This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

Greetings all,

After a disagreement with an IP editor (i.e., edit war... spare me the lecture, please), I want to take the issue of how to sort players in the "current squad" and "recent call-ups" sections of national football team articles since there seems to be nothing codified, per say. In the "current squad" section, the preference has been to sort by position then by name in the absence of squad numbers; at which point the players should be order by numbers. A quick survey by User:Kevin McE saw that the ordering of players in the "recent call-ups" section is not universal, but share some similarities: position --> recent call-up --> caps. I want to know what people think about this order because it doesn't make sense to me. "Recent call-ups" is a list of players and should be ordered by the players' names early on, either position --> players' name (to keep it similar to the "current squad" section), or just the players' names. If it was really about the the recent call-ups, it would be order by recent call-up --> players. What do you all think? Digirami ( talk) 17:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Divided into position (GK, DF, MF, ST), then arranged alphabetically by surname, I'd say. Giant Snowman 17:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That is the way that I've always seen it. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 18:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect this to be a majority opinion, but I'd rather not list them by position, simply because the positions are not that fixed: is a player "in the hole" really more a striker than a midfielder? Is even the manager really clear whether his player is a wide midfielder or a winger? Was that a 5-3-2-1 formation or a 3-5-2-1, or even a 3-2-3-2-1? Some managers might be in the habit of announcing "My defenders are...., my midfielders are ...., my forwards are ....", but I doubt the practice is universal. Players often start a game as a midfielder and finish it as something else, or play successive matches in different positions (left midfield one day, left back another) And not listing by position would allow us to get rid of those ugly bars and subheadings that often appear.

As to the order, I'm really not that bothered: most recent call up lists are short enough that it will never be that difficult to see a particular name.

It requires a bit more work, but sortable tables allow us to have some flexibility. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Websites such as the BBC, National-Football-Teams etc. sort by position. Just sayin'. Giant Snowman 19:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

For all national teams? And does a nominal midfielder always play in midfield? This can lead to the sort of situation where the declaration of what can usually be assumed to be a RS can be clearly be debunked by observation of what actually happens. Kevin McE ( talk) 09:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much confine myself to only a couple of NT articles, and have never a big fan of the whole recent call-up thing, but accept them as a compromise over the "what is a current squad" argument, and it has the benefit of easily adding people back in with correct DOB etc,. When I do deal with them I tend towards by last chronological appearance (most recent first) simply because I normally qualify the section with "..called up in the previous 12 months.." or similar, and this makes it easier to notice and simply drop them off the end when the time comes.--Club Oranje ^T 09:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to wrap this up but rather to draw out some conclusion as is, I think we can at least agree that under any "current squad" section for NFTs, the order of players should be 1) position, 2) surname... Except if there are squad numbers; at which point to sort the players by their squad number (just like a club squad list).

As for the "recent call-ups", I seem to notice a trend as the above, except with the squad number clause. Am I off in drawing that conclusion?

As for the position, I think most FAs or other organizations release a squad lists that has a designated position for a player. That would be the position that should be indicated in any squad list, regardless of how he is used on the field. Digirami ( talk) 22:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'll take the absence of response as an acceptance of my conclusion... unless anyone wants to chime in. Digirami ( talk) 14:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't been checking this page as much as I should have - agree with position then surname in lieu of official squad numbers. Giant Snowman 14:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not order them squad number if they have been assigned to all members of the squad, say for a continental championship or the World Cup? We do it clubs. Digirami ( talk) 17:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to reach 3RR at this page, with a new user who repeatedly adds unsourced information about this player, claiming to know him personally from school. Any help appreciated. Giant Snowman 13:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor in question continues to revert, as well as flicking between his registred account and an anon one. Please feel free to join in the discussion at Talk:Tommy Hoban#RS to V. Giant Snowman 14:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Here I come to save the day! Argyle 4 Life ^talk 14:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, thanks for that! Giant Snowman 14:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

base on List of current Strongest National Leagues by IFFHS, and template base on every template in the "Category:Association football top scorer awards templates", need a look upgrade-- Feroang ( talk) 02:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed. Strongest national league is such a vague term. - Koppapa ( talk) 05:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the template is needed, and as it's based on points, then presumably composition of Top 10 will change over time anyway. Eldumpo ( talk) 10:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, not a template we need, especially as UEFA coefficients etc. are fine. Giant Snowman 12:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

UEFA coefficients do NOT tell which league is strongest, the argentinian or the chinese, the IFFHS yes do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feroang ( talk • contribs) 03:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not strongest, it is highest ranked based on a random system by on organisation. - Koppapa ( talk) 07:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Why be exclusive? This template is fine. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 18:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What Koppapa said! -- Pretty Green ( talk) 08:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we get this proposed for deletion? -- MicroX ( talk) 08:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

at Ryan Burge, please feel free. Any improvement you can make to the wording of the latest addition while retaining verifiability and neutrality would be much appreciated. thanks, Struway2 ( talk) 17:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You just gotta love those anonymous editors, I guess. Erikeltic ^{( Talk)} 17:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• The user does not seem all that keen on discussing stuff in the talkpage, and the first words he uttered in summary bordered on the personal insult towards you. As i said, i don't edit in English players and/or foreigns who compete in the country because "you know what happens" but, in the anon "user"'s case, page protection and/or IP block and we're done ;) Cheers - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 17:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

He's now been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, I'll continue to monitor the situation. Giant Snowman 22:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Guess who's back...? Giant Snowman 13:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a little issue with the page about the Rio Grande Valley Ocelots FC. A new editor - User:Ocelots FC - seems to be having trouble understanding the core issues of WP:COPYVIO, WP:COI and WP:OWN. I think this person is either the general manager or owner of the team, and as such he is now trying to replace the entire article with text taken verbatim from the team's website. He says he's the owner of the copyright, which "gives him the right to do this", but then reverts any changes to his "copyrighted material", which is clearly contradictory and a double-standard. Some of the info he's added is fine (although it does need editing to remove weasel words and suchlike), so he's not vandalizing per se, but every time I try to do some copy editing, keeping the new good info and mixing it with the older, non-- WP:COI stuff, he just reverts on sight, with bizarro edit summaries. I've tried to explain the situation, both in edit summaries and on his talk page, but nothing seems to be getting through. I don't want to hit 3RR, so a little help would be appreciated! JonBroxton ( talk) 03:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the user's most recent changes. I doubt it'll last long but hopefully seeing other people get involved will make them see sense. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 04:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems things have been sorted now and the two users have agreed a way forward. Eldumpo ( talk) 08:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

According to his "user", all players on earth will, at some point, play for Olympiakos F.C. so it seems :) Cheers - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 01:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough.-- Echetus Xe 09:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The latest - and, sadly, not gonna be the last - scandal that is gonna affect all the Italian football panorama. I just created an article, if you can help improving it would be great. Thanks in advance. -- Angelo ( talk) 16:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, and perhaps the best way to work on related articles between the unveilings of new facts on the 2011 scandal – the Totonero 1980 and Totonero 1986 articles could also use some work. -- Soccer-holic ^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Good article, can't believe I found out about it here, instead from the news. Perhaps these few sources can improve the article. They contains reactions by several players and coaches.

• Maxi-investigation on betting "Match-fixing in Serie B and C" from La Gazzetta dello Sport
• Italian players arrested in match-fixing probe from The Independent

Cheers! — MT ( talk) 03:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry didn't realize that the La Gazzetta article already used there with a different title. — MT ( talk) 04:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Scarbarians F.C (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I assume it isn't notable, but.. I know nothing about football clubs, so I'm hoping someone here will look at it. (not following this page, give me a {{ tb}} if necessary) tedder ( talk) 18:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well written, but sadly not notable. Do you want to do the honours or shall I? ;) Giant Snowman 18:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Now at PROD. Giant Snowman 19:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

According to today's Non-League Paper, the ridiculously named Leigh Genesis have folded their senior team, seemingly for good, but does plan to continue fielding youth teams. So should the club's article be moved to Category:Defunct English football clubs or not......? -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 19:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say so; it is the senior team which conferred notability in the first place, and that team no longer exists. Giant Snowman 19:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with GiantSnowman. For those interested, 200% has a good summary of events. One of those where the blogs outdo the traditional WP:RS. Oldelpaso ( talk) 19:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree too, the senior team no longer exists and that is what the article is about. I'm surprised they lasted this long. The way they were run was disgraceful. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 21:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I edited the article with the consensus that they are now defunct. If of course they turn up in a league at some point in the future then the article can be edited again, changing 'were' to 'are' and so forth.-- Echetus Xe 21:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The National Challenge Cup, commonly known as the U.S. Open Cup had an official name change as most of you may know when it became titled the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. It might surprise you to know that prior to that the tournament was never officially called the U.S. Open Cup. The official name was always National Challenge Cup. Articles were created using U.S Open Cup but that was before extensive research was done. Most of the information that people had used came from the internet, namely the US Soccer Archives. The archives use the term Open Cup as far back as 1948 leading people to believe that there was an official name change however this was not so. Recently some users had retitled some of the older articles to say USOC instead of NCC based on the outdated information on the Archives and US Soccer sites. In fact the 1949 tournament was retitled USOC despite a direct reference in the opening paragraph citing a quote by the cup commissioner himself who used the term NCC. There are many variations on the name because there were so many newspapers and sports writers across the country. Among them: U.S. Cup, National Cup, U.S. Open, U.S. Challenge, U.S. National Open, National Open, National Open Challenge, National Challenge, U.S.F.A., U.S. Soccer Championship, National Soccer Cup, National Soccer Championship, U.S. Open National Challenge, USSF National Challenge. Despite the variety in use the only one that can be called the 'official name' is NCC since that is the term used in official documentation and publications as well as championship hardware and sponsorship. In fact all the other tournaments were also called the NCC's which include the Amateur and Junior Cups. National Amateur Challenge Cup(est. 1922) and National Junior Challenge Cup(est. 1935). Variations include National Amateur Cup, Amateur Cup, and U.S. Amateur Cup, etc. The term open is used as an identifier to make things easier for newspaper readers to understand. That goes for the term U.S. since it clarifies which nation's tournament it is not to mention the fact that it saves space and ink. The reason I did not make any other articles past 1940 and prior to 1988(w/ exception of 48,49,73) was that I was uncertain what the best title should be. For example 1982 was USSF/Lowenbrau National Challenge Cup, or 1988 Budweiser USSF National Challenge Cup. Even the 1973 article data coming from USSF publications would be U.S. Open National Challenge Cup which is quite long so I left it as USOC for the time being. Recently, I thought a good solution was to use redirects, since a user had mistakenly made USOC articles for the 50s and 60s, so that USOC redirects to NCC. I think redirects for 70s and 80s would be good too since someone might look for 1985 USOC and it would send them to Budweiser USSF NCC instead. Anyway I brought this discussion here because no one seemed to be taking part in discussions on the main tournament page or the individual articles(it has also been placed on the US/Candaian taskforce). I also noticed edit war behavior looming with one user not responding to discussion and another engaging in massive reverts. So far the only discussions that have been taking place were at thecup.us which by the way is also not updated. That site's historical section is still under construction and currently reflects the old US soccer archive data. Libro0 ( talk) 22:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be useful to post a few links to some of the pages you mention above e.g. "US Soccer sites". Isn't the competition commonly known as US Open Cup, in which case we don't always go with the official name. What do RSSSF say? Eldumpo ( talk) 08:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The archive page in question, the US site, the RSSSF entry, and the soccer hall of fame site all share the same body of research conducted primarily by David Litterer, Roger Allaway, and Colin Jose. You would assume these sites be the authority on the subject but Mr. Jose said to me in an email after discussing several topics that may have been in error, "I find that the more research I do the more I find that things that have been long accepted as fact are wrong. So the more you probe the more inaccuracies you find. It's fun but time consuming, and the only way to do it is by looking through old newspapers on micro-film." I have done a great deal of painstaking research and have been able to correct errors and find new information. But it looks like I am not going to be allowed to make any corrections to the pages now. Libro0 ( talk) 04:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have interacted with all three of the above gentlemen and they are humble, friendly and helpful. The email statement from Mr. Jose is not a fake. I can and am willing to verify it. The site usopencup.com which is now thecup.us also displayed the old information like the sites mentioned above. The site is not yet updated. On the tournament's main discussion page I have provided some sources that are better to use. Libro0 ( talk) 04:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Article naming should generally follow the available sources as per Common name ( WP:UCN). We don't just follow what official sources say, and if numerous online and print sources show US Open Cup we should stick with that. l don't doubt that the research you refer to is accurate and this should be added to the article as appropriate. How about a section within the article called "Naming of the tournament". Eldumpo ( talk) 15:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good point in fact UCN is essentially the same logic behind some of the conclusions reached in discussions with other researchers. It was found it would be best to use the term US Open Cup as far back as the early to mid 70s. National Open Cup for the 60s. National Challenge Cup prior to that. So as it is currently, there is no consensus. Aside from naming concerns there is also the issue of other errors which I had tried to correct. Libro0 ( talk) 02:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

But are there sources naming the competition as NOC/NCC. If not, it may be best to leave the pages at USOC and create redirects for those seasons where there were different names for the competition officially? Eldumpo ( talk) 20:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There may be several 'sites' that have the same info but they are all from one 'source' which is the three Hall of Fame researchers I mentioned above. Their archive is very broad collection of data. It is not Open Cup specific. It primarily focuses on finals and semifinals. In order to get full results it takes looking at papers all over the country for a span of over 90 years. This is where the collection of variations I mentioned above come from. I haven't even listed them all. But as far as official sources go I will list them here: 1948 U.S. soccer guide and record. p 23, 'National Challenge Cup' (section title); 1949 U.S. annual soccer guide and record. p.42 NCC; 1950 U.S. annual soccer guide and record. page# illegible NCC; 1951 North American soccer guide. p29 NCC; 1952 North American soccer guide. page# faded NCC; 1953 North American soccer guide. p47 NCC; 1954 North American soccer guide. p65 NCC. The 1961 and other 60s 'USSFA Official annual guide' books still show NCC in their sections but various other articles by regional sports writers start to show variations like National Open Cup, National Open Challenge Cup, and even Open Challenge Cup. By the time of the USSFA Official Yearbooks of the early 70' U.S. Open Cup had begun to appear. In 1973 the term National Open Challenge Cup is used, while USOC is used over a team photo and simply Open Cup is used with more frequency in articles. In the 80s the sponsored titles I mentioned above are used and I have a photo of a champion medal that says Budweiser USSF NCC Champions. Trophies(not the Dewar Cup) given out in 1992, 93, and 94 say National Open Cup. The articles for 1948 and 1949 were NCC but have been changed to USOC. The 1949 has a St.L Post-Dispatch reference in it thats says NCC. I tried to correct some errors but they were reverted. Libro0 ( talk) 02:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Are Mike Adams (footballer) and Mike Adams (football coach) the same person?

Some sources say Adams is Grenadian, but looking at this video.. he's English. TheBigJagielka ( talk) 02:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother registering at the national team's website for details, as the page http://www.gfa.gd/people/administration/coaches is a 'Common Page' with three YouTube videos on.-- Echetus Xe 08:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is proof that they are different individuals: [1], unless of course he has got one hell of a tan from working in the Caribbean.-- Echetus Xe 08:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Grenada at FIFA.com says Grenadian. For what its worth, PoB is Grenada according to this. Banana Fingers ( talk) 09:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

SoccerWay (owned by GlobalSportsMedia who have a contract with CONCACAF for keeping tabs on CONCACAF nations' games) says he is English, a 2004 USA today article says he played in England. I'm unsure. TheBigJagielka ( talk) 11:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I came across him while cleaning up 2010 UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship qualification. It seems that there are duplicate articles about him: Alexandre Gonçalves and Alexandre Freitas. Could someone take a look, don't know what to do: merge and delete, redirect or something else. Dr. Vicodine ( talk) 12:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorted! UEFA.com also had a duplicate record of him so I guess that's where the confusion came from. TheBigJagielka ( talk) 14:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Dr. Vicodine ( talk) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

After edits like this (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sergio_Busquets&diff=432451603&oldid=431780342), why is this IP not blocked ON SIGHT, and still treated with courtesy? Boggles the mind...

Attentively - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 22:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that some player pages, mostly those who play in Germany, have reserve team stats included in the infobox. For example, check out Sofian Chahed. Personally, I don't think that appearances in the reserve team should be included, as long as you're a member of the first team. It also looks very ugly, especially since the years overlap. What's the general consensus on this ? TonyStarks ( talk) 05:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In some countries such as Germany, Spain, and even France to some degree, the reserve teams compete in the same league pyramid as the senior teams. Therefore stats should (and indeed are in Chahed's case) be available and verifiable, and should be used in infoboxes. Giant Snowman 10:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

For example, Barcelona's reserve team plays in a fully pro league so its players are notable. It wouldn't make sense to then leave out of the infobox the league stats that made the player notable in the first place. Big Dom 14:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand that. If a player played in the reserve team, then moved up to the senior team, it would make sense to include both in the infobox. But take for a example a first team regular who gets injured and plays a couple of games with the reserve team to regain fitness. Would it make sense to include those stats in the infobox? For me that does not make sense. TonyStarks ( talk) 18:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean now. Actually I agree with you, it could be mentioned in the text of the article or even in the detailed "Career statistics" boxes that some players have, but it probably isn't worth putting them in the infobox. Big Dom 21:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree; if they have played for the reserve team in a senior league (as in the Spanish, German, French system), then we should mention it in the infobox, regardless of whether that was due to injury or poor form or whatever. No original research, remember? Giant Snowman 18:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In a "non-whining note" (although i feel i - WE - have all the right in the world to complain about these...how shall i put it..."brilliant people" that come here and ruin the work of the well-intended users):

can someone have a look at this player's statistics chart please? I am terrible at fixing those (trying to fix that is...), and here's the deal: he split 1995/96 between Antwerp and Cremonese, unlike what the chart says. Moreover, 1996/97 was not spent in Serie A, but in Serie B (please see 1996–97 Serie B).

