution. The collapsible table already has something to work with this. MYS77 ^✉ 18:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@MYS77: why do you need opposition goalscorers? As far as international seasons go, you're not going to get worse than Australia's 2001 season. On most screens the table only fills two or three lines per game. Hack (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Date	Opponent	Venue	Result	Scorers	Attendance
28 Feb	Colombia	Away	2–3	Corica 77', Chipperfield	2071
9 Apr	Tonga	Home	22-0	Chipperfield 3, 84, Mori 12, 22, 39, 57, Aloisi 14, 23, 36, 45, 51, 63, Muscat 17pk, 28pk, 54pk, 83, Popovic 65, T Vidmar 73, Zdrilic 77, 90, Thompson 79, Boutsianis 85	1500
11 Apr	American Samoa	Home	31-0	Boutsianis 10, 50, 84, Thompson 12, 23, 27, 29, 32, 37, 42, 45, 56, 60, 65, 85, 88, Zdrilic 13, 21, 25, 33, 58, 66, 78, 89, A Vidmar 14, 80, Popovic 17, 19, Colosimo 51, 81, deAmicis 55	3500
14 Apr	Fiji	Home	2-0	Corica 22, Foxe 79
16 Apr	Samoa	Home	11-0	A Vidmar 5, 49, Zdrilic 28, 57, Foxe 44, Popovic 55, 89, Thompson 75, 78, Chipperfield 76, Bureta 81og	1500
30 May	Mexico	Neutral	2-0	Murphy 20, Skoko 55	6232
1 Jun	France	Neutral	1-0	Zane 59	44400
6 Jun	South Korea	Neutral	0-1		42754
8 Jun	Japan	Neutral	0-1		48699
11 Jun	Brazil	Neutral	1-0	Murphy 84	28520
20 Jun	New Zealand	Away	2-0	Emerton 6, 82
24 Jun	New Zealand	Home	4-1	Zdrilic 6, 83, Emerton 37, Aloisi 56	41976
15 Aug	Japan	Away	0-3		60000
11 Nov	France	Home	1-1	Moore 43	53173
20 Nov	Uruguay	Home	1-0	Muscat 79pk	84656
25 Nov	Uruguay	Away	0-3

• @Hack: I wasn't the one suggesting that these pages need the opposition goalscorers, but I (I will reiterate that it's just my opinion) prefer the collapsible one to these tables. They don't look good, and I've always used the collapsible table in all club season articles that I've created/edited. Although I've never put my hands in a country season article, I'm guessing that goes by preference of the user who edits the most in these pages. If you check WP:FOOTY/SEASONS, you'll see that some articles with both types of tables were nominated as GA (2011–12 Sheffield United F.C. season with the collapsible and 2007–08 Bradford City A.F.C. season with the simple). MYS77 ^✉ 04:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability for footballer

Hi, just a quick question. Do I interpret WP:NFOOTBALL correctly if I say that all players who has represented national team in a match between two national teams are notable. I was wondering since I was thinking about creating an article for a player that played in World Cup Qualification, but does not have an article. Is playing in World Cup Qualification enough for a player notability? Qed237 (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL (any match between two full international teams counts). Number 57 16:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Blatter

Hi , this is Armin, I think the picture of fifa president should be changed . Blatter is no more fifa president, at least for the next three months.The picture of new acting fifa president should be attach instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armin123421 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Trophy awarded to winners of Football League Championship

Hi. Our article says that this trophy is the same as that handed in the past to the winners of the First Division, when it was the top league. We don't seem to have an article on the trophy. When was this particular trophy inaugurated? --Dweller (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yvrase Gervil(le)

Resolved

According to a message left on my talk page, it is unknown what the proper spelling for this footballer is, so the content creator created duplicate articles at Yvrase Gerville and Yvrase Gervil. These obviously need to be merged. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Already done by another admin. GiantSnowman 12:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

André Villas-Boas & the British Virgin Islands

I recently expanded the William H. Moravek article (as it was put up for AfD), and the various sources I found suggested that he was manager of the British Virgin Islands national team from 2000 to 2001 (parallel to his time at Seba United), whereas previously he had been listed as only being manager in 2000. However, in a few other places (British Virgin Islands national football team and André Villas-Boas) it is claimed that Villas-Boas was manager from 2000 to 2001.

Looking at the AVB article, his spell in the BVI is referenced to two sources: The Independent and UEFA. However, both those articles actually state that he was Technical Director, rather than the manager.

Before I changed the articles to reflect this (i.e. remove him from the list of BVI managers), I thought I'd seek any other input people have. Cheers, Number 57 14:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as no-one else commented, I have made the changes. Number 57 12:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Double standards

Main article: Talk:UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying - why is the same OR that was not allowed in scenarios being allowed in other areas? As I pointed out in this edit, putting the scenario whereby Tukey qualify is NOT allowed, but putting a 'y' IS. They involve exactly the same amount of work. 2.220.109.19 (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're trying to get at, but Turkey cannot finish as the best third-place team – they have only one match remaining and are 6 points behind Hungary. It is a mathematical impossibility for them to finish as the best third-place team, therefore it is not WP:OR. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I just reread several sections of the talk page, and I realize that I failed to take into consideration that Latvia could still finish sixth in the group, and that only 2 points would then be deducted from Turkey's total rather than 6, which still leaves Turkey in a position to possibly be the best third-place team. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Oliver Byrne

I came across Oliver Byrne while working off Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. I tried to cleanup the whatever links I could find, but some of the older The Irish Times articles require a subscription to access. So, I'm wondering if anyone in WP:IE can access them and either fix the bare URLs themselves or post them on Talk:Oliver Byrne for me. Also, I tried cleaning up the article a bit, but I'm not too familiar with Byrne or Irish soccer. The article sort of reads like a rap sheet by focusing on his legal problems, so I think it could do with a bit of reorganizing, balancing and expanding. Byrne seems to have been notable enough and successful enough so that there should be more to add about his accomplishments in Irish soccer or his personal life. I just can't seem to find sources that I can access. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I disagree, why is he notable? I am going to list this at AfD. JMHamo (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Beatpoet and overdetailed storylines

I have a doubt: are his additions completely correct or are the articles (mainly Brentford players) overdetailed? Because I took a look at Scott Hogan, and it looked like a WP:FANCRUFT. MYS77 ^✉ 23:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the use of so many quotes might be pushing it a bit, and I personally don't like the use of a separate section for every single club including one-month loan moves of no distinction to non-league sides, but on the whole it looks OK. The lead section needs sorting out to encompass the main points of the body of the article though. BigDom (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Dom. Too many tiny sections, some of the quotes are pretty run-of-the-mill, the lead needs expanding (see MOS:LEAD). The prose could do with tightening, and the referencing needs to be made consistent, but that can be said for most of our articles, and as far as I know, no-one's intending to take it to WP:FA anytime soon. I've only looked at Scott Hogan, but I don't see that as fancruft: it's not as if the Brentford section is unduly large relative to the rest of his career.

@MYS77: I do hope you've notified Beatpoet that you're discussing him here? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Struway2: Forgot it. Did it now. Thanks, MYS77 ^✉ 19:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Usage of parameter "qualifier for" in Infobox football tournament

FA Cup

Founded	1871
Region	England
Number of teams	736 (2015–16)
Qualifier for	UEFA Europa League
Current champions	Arsenal (12th title)
Most successful club(s)	Arsenal (12 titles)
Television broadcasters	BBC Sport BT Sport
Website	FA Cup
2015–16 FA Cup

Premier League

Founded	20 February 1992
Country	England
Other club(s) from	Wales
Confederation	UEFA
Number of teams	20 (from 1995–96)
Level on pyramid	1
Relegation to	Football League Championship
Domestic cup(s)	FA Cup FA Community Shield
League cup(s)	League Cup
International cup(s)	UEFA Champions League UEFA Europa League
Current champions	Chelsea (4th title) (2014–15)
Most championships	Manchester United (13 titles)
TV partners	Sky Sports & BT Sport (live matches) Sky Sports & BBC (highlights)
Website	PremierLeague.com
Current: 2015–16 Premier League

I propose that addendum "Qualifier for" in the articles of the national football cups. I want the acceptance of the community so we do not have reverts. The parameter used in the international champioships like that ([7]). --IM-yb (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure this is a good idea, as it may suggest to readers that the FA Cup is merely a competition that exists to enable teams to qualify for the Europa League. Number 57 17:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