For more help, see Aloisi's National-Football-Teams.com page ( here). Thank you very much in advance, will certainly finish cleaning up the player's page tomorrow, it reeks with overlinking and info that does not belong there (i.e. speaking of errors committed/goals scored by other players, etc). -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 00:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Serie B stats should be included in the stats. -05:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Of course, but we should not have LIES in stats, like saying he spent two seasons in SERIE A, when he did not! - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 14:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fixed that. Didn't understand you ment the stats box down the page. - Koppapa ( talk) 17:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks my friend, nice job :) - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 17:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Two current threads at Talk:UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying will be of longer term interest than merely the current competition. One is whether, where the outcome of a team's participation in a league is determined before the end of the series of matches, it is either necessary or desirable to describe this outcome as "mathematical". The other is the application of tie-breaker criteria while the group stage is still in progress when this is not done by the organisers. Kevin McE ( talk) 06:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, there is an ongoing requested move at Talk:Gambrinus liga#Requested move (3rd) which may of interest to members of this project. Jenks24 ( talk) 12:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And another one at Talk:Slavia Prague#Requested move. Jenks24 ( talk) 12:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Worth taking a look at especially the Gambrinus liga. Should the sponsors name be used in the title of an article. 16:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Warburton1368 ( talk)

More input on Gambrinus liga would most certainly be welcome. Strong arguments have been made both ways. — W F C— 10:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also a request for move at Talk:Slavia Prague. - Darwinek ( talk) 14:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

See here for discussion. Personally, I don't think the move should have been made without first discussing an issue that could impact a lot of non-national representative teams. — JS ^{Rant Away} 23:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with the move if the redirect stays for consistency. - Koppapa ( talk) 15:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

but unfortunately got no reply before the thread was archived. Maybe I'm the only person bothered by it, but I'll try here, in the hope some passer-by might take an interest...

There's an IP-hopper obsessive, currently active at Special:Contributions/109.148.45.193, with a particular but not exclusive interest in Blackburn, who goes round making some valid edits, updating stats and the like, but at the same time:

• changing the pcupdate and ntupdate dates regardless of whether they change the stats, and sometimes changing to a date/time inappropriate to the stats
• sometimes editing just to change pcupdate by a few minutes, as this edit and the next three, where they change pcupdate/ntupdate three times in four edits
• changing maintenance tag dates to the current month
• filling the article with repeated unsourced sentences of the form "On [date], he started and played the full 90 minutes against xxx at xxx.", as at Martin Olsson#2010-11 season
• linking everything repeatedly, and linking just by putting brackets round the word, as [[Fulham]], whether correct or not
• editing to change wording slightly, and then changing back, as in this morning's exercises at Michael Turner (footballer) where the lead was changed from "who plays for Premier League club Sunderland" to "who plays for Sunderland" to "who plays for Sunderland in the Premier League" to "who plays for Sunderland"

In terms of the things like changing maintenance tag dates and wrong linking, I and others have tried explaining to them in the (distant) past how things should done, but unfortunately it seems to be a question of personal amusement rather than incompetence. I've no idea whether the IP range(s) they use are narrow enough to be blockable, but it'd be nice if something could be done to persuade them to edit in a less disruptive manner. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 10:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anybody could gain amusement out of that. Probably a person with obsessive-compulsive disorder or something if they cannot seem to stop themselves making minor changes like updating templates to the correct month. Blocking the IP would probably help the person as well as the project.-- Echetus Xe 10:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of disruptive editing, I would like a few more eyes on Balázs Dzsudzsák. Check the edit history. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This is something that has been going through my mind as of late and I wanted to open a discussion on it. In MOS:FLAG under Use of flags for sportspeople (yes, sorry to open this can of worms again), the second paragraphs states that "Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that the flags represent representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise." It makes me wonder, do managers count as sportspeople in the way the MOS intended? And if that's the case, aren't we using flags to indicate a legal nationality, not a representative nationality since managers and other non-players don't actually represent a national side in competitive fixtures? If we are using flags to indicate legal nationality for managers contrary to the MOS, I think we should remove flagicons for managers and non-players, such as in the managerial changes section of league season articles and the like. Digirami ( talk) 16:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't interpret managers as representing their country. To take an example: at the 2010 FIFA World Cup, 10 national sides had managers from other nations. Clearly, they were not using a 'representative nationality'. -- Pretty Green ( talk) 15:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So what is the criterion for deciding what nationality we show for managers? If as a player he was an international, does that still take precedence over place of birth? Mick McCarthy the man was born and raised in Yorkshire, Mick McCarthy the footballer was Irish: what is the nationality of Mick McCarthy the manager? Kevin McE ( talk) 21:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As a player, a flag would indicate their representative nationality. But, a manager doesn't represent a nation in the same way a player does. Any flag next to their name would therefore be indicating their legal nationality, which goes against MOS:FLAG. This is especially true since not all managers have played ( André Villas-Boas, for example). Digirami ( talk) 23:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What about the coaches who as players have been naturalised and played for another NT other than their birthplace/ethnicity, and after retireing they lost most of the links with the country they played for the NT while players? Should we return to their "natural flag", or do we keep considering them by the NT theyr played for as players? I supose that are mostly Brazilians, Yugoslav, perhaps Argentinians, or maybe Brittish Isles inter-countries, or inter-Soviet ones... (Basically returning to Kevin's question) FkpCascais ( talk) 05:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The information contained here may be useful to this discussion. Erikeltic ^{( Talk)} 06:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any opposition to applying flags for players (that seems to be what the essay linked above is all about). They certainly have a representative nationality that merits the use of a flagicon, no matter how unlikely a player might represent their country in international competition. The point I'm making is that flagicons should not be used for managers, assistant coaches, scouts, chairmans, groundskeepers, companies, etc, because they have no representative nationality in the same way a player does. Because managers and other non-playing personnel have no representative nationality, flagicons next to their names would be indicating their legal nationality by default. That would be a violation of MOS:FLAG. Digirami ( talk) 14:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That is decidedly not the case. Players do not "certainly have a representative nationality that merits the use of a flagicon, no matter how unlikely a player might represent their country in international competition". If a player is born in Scotland, lives in England, has a mother who is half Irish, half Northern Irish and a father who is half Welsh, half Jamaican, but grew up in the US where his parents were working, what is this certain representative nationality? Our present default is to assume place of birth, but this hypothetical player could be selected by any one of seven national teams, and we have no idea which he would prefer. Kevin McE ( talk) 11:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That'll be up to the player and they would designate one. But, for a player, legal and representative nationality are usually one in the same; you can't have one without the other according to FIFA. Gonzalo Higuain couldn't have a Argentine representative nationality without obtaining a legal Argentine nationality. Digirami ( talk) 13:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. A player who has no realistic hope of ever being called up does not "designate" a nationality for himself: I never decided whether the country I will never represent internationally would be England, Ireland or Northern Ireland although I would have been eligible for any of the three (and I suppose still am, but the likelihood of an overweight 47 year old who only rarely made his college team making even the Norn Iron team is slight). Millions of people around the world hold more than one nationality, tens of millions of people could seek an alternative or second nationality, and some nationalities allow for eligibility to more than one national team. The passport that someone holds is not usually in the public forum. Although you are right that "legal and representative nationality are usually one and the same", it is not for us to decide which players do comply to that assumption and which do not, nor is it for us to assume from someone's birthplace what legal nationality they hold. Kevin McE ( talk) 14:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I say "usually" because in football, a player can have many legal nationalities but only one representative nationality (at least under the the current rules and barring very rare, exceptional circumstances). But the former is always a requisite for the latter. You cannot be considered an American international without a legal American nationality, for example. But, I think this discussion took a wrong turn when we became about the player. It's really about non-players (managers, coaches, club president, etc.). They don't have a representative nationality at all, and definitely not like players do. Therefore, MOS:FLAG says we shouldn't be placing flags next to their names because it would be indicating their legal nationality(ies). That's the point I'm really trying to drive across and I'm sorry for any confusion if I steered this discussion in any way towards their usage for players. Digirami ( talk) 03:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There are examples for every aspect and every view of the flag discussion. Here's one: Mehmet Ekici is a German citizen. He was born and raised in Germany and even played for Germany's youth football league. Despite this, because he is an ethnic Turk, Turkey chose to offer him a place on their national squad. So now Ekici plays for Turkey, despite the fact that he carries a German passport. Just for the sake of disclosure, I generally oppose all flags being tagged on players or anyone else. The entire thing is, in my opinion, confusing and unnecessary. At this stage of the game in human history I think national identity is very silly. Erikeltic ^{( Talk)} 13:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What about managers, assistant coaches, et al. that perform their duties for a national club? Cases in point Joachim Löw who is German coaching the German national football club; then there is Fabio Capello who coaches England, but is himself Italian. What are your thoughts there? Should their flag reflect "national" identity or the current club that each is coaching? FWIW, when it comes to players their flag represents what national club they have represented, not where the player is born or to which nation he belongs. Erikeltic ^{( Talk)} 00:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, no flags for managers. I think to make it clear in our case, we have to pair the idea of representative nationality with FIFA-eligible nationality; it's the same thing, but specific to our sport. We put a Paraguayan flag next to Lucas Barrios post 2010 because he was FIFA eligible to represent Paraguay; prior to that, we placed an Argentine one because he was FIFA eligible to represent Argentina. Players are (limitedly) eligible represent a country in competition. But, that only applies to players. Manager are not and do not have a FIFA eligible nationality like a player does. They can coach any national team regardless of their legal nationality (which stays the same where ever they go). That's why any flag next to a manager's name would be indicating a legal nationality, not a representative one. The same is true for any non-player. John W. Henry & Tom Werner don't have a representative nationality, but a flag is (improperly) indicating their legal nationality here. Digirami ( talk) 13:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone ever seen vandalism this bad over a three hour period? I was brought to the page by disruptive editing somewhere else and, wow, words fail me. I've requested full page protection but if any administrators here see this soon, please do something about it. Hundreds of edits need to be erased. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 18:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What fun :-) cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 19:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it just. Could we get Balázs Dzsudzsák protected too? The editing there brought me to Anzhi's article and I get the feeling it'll continue. What gives? A group of IP hoppers got together and decided it would be fun to waste a few hours of their lives by being annoying on here? Argyle 4 Life ^talk 19:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

People bored with facebook or their forum of choice, I imagine, and wanting somewhere else to play. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 19:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Nice job people! Last time i saw something similar, in CA Osasuna, no actions were taken. "Interesting"... -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 19:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It was luck on my part. I went on Dzsudzsák's page to update his national team stats. I went back not long after and it had been updated to say he was joining Anzhi. I undid it and added the page to my watchlist and then it kept being added back in by different users. I check some of the contribution histories and it led me there. It's been continuing on his page so it's been protected for a few days. If some people are bored, they need to do something more productive. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 23:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Dzsudzsák thing was just people pre-empting an expected move. Russian media were saying yesterday that a fee had been agreed, see here (Google will translate it), which is generally more than enough for some editors to assume a done deal. Sky are now saying PSV have accepted an offer and the player is in talks, so he quite possibly will be joining them soon. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 07:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's surprising, but explains edits such as this better. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 11:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Last night, an account that had been inactive for almost five years added people like Hitler, Ali Baba, Giuseppe Signori and Petr Cech, among others, with this edit. Weird, wild stuff. Some Hungarians must be really hacked off that Dzsudzsák might be going to Russia. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 14:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought football whore was a reserved category for the characters of Footballers' Wives.  :) There has been a lot of activity lately. Perhaps people are already bored for the summer. Erikeltic ^{( Talk)} 14:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Incredible! And why was "Old Idiot Bill" immediately not blocked?! Mind-blowing... -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 14:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of an issue with the names of Algerian stadiums. As you know Algeria was colonized by France, so almost every building, place, etc. has a French name and an Arabic name since both languages are official languages in Algeria (or were until very recently anyway). With that said, stadiums have French names and Arabic names, with the French names being used in almost all English and French media. For example, the Wikipedia article for our national stadium was listed under Stade 5 Juillet 1962 but one user insists on moving the page to 5 July 1962 Stadium, a name that is never ever used by the press, not even English ones. A quick search on Google for both names will show you (500 hits vs 150,000 hits). The French name is a proper name, not a translation so I think all articles of stadiums in Algeria should use the French name and not a translation of the name into English. He's done the same for plenty of other stadiums and I reverted them all originally but he's gone back and done it again. As an example to what I'm trying to explain, Stade de France is not known as Stadium of France or France Stadium ... Please share your input on this issue. Thanks. TonyStarks ( talk) 09:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you on the particular example you have given, but I'm not knowledgable enough about Algeria to make a sweeping statement that would apply to all Algerian stadiums. The relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME; Wikipedia uses what the majority of reliable English language sources use (in this case it is Stade 5 Juillet 1962). We don't 'translate' into English, unless the reliable sources do. My suggestion would be to explain this to the user on their talk page and if they don't want to revert themselves, take it to WP:RM. Jenks24 ( talk) 10:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That really needs to be moved back, and the others. Changing the name of something from one language to another is controversial and should be discussed. If the users reasoning were true, FIFA would be referred to on Wikipedia as IFAF. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 11:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above. Whilst we have the WP:Use English policy, I believe this is overridden when a non-English name is more commonly used in the English media (the Stade de France example is spot on). It would however have to be done on a case-by-case basis in order to pick up any examples of where the translation is used more commonly (I have no idea about Algeria, but an example would be Bayern Munich or Red Star Belgrade). Number 5 7 12:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it's whatever the majority of the English-language sources are saying. Eldumpo ( talk) 14:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I've gone and reverted (again) the 5-6 page moves he made ... TonyStarks ( talk) 07:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There are way more than six. This has been going on for months. At least some of those haven't been moved back: if anyone wants to do that then they should go right ahead, and if there are any redirects which need to be deleted first just ping me and I'll get rid of them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hyde FC are changing their kit next season back to red from white, with a different design, which you can see here, because I am not an expert on this, please could someone who know's how to, change the kit design in the Hyde F.C. infobox to the new one. Cheers, Liam Taylor 12:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go, it's pretty basic but it's better than nothing! Giant Snowman 14:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, could I just ask how do you do it? Liam Taylor 17:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Designs are at Template:Football kit/pattern list, colour codes at web colors. Giant Snowman 18:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it the case that since the recent (ish) changes on the site, it is not possible to see season stats breakdowns for a player before the 1996-97 season, even though his overall career summary will include games from before 96/97? Thanks. Eldumpo ( talk) 14:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I don't think that was there before anyway........ -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 15:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realise that was also the case before. The strange thing is that they must have the stats in the database in order to have the career summaries. I assume that prior to 96/97 they do not have full squad breakdowns for all the featured clubs, and thus do not want to show seasonal club summaries which are incomplete? Eldumpo ( talk) 09:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I may be (99,9999% chances i am) barking up the wrong tree, but i think players such as this one should not have more than two fields: CLUB CAREER and INTERNATIONAL CAREER. Why POST-PLAYING CAREER when it's such a small thing, he retired last month (if he coaches for a number of years, then fine), and he's not even a coach? Can't the bit about A.S. Roma be under CLUB CAREER (it's a club isn't it?)?

In my approach on coaches that have managed and played substantially, even there i don't use the field COACHING CAREER, i refer to stuff with refs and the appropriate storyline ("he turned to coaching", "begun his coaching career"), under CLUB or INTERNATIONAL depending on what kind of team he's managing. Am i wrong? I don't think there's a consensus on that, a matter of style really.

Attentively - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 15:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No, because he's not going to play for Roma. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 06:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What he said. Information about coaching should not go in the section about his playing career. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 11:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes i understand, but where does the section title CLUB CAREER imply the person there referred to is a player? Maybe i'm not so proficient at English as i thought...Please note my first input: why can't we leave the sections CLUB CAREER and INT.CAREER (no "playing" there i believe), for players with insignificant coaching "bits"? -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 14:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The section doesn't but the lead does. If the person is defined as a "player" in the opening sentence than that implies that the "club career" section below it refers to the period he spent playing for the club. In Pena's case he did not turn to managing yet after he stopped playing (I mean, he became assistant coach to Luis Enrique but he is not the club's manager) so the lead does not need to change since we often don't consider coaching assistants to be "coaches" (especially not the ones who have held the job for a month). If and when he becomes a manager or his coaching career extends to be measured in years then the lead will describe him as a "former player and coach/manager" and the "post-playing career" will thus be renamed "managing/coaching career". And if he proves to be a terrible coach and opens up an ice cream factory instead then the section title will remain unchanged but will be expanded with new info. Attentively. Timbouctou ( talk) 17:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. A comment at the Bryan Gunn FAC asked for the use of this template. I don't like it - it's ugly and takes up vast amounts of space. But if there's consensus we should use it in high quality football articles, I'll apply it. Is there such consensus? -- Dweller ( talk) 11:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you, I've never "digged" that template either. What you've got looks just fine. Excellent work, by the way. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 11:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the point of that template? The output it produces just looks like some bullet points, so why not just use bullet points.....? -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 11:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer honours to be separated by an indication of the club/country they were won with, like at Graham Westley#Honours but without the (1)s (I can actually count as far as 1 myself). But don't see any need to use a template whose output is a space-wasting eyesore. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 11:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The acid test for a template is that it's easier to understand than the equivalent wikicode. That template does not pass that test, and for that reason alone shouldn't be used regardless of the layout. — W F C— 12:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. If anyone feels like TfDing it, be my guest. It's certainly not anything like a standard way of doing this: it's just an old and neglected bit of codecruft. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I got the same feedback in an article review, and I don't like the template, for the same reasons. I wouldn't use it, but you couldn't TfD it without breaking articles that do, surely? ArtVandelay13 ( talk) 12:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable to TfD templates and substitute the existing transclusions. Thta's what would be done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the TfD issues are interesting but for now, I'll take this as evidence that there is clearly no consensus on the use of this template and that other football editors are content with the way the honours are laid out in the article. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Here's another user who thinks that template is as ugly as it gets! Let's keep it simple folks (i usually write it down, example: "* La Liga: 1995-96, 1999-2000") -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree we should kill this one. I like the format in Bryan Gunn#Honours or Graham Westley#Honours much better. Frietjes ( talk) 17:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion here. Regards, — W F C— 21:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I recently created a template for a Costa Rica U-20 team who took part in the CONCACAF U-20 Championship. It has been nominated for deletion because someone has said that WP:Football have a consensus not to create youth team templates. I don't think this is true because we already have European U-21 Championship templates. Do we have a consensus either way? TheBigJagielka ( talk) 16:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I never heard of U-21 templates having consensus although I do think it's a good idea. If that is so I'll go and make some now :) Timbouctou ( talk) 16:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well all links are red but one. ;) There were some discussions, and the majority were against those template. Let's see who finds the discussion. - Koppapa ( talk) 17:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it'd be more worthwhile to keep the discussion all in one place i.e. the TfD. Giant Snowman 17:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I found this discussion in the archives but there was no consensus reached as whether we should have them or not. TonyStarks ( talk) 06:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If the majority of the player links are red delete if the majority of the player links are blue keep. Remember the point of these templates is to provide "circulation" and "exposure" to other articles and hopefully a chance for the reader to edit and improve on articles that might not much "circulation" and "exposure". Transaction Go ( talk) 13:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Transaction Go, you have perfectly summarised my viewpoint! Giant Snowman 18:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favour of youth team templates. More created templates are being nominated for deletion. I'd have thought people would be in favour of them also TheBigJagielka ( talk) 17:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey all,