For national leagues we have the parameter "International cup(s)". In the text of the article of the FA Cup we have the section European qualification. It is compatible with parameter "Qualifier for". --IM-yb (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Also we have that section UEFA Europa League#Qualification who speaks about qualification from national cups. From the original "Usually, places are awarded to teams who finish in various runners-up places in the top-flight leagues of Europe and the winners of the main cup competitions." --IM-yb (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If it could be changed to "international cup", then it might be ok. Number 57 19:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The {{Infobox football tournament}} not used only for national cup competitions. For example, in the article UEFA Champions League we have "Qualifier for UEFA Super Cup, FIFA Club World Cup" and has not referred any confusion about the purpose of the tournament. --IM-yb (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a new parameter "Related competitions" (like the {{Infobox sports league}}, for usage see there) is compatible for the national cups and international competitions. --IM-yb (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

In any case, we need a way in which we will show international competitions in national cups infoboxes, as in championships. --IM-yb (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

AFC Challenge Cup squad navigational boxes

Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 10#AFC Challenge Cup squad templates. Joeykai (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional Italy national football team results template

I have created a table which is displayed at the right top of Italy results (as you can see here). However, I think it would be more useful to have it as a template page, so as to modify it at once for all the pages that (will) contain it. My doubt stems from the fact that a different (in purpose) Template:Italy national football team results already exists, so I am wondering whether it would be reasonable to create a second template for Italy national team, and if yes, what title it should have. --Tanonero (msg) 12:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What would the purpose of an infobox template that provides fewer links than the original navbox template serve, especially since the same links already exist in the navbox template? — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it would facilitate the navigation between those pages, considering that it wouldn't be required to scroll down the whole article to do that. Of course, I will create the missing articles, but it takes time. --Tanonero (msg) 17:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Jack Carr (footballer, born 1876)

As his correct date of birth was 7 October 1878, could someone move this article to Jack Carr (footballer, born 1878). Thanks. 78.147.164.217 (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved per the sources provided in the article. Fenix down (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Lists of expatriate footballers

I am pretty sure there is AFD precedent that articles like American professional soccer players abroad and List of Romanian expatriate footballers are non-notable, but can somebody with a better memory than me please point me in the right direction? GiantSnowman 17:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an old AfD on a similar list. Jogurney (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think there could be enough coverage in reliable sources to make some of these lists notable, particularly the US, but such sources are not currently included in the lists. Jogurney (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

For mine the issue is not notability (do you think there are not enough sources on this topic to make it notable? I suspect there definitely are), but this: either 1. The list must be limited to current players. I do not think this is an appropriate list - maybe WP:RECENT, but I don't get the impression that rolling, constantly updated reflections of footballers of a nation are playing abroad at a single point in time is the purpose of an encyclopedia (that's just my gut feel so I may be wrong). But the alternative is 2. to have all players of a nation who have ever played abroad professionally - such a list would be unmanageably long and more than likely impossible to comprehensively source beyond the past couple of decades. Macosal (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Romania list was nominated for deletion about six weeks ago and failed to reach a consensus, so I wouldn't be too quick to renominate it. In any case the AfD nomation cites a number of other discussions on similar lists which did result in deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Romanian Football

Is someone interested to improve Romanian Football : Cupa României old seasons who does not have a page, and Liga II also. If everyone will choose a season and edit, all the seasons will be done in one week ! Thank you.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Alexiulian25: Nice idea but very impractical. JMHamo (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Just start and edit one season, with minimum information, and after I will add more, just the tables with teams, and after I will tag the teams and the rest.

We already started with Cupa României, but it takes time to advance till current season. Thanks.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Piers Morgan

Many of the people interested in English football (and some others) know about Piers Morgan and his 'supportership' towards Arsenal. Many Arsenal fans hate him, for several reasons and all he does is to talk sh*t about club and manager Arsene Wenger and he has had dispute with players. Not someone me and others wants to consider as a fan, and other high profile persons and fans has gone against him and defend the team and Wenger.

Since I am very biased in this case I want some fresh eyes in the Piers Morgan article. For example, my wording "Morgan claims to be a fan" was reverted to "Morgan is a fan", yet many do not consider him a fan, only himself says so. Also I added source and content about Arsenal fans dont think he is a fan and that was remove as "irrelevant what others think" but since this is so very much discussed I think it is relevant.

So please take a look at Piers Morgan, I would appreciate it. Qed237 (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@RyanTQuinn: is correct here: the fact that Piers Morgan is, erm, 'an irritation', does not stop him from being an Arsenal fan. The fact that other Arsenal fans don't like his views doesn't change this. It might just about be relevant to include a carefully worded note that his opinions have been controversial on the topic - the sentence "Arsenal goalkeeping legend Bob Wilson in defence of Wenger labelled Morgan a "pompous individual" could be expanded along the lines of "Morgan's comments have been unpopular among may Aresnal fans and former players, (use the Daily Cannon ref here) and Arsenal goalkeeping legend Bob Wilson in defence of Wenger labelled Morgan a "pompous individual" but anything more than this would probably be breaking WP:BLP. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

He says he is a fan, but I cant see any evidence he is. Just because I say "I like cheese", does not mean I do. He is an attention seeking ***** that has nothing to do with Arsenal. Qed237 (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If he says he is a fan, he is. There is no list of requirements one has to fulfill. -Koppapa (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. And going beyond his own claims, if we look at the Ramsey incident cited in the article, then we have evidence that Morgan:

1. Goes to watch Arsenal games

2. Writes about his views and opinions about Arsenal's performances

3. Takes advantage of his celebrity status to meet Arsenal players

These are all things that a fan does. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Fans can be critical. It is not a prerequisite that you support what the team does at all times to be a fan. In fact I usually find the biggest fans are usually the most critical. -DJSasso (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"Morgan claims to be a fan" is classic WP:WEASEL and it was right for the other editor to remove it on sight. Number 57 14:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Piers Morgan may be detested by quarters of the Arsenal support for his views, but calling for a change of manager doesn't stop someone from being a fan. The Newcastle obsessives who called for Alan Pardew to be sacked even when results were picking up, are still Newcastle fans simply because they say so. This is not like somebody claiming to be a "legend" or "hero" which is entirely an opinion, if a person says that he is a fan of Team X, he is a fan of them. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur, it's nonsense to say "X says they are a fan of Y but there is no evidence they are". If they say they are a fan of something then they are, unless it can be proved that they're deliberately lying. If Qed says he is a fan of cheese then either a) he likes cheese or b) he knows he doesn't like cheese but is for some reason choosing to lie about it. If Piers Morgan says "I am an Arsenal fan" then unless it can somehow be proved that he actively dislikes Arsenal but for some reason is lying about it, then we have no reason to say anything other than "he is a fan". As mentioned above, criticising the manager does not preclude one from being a fan, indeed supporters who call for the manager to be sacked would probably claim it proves they're a fan, because they're acting in what they perceive as the club's best interests...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If he admits being a fan of Arsenal, then it's what he is. SLBedit (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Combine or delete?

I noticed that 2015 Afghan Premier League and 2015 Afghan Premier League season both exist. Equineducklings (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The first has correct title and all the content. Delete the second one. -Koppapa (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have tagged it for speedy deletion. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not just redirect? --Jimbo^[online] 15:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason that 2014 Afghan Premier League season doesn't exist. The article was likely at one time a duplicate article but was not maintained while the other article (which follows the same naming convention as the other articles for the Afghan Premier League) was maintained. Frankly, it should have been nominated for CSD several weeks ago. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure what the preferred action was. It's good to know this if I run across a similar situation again. Equineducklings (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Players' career statistics

We can clearly see in WP:FOOTY/Players that the name of division is repeated inside the chart. However, in Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi, those division names aren't repeated, as we have a | rowspan="number" being used. I will highlight the differences in green, using a part of those tables as an example.