Who knows anything about cropping map images for this site? I think the Colombia and Buenos Aires maps include too much of the surrounding areas, making many of the points on a map (like here) difficult to distinguish. Cropping the maps would definitely improve their usage. Thanks. Digirami ( talk) 01:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you crop the map, you lose territory of comobia. But there may be other maps somewhere on here. I just found this. Maybe it works for you : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colombia_locator_map.svg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mapa_de_Buenos_Aires.svg - Koppapa ( talk) 08:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much territory that would be lost if it is cropped... just outlying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. I can think of a couple countries' maps that do not include their outlying islands ( Ecuador's doesn't include the Galapagos and the United States' map doesn't even include Hawaii and Alaska). The other maps you showed me don't work with the template that is already in place. The idea is to change the map images already there for better usage. Digirami ( talk) 17:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but it may break some maps that have location on the outlying territory. - Koppapa ( talk) 05:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but it wouldn't hurt to have an alternate. Call it "continental Colombia" or something like that. Digirami ( talk) 07:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, Does anyone know where I can find stats for the 1998 FIFA World Cup Final - I tried the FIFA website but they only go in depth about 2010, the rest get team lineups and scorers. I'm hoping to expand the 1998 FIFA World Cup Final article to GA. 03 md 23:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

FIFA.com has more than you might have thought Kevin McE ( talk) 23:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link mate. I was actually meaning possession, shots on/off target etc. for the final. 03 md 01:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I recently created an article for Kyriakos Tohouroglou (variously spelt as Tochouroglou and Toxouroglou). Can anyone confirm whether he played at any level for Greece? Someone has changed his nationality from Australia, his country of birth, to Greece, country of his ancestry and place he spent most of his footballing career... Hack ( talk) 03:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is best to avoid "is a Greek footballer/is an Australian footballer" in situations like that. Clearly of Greek parents, with not only a Greek surname but his whole name is Greek. Born in Australia but moved to Greece aged eleven and spent about twenty years playing for Greek teams. Obviously he has a Greek passport and would probably consider himself Greek rather than Australian. It is possible he played for the Greek under-18s or whatever. I'd just say "Kyriakos Nektarios Tohouroglou (alternatively spelt Tochouroglou) is a football goalkeeper." As he is virtually retired flags are not an issue.-- Echetus Xe 09:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That works well unless he has played international football in which case he would be Greek, at least for football nationality purposes... Hack ( talk) 09:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I do somehow find the solution of removing national reference useless in practice, because in many cases shortly afterwords someone will add it again and the same old story of reverts and nationality changes will reapear. I acknolledge that some of the main participants of this project have strong views against this proposal of mine, however in practice it has been usefull for these kind of situations of players without NT appearances and with mixed or multiple nationalities; what I am talking is about the version Australian footballer of Greek origin. I wouldn't mind opening a new discussion about this issue, cause in practice I have been removing nationality refferences from leads per WP:OPENPARA 3.2, but then I see numerous dedicated editors using them and reading them again. It has been quite helpfull to solve edit wars and personally, I am not so sure anymore about the non-importance of footballers nationalities. Regards, FkpCascais ( talk) 17:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

...help with expanding the 1981 UEFA Cup Final article. I've got the Ipswich side covered, for sure, but I'd appreciate a view from the AZ perspective, to ensure I maintain a balance to the article. Any/all help very much gratefully received!! The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A polish user, has tons of anon IPs (example here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.134.234.125). His only (ONLY!) summaries are...the name of the article! "Thanks" for the headsup mate...Ah, and when a manager is out of club, he removes the field "currentclub" in infobox so, when the guy is hired again, we have to rewrite it! Talk to the person? Impossible with the amount of IPs he has...

Attentively - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 18:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC) (and no this is my realname/username, not a summary!)

I've run into that guy several times. Unfortunately his edits do not qualify as vandalism. I just revert his edits. -- Jaellee ( talk) 21:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with this edit... Giant Snowman 22:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing really wrong, but it would be better if he only removed the part after the = sign, otherwise the parameters have to be added again the next time. And his edit summaries could be improved. -- Jaellee ( talk) 22:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If the player in question is retired and not active in coaching, there is no need for the 'current club' parameters. As for the edit summaries, yes they're annpoying, but he's probably just new and learning. Assume good faith. Giant Snowman 22:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The cases I remember were active coaches (recently sacked, mostly). We don't need the clubnumber parameter in these cases, but usually they find a new club soon. And this guy is not really new, I tried to talk to him some months ago, without success. It's either due the changing IP's or because he doesn't want to listen. -- Jaellee ( talk) 22:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, he's probably just a bit over-eager. Also, while not responding to talk pages messages is obviously not a great sign, because he's Polish, maybe he doesn't speak very good English? Giant Snowman 22:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, i assume good faith, and chances are he does not speak English very much, if at all. But Jaellee makes a great point there: some coaches are sacked but 200% active, and they find a new club sometimes the FOLLOWING day! So why remove the field? - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 22:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I runed into some similar problems in the past, and I can say that I successfully menaged to "catch" some IP's and even convince them to become regular editors, while I still chase some other IP's making allways the same errors. All I can tell you Vasco is to try to catch him when editing so he'll receve the warning of message when you edit his IP talk page, before he closes his sesion and begins afterwords with allways a different IP adress. You nedd to try to catch him and leave him a simple note explaining that. :) I see no other possibility. FkpCascais ( talk) 04:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, Is the Glossary of association football terms FL project still on. There hasn't been any editing of the article for a while. 03 md 14:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd imagine that some people are annoyed at the whole DYK debacle, myself included. Now that things have died down, some obvious things are each term needing a reliable source and the reference format needs to be uniform. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 18:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Plus, don't forget, the more things are added to the page, the more difficult it will become to think of new things to add. It's to expected that the pace of things will slow down in that sense. JonBroxton ( talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What was the "DYK debacle".....? -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 07:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Less said the better, although despite my anger I explained the situation fairly well at the time on the talk page. I haven't given up on the page in a huff (although a few days away from it was probably for the best): I've just been a bit preoccupied with the final stages of the Today's featured list project. Not to mention a morale sapping run of bad news at Watford this week. — W F C— 21:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say well done to all the editors involved in the population of this list, a fantastic resource that was long overdue. I have added a few more terms including Points deduction, Barras Bravas, promedios, Anti-football & match fixing. I couldn't find any football specific article about match fixing and was wondering whether there would be any support for the creation of a List of match fixing incidents in association football article? King of the North East 10:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be two articles? If his brother is notable, then Clay should have his own article? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be, but i may be wrong. I'd shorten Clay to one sentence in Kain's article.- Koppapa ( talk) 06:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The brother isn't notable, so I'm going to be bold and remove him... Giant Snowman 14:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The only thing his brother is notable for is getting into trouble. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 18:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Another monster (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.213.96.76)! Why do i (we) bother?! -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 03:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

59 sockpuppets and counting... Giant Snowman 14:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you know it's him? -- MicroX ( talk) 19:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Speaking for myself: because of edits as this one (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Adilson_Soares_Cassam%C3%A1&diff=411269281&oldid=411267774), where he refs everything in box, removing ALL links. At Joaquim Alberto Silva, the poor chap went as far as this: he had tons of refs/links to choose from but, he referenced the player's height with the ONLY source that had none of that (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joaquim_Alberto_Silva&diff=431874316&oldid=430948675). That + plus the fact the IP comes from Germany...a no-brainer really. -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 20:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings,

How does everyone feel about constructive edits by a banned editor with numerous sockpuppets? The 2011 Copa Libertadores Finals articles received massive additions by User:74.176.56.83, who--if you clicked on the link--is a suspected sokcpuppet of User:SuperSonicx1986, aka User:Jamen Somasu. A lot of it is unsourced, but seems useful. Do we keep the information provided by that IP? Digirami ( talk) 00:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Only an opinion, but if it's a sock who has refused to talk to people, or (WORSE!) talked but continued to create accounts, or (EVEN WORSE, as this case appears to be!) operate through anon IPs to avoid scrutiny, it should be deleted, and his IP(s) should be blocked. Only an opinion, cheers! - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 00:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Such edits should be reverted unconditionally, without further comment or discussion of any kind. To do otherwise is to legitimise the "person". — W F C— 02:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If the IP was a confirmed sock, then yes, that would be the case. But are we sure? The suspected sock tag was added by another IP with no other edits. Some of the first IP's edits actually removed POV, which doesn't seem like Jamen's style at all. Alzarian16 ( talk) 14:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not confirmed, but it looks like his work. Another sock of Jamen did the same kind of work for the 2010 article and both IPs are from the same geographic area as many of the IPs Jamen used when he was vandalizing/disrupting (suburban Atlanta, Georgia and the surrounding areas). Digirami ( talk) 15:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't seen his edits to that article before (the last time I saw one of his socks was shortly after I wasted a considerable amount of time trying to create compromise solutions to keep him happy, so forgive me if I'm a bit behind). The new lot look pretty similar, so yes, I would revert it. Alzarian16 ( talk) 16:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember that guy and all of the aggro that came with him. Revert and deny him any satisfaction. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 18:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect for the user and the national team therein mentioned, what's the use in this, even if referenced? User:Kolins - without summaries, as usual - as inserted Equatorial Guinea national football team B games in detail for both Javier Balboa and Lawrence Doe.

Is this useful WP material? Methinks not, but i did not remove anything, i only composed the two articles' overall display - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 00:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even knew Ecuatorial Guinea had a B team. What were those games about? Perhaps User:TonyStarks who is familiarised with African football and knows well African B teams can help over this. FkpCascais ( talk) 05:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If the information is unreferenced, remove it on sight. If a source is provided regarding 'B' match appearances, then the information is useful - we include it in other articles. Giant Snowman 12:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Soccerbase lists Alex Dyer (footballer born 1989)'s birth date as 1 June 1989, whereas his Northampton Town profile states it's 11 June 1990. Can someone help me shed some light on this? Thanks, -- Jimbo ^[online] 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's 1990 - date is also confirmed by NFT and PH, while the only Alex Dyer born in London was in 1990. Giant Snowman 13:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

BBC, The Local and Vital indicate 1990. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 19:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

After two reversions in Yago Fernández, and more that now elude the mind, a discussion, that is expandable to all the fields really, not just "the beautiful game"...

I have been reading Wikipedia:NAMESORT#Ordering names in a category but can't make any of it, honestly. My approach is the following: if YAGO FERNÁNDEZ PRIETO is known as YAGO, not Fer. nor Pri., why should his name not be sorted under the letter Y? Most people don't even know he has those names, some of them regular followers of the football world.

That leads to the second part of my approach: i always thought that the defaultsort arranged the subjects under the letter they were most known for, provided the name of the sortkey was found in the article's name (for instance, i have Juan Torres Ruiz under the sort "CALA", even though i know it's not correct). Am i not correct in that assumption.

Inputs please! Attentively - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 16:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the use of Defaultsort but my understanding is that it's used in order to list items in a category by the first letter of the name they are most known/categorised by. Therefore, if he is mostly known as Yago then he should be listed under Y anyway, without the use of defaultsort. I suppose the advantage of a Default sort "Yago" is that the Fernandez won't then be listed in the category listing, but is this a problem, it will be in the same location in the category anyway? Eldumpo ( talk) 19:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We use defaultsort for the alphabetical ordering in categories. The case of Yago is similar to numerous other Portugues and Spanish language names, where the nicknames or some other name than the father's surname is used as name of player. The first one in order in the defaultsort should be the one which the player is known by, in this case Yago. Write simply Yago Fernandez in the infobox, instead of Fernandez, Yago. That way he will be listed under Yago, and not Fernandez, that way much easier to find by any user when searching for him under categories, since Yago is the way he is known. FkpCascais ( talk) 19:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Exactly Filipe! But i wrote "YAGO FERNÁNDEZ" in the box and was reverted TWICE, with the other user saying "i did not understand the use of defaultsort"...confusing stuff. -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 20:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what he is known as, I was going by this statement describing DEFAULTSORT: If the article is titled "Forename Surname", the category should be added to the article as [[Category:Type X people|Surname, Forename]] (or: {{DEFAULTSORT:Surname, Forename}}) so that it will be sorted by surname. — JS ^{Rant Away} 00:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the exemple here at WP:SUR (the first one about Chinese Mao Zedong, seems to adapt for each individual country case, but it does count the surname as important. I am not sure if we have this case even mentioned under WP rules. I actually agreed with Brazilian editor Carioca to do it that way (as Vasco does) about 3 years ago, and since then I have allways been doing it that way. Rarely reverted, I see Vasco has a problem now, and I am wondering if anyone has any clues if there is any other principles on wiki where this cases may be considered. If not, I beleave opening a thread so it becomes included at WP:DEAFULTSORT would be necessary, well, at least discussing it. FkpCascais ( talk) 04:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:NAMESORT, "If the article is titled "Forename Surname", the category should be added to the article as [[Category:Type X people|Surname, Forename]] (or: {{DEFAULTSORT:Surname, Forename}}) so that it will be sorted by surname". Giant Snowman 11:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

But the priciple was made beleaving that the surname is the one the person is most known with (as in most professional areas), however in sports we find specific cases where that doesn't happend. I beleave the priciple should need a discussion for these cases. FkpCascais ( talk) 17:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, articles should be sorted in a category so as to make them as easy to find as possible. We used to have a crazy situation where Brazillian footballers were sorted in a "normal" way, e.g. Nazario da Lima, Ronaldo. Thankfully this has been rectified although there are still hundreds of articles which are badly sorted. ArtVandelay13 ( talk) 08:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added this exception to WP:NAMESORT. It's always worth remembering that Wikipedia guidelines are live documents that can be challenged and updated, if it benefits the information provided. The edit may provoke some discussion, even disagreement, but the principle holds I think/ ArtVandelay13 ( talk) 08:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That is great ArtVandelay13! Many thanks, it solves completely the issue. Best regards, FkpCascais ( talk) 18:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Goalkeepers' records on Wikipedia should show the number clean-sheets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisemanlibra ( talk • contribs) 11:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem there is the lack of sources on such things. I'd be surprised if any source exists which shows how many clean sheets Peter Shilton or Lev Yashin or Gordon Banks kept. The info might be available for very recent keepers, in which case it could be put in the article, maybe in table form -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 11:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

it's a good idea if we can find sources. I can't think of any sites of the top of my head that would contain that. Could be possible for current players but unlikely for older ones. 14:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Warburton1368 ( talk)

I'm hoping this is in addition to the stats we already have (apps and goals). If not, I would disagree. Digirami ( talk) 18:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It would have to be in addition to.18:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Warburton1368 ( talk)

I hope so. But I would still prefer to have the original poster say this for the sake of clarity. Digirami ( talk) 18:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How long before we get to add this to WP:PEREN? It's not a bad idea in principle, but its practically impossible to include the stats for the vast majority of keepers. Big Dom 19:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Same story with assists. Giant Snowman 08:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think assists will be very difficult, especially when it is ambiguous at times. Wisemanlibra ( talk) 10:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There will always be parts of statistics and history which will be lost and remain incomplete. We do not have enough records of clean-sheets because we never gave it much importance. Now if we start giving it importance, others will follow suit and thus together we all start keeping up the statistics. I understand the records have not been kept, but I think it will not be a bad trend to set. Wisemanlibra ( talk) 10:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand, and has lead to the protection of the former page. After the anonymous "bombing", a registered "user", User:Sisman Yanko, continues to write they play for Galatasaray (nothing but rubbish media speculation so far). Dunno who did it but, in Reyes, i read one of the most pathetic intros i have ever seen: "...is a Spanish footballer that allegedly will play for Galatasaray." Come again?!?!