Messi's table:

Club	Season	League			Copa del Rey		Europe		Other		Total
		Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Barcelona B	2003–04	Segunda División B	5	0	—		—		—		5	0
	2004–05		17	6	—		—		—		17	6
	Total		22	6	—		—		—		22	6

WP:FOOTY/Players' table:

Appearances and goals by club, season and competition

Club	Season	League			National Cup		League Cup		Continental		Other		Total
		Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Template Rangers	2011–12	First Division	15	0	3	0	1	0	3	0	1	0	23	0
	2012–13	First Division	36	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	40	0
	2013–14	First Division	28	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	32	0
	Total		79	0	5	0	3	0	5	0	3	0	95	0

What's the correct input, or both are? I personally prefer the first one, we don't need to repeat the division if the team is the same, IMO. MYS77 ^✉ 17:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say either is fine. I personally prefer the second option - where they are repeated inside the chart - purely because I find the formatting easier! GiantSnowman 17:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The argument against the rowspanned (first) version was always that having multiple rowspanned columns in a table caused accessibility issues for screen-reader users. If anyone wanted to check with the accessibility project whether this is still the case or not, they're welcome to. Until it's confirmed that there are no longer any accessibility problems with using the first version, we as a WikiProject can't recommend it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see this as an accessibility problem, to be honest. Actually, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial uses some rowspan as good examples. I don't see this helpful, why should we repeat the same thing over and over again? However, this still being my opinion. MYS77 ^✉ 03:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said, without confirmation that it's now OK to use rowspans in this context, this WikiProject cannot change its standards just because some of us think it looks better done differently. There is an editor called RexxS who is very knowlegeable about accessibility issues. Maybe he might be willing to express an opinion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a slight advantage in accessibility when you repeat cells, rather than rowspanning them, because you can guarantee that every screen reader (and there are many) will be able to read them accurately. A few years ago, the RNIB used to recommend that you used the Lynx (web browser) text-only browser to check tables, and that had difficulty making sense of rowspans. Nowadays screen readers are much more sophisticated and I've had to soften my opposition to rowspans. If you ask User:Graham87 (who is the real expert, as he uses the JAWS screen reader all the time) he'll tell you that rowspans are fine with him. Now, you could argue that some people will still be using older technology, or that very big, complex tables are more difficult to conceptualise when they have multiple rowspans - all of which is true - but most of the time I suspect that our readers won't be disadvantaged noticeably if we don't repeat every cell that contains duplicate data. Frankly, I don't think we need to enforce one view on the tables as exemplified above. In cases like this, respecting each editor's personal preference probably does more to improve the encyclopedia in the long run. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@RexxS: Thanks. Your complete answer killed it. I only created this discussion to enforce this, because some users can't understand that sometimes we don't need to strictly follow the WP:FOOTY/Players example. It's only what we are calling it, an example. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 18:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you RexxS for coming here and clarifying. MYS77, we do need to follow standards if they've been set for a sound and specific reason: I can't imagine you'd have wanted a section of users to be disadvantaged unnecessarily just because you thought something looked better done another way. It's only now that we know the multiple rowspan thing isn't a significant problem any more. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a problem now, and still, you're telling off me for wanting to get some opinions and thoughts, Struway2. Repeating the same thing over and over seems really unnecessary to me. It may not look this way to you, but I started this discussion with all the respect and politeness I had to. Thank you, MYS77 ^✉ 03:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Corinthian League 1955–56 conflicts

I'm trying to work on a table of Grays Athletic's league history (in my sandbox) and I've found that Grays' league entry for 1955–56 at the Football Club History Database conflicts with the Wikipedia page List of Corinthian League (football) seasons#1955–56, which looks to be sourced directly from Non-League Matters. Does anyone have anything that could weight the argument one way or the other, or perhaps have a source more official/direct from the Corinthian League? Thanks in advance, --Jimbo^[online] 15:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If you don't get anything here, I would recommend posting in the History section of the Non League Matters forum. Some serious experts there. Number 57 16:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have this book which has the Corinthian League tables in, I'll look later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Eliminating redundant work in updating squad navboxes

Instead of updating the content of individual squad navboxes in each Wikipedia language version separately, it has become possible to update the squad on Wikidata collaboratively and to transclude the data from there in any Wikipedia. Such an approach would allow reducing performing redundant work and to keep squad navboxes especially of smaller clubs more up to date. Please see two examples in de.wikipedia (especially their source code):

• de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Kader des FC Valenciennes, ordered by last name (Wikidata item with data: d:Q20853625)
• de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Kader des FC Lausanne-Sport, ordered by shirt number (Wikidata item with data: d:Q20870955)

I would appreciate if you considered participating in such efforts, too. --Leyo 01:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This is already being discussed above.  #FF9600  talk 13:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that when I posted the section. Anyway, there are two additional examples on how it works in de.wikipedia and may also work here. --Leyo 21:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Creating international events statistic section

Hereunder is the topic moved from the subsection Players. Please share your opinion:

While in most of articles about football players performing at international level, we can find "international statistics" section with apps and goals scored in particular years, I've been always missing a section where I could read how a player performed during international events. For that purpose I put some work to edit some articles I follow and created extra sections called "international events". It's based on a template used by NHL ice hockey players. I made that edit for 6 articles, here is the example of such a list for created for Neymar:

International events

Only major international events including the Olympic Games with U23 team

Year	Event	Place	Apps	Goals	Result	Individual
2011	Copa América	Argentina	4	2	QF
2012	Summer Olympics	London, England	6	3
2013	Confederations Cup	Brazil	5	4		Golden Ball, Dream Team, Bronze Shoe
2014	World Cup	Brazil	5	4	4th	Bronze Boot, Dream Team
2015	Copa América	Chile	2	1	QF

All the edits has been however reverted by Qed237 who believes that there is no need for such lists and that it's a POV in a way of describing "major" competitions. My idea is that the list gives a reader nice overview of how a player performed at international events, and that describing "major" events is quite easy in football. At international level we have youth, friendly, qualifying and "major" competitions where we have got FIFA World Cup, continental championships, FIFA Confederations Cup plus the Summer Olympic Games tournament being all official events under FIFA or respective confederations.

Please give me idea if a layout of such lists could exist for football players. Ksihoo 21:54 (CET), 14 October 2015

@Ksihoo: not many editors follow this subsection, I would recommend WT:FOOTY. Qed237 (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I don't think these kind of stats tables should be added, per NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 17:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's POV to determine what are "major" comps at all - there is a pretty clear hierarchy involving the World Cup, Confederations Cup, Olympics and the 6 Continental titles. Certainly such sections would be informative and easy to source. WP:NOTSTATS could be relevant, the question being would this lead to "excessive" listing of statistics? For mine, it's alright - very few of these tables would be beyond 10 lines, and few beyond 5. That said, I'm sure people will have differing opinions on what is "excessive" (e.g. GiantSnowman above) but that's my take. Macosal (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested merge

Could someone please merge John McMillan (footballer, born 1865) and William McMillan (footballer) as they have now been identified as the same person. Thanks. 78.147.107.176 (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Done, page now at William McMillan (footballer, born 1872). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Does FIFA have final authority on statistics?

Allow me to dive in with an example: Jan Vertonghen from Belgium has 74 caps according to Belgium's Football Association, but 72 according to FIFA because two of those matches were not officially recognized (due to too many subs). So all Belgian Wikipedia pages list him as having 72 caps, not 74. Same goes for 'the amount of matches' the whole team has played, etcetera. In the meanwhile, many other websites will list him as having 74 caps, since that's what is displayed on the team's official website.

Now I'm wondering whether Wikipedia 'must' actually follow FIFA. It is a huge authority, of course, but should every statistic be in relation to FIFA? If an article is about Belgium, should it instead follow its own football association or perhaps UEFA instead? UEFA also still lists that match, for example. –Sygmoral (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an excellent question. I don't have an answer to it, but I do have a proposed solution: have a footnote that briefly explains the cap difference. I think consensus should determine which number gets to stay in the chart (or maybe no number at all could also work).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 03:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

FIFA awards the caps insofar as they determine whether games are official or not. So I always go with FIFA over national FAs, especially as their standards are sometimes lax. GiantSnowman 10:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I would go with FIFA here and only count official matches ad then also add a note as suggested by MarshalN20 saying he has also played two unofficial matches. Qed237 (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This was also discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 92#Unofficial matches. Smartskaft (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Where this no clear position on match status from FIFA, you'd have to go with the player's football association and add a note explaining the situation. Hack (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd go with FIFA here, but a footnote mentioning the unofficial matches is also just as necessary in my mind. - J man708 (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

+/- 3000 more stubs?

With Excel and notepad (only) I'm able to create in a fast way many articles. For creating an article, get it linked to foreign wiki's and creating redirects, cost me about 1 minutes per page. I created this month already >700 Volleyball stubs (see here), like Manuela Secolo, Patricia Soto, Yulissa Zamudio and will create even more in the next weeks. If people are willing to do the same for football, I can help :). I can create excel templates for the FIFA Women's World Cup players and Summer Olympics footballers. We are talking about +/- 3000 pages (raw guess), but I don't have time to do it. I can give the Excel file or upload it somewhere so all the missing players can be created, or missing infoboxes can be added to articles! Let me know if people are enthousiastic :). Cheers, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 22:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I did it a few years ago for obscure World Cup players, for example Gerrit Faulhaber. It is worth doing for these types of players.--EchetusXe 22:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Do it. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be interested in helping out with this... GiantSnowman 10:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in helping. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sander.v.Ginkel: any news on this please? GiantSnowman 08:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Giant, sorry for my late reply. Great that you are willing to create these players. Yes I will make some excell file to create the football players. Where is the best place to upload these files? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 08:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to e-mail it to me. GiantSnowman 09:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Me too if more than one person can be involved. Fenix down (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Team positions in team tables

Hi again, I have two questions regarding tables.

1. When teams have played matches and have the exact same tiebreakers should we just display them alphabetically with positions as 1, 2, 3 and so on or should we put position as 1 (pos = 1) on all the tied teams? Should the same be done for teams that have not played? I am currently mainly thinking about Template:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONMEBOL table, where both Colombia and Uruguay has one 2-0 win.
2. Folloing the first question, should we diplay pos = 1 for all teams when no matches has been played?

The risk of leaving it would be editors moving teams with same position around, to have "their team" on top.

Any answers would be appreciated. Qed237 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

if the templates support alphanumeric instead of strict numeric, I'd say a tie indicator would be appropriate, i.e. T1 like golf uses. For a tournament that hasn't started yet perhaps the positions should be left blank?--John, AF4JM (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with John that that's the most satisfactory outcome if possible. That probably requires going to Module:Sports table and seeing if it is possilbe and/or if it can be added in. In absence of the technical capacity to do that, I'd suggest sticking with Alphabetical order but not particularly worrying if editors do want to move their teams around --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The manual way of changing positions is already implemented and can be seen at tested at User:Qed237/sandbox5 (first example is the current table). What does John, AF4JM, Super Nintendo Chalmers and everyone else think of those examples? It would need some more editing in the template to update positions but it is definately possible. Qed237 (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

perhaps some coding can be made so that no positions is shown when |update=future. Or maybe everyone should be in position 1? Qed237 (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not averse to either of the options presented (alphabetic by nation/club name, same position number, or alphanumeric "T" positions). As far as a specific order, if the teams are presented in a specific order by FIFA or CONMEBOL, then that should be the displayed order. After one matchday, I am not surprised that four teams are tied for first. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The official source from FIFA lists them alphabetic by nation/club name but they dont have the "pos"-row that we have, and the question is what we should have there. Qed237 (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Best would be equal numbers i guess, or no number for any but the first of the tied teams. But for simplicity of the template I'd just go 1,2,3... and not care about tie-breaks. -Koppapa (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Equal numbers or no numbers after the first tied team gets my vote too. I slightly prefer the 'T1' option over '1', which is probably just an aesthetic thing. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I think any of the options at User:Qed237/sandbox5 would adequately convey the tie. Inclusion of the T makes it jump out a bit more visually so the eye isn't tricked into thinking it's 1, 2, 3, etc. Ideally they'd go to a multi-row box like the "Qualified to..." does, but I don't think it's worth making that major modification to a template that's used all over Wikipedia when that change really only affects competitions that are still in progress.

One of these days I need to take the time to convert the league table at Primera División de Fútbol Profesional – Apertura 2015 to use this template because it should make it much easier to edit than the Template:Fb cl header and related team templates that it's using now (which seem more appropriate for short-term stuff like tournament group play).  Done --John, AF4JM (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC) edited 20:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Basically, I am in favour of the status quo, but if any changes are made, I would prefer the same numbered positions. Otherwise, I will not oppose, as long as those eventual changes don't disrupt league table templates. The Replicator (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I would not say I prefer the status quo, but I would be fine with it staying the same. This is a very rare occurrence outside of the first couple of matches, and quickly resolves itself. If there is to be a change, I don't like the look of the "T" even though I know that it's used with other sports. Equineducklings (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

In the linked example the top position should be 1 and the next four should be replaced by an =. The same procedure should then repeated for places 6-10. Ties are only broken once a completion has completely finished. Tvx1 20:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

If I make a summary of this, and please correct me if I am wrong, it feels like many want to display that teams have same position in someway, although tables change quickly and it might not always be needed. The T (for example T1) was suggested, but it is not commonly used in football, and some editors did not like it and those that did like it did not care that much. For that reason I would like to say that current consensus here is to use regular numbers to show team positions like the example below.

Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Qualification
1	Chile	1	1	0	0	2	0	+2	3	Qualification to 2018 FIFA World Cup
1	Colombia	1	1	0	0	2	0	+2	3
1	Ecuador	1	1	0	0	2	0	+2	3
1	Uruguay	1	1	0	0	2	0	+2	3
5	Paraguay	1	1	0	0	1	0	+1	3	Advance to Inter-confederation play-offs
6	Venezuela	1	0	0	1	0	1	−1	0
7	Argentina	1	0	0	1	0	2	−2	0
7	Bolivia	1	0	0	1	0	2	−2	0
7	Brazil	1	0	0	1	0	2	−2	0
7	Peru	1	0	0	1	0	2	−2	0

Updated to match(es) played on 8 October 2015. Source: FIFA
Rules for classification: Qualification tiebreakers

Have I got this right or wrong? If no editor opposes I will make these changes to the world cup qualification tables shortly. Qed237 (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe your summary is correct. As Equineducklings pointed out, this will likely not be required after three or four matchdays, but I think it will help quell any possible arguments of "Why is this country ranked above that country when they are completely equal?" — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thanks to Qed237 that noticed me this discussion (sorry for delay). Well, basically I could agree with the status quo (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc...), because it seems to be the most used form, but I've not a defined idea. Btw, seeing Qed's sandbox, and the CONMEBOL table improved by him, it's ok for me. Well done. Regards :-) --Dэя-Бøяg 01:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with maintaining the status quo and having the teams numbered individually, rather than giving a bunch a mass number, personally. Let's face facts, it will be rare for a situation to occur past a point of say three league games wherein teams will be on an exact number of points, goals, goal difference, yellow cards and red cards. By showing tied teams, aren't we indirectly conflicting with FIFA Articles 20.6-9, wherein teams must be tie-broken?

I think that these changes are only being brought up to counter a potential issue of someone asking "why is X before Y". If we are bringing up this hypothetical person having that issue, then others could argue that any team positioned in equal first shouldn't be in a position in any table where they are in an elimination position.

There is no issue with including a small footnote as to why X is before Y. Also QED, I think you should probably undo the changes you've put into the tables until it has been voted upon and passed. Thanks - J man708 (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Again Qed237, do you mind not making changes until they've been voted on? Please wait longer than 1 day to assume that there is no opposition. - J man708 (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@J man708: Several users has participated and no editor has really opposed except you and there seems to be a consesus. Also consenusus is not done by voting. Qed237 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237:, no editor has overly seemed to support it in favour of the status quo, either? There's no consensus for it to change, over retaining the status quo. Perhaps if it were more definitive and had a lot of pro responses, sure. But it doesn't, it has a few week supports, mainly in favour of a T1 set up, if anything. Please refrain from being so jumpy to change things if there is no immediate objection in the future. 24 hours generally isn't sufficient. - J man708 (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE — Jkudlick ^tc_s 21:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It has now been 11 days, and I made a summary which was agreed on. The consensus could still change but no one else has wanted to weigh in. Also it was a current issue for a few days. As Jkudlick points out, WP:DROPTHESTICK Qed237 (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: "If no editor opposes I will make these changes to the world cup qualification tables shortly." - 12:29, 10 October 2015. Edits to the OFC 2018 page made - 12:56, 11 October 2015‎. I'm asking you in the future to show a little more courtesy to those who aren't on this page often and to please refrain from assuming that no objections exist after 24 hours. This isn't the first time I've seen you jump the gun on something and then subsequently argue the point.

@Jkudlick:, it's hardly flogging a dead horse if one responded four days after a message and then waited five for a response. It's still a live issue, hence why it's still active on the discussion page. - J man708 (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am still monitoring the discussion, in case consensus changes, so I see no reason why I could not go on and make the changes during the current consensus. Qed237 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well then, how about you monitor it and address the issues which I brought up on my October 14 post, rather than picking holes in the timeliness of it all? Also again, you have failed to acknowledge the request I've made of you to in the future allowing for more time, rather than making changes and immediately shut up shop when it comes to discussion for the latecomers? - J man708 (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to give other editors a chance to respond, and then I simply forgot. If this thread would be about only me answering questions that is not a good discussion, I was looking to see if others would comment. About your FIFA rule commment, I dont know exactly what rule you are talking about, but for FIFA World Cup (the templates being changed) all of the official tournament has been followed and when teams are still tied they have same position. If this would happen at end of group stage, there will be extra play-off matches. And about the notes I dont think it would be good to add more notes, it would mean notes for almost everything and I dont think that is the way to go. Qed237 (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What I was getting at is that with the current set up, showing every team as #1, we've got teams sitting in position #1 failing to advance to the next stage, wherein say three teams are meant to advance. A team in position #1 (shown in the fifth slot) should never be in a position of elimination (moreso failure to advance), which is what the current proposal shows. Subsequently, we're now left in a position wherein FIFA qualifiers are all positioned in place #1, and yet domestic league competitions show teams ranked #1-#20. Why is it okay for international teams to be #1, but domestic clubs are ranked normally? Where do we stand on friendly international tournaments involving 4 national teams? Or international club tournaments like the Club World Cup? I feel that this proposal just adds more confusion and of the technical side of it all, rather than keeping it simple and having a rule to cover most tournaments. - J man708 (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Qed237 on this one, as I've indicated above. I've been doing a lot of work at this season's El Salvador league page, partially because it needed help and I needed practice, and part because my wife is Salvadoran, anyway, I added a table with positions by matchday, and put = after ties there, because it's less obvious than in the first column of a table Primera División de Fútbol Profesional – Apertura_2015#Positions_by_round.