Also, someone insists on calling the Süper Lig SPOR TOTO LIG (no sponsors!) and, from what i understand from his talkpage, he does not respond that often to messages (ah and ZERO summaries!), and has been blocked for several personal attacks and other stuff (3RR, etc). I have left him a message in his talkpage regarding this. Attentively - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 20:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Surprised that no-one has written that Malky Mackay now plays for Galatasaray... — W F C— 23:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I heard that Mackay was going to Trabzonspor to team up with Romaric, who has been playing on and off for them for weeks. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 23:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Off to Cardiff, apparently. Giant Snowman 08:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• How about this CA Osasuna starting XI and current squad (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=CA_Osasuna&diff=420527235&oldid=419892234)? Impressive huh? -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 00:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

While going through the list of Staffordshire cricketers, I came across a Samuel Bolton Ashworth. Searching him on here brought up a Samuel Bolton Ashworth who was born in March 1877 and died 30 December 1925. According to the page on a Samuel Ashworth here on CricketArchive, he (if they are the same person) was born Q3 1872 and died 30 November 1925. Both were born and died in the same place, their dates (despite obvious differences) do share similarities in there being no exact date of birth and both dying on 30 November/December 1925. Given this the chances are they are the same person, just with the wrong dates in one source or another! AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 20:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd imagine it is the same person. Just to add to another date of birth, Joyce says that he was born in March 1881. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 22:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Found another one in Alfred Massey. His article says born 16 October 1918 but CricketArchive says the same date in 1916, both say Stoke-on-Trent (Normacot is a suburb). Found out his correct date of death though. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 19:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, on italian wikipedia I found a source for the date of death, la Stampa, in both the article it was wrong; I don't edit because Barrera article is locked and because my english is horrible..then the articles will be soon enlarged.. 93.56.39.55 ( talk) 17:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

An anonymous user added the date of birth to this player's article, but as far as I can tell there isn't an internet source for this. If anyone with a player records' book (Hugman or equivalent) could confirm the DOB for this player it would be much appreciated. Cheers. J Mo 101 ( talk) 19:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you also check John Middleton (footballer)'s DOB please - that is also unreferenced, and then we can properly disambiguate the two. Giant Snowman 19:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

According to my copy of Hugman, the Notts Forest & Derby County goalkeeper was born at Lincoln on 24 December 1956 and the Bradford City defender at Rawmarsh on 11 July 1955. Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 19:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks; DOBs updated on both pages, articles moved to reflect this, and I'm about to start fixing links. Cheers again, Giant Snowman 19:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, those liveupdates, i know it's a fight you can't win. But seeing them fill out the group tables and even the knockout bracket on current standings is new, right :D - Koppapa ( talk) 19:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I had a similar case on 2010–11 Indonesia Super League earlier today. Each revision is an utter waste of disk space. -- Soccer-holic ^{I hear voices in my head...} 20:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

should this article be a PROD or merger? The transfers are covered in the seperate national transfer pages.-- CumbrianRam ( talk) 22:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

PROD. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 22:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, definitely a PROD. Giant Snowman 22:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys, weren't 100% sure on the procedure.-- CumbrianRam ( talk) 22:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. For future reference, please don't forget to notify the article creator about the PROD (a template that you can C&P onto their talk page is automatically produced when you place the PROD), as well as providing a reason for your nomination. We also try and list all PRODs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves. Regards, Giant Snowman 22:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been going through the old categories of articles requiring wikifying recently and sorting out any football-related articles I have found. However, I've recently acquired a book which means I'll be spending most of my time editing election articles, so if anyone fancies sorting out one or two articles (or deleting them if appropriate), a list is below (probably a good idea to delete or stike out ones you do!):

A.C.D. Asti, A.S.C. Ebolitana 1925, Accrington Stanley F.C. (1891), Ampthill Town F.C., Ashton Town A.F.C., Ballymoor F.C. (prod), Bancffosfelen F.C. (prod), Bundora United FC (prod), Burwood A.F.C. (prod), Carss Park FC (prod), Club football league (prod), Earlwood Wanderers Football Club (prod), El Ahly Mateur, ETO Park, F.C. Indiana (NPSL), FC Rostov, FK Jedinstvo Bačko Petrovo Selo (prod), Ford F.C. (prod), Hednesford United Girls Football Club (prod), Kaohsiung 100 Pacers FC (prod), Karachi United (prod), Knowle F.C., Lurgan Town Boys F.C., Marske United F.C., Merthyr Saints A.F.C., Montevideo Wanderers F.C., Mullingar Town F.C. (prod), Newcastle City Juniors (prod), Papanui-Redwood (prod), Portugal national under-15 football team (prod), PS Palembang, Queen Star Football Club (prod), Radcliffe Olympic F.C., Saigon United F.C., San Luis F.C., SC Binningen, SC Tornado (prod), Sheffield United L.F.C (prod), St Helens Town A.F.C., Stade Ange Casanova, Team Ayam (prod), U.S. Fiorenzuola 1922, Victors fc kampala (moved & cleaned up)

Cheers, Number 5 7 12:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I prodded Club football league and Hednesford United Girls Football Club for deletion. Guess more could go. - Koppapa ( talk) 08:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've prodded a few more and cleaned up a couple. Number 5 7 16:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've PRODed Portugal national under-15 football team. Also PRODed their under-12's article as well. -- Jimbo ^[online] 22:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Prodded a few more myself. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 17:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Serbian football clubs. Wow, that category has about every football cluzb in serbia in it. Half of those are one sentence articles that were copy&pasted. I just proded 20 but not now got tired. Have a look at e.g.: FK Jadar Gornji Dobrić, FK Jadar, FK Pusta Reka, FK Đerdap. No sources, no info whatsoever.- Koppapa ( talk) 20:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

All 20 prods were now reverted by User:No such user "Take it to an AfD". - Koppapa ( talk) 10:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Take it to AfD, those articles are ridiculous! Giant Snowman 10:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? The articles show no indication of notability and are completely unsourced. Can we WP:CSD them? They fail A1, A3 and A7. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 23:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, didn't think of that. I'll blame my thesis writing... :) Giant Snowman 23:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've got the ball rolling by tagging the four clubs linked above under A7. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 00:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And I've tagged a further four as A7 as well. Giant Snowman 21:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out that it's not always that simple: Dynamo Dresden have already started playing matches with their new signings [2]. Sometimes the details on a piece of paper don't reflect reality. ArtVandelay13 ( talk) 20:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume they're friendlies? Argyle 4 Life ^talk 22:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's still their current squad, isn't it? ArtVandelay13 ( talk) 08:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to be signed to a club to appear for them in friendly games - trailists etc. Giant Snowman 09:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but if someone has signed to a club, and is playing and training with them, than by any useful definition, they're part of the squad. ArtVandelay13 ( talk) 12:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No. For friendlies you could get the ball-boys to play if you wanted: we already have far too many cans of worms lying open around the project without suggesting to our friendly horde of well-meaning contributors that they should add trialists, guests or others who show up in friendly matches to club squad lists. Do we really have to go codifying that the squad lists are meant to indicate the squad for competitive fixtures? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

They're not trialists or ball-boys, though: to repeat, they've signed for the club, they're now at the club, and training for the club, and playing for them. That's the definition of a squad member, regardless of a date on a piece of paper. ArtVandelay13 ( talk) 14:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In this case, yes. However, we've got to be very careful about generalising this, lest we get a flood of edits for players where it's less clear-cut. In general we should still exercise caution in this area. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone see that this player is changed back to CAPUCHO (FOOTBALLER)? User:Satori Son, the admin that helps me on these cases, is spending (evermore) great periods of time away from WP.

User:Unreal7, as User:Kolins and User:Roslagen, other than writing ZERO summaries, all have this custom of moving pages without one explanatory word. When they get it right, no fuss, but when they don't it's quite annoying. In this case, NUNO CAPUCHO is a name/nickname compound, thus 100% wrong (or should we put in Robinho's page ROBSON ROBINHO, or in Quim's article JOAQUIM QUIM?!).

Attentively - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 21:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Try WP:RM Vasco. Regards, Giant Snowman 21:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with Vasco's rationale for changing the article title back to Capucho (footballer), I can understand why people would have changed it to Nuno Capucho, as that is a very common name by which he is known. IIRC, he was almost exclusively known as Nuno Capucho when he played at Euro 2000. However, I would suggest that the article is moved to Capucho, as that already redirects to Nuno Capucho and I doubt the name is used by anyone else. – Pee Jay 21:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Vasco, your edit summaries as user:217.129.65.5 are out of line. Please tone them down. Secondly, at least in his time at Rangers he was known as Nuno Capucho exclusively. Our naming guidelines favour English-language sources for the English-language WP, so by no means is this a simple call. WP:RM is the right venue for this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say that you need to calm down in your edit summaries, Vasco. I know that unconstructive editing by others can be irritating and annoying but telling another user that "they're going down" isn't really that civil. He was consistently referred to as Nuno Capucho by the British media when he was at Rangers, like here. Page moves regarding the actual name of the person are rarely uncontroversial and should be taken to RM before any move takes place. This one is no exception. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 23:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• First matter at hand: yes i agree Chris and Argyle, and i apologize, but Unreal is very hard to reach, does not talk to people, and has been threatened with block for unexplained removal of contents (please check his talkpage) and writes no summaries whatsoever. I did not choose that manner of editing to hide as a coward, i edit massively as anon also (my IP is standard, so i'm easily caught), and sometimes i write stupid summaries as VascoAmaral as well (i should not).

2nd matter at hand: it has occurred to me that some people in England/Scotland might have thought CAPUCHO was a surname of his, not a nickname. You put it as you put it, it's a name/nickname compound, period, thus utterly wrong (see my two examples above, i could give more: " Ronaldinho Assis" is wrong, " Pelé do Nascimento" is wrong, " Kaká Leite" is wrong...Portuguese and/or Portuguese-speaking now: "Pedro Pauleta" is wrong, "Armando Petit" is wrong, "Pedro Mantorras" is wrong, etc etc).

Attentively - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 23:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Just read the BBC link you sent, thus being more and more certain "Capucho" was perceived as a surname by the English folk/media. Not once is it mentioned to be a nick in the news article - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 23:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Soccerbase calls him Capucho, while Neil Brown calls him Nuno Capucho. Giant Snowman 23:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Following extensive discussion regarding a player notability thread on Footy last month, the above page was created with the intention of becoming the main location for addressing the issue of player notability. A number of people who contributed to the thread agreed that some kind of wider article than the current WP:FPL would be useful, but to date only four people have contributed to either the article or talk page. Therefore if you have chance, please consider contributing, especially to the talk page. If you're really against the creation of this wider notability page it's worth stating here as well, so that we can get an idea if this is going anywhere. Also, there is a current thread at FPL that you may want to contribute to, although hopefully by moving the Notability of footballers guideline forward we can help to answer these issues that keep arising. Regards. Eldumpo ( talk) 10:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday's crash of RusAir Flight 9605 claimed the life of FIFA referee Vladimir Pettai. It may also have claimed the life of footballer Ivan Saenko (source: comment at Aviation Herald), but that is currently unconfirmed. Both people fall under this WP and both articles need expansion. Mjroots ( talk) 15:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This category has precisely two articles, one of which is about to be deleted, and it's hard to imagine there are any other notable Sunday league or 5-a-side teams - CfD......? -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 16:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely! Giant Snowman 16:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, get rid. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 03:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In the past 6 months, I unfortunately had no time to contribute/follow the huge work and great ongoing discussions here at WP Football. Now I briefly return, with a comment/question about flags for Non-Internationals and Managers. During the past few weeks, I worked a lot to improve several articles within the South African football field, and I noticed that all South African Football Club articles had the consensus, to list a flag for the managers nationality (decided by legal citizenship) in the football club infobox. After consulting WP:MOSFLAG and some of the previous discussions here at WP Football, I realised that we in fact still lack a clear flag policy, in regards of how often we should use flags for managers and the large group of Non-International football players.

Currently, the WP:MOSFLAG discourage the use of flags within most infoboxes. Yet, nobody has prohibited/regulated their use specificly for the football club infobox. If we for a start, limit the discussion here at the talkpage to: "flag for managers"; then according to WP:MOSFLAG, this group of people are clearly no longer considered as "active sportspeople", meaning that any possible mark with a flag, only is allowed to indicate the persons nationality in form of "legal citizenship"; and the flag should moreover only appear, in case it contribute with "additional context related info" for the article. I guess many would like to argue, that the nationality of the teams manager, indeed in many cases would add some additional interesting info. Or how do you feel about it?

After a brief check of the "current practise", I realised that UEFA+FIFA insist to mark the nationality of all National Football Team managers with a "citizenship flag". Also the prominent match reports here at Wikipedia from the various 2010 World Cup groups, insist to list a "citizenship flag" for managers, in all those cases where they are foreign. Likewise I also noted, that flags in the majority of Wikipedia articles about "National Football Teams", are in fact currently used -not only to show the nationality of managers, but also to show the nationality of the entire staff around the team. The questions are now:

1. Would it be appropriate to have one particular flag policy for all National Football Team staffs, supplemented by another flag policy for all Football Club staffs? Or should we settle with the same flag policy, for all Football Clubs and National Teams?
2. And when should we allow/prohibit the use of flags, for the "staff people"?

In regards of using flags for "Non-International players", I just wrote a short updated note about that, in our previous discussion. For the moment, I would like our discussion here at the talkpage, only to concentrate about the "flags for managers" issue. :-)

Danish Expert ( talk) 06:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't have a specific flag policy separate from the main MoS. Flags in infoboxes are discouraged here just like they're discouraged elsewhere. I haven't seen any sort of consensus to the contrary for South African football articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine, then I will swiftly remove all 32 manager flags, from the current infobox-listings at 32 out of 32 South African top clubs. Danish Expert ( talk) 15:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

At the same time, I would then like to propose, that we explicit write a "hidden note" into the transcluded documentation page, of both the Template:Infobox football club and Template:Infobox national football team, where we prohibit any kind of flags to be used for any living/dead person. In other words, that the only flag approval for infoboxes inside the WPF field, will be in front of a named National Football Team and/or in front of a named FIFA Nation. By writing this suggested "hidden note" into the templates, our current "no personal flag in infobox" consensus, will become more clear and visible, to all new editors in the field. The note could perhaps also mention, that while the use of national flags for football players + staff + football clubs are prohibited inside infoboxes, they are encouraged by WPF in all other sorts of lists/tables.

1. Do you support/oppose this proposed "overall flag clarification note"?
2. Or should we instead create one specific flag policy for each infobox, to be nice towards the Seasonal Competition articles?

Danish Expert ( talk) 17:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not too long ago (a couple weeks perhaps), I too spoke out against using flags for managers and other non-players (CEOs, assistant, etc) because the MOS prohibited its usage to indicate a legal nationality, not a representative nationality (which they don't have). But, I don't mind them for non-internationals as long as they are eligible and there is a source that indicates one over the rest. Digirami ( talk) 19:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

One important fact however is, that WP:MOSFLAG only prohibit flags to show "legal nationality" for "sportspeople". This mean, that WP:MOSFLAG fully allow to show a "legal citizenship" flag for all managers/staff, as they now work in a function to be considered as a group of non-sportspeople. If we prohibit any flag use for managers/staff, in all WPF lists/tables/infoboxes, then it would be a more strict flag policy enforced, compared to WP:MOSFLAG. If we opt for that, our flag policy should indeed be formulated as you said, that WPF only allow for "representative flags" to be used, across all articles within the WPF field. At the moment, I think this policy perhaps would be a little too strict; but I definately have not yet settled my mind about it, and look forward to hear more comments. Danish Expert ( talk) 19:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That is absolutely incorrect. MOSFLAG discourages any use of flags to define nationality without firm reason. In certain cases the nationalities of players may have some importance (for instance, in territories which maintain foreign player limits), but in no case does such a thing apply to non-playing staff. Flags for such persons should be removed in all cases without hesitation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

My reply and statements about WP:MOSFLAG in this discussion, were all absolutely correct! You should read it again, from top to bottom. I started out to explain, that WP:MOSFLAG had outlined an "importance criteria" for the use of flags for non-sportspeople, which you now refer to. Then I asked all of you -in my first 2 questions-, to consider, whether or not the show of flags for managers/staff conveyed any extra valuable info, at the places where they are currently used. According to your reply above -it never convey any extra valuable info-, and then you vote for removal of all manager flags. To be frank, I am however not offended by the use of flags for staff, currently used in the chapter list of all National Football Team articles. In those occations the flag can be said to convey some extra valuable info, because whenever the National Team will compete against the National Team of the managers "citizenship nationality", it is bound to be a fight with special feelings. Other football geeks -but not me- would perhaps also argue, that the nationality of certain managers indicate their approach to the tactical game -and/or use of training methods. Danish Expert ( talk) 06:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What I basicly hope for now, is that this discsussion, can help to outline a clear cut flag policy at WP Football. The lack of a previous "flag policy" mean, that it is today all a mess. To be frank, the current flag policy and flag standard has been "chosen" independently for each type of football article or infobox we have at Wikipedia. If you follow some of my wiki-links in this discussion, I managed to proof exactly that. If a majority of you vote for multiple standards, with each "article type" to reach consensus for thir own "flag policy", then so be it. In that case, I will however insist, that each flag policy is carefully written into the documentation page of each "article type", so that it become clear and visible to everybody. My own oppinion however is, that it would be far better -instead of 100 different policies-, if we once and for all could settle with one overall "flag policy" to cover all articles/lists/tables/infoboxes at WP Football. I hope for more to chime in with their opinion, and would also politely ask everybody to visit the pages I provided a wiki-link for, before you vote for/against a complete removal of all manager flags. We should be aware, that if we introduce a new policy, which contradict with the previous "common practice", then it would create much update work -and probably also a stir among many editors. Yet, all of you are of course more than welcome, to vote for a new policy/practice to be enforced. I just plead everybody to make a careful consideration, before submitting your vote. As the discussion already grew a bit bulky, I will now list the 6 links again; which I randomly chose to check for flag policy, but only to find, that they all had opted to develop their own local flag approach:

• England NFT
  (Infobox: Flags only allowed for national teams; meaning that all personal flags are prohibited)
  (Tables: All flags are encouraged; meaning that flags are shown for "Tournament hosts", NFTs, Players Club, Managers and Staff)
• Manchester United
  (Infobox: All flags are prohibited)
  (Tables: Allow flags for Players and Managers, but probit flags for other Club officials)
• 2010–11 Arsenal F.C. season
  (Infobox: All flags are prohibited)
  (Tables: Allow flags for ALL, including Manager + Coaching Staff + Club officials + Chairman)
• 2010 FIFA World Cup Group matches
  (Tables: Include a flag for all foreign managers; but however prohibit flags for the referees)
• 2010 FIFA World Cup
  (Infobox: Allow flags for all; specificly the "Tournament host", NFTs and players)
  (Tables: Allow flags for all; due to no existence of a manager/staff table, the flag policy is however unkown for them)
• 2010–11 UEFA Champions League
  (Infobox: Allow for all flags to be used, specificly for clubs and players)
  (Tables: Allow for all flags to be used; only exception is in the match report where it prohibit flags for referees)
  

Danish Expert ( talk) 06:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The best thing this project could do for the situation is, as a whole, not use flags. It has and will continue to be a source of ambiguity, inconsistency, and contention. My proposal would be a statement from the group of "This project prefers not to use flags in related articles." We have text. Flag icons are not necessary in this topic area. Cptnono ( talk) 06:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd think you'd be hard-pressed to find project-wide approval for all usages of flags listed above. The trend within the project as of late has not been about proper, needed, and responsible uses of flags. Many of the things you want to use flags for goes against that trend. Example: One could argue that, unlike a player (for some odd reason here or there), do we really need to know the flag to indicate the nationality? Does their nationality bear any relevance whatsoever? Most of us would think not (in any article). Digirami ( talk) 06:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for a new overall WPF flag policy

In order to move the discussion a bit forward, I decided to make an attempt, to work out a short analysis of the current unwritten "Flag policy", being unknowingly followed by editors at all kind of WP Football articles. At first, it all appeared to me as a complete mess. But after giving it a second thought, it was fortunately indeed possible, to identify some overall logic and common sense; making it possible for the first time in our short lived WP Football history, to actually formulate an overall flag policy based upon common practise. Due to time constraints, I only "analysed" the flag use at some of the most high profile football articles. Yet I will be bold to claim, that I believe more than 90% of all current Wikipedia football articles comply with the newly written overall "flag policy", and that it make logical sense to demand, that the few deviations should obey to the same policy as soon as possible.