In clicking around before replying here, I noticed 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – OFC Third Round self-redirects to 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (OFC)#Third_round. Seems like the kind of thing that should be corrected on site, feel free to visit my talk page if you disagree. Similarly, if anyone knows how to make the Salvadoran table I linked to have a 2 line header like the same table in the La Liga page, which I copied as a template for this one, please let me know because the code looked identical to me (until I commented out the row rendering blank) but the results were quite different.--John, AF4JM (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue I see is that we have domestic club leagues showing unique numbers for all teams that are drawn and then international qualifiers showing multiple teams tied on the same number.... Consistency?

Also, where do we stand when we have two or more teams tied on the same points, but only one of them is in a qualifier spot? Why is Team A1 shown as sitting in the qualifier's spot, but A4 is not? If we're showing that they're tied by means of all teams having the #1 next to their name, then we show that a team in position #1 (in this case all teams shown) is sitting in a position to qualify for the next stage. Who are we to decide that team A1 is more deserving to be positioned in the qualifier's spot than team A4, if they're all shown as being tied? - J man708 (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I am no stranger to implement this whenever I see two tied teams. I already follow all top division tables in Europe as well as many other tables (they are in my sandbox for monitoring) and it is very easy to do. The "qualification-column" shows what happens on those positions, but the rest of the table is always "current table" with the current stats and positions and if teams are tied, they are tied, and then we should somehow display it. Qed237 (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Obtaining data from Wikidata? General opinions

Hi guys, I'm Yellowcard and mainly active in the German Wikipedia.

As you might have heard already, it is meanwhile possible to obtain data from Wikidata and, as Arbitrary Access was enabled, not only from the Wikidata item that is linked to the article but also from other articles. This means: It is possible to obtain data like the players' names in a club roster, or data of a player for the infobox (such as birthday, birthplace, teams and number of games played and goals scored). I tried this in the German Wikipedia: The squad template of Montreal Impact is triggered by the data from Wikidata (item: Q21011427), also the data in the infobox of Ambroise Oyongo (concretely: file name, birthday, number of games and goals for Impact and the date of the last update from Q2842397). It works properly and it would be possible to do even more.

In the German Wikipedia, we face the problem that we don't have enough active users to keep our articles up-to-date, escpecially for players in leagues outside of Europe. The MLS is a good example as we have maybe two or three active editors who update the players' articles which is not enough at all. Idea: If many Wikipedias would obtain some data from Wikidata and would maintain and update it there, all Wikipedia language versions would profit by that.

Of course, there would be some aspects to be talked about in advance, such as what kind of games is counted and what is not, but in the end it would be a fantastic improvement for all smaller language versions that could simply obtain up-to-date data without maintaining all the articles by themselves. So I'd like to ask you about your opinion: Would that be a general option for you to obtain some data from Wikidata and update the data in the Wikidata items directly? What problems do you excpect by doing so? And who would be open to take some steps towards this breaking change?

I'd appreciate if we could talk about the possibilities, potential problems and your willingness to maybe go this new way. I don't want to make changes at the current point of time, but rather have a general talk about this topic. Cheers from Germany, Yellowcard (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the purpose of Wikidata ? I don't fully understand what its uses are. TheBigJagielka (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Basically, it is a huge database with free data. Besides other purposes, all Wikipedia langauge versions can obtain data from there. Example: birthday of Landon Donovan from Wikidata is 4 March 1982 (see wikitext). This is useful especially for data that changes from time to time. An author would update the data in the Wikidata item and the data would automatically be changed in all Wikipedia lanugage versions that obtain the data directly from Wikidata. Yellowcard (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to have this feature on our small-ish wiki (lvwiki), I was not aware that data about club roster there is so complete (is it?). Somebody has to start using it, otherwise there is not much motivation to keep it up to date in Wikidata. --Papuass (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Papuass - es zināju, ka pamanīsi :) other people - nevermind :) Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Papuass: No, yet it is not that complete as it is for Montreal Impact. You name it, if the big Wikipedia versions start using Wikidata, there is a high motivation to keep the data up to date - and all the smaller Wikipedias would benefit (and more and more other projects as well). Yellowcard (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There should be some capable bot operators for maintainin it. I see that you have added Surname for sorting (I would sort just by jersey number), this seems redundant, but could be maintained by bot. --Papuass (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The surname was indeed redundant and I only added it for test purposes as the Lua module wasn't able to get the surname from the players' items. However, I added this function to the module yesterday and removed the surnames from the quad list. // What exactly to you want to maintain by bot? When there is data that is used widely on various Wikipedia projects, it has to be referenced very well and it has to be made sure that the sources are reliable for the league / player. I think that can be done by human beings much better that by bot. Otherwise we would end up in a huge amount of data without knowing how reliable the data is. Yellowcard (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought bot could update these surnames fields. There could be some checks implemented either by bot or Wikidata constraints, for example: player should be only on one squad at a time. We would also need ot consider what to do with players without articles (in semi-professional leagues), but that could be sorted out later, after major leagues are covered.--Papuass (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Edge cases: I thought a bit more, there are some edge cases to think about:

1. Small wikipedias do not have articles about lots of clubs. These wikipedias will need a label in Wikidata in their language.
2. Club has changed name, player history should show old club name. Can be handled as property constraint.
3. Loaned out players. Need a way to indicate that in player history.
4. Non-notable players. How to include them in clubs roster, if they are not allowed in Wikidata? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papuass (talk • contribs) 15:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

--Papuass (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Papuass, thanks for your thoughts! I want to answer them in the same order:

1. That is true. Those projects have two opportunities, in my opinion: Either they add the labels on Wikidata for these clubs – adding a label is not much work, escpecially not compared to writing an article – or they define a fallback language such as English or any other language that the specific language is related to. The items are displayed in that defined fallback language, as long as the label is not existent, then.
2. That can be handled by qualifiers, too. You could add multiple names and add specific qualifiers (start time, end time) that specify when the name was valid.
3. There is already a way by using acquisition transaction (P1642) (example: Romario Williams (Q19693221)). I wrote a lua script for the infoboxes in de.wp that handles the loans properly, see the infobox in de:Romario Williams ("loan" means "Leihe"). This is convertible to the English Wikipedia without too much effort.
4. Players should always be notable in Wikidata when they belong or belonged to a notable club. See d:Wikidata:Notability, criteria 2 and 3 should always be met. Cheers, Yellowcard (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

While the players in squad navbox of Montreal Impact are ordered according to their family name, ordering by shirt number is also possible: de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Kader des FC Lausanne-Sport (d:Q20870955, {{FC Lausanne-Sport squad}}). The latter possibility seems to be preferred here. --Leyo 21:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

What is a club's "full name"?

As you are probably aware, the infobox for football clubs includes a parameter called "full name". What exactly is meant by this? At 1. FC Magdeburg there is a disagreement between myself and 37 about the exact meaning. Per the club's statute, its full name is "1. FC Magdeburg e. V.", and I hold that this should be entered in the full name parameter. However, 37 argues that FC itself is an abbreviation and should therefore be spelled out. I argued that other football clubs, such as FC Schalke 04 define their name to be "Fußballclub Gelsenkirchen-Schalke 04 e.V., abgekürzt „FC Schalke 04 e.V.“" and so we should use the legal moniker of the club. As we have not been able to reach a conclusion to the discussion, I'd ask for you guys to comment. I have linked to this discussion on the talk page. Madcynic (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

As I've noted on the talk page there, its full name is its full name. For most clubs, this will be 'Fußballclub', 'Football Club' etc. However if it is only registered as 1.FC Magdeburg then it should be '1.FC Magdeburg'. For an English example, AFC Wimbledon are quite clear that 'AFC' is just initials - it does not stand for 'Association Football Club'. Most cases will required Fußballclub but there are exceptions; Magdeburg may be one. The best way of settling it would be to find out the name under which it has its license with the German FA --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The German examples are showing the full name of the legal entity. By that measure we would be using "AFC Wimbledon Limited" or "The Arsenal Football Club Plc". Hack (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Youssouf Ahamadi / Hamadi Combo

Hello to you all. I was working on Comoros national team page and came accross this probleme, so here I am to gather opinions on this subject. I think that the two pages Youssouf Ahamadi and Hamadi Combo actually are about the same player.

Combo is actually the nickname of Ahamadi (as can be seen on this official Comoros FA Article : "De même, Hamadi Youssouf, dit Combo, qui évolue cette année en national avec Belfort, actuellement en pleine forme, retrouve la sélection après un an et demi-d'absence.", which can be roughly translated as "H. Youssouf, nicknamed Combo, who plays in National with Belfort this year, is back with the national team after an 18-months absence"). Plus, the national-football-teams.com profile for Combo is completely empty of information except for one single international game. And there is no trace of Combo on football databases nor Belfort official website.

Does anyone agree with me that the two pages should be merged, or a redirect applyied to Combo's article to Ahamadi, as it's seems to be the player's common name ? Thanks for your opinion, Tuttiseme (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

They should be the one article. I've redirected Hamadi Combo to Youssouf Ahamadi. TheBigJagielka (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've merged the histories. GiantSnowman 15:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Good spot guys. I've readded some of the stuff removed by the history merge. BigDom (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Squad articles

Curiosity question: why are we having a complete squad pages for UEFA Youth League seasons, but not, for example, Champions League seasons? -BlameRuiner (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

One could easily ask the same question in reverse. Why do we have a page for UEFA Youth League squads when we don't have them for the Champions League? Personally I don't think we should have either. – PeeJay 23:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm with PeeJay. Squad articles are typically for national team tournaments, not cups or leagues. Number 57 09:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with Omani First and Second Division tables

One of my friends, User talk:Alhosniomani20, has been trying to get a table of the 2015–16 Oman First Division League and 2015–16 Oman Second Division League fixed and I tried to help but I couldn't even find a solution. He is referencing this. He only wants 6 rounds but for some reason the table won't go below 16. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reduced the minimum necessary number of matches to be displayed in the template from 16 to 4. Hope that helps. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The group templates being used in these articles and in 2015–16 Oman Professional League are actually deprecated, and using Module:Sports table is preferred. I'll see what I can do to help with that conversion. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

On unrelated note, I wonder why does this relatively simple page need 107 references? -BlameRuiner (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, several of the managers have multiple references, in some cases as many as 4. Of course, to clean it up without guessing requires being able to read the language. On a related note, is it correct for the references to show up that way? I would have expected them to be in English with a note in parens indicating the original language, or am I confused on that one?--John, AF4JM (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Football club sorting

Hi, started adding DEFAULTSORT to members of Category:Football clubs in Algeria eg "Belouizdad, CR" to CR Belouizdad, is this OK ? I thought this was the standard but thought I'd better check here first, I got as far as J - am I OK to continue or should I undo the changes I have made thus far (A to I) Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that looks fine to me. GiantSnowman 21:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Gareth Bale

Over the last few days, a series of edits have been made to the section titles so that we now have, for example "2011–12: Consistent performer" and "2013–14: Cup finals match winner". To me, these don't seem very encyclopaedic and are probably in breach of the "no PoV" rule. Does anyone else agree? 2.96.234.223 (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; removed. GiantSnowman 21:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

!

Hello to all, can you help me to delete this page ([[Category:Albanian expatriates in the Bulgaria]]) because i created it accidentaly while editing Klodian Semina. There is already a page named [[Category:Albanian expatriates in Bulgaria]]. I Cannot delete it bcz im not an adm. Thank you. -- Sadsadas, talk, 00:41 (CET).

I have listed this for Speedy Deletion --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Football Stub Contest

With this project being one the largest in WP, is there any interest in setting up a Wikipedia:Stub Contest, specific for football-related subjects? Over 100,000 articles are assessed as stub in the article statistics, so there's a lot to go through. We could use most of the rules already defined, or modified them according to consensus. Is it feasible?--Threeohsix (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd certainly be willing to give it a go, time permitting. GiantSnowman 21:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

And some sections above users semi-auto create thousands of stubs and everyone is fine with that? -Koppapa (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Koppapa. Actually it's a pretty pointless enterprise. Yet alone when I think of the quality of most football related articles...mostly just an incoherent collection of trivia. DrunkenGerman (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Division in introduction for players

Sorry to raise this old chestnut again (personally I don't really have an opinion on it), but from what I understood is that the main problem is the automatic updating required to ensure all player articles are accurate. I think I may have found a way around this. We need to create a single template (say {{English club divisions}}) in which the current league of all the clubs is stored. In player articles, this can then be used in the text to list the division (so for example, the code would look like "Player X currently plays in {{English club divisions|Footown United}} for Footown United). Whatever division was in the template (links also work) would then be displayed. This would allow us to update thousands of articles by updating a single template.

I spotted this in use for Scottish football ground capacities, and have recently started using it for populations of places in Israel (see {{Israel populations}} and use at Sde Boker. I'm sure this has plenty of other applications – for example club infoboxes where current division and previous seasons are stated. I recall another discussion we had about automatic updates, but I can't remember what it was regarding. Number 57 16:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don'T think that's a good idea. That will create 100s of templates, which userers will use wrong and they will be as wrong, if they don't get updated in time, or updated but the inclusion is not. -Koppapa (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Koppapa: I think you've misunderstood – only one template is needed, as it contains all the information. Have a look again at the Sde Boker example. Only this one template needs to be updated to update all the articles (the Israel populations one will eventually be used on 1,200+ articles) and save a hell of a lot of work. Number 57 09:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a good solution to me if you have the tech skills to create it and one or two examples? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers and Koppapa: I have created a template at {{EFCDP}}, and have done a couple of examples of its use – Dean Gerken and Jonny Howson. Hope that makes it clear how it works? Number 57 21:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: would that template be negatively affected in anyway should a club be relegated? - J man708 (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@J man708: The whole idea of the template is that it is the only thing we need to update at the end of a season, and all the articles will change automatically. Open the template using the edit button, and you'll see what appears when the "switch" (the club name) is used on an article. This is all we'll need to edit. Number 57 22:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Cool, cool. Seems easy enough. I'd like to see it used. - J man708 (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This could be a good idea, if it is at least semi-protected or template-protected (as it would be used on many places and vandalism would affect many articles). I am more concerned over how to use it in the articles so we dont implicate teams play only in PL or Championship, but thy can also play Champions League and Europa League. Then we also have the issue with lower level leagues, where some players are not updated when they change club, then both club and league will be wrong, instead of just outdated (for example player A did play in Watford last season but sold without article updated so now it say "Watford in the Premier League" which is incorrect and has never happened, while "Watford in the Championship" would be outdated). Qed237 (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point i was making, Qed. Also an if switch with like 500 clubs (only england) wouldn't that be kind of slow. Also how does it work technically, is the whole template loaded when you visit an article? Just that might be 10x times larger than the whole article :D. -Koppapa (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I've been using the Israel populations template (which has over 1,200 entries) on the Israel place articles for a few days and there are no issues with speed.

With regards to the Champions League issue, this sounds more like an objection to including the division in the introduction in general, which is another discussion entirely. This is simply about solving a problem with articles that currently use the division. Number 57 07:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Koppapa - of course, 500 clubs won't need changing as most don't get promoted or relegated in a season. If we presume that the template operates as low as the National League, then 30 updates a season would cover England, which is the country with the largest professional league structure! With regards to Qed's concern - that's a broader issue about the club not being updated rather than league not being updated, as the underlying problem is that the article would still say 'is a Watford player'! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This looks good to me, the template editing should definitely be restricted to template editors/admins as it will be used in hundreds of articles. Certainly helps get rid of my previous concerns about divisions in intros not being updated. GiantSnowman 08:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't edit football articles that often so my opinion shouldn't count for much here, but I just wanted to say this is a very elegant solution. Jenks24 (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I've upped the protection level to template editors & admins only. Does anyone want to take this on? I'm rather busy at the moment, but it was just a suggestion for others to take forward. Cheers, Number 57 09:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I just have two more questions. Why "EFCDP" as the template name, what does it stand for? In my mind things should always has a name so you understand what it is. Secondly, what happens with teams that are no longer on the list? For example, say we add top four English tiers and then when season is over some teams will be relegated to fifth tier and what will then happen to those player articles? We can not just remove them from the template, yet we can not keep updating those teams forever. The team list will just grow. Qed237 (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(1) It stands for English Football Club Divisions in Prose – I thought best to keep the template title as short as possible. The reason I added the "in Prose" at the end is in case we do a similar one for infoboxes – again, to save the annual updating of hundreds of articles. (2) The template doesn't have to be limited to the top four divisions, and I see no reason why all the other teams cannot be updated annually too. Number 57 11:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest a rename of the template, to make it easier to find for people. {{English football club divisions}}? GiantSnowman 11:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll second the suggestion for less cryptic template names. Also, looking at the template, I have to ask why it would add "the" before each league name? Doing so would mean it could only be used in prose and not in the header box. I think that if prose needs "the" in front of the league name it should be in the prose not in the template.--John, AF4JM (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