I realise, that many of you disagree with the current unwritten practise for the overall "flag use" at WP Football. The newly written Flag policy page, should therefore at the moment, mostly be regarded as an attempt to explain the "current flag use". As the "Flag policy" page have been written and formulated, based upon the "current overall flag practise", I think this by-it-self merit, that we all try to comply with it. At least, until a clear majority at WPF, once in the future might reach another consensus. For the moment, I hope you will all appreciate the launch of the new WPF flag policy page. You are all welcome to post support/oppose comments at the page, where the debate is structured into two chapters; one dedicated to discuss if the proposed formulation indeed represent the claimed "currently used flag policy", and one dedicated to discuss if you believe it would benefit WP Football, to perhaps implement and enforce a new different flag policy. Danish Expert ( talk) 10:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A user has been changing the wikilink in ALL Brazilian footballers, from the latter to the former, and i think it's totally and utterly wrong (chances are i will be the one "accused" of wrongdoing, as nearly always...), here's why:

the introduction serves to determine the nation ( Brazilian in this case) and profession ( footballer in this case) of the given subject, not a mix of the two as the user says, he takes the link Football in Brazil and then hides it with the word "Brazilian", removing the most important link in what footballers are concerned, "association football". Sportspeople are human beings, then comes their field of living, the two should be separated in my humble opinion.

Attentively - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 16:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would always link to 'Brazil' - but it's not a major issue (po-tay-to, po-tah-to), and be careful not to get dragged into a lame edit war. Regards, Giant Snowman 16:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• • 'Chain links' do not entice readers to click on them; links which are side by side are also discouraged by WP:MOSLINK. The reason links like [[association football|football]] within the opening section of biographies have been tolerated for so long is the existence of many different codes of football, thereby needing disambiguation. However, as the most popular sport in the world, spectator or otherwise, it falls well within the category of common terms at MOSLINK. I have been changing these chain in footballer bios as you correctly pointed out, and do realise that it is not entirely appropriate, since not all of the subjects necessarily play football in or for Brazil. Since that realisation, I have taken to removing the links to both country and 'football'. Where the player's town/city of origin is in the lead, or where there is otherwise mention of his representation of a given country, the country name (as an adjective) is removed entirely; [[association football|football]] or [[football (soccer)|football]] is replaced by 'association football' (without the link). I trust this deals with your query/concern. -- Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input. But as you see, as the previous user, GiantSnowman, states, sometimes the country is linked, and i agree with him. And how come an article about a footballer does not have his profession linked? Yes i know, MOSLINK, but can't MOSLINK be wrong? - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 02:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Where in WP:MOSLINK does it discourage "chain links" or "links which are side by side"? Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 05:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link, as in Irish Chess Championship (Irish Chess Championship). Consider rephrasing the sentence, omitting one of the links, or using a more specific single link (e.g. to Irish Chess Championship) instead." FWIW, WP:EGG specifically discourages the piping of seemingly obvious links to go somewhere else, which was Vasco's original point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Brazil, the country, is common enough not to be linked anyway. Hack ( talk) 15:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just destroyed good ole' User:Zombie433's "work" in this article, which included one lying ref, about his FC Timisoara trial. Browsed the web and found a correct one, albeit only in Romanian.

Now, for the "bad news". The ref does not display, and i've tried EVERYTHING: trans_title, no trans_title, etc, it does not display, yet, when i copy/paste and insert just the URL link, it shows, quite odd...

Thanks in advance for whatever help can be provided - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 16:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

How about now? Any better? Giant Snowman 16:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Great job mate! I bestow upon you the "Portuguese 18:49 barnstar of Merit" (giggles...)! - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 17:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Can a few people keep an eye on their page. Since the page protection expired, more vandalism has occurred but I've held off requesting protection again because it's manageable at the moment. Disgruntled Hungarians are back for more it seems. I won't be on much today so a few more editors monitoring it would be appreciated. Cheers. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 09:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist, already warned one user for vandalism. Sigh. Giant Snowman 14:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• See? I know it's against the rules to "feed the trolls", but it's VERY HARD to do so people, very hard...-- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 14:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Revert & warn, as we have to maintain AGF and can't just assume they're trolling/vandals - they may be making well-intentioned (albeit incorrect) edits. Giant Snowman 16:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Some people use their time in the oddest ways and we can revert it all in one click. Their loss. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 03:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The latest thing I've seen is changing the name of Balázs Dzsudzsák to Baláz$ Dz$udz$ák. Cute isn't it and look at how much time this person wasted. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 03:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be sections for statistics for stuff like the Domestic Super Cups, Playoffs (Germany, England, and United States all have 1 and the Netherlands have 2), Brazilian football state championships, FIFA World Club Cup and so on. Kingjeff ( talk) 04:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I allready find it pretty crowded and besides i guess not many would have more than 5 games in each section. - Koppapa ( talk) 06:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not just use a standard wikitable similar to the one used at Cristiano Ronaldo#Career statistics? Those are easily customisable with the columns you require. – Pee Jay 12:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

So, you're pretty much saying the template is useless? The MLS Cup could go into a League Cup and other playoffs could go into League games. Is there a reason why there can't be an others column? Kingjeff ( talk) 17:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's useless, I'm saying it's pointless. – Pee Jay 17:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, a wikitable is waaaay easier to use. Giant Snowman 17:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A dumb idiotic semi-smart user copy-pasted the content of 2011 CONCACAF Gold Cup Final to every red link in the Finals row at Template:CONCACAF Gold Cup. Assistance in the clean up process is welcome, either in correcting the data to comply with the respective competition or in redirecting to the respective main competition article. -- Soccer-holic ^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Deary me. I'd be tempted to remove all content and tag for CSD, then start again properly. Giant Snowman 12:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've redirected all of them to the main Gold Cup tournament articles. That way you can start again properly without needing to go through the rigmarole of CSD. – Pee Jay 12:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Good plan. I've asked the user in question to explain himself... Giant Snowman 12:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, it was him, was it? I've had problems with that user for a long time regarding FA Cup final articles and the like. He tends to operate according to his own whims, I've found. Don't expect a reply. – Pee Jay 12:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

His responses on my talk page are as bizarre as they are troubling; I've told him his edits were borderline vandalism, and to take more care in future. Giant Snowman 14:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't be sure if the guy is a native speaker of English. Very strange. – Pee Jay 17:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

He is now posting such informative tables as this Kevin McE ( talk) 18:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Second run-in i have in Quique Sánchez Flores (the second person swears he is not the first user that i stumbled across, i have my doubts), regarding his box name...

A SPANISH user, User:Qampunen, has told me the chap is most known by "Quique Flores", rendering the "Sánchez" name more secondary in what his footballing name's concerned, he only confirmed what i already knew, have been following his career since he was a PLAYER.

Both Colombian anon users (the same? the doubt remains) could not care less, they revert(ed) me on sight, even though i sent both several detailed messages regarding the situation. This is getting out of hand, in some messages (written in Spanish), especially the last one, the user seems to belittle my achievements and say "talk to the hand". Ah, and after the message, he undid me (and i undid him!)...

Attentively - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 21:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The user has undid me AGAIN, writing in summary "removed vandalism" (i.e. he called me a VANDAL) - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 21:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the last edit but he will probably just do it again. He is clearly known as Quique Flores. His full name would still be in the infobox. Warburton1368 ( talk) 21:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

He is certainly persistent. Reverted me as well. Warburton1368 ( talk) 21:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring? Report at WP:AIV for breaking 3RR, I'll issue a final warning. Giant Snowman 21:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring should be reported at WP:AN3. Camw ( talk) 06:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have duly used the article's talkpage in the last month, the Colombian guy did the same, but his arguments were shabby at best. I can't think of anything else to say and, as you can see, another one joins the "QUIQUE FLORES" support group, Mr.Warburton - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 21:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

IP given a couple of days off. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, appreciate it. Giant Snowman 17:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Did Mexico's first goal against Bosnia back in 9 February officially been credited to Chicharito? Apart from the Medio Tempo source which was used to cite that the goal was credited to him, other sources have indicated otherwise and therefore was a Miralem Pjanic own goal. Banana Fingers ( talk) 17:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Javier Hernández Balcázar#México vs Bosnia. Giant Snowman 17:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My bad... thanks! Banana Fingers ( talk) 17:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No problems! Giant Snowman 17:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Are teams in the Serbian League, the 3rd tier of Serbain football, eligible for the national cup? If not they fail WP:FOOTYN and I've got a helluva lot of PRODing to do... Giant Snowman 22:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems so – as long as they, similar to the DFB-Pokal, have won their respective regional cup competition. Otherwise, only Superliga and First League teams are obliged to play in the competition of the following year; for example, the 2010–11 teams from both leagues will participate in the 2011–12 competition. I guess you can already start PRODding... -- Soccer-holic ^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear...I had a go at CSDs but most (i.e. all) of them were rejected, so I'll PROD away tomorrow then. Thanks! Giant Snowman 22:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Mine were rejected as well, despite the fact that they make no claim to notability at all. They're "close ones" apparently. 0_o Argyle 4 Life ^talk 03:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering, do we take in historical performance for the notability of football clubs? Say one season a club is notable because they won the right to compete in their national cup, but other times not? Does the article still get to stick around? Digirami ( talk) 06:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability isn't temporary... Hack ( talk) 07:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just checking. Thanks! Digirami ( talk) 07:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, but 100% of the articles I have on my radar have no context/history whatsoever, and I can find very few sources, and therefore cannot determine notability. If somebody who speaks Serbian can improve them then please feel free to! Giant Snowman 12:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just PRODded about two dozen non-notable Serbian teams, and indicated notability on maybe three or four more. I'm done, so if anybody wants to take over, feel free! Giant Snowman 13:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well if you bring the DfB-Pokal argument of winning (two) regional cups the preceding years, every first team in Germany would be notable. - Koppapa ( talk) 14:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hehe... please read WP:FOOTYN#Club notability, then re-evaluate your statement (or alternatively clarify yourself). ;-) -- Soccer-holic ^{I hear voices in my head...} 15:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion a while ago about adjusting cup notability criteria because the number of entrants differs from country to country. As an example, 7,449 clubs took part in last seasons Coupe de France. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 15:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

God almighty, are we now saying that so long as a team played in their national cup competition in a given season, that players in that squad are notable? Please tell me this is some elaborate joke that I'm just not getting. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, this is nothing to do with player notability - this is about club notability. Giant Snowman 15:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, clubs, not players. Relax, Chris. ;) This certainly needs more discussion because there are plenty of articles that are tagged and others that aren't which are equally as useless to the encyclopaedia. Some clubs from the fourth tier appear to have entered the Serbian Cup in the qualifying rounds for the most recent season, including FK Borac Ostružnica, but they all appear to be decidedly amateur and so are their "stadiums". WP:FOOTYN is looking very flimsy at the moment. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 03:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the Coupe de France is open to all French clubs, even those in the lowest leagues. They just have to pay to enter the competition. This gives popularity to the oldest football competition in France, but I don't really thinks all French clubs are notable...-- Latouffedisco ( talk) 10:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

On this source there are all the matches played by Azzurri, between 1910 and 1978: do you know some names for the not italian players? 93.56.53.221 ( talk) 11:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This page on RSSSF [3] may be of some help. Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 05:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"sir Thomas Mac Cormack" looks interesting... Hack ( talk) 06:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I was intrigued by the referee of the first match - he was Harry Goodley, an Englishman who played for Juventus. Itlaian Wikipedia has an article on him [4] if anyone fancies translating it. Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 07:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Another English referee is "Howcroft" (Italy-Austria, January 1914), who is probably the J. T. Howcroft who took charge of the 1920 FA Cup Final. Giant Snowman 07:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Goodley the guy supposed to have brought Juve their black and white shirts? Hack ( talk) 08:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

[5] has all European teams line-ups until 1999; I don't believe Italy played many non-European teams in that period except st the WC - they are not a touring nation. 46.205.62.69 ( talk) 11:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This site now redirects to [6], which does not have all this information (yet). 109.173.212.187 ( talk) 05:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You can cross your datas with this, for matches against the France national football team. Cheers.-- Latouffedisco ( talk) 10:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is my template for teams in UEFA Confederation

• Winners = bgcolor=Gold
• Runners-up = bgcolor=Silver
• Third Place = bgcolor=cc9966
• Fourth Place = bgcolor=#9acdff
• Hosts = style="border: 3px solid red"|

UEFA European Championship record
Year	Round	Position	GP	W	D*	L	GS	GA
1960	Round the reached	Position of Euro	P	W	D	L	F	A
1964	Round the reached	Position of Euro	P	W	D	L	F	A
1968	Round the reached	Position of Euro	P	W	D	L	F	A
1972	Round the reached	Position of Euro	P	W	D	L	F	A
1976	Round the reached	Position of Euro	P	W	D	L	F	A
1980	Round the reached	Position of Euro	P	W	D	L	F	A
1984	Round the reached	Position of Euro	P	W	D	L	F	A
1988	Round the reached	Position of Euro	P	W	D	L	F	A
1992	Round the reached	Position of Euro	P	W	D	L	F	A
1996	Round the reached	Position of Euro	P	W	D	L	F	A
2000	Round the reached	Position of Euro	P	W	D	L	F	A
2004	Round the reached	Position of Euro	P	W	D	L	F	A
2008	Round the reached	Position of Euro	P	W	D	L	F	A
2012	To Be Determined
2016
Total	Best:	/13

This just a draft cos I am going to do the 6 confederational championships as well after this one I started doing this yesterday and the teams I have done are:

•   Albania Y
•   Andorra Y
•   Armenia Y
•   Austria Y
•   Azerbaijan Y
•   Belarus Y
•   Belgium Y
•   Bosnia and Herzegovina Y
•   Bulgaria Y
•   Croatia Y
•   Cyprus Y
•   Czech Republic Y
•   Denmark Y
•   England Y
•   Estonia Y
•   Faroe Islands Y
•   Finland Y
•   France
•   Georgia Y
•   Germany
•   Greece
•   Hungary Y
•   Iceland Y
•   Ireland
•   Israel Y
•   Italy
•   Kazakhstan Y
•   Latvia Y
•   Liechtenstein
•   Lithuania Y
•   Luxembourg
•   FYR Macedonia
•   Malta Y
•   Moldova Y
•   Montenegro
•   Netherlands
•   Northern Ireland Y
•   Norway
•   Poland
•   Portugal
•   Romania
•   Russia
•   San Marino
•   Scotland
•   Serbia
•   Slovakia
•   Slovenia
•   Spain
•   Sweden
•    Switzerland
•   Turkey
•   Ukraine Y
•   Wales Y

Hopefully all the 53 UEFA Members will have this template. I belive they should because they are so inconsistant, even if they have not qualified. Mr Hall of England ( talk) 10:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This type of template has been discussed at length before, and consensus has been that it is of no benefit at all for countries that have never qualified, and that where teams have failed to qualify more than once in a row, the table should be compacted. Given that, for example, Greece did not qualify for the finals between 1980 and 2004, flags to represent the location of the 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000 finals are entirely redundant on an article about the Greek team. Flags which, of course, are contrary to WP:FLAG as they are unaccompanied by indication of the name of the country. Furthermore, no country yet has a record in the 2012 or 2016 events: why would we have empty rows for 5 years, simply because the location of an event has been announced. The article on the Faroe Islands national football team is not the place to announce where Euro 2016 is to be played. And the phrase Did not qualify does not need a capital letter for every word. Kevin McE ( talk) 10:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree. I deleted the recently added table from Wales national football team, on the basis that it is completely pointless for it to be there, as Wales have yet to qualify for the competition. It has been re-instated and a note left on my talk page (with said pointless table) saying "Wales is having this template becuase all Euro nations are having a consistant table, even if they have not qualified.". From what I can see here, that is not agreed. Would someone please explain how that table improves the Wales national football team article and why WP:BRD should be ignored. Thanks, Daicaregos ( talk) 10:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; while I appreciate the idea & passion, it's slight overkill I feel. Giant Snowman 11:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah i noticed this template for EUROs and World Cups now on every national team. I have a problem with the position colum: A number like 17, 24 or 7 is just wrong. No other places than 1 to 4 are awarded officially right? - Koppapa ( talk) 13:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree about the complete removal of tables for countries who never qualified, but support the idea to show them as collapsed. The reason is, that they still contain interesting info despite the missed qualification, as they reveal how many times the nation tried to qualify but failed. Some of the new Europeen nations only started recently to contest. So I vote for a collapsed version both for all nations with "one in a row" and "zeroe in a row". In regards of the futuristic link for the upcomming EC and WC, I agree with the rest of you, that this should be removed. The argument is, that readers already can read about the results and standing of the current EC/WC qualification at the NFT articles, and we really have no need to show a link for "futuristic competitions". Last year I reached a compromise with another editor about the issue. We agreed only to show one empty line for the next EC+WC event in the row, and then removed all the more futuristic links from Denmark, but i can see now, that we again have a link for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Speaking abouth the ranking procedure, as referred to by Koppapa, it also annoyed me at first. But when I discovered it was actually based upon official FIFA+UEFA rankings/statistics of each teams performance, I now feel it is okay to show. But perhaps we should add a small footnote with a link, to explain the calculation principle behind the ranking? Danish Expert ( talk) 17:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

By accident, I just tumbled into something, that perhaps might serve as a good compromise, in regards of listing the records for teams with many DNQs. Try to have a look at Romania. I really like their way of making it compact, and yet keeping it within the normal table style with statistical info. I now vote for this solution, instead of my previous suggestion to provide collapsed tables, for teams qualifying "zeroe in a row" / "one in a row". Of course I still think we should remove the "futuristic links" for 2014-2022, but beside of that, what do you think about the proposal to select the Romania style as a new overall standard? Danish Expert ( talk) 20:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Im just querying whether or not this team is notable for an article or should it be taken to Afd. Any suggestions? Liam Taylor 13:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly notable - they play in the third tier in Austria. Number 5 7 13:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

They've also played in the Austrian Cup regularly. Reached the quarter-finals in 1995–96 according to RSSSF. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 13:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Notable according to the cup statistic, but AFAIK the "third level" notability criteria for football teams, was apparently trashed within the last year. Danish Expert ( talk) 17:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the article Papua New Guinea national football team, they may be removed from the FIFA rankings if they do not play an international match in the coming weeks. Is that true? And if so, has that happened before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.195.88 ( talk) 22:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

According to this blog, they will be removed in July due to inactivity - and yes, it has happened before, with São Tomé and Príncipe which I did know before reading that blog, honest! Giant Snowman 22:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You might have read it on an on-line encyclopaedia Kevin McE ( talk) 22:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha - what is this "on-line encyclopaedia" you speak of? Giant Snowman 22:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Page being heavily vandalized, by the good people at CATERPILLAR INC. and "user" User:Dean1977. I know that island rivals CD Tenerife have a big England-based following base, so maybe that's why...nothing but trashy vandals!