When you refer to "the header box", what do you mean? A player's infobox doesn't mention the division his club plays in anywhere.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And some leagues have "the" and some dont. If we leave that to the article, then we are back to the same issue having to update all of the articles again. Qed237 (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Good points. I was thinking about the boxes at the top of the team pages, but combined with Qed237's point about "the" or not "the", it's probably better the way it is, because at least 95% of the edits needed when a team changes leagues would be covered by the template in prose-only format, picking up those extra few manually isn't that big of a deal. I had forgotten about it, but just noticed Number 57's comment above about possibly having a separate template for that as well.--John, AF4JM (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought I recommended something alike this a while ago - but my thought was via improving the Footballer infobox, or adding a "club" infobox. Either way, if it's supportable then go for it - although I think including the division in the lede is really unnecessary. Koncorde (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea tbh. It solves a problem, sure, but the problem itself is very minor and the solution seems way too convoluted. The simplest solution, if we must include a club's division in the lead section of a player biography, would be to simply update the article manually. – PeeJay 16:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree completely, PeeJay. The problem is that when a team gets promoted or relegated, then 20-some player articles become wrong. Within any one league, it's typically 2-4 teams meaning possibly as many as 100 player articles that would need to be updated. This idea is to have that information in 1 template. I can't speak for everyone, but I'd rather update 1 template than 100 articles.--John, AF4JM (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Liga II

Liga II - there are a lot of seasons missing, if everyone will choose one, all the seasons will be done by the end of the year, so please start with the second edition, the first one is already done summarily.

I have also references : [8] and [9], for each season.

Just add the information in Wikipedia tables, I will correct if you do not tag correct the teams. Thank you !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this WikiProject has more important things to worry about than a few missing seasons in the history of the Romanian second division... – PeeJay 16:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I see a day in the future when Wikipedia will be the bigger football database ! The format is very good, easy to find what you need, you can go on other page just with a click, and read about teams, players, anything.

Just edit one season, everyone will edit one and will be done in one week ! And after we will start with another country ! Thanks !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for notable content, and not a football database. I have to agree with PeeJay here, there are more important things to work with. Qed237 (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Now is an encyclopedia for notable content, but in the far future when we will add more and more information, the Football part can split and become a database. The format allow to access fast any information, no other football website is so easy and practically in finding various information, all together, by a click or 2 apart. Is still many things missing, and the edits take time, is not just Copy - Paste unfortunately.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

One day I hope we can add also all time top scorers (top 100-200), like we also have all time tables for important leagues, actually some Wikipedia already have, like Italian and Spanish, and why not a program to calculate for us the points, goals and anything, we just to add the results ! That is the future which Wikipedia Football should have !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ossett Town Ladies FC

Does Ossett Town Ladies FC pass WP:NFOOTBALL... ? JMHamo (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I can not see any claims in the article supporting notability. I doubt wp:GNG is met. Some "saved" clubs I've nominated for deletion, are saved because it was added information about participation in a national cup, like the FA-cup or Svenska Cupen (Swedish national cup). Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Match of the Century (1953 England v Hungary football match)

I stumbled across this snappily titled article. I wonder if we can come up with a better title? Comments please here --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Please? --Dweller (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller: - England v Hungary (1953)? GiantSnowman 11:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The title strikes me as a little self-important, since the Wiki article is the only one I can find that calls this the "match of the century." I've only ever seen Italy v. Germany in 1970 consistently referred to by that title. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thierry Henry

If someone would want to take a look at Thierry Henry that would be appreciated. This article is a featured article, but at the latest" Featured article review" in 5 December 2009 the lead was 4 paragraphs and 367 words (see this diff), and WP:LEADLENGTH says three or four paragraphs. However the lead has grown and editors have added to much info not belonging there and now it is 5 paragraphs and 582 words and it looks way to big.

Can someone help with cleanup? I dont have the time now myself, otherwise I could do it myself. Qed237 (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: - is it just me that thinks that the lead is fine? My issue is with the 'Outside football' section, which contains his endorsements; it's way too bitty in my opinion for an FA. There is also very little mention of his career after retirement (as a pundit) and his later career text reads more like a list of results than actual prose; however, this is to be expected given the high profile that Henry has and the fact that it hasn't had a copy edit for years. Gilberto Silva, by comparison, requires much less maintenance work. Spiderone 10:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles of young footballers

Currently, the rule seems to be that anyone who has made a professional league flight debut is eligible to have an article and passes the prerequisites of Project Football's Notoriety. This means that a player who played a single fixture may have a page written about them. Teeboy Kamara is an example of such a player. Admittedly, he was at the time the youngest player in the league and also played in two Champions League fixtures, but after spending 2 years out of the game, he is now playing with a semi-professional state league club. A Google search of his name returns "About 4,630 results". Another example is Tony Hatzis who also featured in a single top flight match and now whose Google search returns more entries of a barrister by the same name.

Compare this with a player such as Jake Brimmer. Brimmer was on the cusp of signing with Melbourne Victory and would've more than likely made his first team debut by now, which would've immediately deemed himself notable, instead at the 11th hour, was offered a much more lucrative deal with Liverpool and subsequently signed for them. Also, a Google search of his name returns "About 95,800 results".

Because of the strength of Liverpool's first team, he is unlikely to make his debut for quite some time. Still though, the current rule has it that a player like Kamara who is now very much out of the limelight can keep his article, but the newly created article about Brimmer is going through an AfD and is more than likely going to be deleted in the upcoming week.

Perhaps it's time for us to rethink what truly counts as notable coverage, notability and our own rules on who deserves an article. - J man708 (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. If Brimmer has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources then he will pass WP:GNG, and his lack of senior appearances would not be relevant. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, but in all honesty has Kamara recieved the coverage that Brimmer has? Not even by half, I'd say. - J man708 (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS / WP:WAX. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're being helpful. I'm not asking to be linked Wiki Essays, I'm asking why something is the way that it is. - J man708 (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's that way because you need some sort of guideline (not a hard and fast rule, but some sort of idea) of what makes the difference in a football player being notable or not. You have lots of professional footballers who are notable, because there are lots of professional clubs and leagues around the world, but you have even more semi-professional and amateur footballers whose careers are recorded by statistical sites and so on. In addition to that every club operates youth teams. If you had no guideline of that nature, you would have fans creating articles for the youth team players of their favourite club. Some of those players might progress to first team professional level, but many of them don't (even at the richest clubs). The point of a guideline like this is that gives people on the project an idea of what to look for when proposing an article for deletion. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I still don't think you're quite getting what I'm asking. In every sense bar the single senior cap, Brimmer is far more notable than either Hatzis or Kamara, but according to the Wikirules they deserve an article, but Brimmer doesn't. I'm not arguing that Brimmer deserves an article per se (moreso if anything that Hatzis or Kamara don't, especially when Brimmer was relatively close to signing for a team which more than likely would've played him in their first XI), but what I am stating is that we may need to readdress what constitutes notable when a player who brings up almost 100,000 Google responses isn't notable, but a player with 5,000 is. - J man708 (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Then nominate one of them for deletion for failing WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think there may be confusion of "ability" with "notability" here - that's the issue. Sure Brimmer "may have played for Melbourne Victory by now had he signed" (TBH I'm skeptical of that, he is still very young), but Wikipedia isn't meant to reflect the "best" footballers, it reflects those who have been given significant attention by reliable sources. Another BIG issue here is that everyone tends to look at WP:NFOOTY as the ultimate decisive factor in notability discussions when of course it shouldn't be. If a player meets WP:GNG, they should have an article, if not, they shouldn't, regardless of what matches they have/haven't played. WP:NFOOTY is meant to save time and create presumptions for such discussions but too often it seems like people look at it and it only. Macosal (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Not saying the present situation is right or wrong but it's been that way for all the 9 plus years I have been editing. WP:NFOOTY is used to create articles on players who have merely played a few minutes and those articles stand and rarely are they nominated for deletion even when that player make no more appearances. For others who do not pass WP:NFOOTY then they have to pass the GNG test - that's the way it is. Now if someone could put forward another method, maybe a new consensus would be reached but without any new workable proposals we live with what we have.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anything is wrong with the current system, as long as people remember that GNG is the actual test, rather than NFOOTY as the be all and end all. Macosal (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thus my discussion, Egghead06. To me, it doesn't quite add up. Macosal made mention to the fact to "ability", as opposed to "notability" (funny how those words aren't opposites). It's just interesting that a theoretical youth player who hasn't made a first team appearance, but who could've had scored amazing clutch goals in finals tournaments isn't deemed to be as worthy to have an article as a player with a handful of senior caps ten years back who now works a regular 9-5 job. I'm not making a specific suggestion (for a lack of my own personal ideas) on a fix, but I feel as though the current system has its flaws and that some of you guys may have some ideas as to a fix. - J man708 (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