Have reported it to an administrator, received no feedback whatsoever after one day. -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 21:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Ah ah! We don't get any message banner when our user page is altered, so got a surprise now, i am an honoured PRAT EDITOR according to Dean, i'm moved - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 21:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just messaged Dean, apologizing for the (yet another) misjudged summary on my part, but he was vandalizing, period (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=UD_Las_Palmas&diff=435737377&oldid=435737147)! Again, i apologize for my manners, getting really hard to control my "steam" -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 22:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ive requested page protection wont help with user but will help with Anoms as page has been clearly vandalised. 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Warburton1368 ( talk)

• Thanks, but it has been denied...No recent vandalism?! No, only TODAY, for a whole day! - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 22:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Vasco, please be careful with the edit summaries. That is the second time I've said it. I don't want you to get blocked. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 03:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. You do great work here Vasco, but this needs to stop. Taking your anger out in edit summaries only gives vandals what they want anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, take a look at Wikipedia:Deny recognition Vasco. Regards, Giant Snowman 12:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• You could not be more right, all 3 of you! It does need to stop, if i fail please report me, i won't hold any grudge. I have again learned - through my userpage - how these things can escalate... - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 14:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My userpage continues to be destroyed, now by the aforementioned anon IP (the other being Dean, i am 99,99999% sure they are the same), how can this be stopped? No friends in real life, but i still have time to make enemies in the virtual space :( -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 18:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page Vasco. Giant Snowman 18:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

After checking the person'(s)' edit history...INCREDIBLE!!!! Both (the same?) have more edits screwing up my userpage than in other things! And they (he) have (has) the guts to tell me to "get a life"... -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 23:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Greek football is currently shaken in its grounds by a huge controversy in which several clubs, players and officials of the first three tiers of the league pyramid have conspirated to influence the outcome of matches on a huge scale. There have already been several arrests and as it seems, two clubs, 2011–12 Europa League participant Olympiakos Volou and Kavala, have been demoted; however, this only seems to be the tip of the iceberg as more clubs, among them Olympiacos, are potentially involved.

We already have an article on the topic, but it is currently in a very bad shape, so expansion would be gladly welcome. I could also need some assistance in updating and maintaining the various Greek 2010–11 and 2011–12 league articles as a huge chunk of real-life work, due to be Tuesday, will consume most of my time during the next few days. Helping hands would thus be more than appreciated. -- Soccer-holic ^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've fleshed the article out a bit with what I could find in a brief search. Very sad times. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 13:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just checking here in case there has been some change that I am unaware of about wiki publishing fixtures for the league matches of English teams. As far as I know from previous years that these are under licence and that we should not be publishing forward dates as we do not hold such a licence. I have been removing them from 2011–12 Aston Villa F.C. season but keep getting reverted so am checking before further action is taken. Other clubs now appear to have now got the fixtures on them though I did go through removing them all just after publication. Keith D ( talk) 16:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not permitted, those companies (pools, BBC, etc) who do have the right to publish them pay a huge fee for the privilege which (funnily enough) WP does not do. I've just removed the fixtures from the Gillingham article.... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 17:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Do these lists cease to be copyright after the matches are played? What is the status of lists of completed FL matches? Kevin McE ( talk) 18:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As a general legal principle, you can't stop someone from reporting something after it has happened, unless they would be breaking privacy laws or be in contempt of court in doing so. In the absence of a legal precident preventing this reporting taking place in tabular form, we're free to continue. — W F C— 18:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That's right, only the lists of fixtures yet to happen are subject to copyright, although seeing as all the fixtures are worked out by a computer and creating them doesn't involve any intellect or creativity the claim of copyright is tenuous at best. I was reading an interesting article about this the other day. Big Dom 19:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that there has been no change to this that I was unaware of. I will continue to remove them when I find them. Keith D ( talk) 22:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks WFC: I'd wondered how the problem was circumvented for results. Kevin McE ( talk) 23:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

@BigDom, there is possibly a little more "intellect and creativity" than one may imagine...( link) not simply "pressing a button".--Club Oranje ^T 07:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Premier League does not distinguish between two halves of a season with fixtures running in paralell after switching home/away teams. Nor are the fixtures bound together in a round, for example if A plays B and C plays D in one round B might play A but C play E in the corresponding reversed round. 109.173.212.187 ( talk) 09:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Can be found here. Number 5 7 10:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

First part: can someone fix the sub-sections of CURRENT SQUAD at S.C. Braga please? I can't find the error :(

Second part: 99,999999999999% of the Argentine Primera División seasons are simply the name of the article with the years (i.e "1979–80 Argentine Primera División", "1995–96 Argentine Primera División", and so on and so on). Any particular reason why this one is named 2010–11 Argentine Primera División season? On purpose or just an accident?

Sad day for Club Atlético River Plate, and the club's fans/animals doing their deed...pityful (and by that i don't mean WP vandalism, i mean crowd trouble after the last game). Thank you very much in advance for both "situations". -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 21:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

SC Braga squad sorted ('current transfers' section removed, formatting is fine though). Giant Snowman 21:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That page should be named 2010–11 Argentine Primera División, instead of 2010–11 Argentine Primera División season. Most (if not all) the other pages are named without using the word season. -- Carioca ( talk) 21:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason why the 2010–11 article (and not only this one, there are more occurances throughout recent Latin-American football seasons) has the word season attached to its title is that there are two separate competitions with separate champions played within the season. I think the Argentine Primera Division switched from the "European" format to the "Apertura/Clausura" format quite some time ago. Any "European" seasons should hence omit the "season" suffix, while any "Apertura/Clausura" seasons should not. -- Soccer-holic ^{I hear voices in my head...} (which now hustles back to work), 21:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

In that case, then probably some seasons in the 1990s and in the 2000s should be moved to include the word season. -- Carioca ( talk) 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Any league season that has multiple championships and/or stages gets to have the word "season" attached to it. (Personally, I think all league season articles should have the word "season" added, but whatever). Precedent for using the word "season" I think came from the American sports leagues (any sport), who have been using the word "season" in their article titles for a while, like 2010 NFL season and 2010 Major League Soccer season. Digirami ( talk) 06:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

And yes, those season in the 1990s and 2000 should be moved... As well as those in the 1970s and 1980s that were using the Metropolitano/Nacional format. Digirami ( talk) 07:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Soccer-holic. Argentina has a unique system and I'll probably never understand it completely. Still shocked about River. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 17:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention this, regarding Soccerholic's input: yes, the Argentine League has Apertura and Clausura format, but all the other seasons - back from the 80's at least - have been played on that format, and have not the word "season" attached to the link, why 2010-11? -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 18:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Apertura/Clausura format has been used since 1990 in Argentina. The weird relegation system that doomed River Plate has been around since the 1980s (1983, to be exact). Additionally, the Argentine Primera had used a Metropolitano/Nacional format from 1967-1985. Essentially, any Argentine Primera season article from 1967-1985 and 1990-present can have the word "season" added to the article title. The only ones that have them now are the from the 2007–08 season onwards. The only reasons the other don't have them is because the word hasn't been added yet. It should be added. Digirami ( talk) 00:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any possibility this category is removed? For now, only FOUR subjects in that category, even though one is quite known in England, Roberto Martínez.

Furthermore, the club is totally obscure and amateur, has never played in higher than Tercera División. Attentively - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 00:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have populated the category - there are now 15 entries, more than enough to justify existence. Giant Snowman 00:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• What about the non-notability of the club? I still haven't grasped that concept fully... -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 00:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Has the club ever competed in the Copa del Rey at any level? Giant Snowman 01:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• The chart in the article does not note anything about cup results (as sometimes in other clubs), but i do know Tercera División clubs are allowed to participate in the Copa del Rey. A different matter is that they forfeit due to economical reasons. -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 01:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, in that case, it probably meets WP:FOOTYN - "All teams that have played in the national cup [...] are assumed to meet WP:N criteria" - and I'm sure sources can be found to back this up. Giant Snowman 01:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the Copa del Rey article, Tercera Division (and most Segunda Division B) teams are not eligible for the competition. Only the D3 champions from the previous season are invited, so they would be playing in the D2B when the cup started anyway. It seems as though the majority of D3 clubs are in fact non-notable. Big Dom 07:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Conflicting ideas. Anybody got a reliable source to put this matter to rest? Giant Snowman 10:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

According to soccer-spain.com: First round: This will only involve 25 second division B and 18 third division clubs. The 2B clubs are made up of the top five of each of last season's four regional groups, plus the five best placed sides after that. The four promoted sides are excluded, replaced by the four sides who were relegated. The teams qualifying from the third division are the 18 regional group champions, except in the cases where this was a B side, where the runners up will qualify. Seven of the 2B sides will be excluded and given byes to the next round, leaving 18 ties to be played, with clubs grouped into four geographical regions. Games will be played over one leg at the ground of the first named side, with the losers going in to the Federation Cup. Dr. Vicodine ( talk) 11:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I think it's ridiculous to be considering that a club playing at the fourth level in Spain may not be worthy of an article when we go down to level 10 in England!!! Number 5 7 11:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input fellows! Also, given i am the one dubbed ridiculous, i elaborate: i think it would perfectly acceptable even for the article to be non-existent (and i did not ask for the article to be removed, i asked for the CATEGORIES!) as this is EN.WIKI, in the same light as Altrincham F.C. - to cite but one - does not have an ES.WIKI piece. -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 14:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Vale signed Ryan Burge and Ben Williamson today and I am in the process of updating their articles. But apparently Williamson is a season long loan signing, see here and here. The local paper, as usual, is more helpful, saying: " The pair arrive at Vale Park today, confusingly from Conference North side Hyde FC, the Spain-based Academy's English partner club who held their registrations." Damn right its confusing!

It seems Burge signed a 2 year deal with academy in 2009, so should his infobox show Machida Zelvia, then Hyde (2009-2011) and have the four subsequent clubs as loan spells. Or should the infobox show Glen Hoddle Academy (2009-2011), and have the four subsequent clubs as loan spells? And what about Williamson, who the sources say is on loan from either Hyde or the Academy? Should we not have Hyde or Hoddle in the infobox? He doesn't seem to have played for either entity.

I just got off the phone from HMRC about an unrelated matter so my head hurts. Can someone give their advice please?-- Echetus Xe 11:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Burge must have been contracted to Doncaster at least, if they loaned him out to Oxford. Don't really know what the case was with the other clubs. Big Dom 14:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

He was still under contract with the academy though. In a mind blowing move both Hyde and Vale's websites say they signed Burge today Hyde and Vale. Sources say it was an undisclosed fee Vale paid, but none say where the money actually went to. My guess is that no journalist actually knows. It is all very confusing. Is Williamson on loan from Hyde or the academy not at all?-- Echetus Xe 16:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I believe, he is on loan from Hyde, we have his registration and loaned him out to Vale. As for Ryan Burge, Hyde actually signed him about a week ago but announced it with the other signings today. But today he was snapped up by Vale for an undisclosed fee. Liam Taylor 16:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

So, looks like Williamson is on loan from Hyde, and Burge has gone Academy>Hyde>Vale (all transfers, no loans) in the space of a few hours? Am I right? Giant Snowman 16:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If the GHA is not a club, I suspect it cannot hold registrations. Our listings should be listings of registrations, not of contracts. Whatever contract the players have/had with Hyde was presumably predicated upon their relationship with the Academy. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, so the academy don't appear in any infoboxes. Thanks to Taylor we know they both joined Hyde a few days ago, but the club only reported this today. What Taylor says makes sense to me. Hyde seem to gain money from this deal, but they have to pay the academy so much money per year? Is this a franchise situation? I think Burge's history is complex enough without this whole academy situation as well. Thanks for the help all.-- Echetus Xe 17:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If Hyde have Williamson's registration then it's a clear cut loan between them and Port Vale. Burge's history makes my head hurt, but again if they have his registration then it's a transfer between the two. When the FA updates this page again it should put it beyond any doubt. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 17:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to help always, this problem concerns me aswell because im a Hyde fan and update the player articles so this slightly confused me at first aswell and Argyle, from what all the websites say and from who I know within Hyde Football Club, Hyde did actually own both players and still hold Williamson's registration. Liam Taylor 17:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This article sheds a lot more light on the situation. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 23:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does Burge's article say " Worthing statistics unavailable" under the stats table, when there's no mention anywhere in the article of him having been with that club.........? -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 18:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A simple error I guess since EchetusXe did tables for both players today. I've removed the mention of Worthing from Burge's statistics section. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 19:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted.-- Echetus Xe 19:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A club called Edgware Town F.C. played in the UK until 2007-08 in the Isthmian League Division One North. They then had to pull out due to these reasons. The article has been edited fairly heavily this year to suggest they are competing again, and it claims they have been playing in the Zameretto League (sic). I can find a website for a club with the same name which reads "Edgware Town finished 6th place in the Zameretto League. This was a very crediable finish as next season we aim to win promotion. We are on Target with our 8 Year plan to be in League 2. To be on par with our League 2 target next year we will need to win promotion to the Zamaretto Premier League." but I cannot find them in the Southern Football League article etc. Are they genuine? Zanoni ( talk) 19:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, they definitely didn't finish 6th in any of the Southern League's divisions last season. The supposed match against Ashford Town in March also definitely didn't take place. Looks like an elaborate work of fiction to me, although why anyone would spend time doing so is a bit of a head-scratcher...... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 20:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

They're very unlikely to ever be placed in the Zamaretto/Southern league, simply because of where Edgware is geographically. They'd be in the Ryman/Isthmian league. Edgware certainly haven't been in the Southern league recently, if ever. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 20:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

So, do we think it would be acceptable to edit the Edgware Town F.C. article and remove the current squad list. given that it doesn't look credible they have a current squad? Zanoni ( talk) 05:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 07:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it. I have added the above reference on the club's demise as well Zanoni ( talk) 17:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not Wiki-related per se, but you may be interested to know that the website referred to above has now been taken down following a complaint from the Middlesex FA, which hinged on the fact that one page on the site invited parents to send in personal details of their children for (non-existent) trials with the (non-existent) club....... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Useful source -- Dweller ( talk) 12:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, they didn't actually play in the league in the end, and they haven't joined for the 2011-12 season either. Number 5 7 12:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Have been improving display of Isidro Díaz's article and, in his SOCCERBASE.COM entry, when he played for the Wolves, where the type of contract is supposed to be (loan, free, etc, etc), one reads "Monthly". Indeed, he played one month for the club then returned to Wigan, but what exactly does that mean? Is it a loan or not (i imagine not, or it would read "LOAN")?

Attentively - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 00:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like its just a one-month loan, something quite common in English football. See here: [7] : "Diaz was the next to leave. Unable to command a place in the team he had gone on loan to Wolves in August and September 1997 but only played one game." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyStarks ( talk • contribs)

No loan deal involved. He was out of contract that summer and we couldn't afford to meet his wage demands ( see here) so he had a brief spell at Wolves before returning for a second stint at Wigan later in the year. J Mo 101 ( talk) 10:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, monthly means just that - on a month-to-month contract. Giant Snowman 11:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Many thanks teammates! Maybe will use JMO's bit as a ref in piece, cheers! -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 13:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert on image licensing but I've seen a few pictures tagged with this recently. Isn't this an example of it being used wrongly? Argyle 4 Life ^talk 11:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite likely. If there is no licence info on the source page, there is no reason to assume the image has been released on a Free Art License. – Pee Jay 11:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That picture has been stolen from this page (2007-08 season) and is definitely copyrighted. Big Dom 12:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, there is no license of any kind here. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 12:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone here good at making images of national team kits? I'm looking for someone to make one for Ecuador (an perhaps others) before the start of the Copa America. Thanks. Digirami ( talk) 23:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

For some time an IP (in fact, several IPs from the same provider, but it is quite clearly the same guy) deletes stuff from Martín Demichelis article without any explanation at all. He also insists the the transfer to Malaga is a loan (which it isn't, I've referenced a statement from FC Bayern Munich - unfortunately it is only available in German). I've tried to prompt him into talking, but the only answer I got is this [8]. I'm afraid that I won't be able to achieve semi protection for the article because the rate of edits is fairly low. Any ideas how to proceed in this case? -- Jaellee ( talk) 14:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Give WP:RPP a go (what's the worse that can happen) and also report them at WP:AIV. Giant Snowman 14:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• If i was an admin, that IP would have been blocked as i write this lines! About the deal, i followed the situation in the Spanish press quite thoroughly, and i think it was a loan, now permanent. But we don't want scum like that in our site, Jaellee does him nothing and the answer is "F*** off"?!-- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 15:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Vasco, please don't call other editors "scum" - even vandals as disruptive as that. Comment on the edit, not the editors. Giant Snowman 15:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll revert his changes & issue him with three-revert rule (3RR) warning. ( DUCKISJAMMMY ( talk) 15:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC))

• Nice one JAMMY! Other than that, i'll work on the article as soon as i can, a bit POVish to say the least...To SNOWMAN, i am sorry i am not as politically correct as Jaellee (was insulted severely and still finished his message to the other guy with "thank you" - and i am not saying his approach is not correct per WP guidelines, it is), as i said anytime you guys feel i am up for a block, please report me i won't hold grudge. -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 15:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yep, good work DIJ. To Vasco - we're not going to report you or block you, that won't do anybody any good, just please bear such advice in mind in future - we want to help you! Giant Snowman 15:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think this one is very much still up in the air. Here is, Jaellee reference from bayern munich & a new reference here I found from malaga's site. But both somewhat contradict each other, anyone with any further info. please add it . So that the debate on the terms of his contract can be finalised. ( DUCKISJAMMMY ( talk) 17:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

Without the reference from the Malaga site, I would have said that the reference from FC Bayern Munich should be more reliable than any Spanish media (after all, they should know if they have a player under contract or not). I, any case, the IP is still deleting Demichelis' appearance in the second team (without any explanation, of course). I will try for semi protection of the article and see what happens. -- Jaellee ( talk) 23:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Should this be removed from the project? I think the original picture used in the article is perfectly fine.-- Echetus Xe 21:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it should stay, it's brilliant. ArtVandelay13 ( talk) 21:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; whack it in the 'Personal life' section and job's a good 'un. Giant Snowman 21:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely keep that, great picture! Big Dom 22:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Aww, Doomgaze, no. :( That's priceless. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 23:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

From a BLP perspective, given that the image may give hmmm ... shall we say "an unfavourable impression" ... are we certain that image is of the player? Sorry to be a killjoy. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha sorry guys :( Probably one of the best pictures I've seen on here, but I'd rather not have the day when his angry agent pops up on the help desk! I haven't heard of this player before, is it actually him? doomgaze (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely him. I honestly can't see how a picture of someone enjoying himself could give an "unfavourable impression" but if others do think it's inappropriate then we could just crop it rather than getting rid of it altogether - having a couple of pictures always makes an article that much more interesting. Big Dom 11:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope people aren't being serious, there is no way that is appropriate for an encyclopedia article even if it was verified as being the subject. Camw ( talk) 10:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Regretfully, I'd have to agree. If we were a football blog, definitely, but not in an encyclopaedia (but thanks for bringing it to our attention) Kevin McE ( talk) 10:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Point 9 on the general guidelines at WP:IUP is worth noting here, as is the "Moral issues" section (in particular bullets 1 and 3). While this was a particularly blatant case, we have a fair few high-profile footybios which use photos of players in the pub or the like, and it may be worth a drive to fix these. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I just found this category, which contains articles listing transfers relating only to FC Seoul. Is this something we should be encouraging, or should I just take the articles to AfD (and the category to CfD)? – Pee Jay 10:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If their was a seperate list of korean football transfers then definately the articles should be nominated for AfD ,but as it seems there isn't the articles have some value. However the category is pure nonsense. Although this article's references will need significant improving.Both articles should be listed here, which one of them already is & this category, should be nominated for CFD.( DUCKISJAMMMY ( talk) 13:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

Futhermore it isn't something I would be encouraging as you you can find transfers for most teams for a particular year on there season page for example ( DUCKISJAMMMY ( talk) 13:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

Yes, that's what I thought. We should be encouraging more people to create season articles for their teams (and others if they have the time), and that's definitely where this sort of info should be going. – Pee Jay 14:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes most definatley we need more season pages created, & I think I'll put a refimprove notice on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DUCKISJAMMMY ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Cannanore United FC ‎ - the editing here is highly suspect - I have reverted all the claimed players this editor has added as players of this 2nd division Indian I-L club. I cannot find anything on them = do we think HOAX? Zanoni ( talk) 12:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Appears so, someone else has deleted the article under G:3 Zanoni ( talk) 16:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Just prodded a re-post of this at Cannanore united fc. Gurt Posh ( talk) 14:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tagged it under G3. At this rate all variations of the name will need to be salted. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 16:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

When tallying a season's appearances for a player in Russia (or anywhere else with a summer season) which year are European matches counted as? My assumption is that 2006–07 UEFA Cup appearances would come under 2007, but I'm not totally sure (I'm looking to convert the table in Georgi Kinkladze to use the "football player statistics" template). Oldelpaso ( talk) 17:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

First, do you have to convert the table to a template? What's wrong with a good, old-fashioned wikitable? Sure, it's nice for there to be a bit of consistency in the look of things, but must we really convert everything to templates to achieve that?

Anyway, rant over. This is actually a really good question. I'd probably include it under the latter season's statistics, as you assumed, but I've got no evidence to back that up. – Pee Jay 23:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fussed about the method used, I just want to have a single row per season. I mentioned the template simply because the first appropriate example from my watchlist happened to use it. Oldelpaso ( talk) 15:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. I had a look at other examples, like Vágner Love, and his statistics for the 2008–09 UEFA Cup appear to be split between the 2008 and 2009 Russian league seasons. The Kinkladze article is looking very good, but isn't the second section header wrong? I'd say it should be "Playing career" followed by "Early career" as the first sub-section. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 16:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In cases like this where the death date is not available - i browsed the web, to no avail - are there any options templatewise or anything? I don't want to mislead the good readers at WP, thinking: A - a mad scientist who was banned by FIFA in his playing days for dabbling in drugs has developped a new type of immortal player; B - the new ABENA Geriatric Premier League is underway anytime soon :)

Attentively, respect your elder ;) -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 20:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The manual of style says "When the date of death is completely unknown, it should be extrapolated from last known period of activity: "Robert Menli Lyon (1789 – after 1863) ..."" Camw ( talk) 23:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone help me with the proper name for the African U-17 Championship? The main article is titled African U-17 Championship, while the individual competitions use the full naming convention of .. for example 2011 African Under-17 Championship. Should the two not be consistent? I also notice that the main article was previously African Under-17 Championship but a certain user who has a history of "interesting" moves decided to change it. Personally, I couldn't care which it is, I just want a name to work with so I can fix all the articles related to the competition (and add qualification pages, squads where possible, etc.). Thanks. TonyStarks ( talk) 08:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy, more controversial page moves without discussion. African Under-17 Championship for me. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 16:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep .. almost all his edits involve moving pages without any sort of consensus. He might be doing it in good faith but a lot of the times it doesn't make any sense. Anyways, hopefully I can get a couple more opinions before I move the page. TonyStarks ( talk) 21:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Since we have apparently been unable to reach a consensus regarding Under-21 national squad navboxes in the past, I suggest that the members of this WikiProject take a look at this TfD. The result of this TfD has the potential to set a precedent for other navboxes of this type if a consensus is achieved this time around, so it would be in the best interests of the Project to settle the issue once and for all. – Pee Jay 22:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone on here is any good at changing the kit templates if they may be willing to have a go at changing the kits to the new ones. I have tried to work out how to do it and to be honest its beyond my skills. Any help would be appreciated. i have added a link to show the pictures. 1 Warburton1368 ( talk) 13:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just created the article on the Northumberland cricketer Joe Thewlis. A source I found also said he was a footballer for Everton, Newcastle, North Shields and Spennymore. I don't know where the look for football resources to complete a "football section" on the article, but I've left a space free on it for someone who knows about football to write up his football career. If anyone can write that section it would be much appreciated. Thanks. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 14:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

He never played in the Football League, so I guess he must have been a reserve player at Everton and Newcastle. There won't be any sources that give in-depth information about his career in non-league if he played for North Shields or Spennymoor but would still be worth a mention in the article I suppose. Big Dom 14:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Can anybody determine if Theale F.C. and similar articles created by Adam.king11 ( talk · contribs) during the last couple of days fulfil WP:NFOOTY? I would have PRODded them, but I am unsure if the bit about the participation in the final of the FA Sunday Cup (what is this for a competition, by the way?) puts the article just over the bar. Thanks in advance, Soccer-holic ^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Playing in, or even winning, the FA Sunday Cup definitely does not make a team notable. As a competition, it is open to amateur teams (i.e. Sunday League clubs) that don't play in the English football league system (those clubs must play on a Saturday). We can't have an article for every pub or village team. Big Dom 14:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, i was a bit hysterical, but insulted no one in the talkpage of this player's article. Just check the edit history and you will see what this article was, pure rubbish, written by either a close friend or wife/girlfriend, or someone with no idea whatsoever!

Conveyed those thoughts in the talkpage, without any insults, what did i get? A vile insult towards me, have already "thanked" the anon "user". Don't worry, if you use a translator on my sentence, you will see i did not insult him as he merited.

In an incredible twist, the "storyline" was created by User:Jordanson, which is based in Bulgaria i believe (see here for a few laughs http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Toz%C3%A9_Marreco&diff=273969110&oldid=272136582), and the guy who insulted me is my countryman (Portuguese for those who do not know it), so the guy just popped at WP for ONE edit, read the stuff in the article's talk, did not like my tone and told me basically to just "drop dead"! Sad, so sad and pityful. Dedicate these lines to all of us that strive to improve articles and/or cleanup vandalism and make the poor little things react like they're the victims... -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 04:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that is a ridiculously long youth career passage, definitely written by someone who knew him. As for the degusting insult, I suggest you don’t respond in further & report it here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or here Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. ( DUCKISJAMMMY ( talk) 04:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC))

• Thanks for your comments and help. Then again, Jordanson and the Portuguese anon may well be the same person (i said Jordanson is Bulgarian because 99,99999% of his edits are in Bulgarian soccer), a Bulgarian living in Portugal maybe? I have now messaged the account - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 05:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely Samed Yesil is not notable? Plays for Leverkusen's U17 team .. TonyStarks ( talk) 04:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not notable, and most of the article is a copyvio that should be removed immediately. Big Dom 07:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have PRODded the article. Giant Snowman 10:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Or just redirect to BAyer Leverkusen. He will become notable in time. - Koppapa ( talk) 12:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you know he will be notable? Giant Snowman 13:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting a youth player to a club article isn't really a plausible redirect either, especially since there is no information about the player on the Bayer Leverkusen article. Big Dom 13:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

GiantSnowman: Thanks for PRODing the article. There's also some other players currently playing in the 2011 FIFA U-17 World Cup with articles that are not notable. Most have already been tagged for deletion but a couple still remain (mainly the two Brazilians Adryan and Paizon, I'm sure I didn't spell their names right). TonyStarks ( talk) 19:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Piazón and Adryan don't strike me as being notable, yet the former was even semi-protected last week. I'd AfD them if I were you because a PROD would almost certainly be challenged. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 16:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The two above are now at AfD. I await a comment that they are the best thing to have come out of Brazil since Kaka and Pato. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 11:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The deletion notice has been removed. - Koppapa ( talk) 16:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Following on from these two articles for deletion, I am requesting that football club notability criteria at WP:FOOTYN be thoroughly discussed with the goal of new proposals being put forward and the criteria being significantly tightened. As things stand, this club, which is poorly sourced and doesn't meet WP:GNG is notable by virtue of playing in a qualifying round of their countries' national cup. I am open to ideas and suggestions. What I am sure of is that the guideline as it stands isn't fit for purpose. There are many more articles like the above example that are of no use to the encyclopaedia. An expansive guideline for clubs similar to that for players would be ideal. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 22:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And aren't something like 7000 clubs eligble for the French Cup? Ridiculous. No way all of those are notable. Giant Snowman 22:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:CORPDEPTH may be useful, if slightly adapted to fit the peculiarities of football... Giant Snowman 22:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

By the same token, it would be ridiculous to suggest that only the 80-or-so teams that play in the Spanish Cup are notable, when football is incredibly popular and quite well-documented in that country. Big Dom 07:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

1. Any club that has played in its country's top flight is notable. (If a club plays in its country's top flight, it generally receives significant coverage in that country's national media)
2. Any club that has played in a fully pro league is notable. (It goes without saying that if playing for a club makes a person notable, the club itself is notable)
3. Any club that has played in an international club competition sanctioned by one of the six confederations is notable. (These competitions generally receive a significant amount of coverage in their specific region, if not the rest of the world)
4. Any club that has won, or played in the finals of its country's national cub is notable. (As cup finals are generally considered notable as matches, it goes without saying that the clubs that compete in them are notable as well.)
5. Any club that has played in a national league or cup competition at a stage where all matches are broadcast live on national television, individually or as compilation, is notable. (A match with sufficient public interest to be broadcast live on national television will generally also receive other significant coverage.)

Admittedly, these criteria create a bias against less developed countries. That being said, football in these countries generally receives less coverage, meaning clubs there are less likely to meet WP:GNG. In addition, it might be worthwhile to see how other team-sport WikiProjects have handled club notability and if any of their guidelines can be applied to football. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rule number 5 there is completely unworkable. Take the FA Cup for example, the first round where all the matches are broadcast live (as the rule states) would be the semi-finals I believe (possibly the quarter-finals though), so any team playing in that round would already meet one or more of the other four criteria. Either way, we've been through all this before and it's just impossible to come up with a guideline that works for all countries. However, I would be interested in trying to help in this matter as it's something I have brought up in the past. Big Dom 07:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

1 and 2 are obviously notable. 3 is implied by 1. So 4, just the finals is a bit shallow i'd guess. On the other hand declaring a 10th level club from England notable, because they enter the cup (where they have to get though 5 or so qualifiny rounds) is too much in my opinion. The same argument that wors for that 700+ entry cup would then also work on the frnch cup with its 7000+ teams. - Koppapa ( talk) 09:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The only definitive solution is to determine notability on a country-by-country basis. I think I mentioned in a previous discussion on this issue though that constantly changing league structures means it's difficult to suggest an exact "cut off" point. J Mo 101 ( talk) 11:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, different countries have different structures and entry requirements. The FA has strict criteria for entry into their competitions. If a club doesn't meet those standards then they can't enter, whereas in France any club can enter their FA Cup equivalent by paying an entry fee. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 11:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

For many nations, the cup format is the meeting place between very notable clubs and less notable clubs, and each time such a cup match is played, many are curious just to read a few lines about the "less notable club". With the current club notability rule in force, we each year have 759 English clubs to qualify as notable (and I can imagine it history wise accumulates to 5,000). If we follow the proposal launched by Koppapa ( talk) -to only award notability for clubs competing in the cup after the qualifying round-, then our number of notable clubs within a certain year decrease to 128 English clubs. IMO that's a little to strict. My own proposal is, that we instead put more importance into the "profesionalism" criteria. In example, I think the two rules below actually could work well to solve the notability issue both for developed and undeveloped nations:

1. All clubs being professional or semi-professional at one point of time in their history, are notable.
2. An amateur club can only be declared notable, if the club at one point of time in their history, competed at the national level of the league structure, or reached the 1/8-final of the national cup.

I believe the rules above could serve as an easy and appropriate way to define "club notability". For the English context, I think it would lead to more or less a "notability status quo", as all teams at the highest 6 levels today are professional/semi-professional and most teams at level 7-10 are semi-professional. A quick look at the English teams from league 1-10, also reveal that most -if not all-, already are covered by a wikipedia page due to their previous participation in the FA Cup. So the new rules above to require a minimum of semi-professionalism for "club notability", would mean no revolution for the English context, but at the same time work perfect to solve our issue, with the more than 7000 French "notable clubs" pr. year. Danish Expert ( talk) 10:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any consensus that squad numbers should be removed from the squad list on the basis that new numbers will be issued at the beginning of each season? This IP seems to think so and I'm getting a bit tired of having to clean up after them. Everywhere I've seen, squad numbers are retained until there is official confirmation of a change and I'd take heed of a quality article over the opinion of an unregistered user. This outstanding gent has been our number one for a decade so his number isn't going to change. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 17:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

1) Where are new squad numbers issued at the start of each season?

2) I would say that we should leave the squad numbers until the new numbers are issued unless the team states that the numbers have been removed. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no reason to assume that the squad numbers would be removed. – Pee Jay 17:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree in principal that existing squad numbers are correct until the club submits there squad list for the new season. However there are many pages on wikipedia where the squad numbers have been removed for the new season or sources have confirmed that a player has a new number for the new season i.e. training photos and their number is updated this then means the squad list can have a mix of new and old numbers which isnt right eithier. Warburton1368 ( talk) 18:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, when it comes to team pages, however when it comes clubs season pages which include a squad list I would wait for the squad no.s to be offficially released. ( DUCKISJAMMMY ( talk) 18:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC))

Numbers on training kits don't mean anything. I agree that we should just leave the squad numbers as they are until the new ones are announced a couple of weeks before the season starts. Big Dom 18:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That sits fine with me. The current numbers are based on this from the beginning of last season, so when the next list is done the reference can be replaced and numbers can be changed where applicable. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 18:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, most FL clubs release a statement of just update the profile pages. Leave them as last seasons until said time. There probably won't be drastic changes! -- Jimbo ^[online] 01:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Japan Squad 2009 U-17 World Cup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 68.35.171.25 ( talk) 15:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see further up this page here and add your thoughts please reader. As of yet we have no consensus for where flags should be placed, if anywhere at all. Everyone loves the endless flag debate, so I'm sure we can come to some agreement with your help.-- Echetus Xe 17:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just wondering if anyone else has come across this user. His talk page, combined with his block log, suggests a pattern of doing anything disruptive that he believes he can get away with, taking a breather when he feels he can get away with it no further, and then seeking out new venues to continue the practise. Is that a fair assumption, or does he also have a history of positive work? — W F C— 21:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What did he do wrong. Warburton1368 ( talk) 21:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've come across him twice, once for adding unreferenced information to a footballer BLP bio, and the other for recreating an actresses' BLP bio under a new name, after it had been previously deleted a number of times & SALTed (if I remember correctly). Giant Snowman 21:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes SNOWY, i have come across this chap a number of times, don't like his MO either - although as you know i am hard to please :) - no talkpage replies, no summaries, no nothing! Now i see he's getting a fair share of warnings, to which he has not replied of course.