<reduce indent> The underlying point is that a player doesn't have to meet WP:FOOTY's conditions if he or she meets general notability of having significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple sources. Look at Colin Cowperthwaite - never played a day's professional football in his life but has had an article here for 7 years based on his achievements/coverage/notability. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The one that always comes to mind for me is Sonny Pike. Number 57 10:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well first of all, and no offence meant, it is the lack of ideas which keeps the system as it is. Only when we are offered alternatives will we as editors arrive at a consensus to change the current grounds for creating new articles on footballers. Until then we are doomed to repeat this topic!--Egghead06 (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of it not being something of immediate focus, which may've slipped through the cracks and it being brought to light had possibly sprung up a few ideas. - J man708 (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Redlinks

Am I correct in interpreting WP:RED as redlinks should be avoided in such articles as 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season for players who do not currently meet any notability criteria? Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 22:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This would not be the relevant forum. That would be WP:RED. Also why were at it shall we ask what the projects opinion on adding unverified information to said article and ignoring all attempts to get him to source it.Blethering Scot 22:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, only for those who are notable, to encourage article creation. Non-notable should remain de-linked. GiantSnowman 22:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, players who are not notable should not be redlinked – this only encourages inappropriate article creation. WP:REDLINK is quite clear about this – "Articles should not have red links to topics that do not warrant an article". Number 57 22:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not what WP:Red says about existing links remaining in articles. Not what is says at all. Also it is a guideline not a policy. WP:Verification is a policy which is ignored blatantly by Jimbo [10]..Blethering Scot 22:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:REDNOT is quite clear here - "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created and retained in Wikipedia" aka "Do not create red links to articles that are not notable." GiantSnowman 22:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, I deleted redlinks for youth players who were released two seasons ago at 2013–14 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season, and still don't pass notability. All seems a bit WP:CRYSTALly to me. --Jimbo^[online] 22:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Its a fucking guideline. Also it states plausible under dealing with existing red links not notable. Not a policy. Sourcing is important. Red links are not. He's a petty idiot who decided to play clever dick because I asked him to find a source which he never bothered his arse to. Your a bunch of losers. Block me I no longer give a fuck so I'm retiring. You spend hours trying to improve content and source article to the best of your ability and someone who proudly displays good articles on his talk page can't be bothered his arse to source something. This place is a grade a flying joke. Bunch of arseholes the lot of you.Blethering Scot 22:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Blethering Scot: if I see comments / an edit summary like that again I'll block you. I suggest you log-off for the night and calm down. GiantSnowman 22:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I meant it. Block Me you are a fucking wanker.Blethering Scot 22:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Assistance

Can anybody please make the pertinent adjustments in Jonathan Soriano's chart of statistics (not the box, mind you, the one below)? I elaborate:

said chart shows him playing one Copa del Rey game with FC Barcelona B. Indeed, B-teams did play cup matches back in the days (ceased in the 80's I think), but not anymore. This appearance, against Cultural y Deportiva Leonesa as the source in storyline very well shows, was for Barcelona A, so we need two separate columns, one for Barcelona B and another for Barcelona A with just that cup appearance.

Attentively, thank you in advance --84.90.219.128 (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Done, also improved display. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 21:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I was going to say, there's rather more wrong with it than that. He played several Cup matches for Espanyol, and played for them in the UEFA Cup. If it's including Barcelona B, then it has to include Espanyol B as well. And he played for Barcelona in the SuperCup, which there isn't even a column for. Problem arises from whoever drew up the table not using sources that fully cover the player's career and presumably not realising they don't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Also done. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 23:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Article rename/move proposal

It was announced that a new team would be created with a similar name to a defunct one. I've proposed moving the article of the defunct club. Please see the talk page at Bethlehem Steel F.C.. TheBigJagielka (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Manuel Kaguako

Hello football enthusiasts. Is this old page about a notable player? Should it be (1) deleted (2) kept in Draft space for a season (3) improved and moved to mainspace?—Anne Delong (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFOOTY (never played a game, let alone a one between professional teams, 8 unused sub) and WP:GNG, article draft is old, he is back at Drogheda UTd now. Not sufficant coverage this season, which is nearly over, I cant see it passing anytime soon. Murry1975 (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Tagged for WP:G13. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!—Anne Delong (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Dave Mitchell (footballer)

Can someone look at this article about an Australian footballer. His "International goals" sections includes goals against Rangers, Red Star Belgrade, Caroline Hill (Hong Kong) and "Dez Marton Squad". As none of these are full international matches, they should be removed. This brings his goal tally down to 11 whereas the infobox credits him with 13 goals for Australia in 44 matches.

The Soccerway reference cited relates to a totally different player (K. Amri from Singapore). The National Football Teams site credits him with 11 goals in 27 matches, whereas the Australian Player Database at Ozfootball credits him with 13 goals in 44 appearances for the "Socceroos" (the same as the infobox), but this includes a whole host of matches against European club sides - as well as those mentioned, there are matches against Nottingham Forest, Juventus, FC Twente, and several others. If I've spotted them all, the club matches total 15. If these are excluded, this brings the total full internationals down to 29.

Are there any reliable sources which show which Australian matches are deemed to be "full" internationals? Before changing the article, the final result should be properly sourced and referenced. 78.147.149.132 (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

p.s. On looking again at the article, there is so much that is wrong with it, I wouldn't know where to start trying to fix it. The whole article is virtually unreferenced and is so full of opinions and "cruft". Help'!!!!! 78.147.149.132 (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

RSSSF credits him with 11 goals, but he is not shown in their list of players with 30 or more appearances. 92.24.170.160 (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This OzFootball page lists all Australia's matches, defining A-internationals as those where "the federations of both competing countries endorsed the match" and B-internationals as anything else, with a disclaimer that others may disagree... As to how it affects Mitchell's count, in 1988 they list matches against USSR and Yugoslavia as B-internationals, which brings his total A-international matches played down to NFT's 27. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the FFA, he played 29 full internationals, scoring 11 goals. They count all pre-1992 Olympic matches as full internationals.[11] Hack (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

{{F.C. Internazionale Milano}} is unreadable

I raised this a last month but with out much input Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_98#Colourful_Navboxes . Rather than remove the colours , can someone who knows about this club make this template readable? Gnevin (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The colours on this version from Jan 2015 are slightly better than the current version; I have restored these. There's no way of making light blue on navy blue easily readable. The alternative would be to change the text on the navy backgrounds to white - there is prominent white on the Inter badge. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This would be with white text on the dark backgrounds. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it to use white text, but who knows how long that will last before some Inter fanboy changes it back. – PeeJay 11:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks . It's a pity we can't just fix all these by removing the colours. There are so many unreadable templates Gnevin (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I completely disagree with that idea. Colours are quite informative and can help you pick out the navbox you want among a list of them. It's just a matter of finding combinations of colours for each team that are accessible to the reader. – PeeJay 14:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Genuine question here . How are they informative? Do you think to yourself Scotland play in Blue and Navy I'll look for those colours? What about all the teams that play in red , surely it's not helpful then. What if a team plays in Blue and Black but we change to Black and White to readability? Gnevin (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

<reduce indent> I think that there's a more basic point that colour is more attractive, engages people and makes Wikipedia more usable as a result. We want it to be subtle and need to put readability first, but around that the use of colour is a key part of the aim of teaching people stuff! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gnevin: I assume you're referring to the Inter navbox with your last comment there? If you look closely, you'll see that the navbox still follows Inter's colour scheme, as there is a thin blue border around the black section and the text is the same colour as the name and number on the back of Inter players' shirts. – PeeJay 19:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware it's following the inter scheme but other inter templates are using a completely different set of colours. Anyway I was more just wondering how you use these colours to navigate as I can't Gnevin (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't responding to that part of your comment, I was responding to your comment about what happens when we change the colours of the navbox to assist readability; the answer is, we continue to work within the colour palette of the club in question, but using an arrangement of colours that is legible by as many users as possible. As for your earlier point, I suppose the colours do require some prior knowledge of football, but for the few people reading these articles without prior knowledge, I suppose they could just read the header of the navbox for the name of the team they're looking for; obviously there's nothing to stop anyone from just doing that, but for those who do know what colours a club uses, adding the colours to the navbox is a benefit. – PeeJay 13:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)