A vandal per se? Of course not. Regards - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 23:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure he's not a vandal? The guy makes changes with no regard for policy. As I see it, assuming he's been told that his actions are undesirable, that makes him a vandal. – Pee Jay 15:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Vasco was being sarcastic... Giant Snowman 15:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen this user around in the past. Some of their edits are useful, like this, but the amount of warnings they've received tells a story and the lack of communication isn't ideal. The squad layout changes to Watford F.C. without discussing it was completely wrong. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 16:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• No siree, i was not being sarcastic :) What i meant was: he's not a vandal as he does not insert obscenities in articles, and does not remove links and refs and so on so on (at least from what i know). However, per PEEJAY's approach (the fact that he says "talk to the hand") he does seem like one. -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 16:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• More reasons to PEEJAY's cause: in Royston Drenthe, he removed one reference in the introduction, and the summary was as always...ZERO! -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 23:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have had a run-in with him as well. He just goes around changing things with no reason or edit summary and with no regards to policy or replies to warningsor even friendly talk page requests. Adam4267 ( talk)

A new discussion on wording changes to the current guideline to clarify the use of diacritics for subjects whose native names contain them has been initiated. It can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Just added a new article for Gyöngyi Gaál. Can someone more familiar with Hungarian naming conventions explain which is the given name and the correct order of the names? Most of the English sources use the form I have used in the title but I just wanted to check. Hack ( talk) 03:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• According to the name article, Gyöngyi is a female given name, so it is in the order a Westerner would expect. Hungarian convention is to place the family name first, but I don't know whether the name order needs to be reversed or not according to our own conventions. -- Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The most common usage of her name is in the English order, so the current name should be fine... Hack ( talk) 04:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been generally reverting transfer speculation at Bojan Krkić, but also reverted a couple of ip edits where any reference to him playing for Catalonia was removed - which seemed justifiable content to me. In the process there's been some tweaking of his nationality etc... He's clearly born in Spain but is also clearly Catalan - I think the current article more or less balances those two things in a pretty reasonable way, but wondered if:

• anyone disagreed particularly with that;
• if there were any general standards applied wrt Catalan sportspeople/footballers.

I've noticed some general debate about the status of Catalonia but nothing awfully specific about footballers - but there are lots of people here much more experienced and wondered if I was barking up the wrong tree or not? Cheers. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 20:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Catalan" isn't a nationality in footballing terms. Catalonia does not have a UEFA- or FIFA-recognised football association. As far as we're concerned, Bojan Krkic is Spanish. However, that does not mean that we should remove any references to him playing for the Catalonia football team. – Pee Jay 21:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• If i understood it clearly Blue Square, no gray area in the player's nationality! He's clearly NOT Catalan, he's Spanish period, only born in Catalonia, which belongs to Spain. Regarding the Catalan team appearances, there was a debate (at least one) created here at WP:FOOTY, which i feel did not reach any consensus. Some "users" revert that without one word in summary because any hint that might be made implying Catalonia is independent drives them up the walls. Some "users" also revert references to the birthplace, changing for example "born 30-10-1982 in Barcelona, Catalonia is a Spanish footballer" to "born 30-10-1982 in Barcelona, Spain is a Spanish footballer"...just a bunch of Catalonia haters (and keep in mind i don't even hail from that region or country, i'm Portuguese, just telling 'em as i see 'em).

Regarding the category, there is one cat called "CATALAN FOOTBALLERS" as there is "CANTABRIAN FOOTBALLERS" and "BASQUE FOOTBALLERS", at least for Spanish footballers. In the SPANISH NAMES tag which can be found in the introduction (Spanish names - 1st and 2nd), it should read SPANISH NAMES tag not CATALAN NAMES tag, names are Spanish (in Bojan's case, neither KRKIC or PÉREZ are Catalan names).

Attentively - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 22:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Is it reasonable, do you think, to work along the lines of:

• Infobox says birthplace is xxx, Spain
• Lead/biographical section goes something along the lines of "xxx is a Spanish footballer born in xxx, Catalonia

Thoughts appreciated. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 17:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• 100% my modus operandi my friend! So, in the case you presented, i would write, in the introduction, "Bojan Krkić Pérez (born 28 August 1990 in Linyola, Catalonia) - you can also add Province of Lleida in between if you like - is a Spanish footballer who plays for FC Barcelona as a striker". In box, only birthcity and country, for compression purposes.

Keep it up, happy editing - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 18:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed some PRODs on pages for U-17 world cup players. What is the consensus on this? I checked the notability guidelines for footballers and noticed that they must compete in a senior international competition. Does senior mean adult or does it mean a top level international competition? Here are the pages: Leonardo Bonatini Lohner Maia, Shoya Nakajima, and Ademilson Braga Bispo Junior. Ryan Vesey ( talk) 05:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

They should only have articles if they meet the general notability guidelines (or have played in a fully pro. domestic league/cup match). Senior competition would exclude the U17 world cup. Camw ( talk) 05:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:NFOOTBALL states that a players youth career doesn't make them notable. They need to have played at senior international level, in a fully professional league or meet the WP:GNG, which takes precedent. None of the players in this competition who don't meet WP:FOOTBALL pass the general notability guideline, from what I've seen. People see red links and articles for other players who have played at a fully professional level and they feel obliged to create ones for those that haven't. One user gives WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as a reason to keep Souleymane Coulibaly while adding POV content. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 12:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I brought up the same issue a week or so ago. And while I agree with almost everything mentioned here and even proposed some articles for deletion, I wonder why a player like Coulibaly would not pass WP:GNG ? He's received significant coverage for scoring 9 goals in 4 games and the coverage has been from many reliable sources. A quick Google search of his full name (assuming there isn't another Souleymane Coulibaly) brings up 376,000 hits. Is that not notable enough? TonyStarks ( talk) 22:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The depth of coverage in reliable sources is the key, not the number of hits someone gets via a search engine. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 01:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I know .. but in Coulibaly's case (and some others at the U17 World Cup), there's enough reliable sources out there with regards to the players. Off the top of my head, the same can also be said about some of the players on the French U17 team, like Yaisien, who have been in spotlight for a while now. TonyStarks ( talk) 04:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Coulibaly seems to meet the GNG but most of the others I've seen would struggle... Hack ( talk) 08:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in these two requests for move: [9] and [10]. - Darwinek ( talk) 13:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

About a week ago, an editor commented that FC Barcelona is more than a football club. I have some experience with the FC Bayern Munich article and know that they have other sports teams and suggested that the article could be modified so that it's more like the German club's page. It appears that I've become a lightning rod for the project, but I don't know anything about Barca so I'm handing it off to this group. Is there anyone who could add the additional sports to the main page? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this image on Dale Jennings' page infringes copyright and said uploaded isn't the original photographer/owner of the image as it's quite a hit on Google images. I've tried to search around WP but I don't know what tag I need to place to alert it. I've never been too sure when it comes to images etc. Thanks, -- Jimbo ^[online] 16:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's hosted on Commons, not locally, so needs to be dealt with there. Someone on Commons looks to have already tagged it for speedy deletion. Oldelpaso ( talk) 19:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, is there any reason why the article isn't just named Dale Jennings (footballer)? I can't find anything about another footballer with the same name, so there's no need for the extra disambiguation. Big Dom 20:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, (born 1992) is totally unnecessary the page should be moved. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 21:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC))

Indeed. The extra dab was pointless. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 01:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There's been an asshole vandalizing various U-20 World Cup articles in the last weeks. I couldn't find any routine in his path, and he's using different IP's each time, so it's hard to track. Maybe we could protect the editing on those pages. Problem is we should close the editing in all of the articles, since this idiot seems interested in destroying any of the articles. Please check out the problem and let me know what you suggest. Thanks in advance. Ipsumesse ( talk) 22:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Stupidly I got involved in an edit war, rather than getting some sort of consensus or working it out properly. Basically, I think the current revision has elements of WP:POV and WP:OR, compared to this version. Mainly the bits about Manchester United and Wimbledon dropping down leagues and the "interesting" note about not being mentioned in FC United's manifesto. Can I get some sort of project consensus on this matter? Thanks guys, -- Jimbo ^[online] 12:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That definitely doesn't belong in the article IMO -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 09:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it has no purpose being there, for the reasons you stated. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 17:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, the editor who wants to include the info seems to believe that someone is trying to make the three-level drop look like (in his words) "a uniquely noble gesture" and he/she feels the need to shoot that down by pointing out that others have dropped further. However, as far as I can see, simply stating that the fans dropped three levels doesn't in any way imply any sort of value judgement, so there's no need to "put it in context"........ -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 07:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

So what needs to be done when the page is unprotected to keep it that way? -- Jimbo ^[online] 16:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, again this old topic, this time in the "Honours" section. IP 62.50.175.31 is repeatedly adding flag icons. I always reverted them with regard to MOS:FLAG (I suppose I am correct in this, am I?). I pointed MOS:FLAG out to him and got this time at least this response: [11]: "The flag gives information about the nationality of the football club!" - which is in my opinion completely besides the point of MOS:FLAG. The user is very active and also makes valuable contributions, so I don't want to see him treated as a vandal. Can someone else also try to talk him and convince him that he should follow the consensus? -- Jaellee ( talk) 16:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it's completely irrelevant. Remove the flags forthwith. – Pee Jay 16:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP is not very cooperative. *sigh* I think he is heading for a block. -- Jaellee ( talk) 21:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted work by 62.50.175.31 on the Mario Götze page will issue them with a three-revert rule (3RR) warning if they undo it again. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 21:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC))

I contacted him (?) directly to his talk page to try to explain to him his flawed logic. Since them, he seems to have stopped edit warring over flags. Digirami ( talk) 23:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

He Hasn't stopped,I issued 62.50.175.31 with a (3RR) warning can someone else revert his changes on the Mario Götze page as I can't be dragged into his & Jaellee edit war as a person who is involved in a edit war cannnot issue a warning as its consider aggresive see here. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 23:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC))

Aside from that one edit, he has stopped. I could use some help trying to explain it to him. Digirami ( talk) 23:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Mario Götze page Still needs to be reverted. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 23:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC))

I've been watching this discussion from afar and I do not understand the logic behind argument posed by Digirami when he was trying to talk to the IP. Maybe if someone could explain the logic more concisely to the IP (and myself) this editing would stop. Adam4267 ( talk) 23:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Most importantly, the IP user is applying a MOS:FLAG rule to clubs that is actually meant for people. Digirami ( talk) 23:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"if a French player is awarded a medal for playing in a German team, the German flag would be used in a table of awards"

I'm still confused by this statement is the honours section not the "table of awards" Adam4267 ( talk) 23:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Consider the previous statement you took that from: "Use the flag and name of the country (be it a state or a nation) that the person (or team of people) officially represented, regardless of citizenship, when the flag templates are used for sports statistics and the like." With that as additional context, flags are to be used for a person's representative nationality. No where does it say it should be used for organizations like clubs. Digirami ( talk) 01:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, guys, you seem to be much better at explaining than me (much more more patient than me in any case). In my opinion there are several reasons why flags should not be added to the honours section ("Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" – "Icons should not be added only because they look good" – "Accompany flags with country names" etc.). -- Jaellee ( talk) 17:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of this template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2011_FIFA_Women%27s_World_Cup_finalists that is just used on the bottom of the cup's site and just lists info easily available in the article. - Koppapa ( talk) 14:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

We have one article, created in November 2009 by myself, as well as a second article, created six months later by Eldumpo. Can we speedily merge them without going through the hoo-haa of a full discussion? Giant Snowman 16:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I though that did not need a discussion, simply choose the one that seems in better shape...BE BOLD! -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 16:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Be bold indeed! Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 16:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

But don't the edit histories have to be merged as well? Or will having the edit history on the 'unlucky' article (to become a redirect) suffice? Giant Snowman 17:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've now merged them into Bobby Brown (footballer born 1940). As you say, the "unlucky" article's edit history will stay with what is now a redirect. Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 17:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Merci! Giant Snowman 19:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

In Pedro Rodríguez Ledesma found the following category: "UEFA CHAMPIONS LEAGUE FINAL SCORERS", i think that it is once again, a cat that raises the bar too high...how about "CHAMPIONS LEAGUE SCORERS IN THE FIRST HALF", "EXPATRIATE FOOTBALLERS WHO SCORED IN THE CHAMPIONS LEAGUE BUT THE GOAL WAS DISALLOWED"?

In my humble opinion, AFD all over, would not be a bit surprised if User:Roslagen, the guy who inserted it there, had created it - after all, he came up with "LIVERPOOL F.C. EXPATRIATE FOOTBALLERS"... -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 17:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Should be deleted. - Koppapa ( talk) 17:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a pointless category. I would like to see it deleted. Digirami ( talk) 17:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Up for deletion here. Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 19:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

In this discussion and this one, the merits and demerits of placing group stage scenarios in certain articles were debated (although the latter discussion was focused on leagues, the same points apply). There seemed to be no clear consensus either for or against, but I think it was leaning toward against. Either way, the debate has arisen again in the 2011 Copa America article. I am against it based in OR; anotehr user think its ok because it was done in other articles (smells of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to me). I know one of the arguement against OR is that it is simple calculations. But, scenarios are not always simple. I am reminded of the day before the last round of the 2011 CONCACAF Gold Cup when the scenarios were not simple, especially in the case for Group C ( see here). If the argument to ignore OR is based on simplicity, I think the calculations need to be simple all the time to ignore OR (excuse thar repetition). That is not guaranteed. I want to see what others think on the inclusion of scenarios ASAP since this is trivial stuff that only lasts for a few days. Digirami ( talk) 17:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As there nearly always is some kind of football championship, the discussion arises all the time. Talk:2011_FIFA_Women's_World_Cup#Scenarios gathered a lot of discussion and showed a strong support for the scenarios. - Koppapa ( talk) 18:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

With one exception that is under discussion at CFD, categories for association football players by nationality follow one of three formats: Foo (association) footballers, Foo (association) football players and Foo soccer players. There's not much that can be done with the "soccer" categories, but I want to ask about the the "(association) football" categories. Should they:

1. End with "footballers" in all cases – e.g. Category:English footballers, Category:New Zealand association footballers
2. End with "football players" in all cases – e.g. Category:German football players (red link), Category:South African association football players
3. End with "footballers" in some cases and "football players" in others

Clarification on this point by the WikiProject would help to reduce the number and complexity of future category discussions and decisions. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 17:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(P.S. I asked a similar question some months ago (see here) about the subcategories of Category:Association football players by club and received a satisfactory response – to use "footballers" when there is ambiguity about the sport (e.g. multi-sport clubs) and "players" when there is none – but the circumstances are different with the nationality categories. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 17:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC))

In categories, i have seen both (i.e. "FC BARCELONA FOOTBALLERS", "REAL MADRID C.F. PLAYERS"). In intros to articles, i prefer to write "...is a Spanish footballer who plays for Sevilla FC...", to avoid the repetition of "play". -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 17:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Normally it's Category:English footballers, Category:French footballers, but in some countries where other codes of football are (more) prominent - Australia, Ireland, NZ, SA, USA, Canada are the ones that spring to mind - then I feel they should be disambiguated by the sport's full name, and become 'Xish/Xian association footballers'. Giant Snowman 17:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. In general "footballers" is fine but extra detail is required for countries where other codes are popular. Argyle 4 Life ^talk 18:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Association Football is not in common usage anywhere in the world. Even in those regions where the unqualified word football does not cause uncertainty, soccer is used more frequently than association football by a massive margin. I see no justification for association football anywhere other than a note referring to archaic usage, that happens to be preserved by the fact that FIFA has never changed their name (which is not in English anyway). Pretending that "soccer is not used in England is blinkering oneself to all the evidence in the interests of maintaining a supposedly anti-American stance. Kevin McE ( talk) 18:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually "soccer" is arguably more archaic than "association football", a remnant among the older generations of rugby fans. Giant Snowman 18:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As an abbreviation, I don't see how "soccer" can have preceded the word it abbreviates. But being archaic is based on how long a phrase has been absent from everyday use, not how old the word is: I have never seen trailers for Association Football AM on Sky TV, and a search on The_FA.com will yield many times more soccers than association footballs. Kevin McE ( talk) 18:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Archaic means "old-fashioned", not just "old." I'm positive that "soccer" is in more popular useage than "association football", but I'm also positive that "Man Utd" is in wider useage than "Manchester United F.C.", "Blackburn" rather than "Blackburn Rovers F.C." etc. etc. Giant Snowman 18:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

From an Australian point of view, the terms "Australian footballer" and "Australian football player" are far too ambiguous to apply only to association football. Hack ( talk) 09:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As one of the major drivers towards our using "association football" in the first place, I still agree with Kevin that the category should plainly be "soccer players" in regions where that is the most common terminology. We only avoid "soccer" for "association football" for globally-scoped things, not for individual regions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Again going back to Australia, there was a consensus to use football (soccer), which seemed to work pretty well until the article about the sport became Association football. Hack ( talk) 14:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to gently nudge the focus of this discussion back to the "footballers"–"football players" distinction, rather than the "association football"–"football"–"soccer" distinction, which is a different (and exceedingly more complex) issue. To restate my question: for those country-level categories that use "football" or "association football", is "footballers" and "association footballers" preferable to "football players" and "association football players", or vice versa? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 17:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I favour the term 'soccer player' since it carries zero ambiguity which for an encyclopedic site is paramount. While football player or footballer may be most commonly applied to soccer players in large parts of the world, there are suffiecient places where the terms will be ambiguous. It maybe that context will allow for disambiguation by readers but I believe that we should make no assumptions about the prior knowledge that the reader brings to the article and that striving to make articles as accessible as possible is vital.

On the topic of football codes, the semantics of the word football and the lexicon associated with it, I believe we have a duty to ensure that the language used is also completely unambiguous and as accessible to all who wish to read. This is a facinating issue and much of the ambiguity comes from the sports themselves deriving from years of tradtion. One example is the codes in Hull in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Hull F.C. is a Rugby League Football Club while the team with which the club shares a stadium is known as Hull City A.F.C.. This type of ambiguity can often be quickly disambiguated by the reader of by page notes. However, some readers, particlarly those for whom English is not a first language or for whom soccer is not the main code, may find that their prior knowledge of the term football or the suffix F.C. means that they will need more help in gaining an unambiguous understanding of the article. Russell hadd ( talk) 19:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)