Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Transfers in/out on team pages

Should they be included or not? It seems as if there is no given standard, some pages have them and some don't. Some clubs have their own article on transfers, like Real Madrid. I, for one, think they help to clarify squad changes and help to keep track of players, who in some cases don't have an article of their own and otherwise can be hard to find. I have twice added a Transfer in/out paragraph in the Levante UD article only to have had it reverted. Is that really necessary? And if such sections shouldn't be included I think it is necessary to link to the transfer pages in the club pages. Sebisthlm 02:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

They do assist the transition between chronological club-season articles. Raymond Cruise — King Capitals, it seems — who reverted your additions, doesn't seem to give reasons for doing so. - Dudesleeper • Talk 02:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He was asked here about similar actions, but failed to respond on either his own or the other editor's talk page. If he continues, warn and then report him for vandalism. - Dudesleeper • Talk 02:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a favour of them at all on main club pages. A clear-cut case of recentism in my book. I know I've deleted them from the Fulham F.C. page a few times. - fchd 06:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Richard/fchd, such things should only be on season-by-season articles, not the main club page ChrisTheDude 07:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Should be on season articles. Mattythewhite 10:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and made them as subtle as possible when I created Dundee United F.C. season 2007-08. Fedgin | Talk 11:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Listing transfers in season articles is all very well on British clubs which contain alot of information spread out on several articles. The problem is that even articles on Spanish Primera clubs (not to mention Segunda clubs or most South American clubs) don't contain a lot of information, let alone a seperate season article. In these cases I think a Transfers in/out paragraph adequatly replaces an otherwise empty season article. Sebisthlm 12:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with Sebisthlm on this point. King of the North East 12:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The transfers from the current season is a very important information, because it deals directly with the most important thing for a football club, their current players. Also, it's very notable since the media talk so much about it. So, a section about it should exist in the club's main article.--ClaudioMB 16:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I delete "transfers for season x" sections from club articles on sight. That sort of thing falls under the remit of Wikinews, not Wikipedia. Oldelpaso 16:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems I've seen is what Sebisthlm alluded to: team pages aren't updated adequately or with the correct information due to the seeming lack of information available (whether that is because EPL clubs are further ahead of the curve or because EN Wikipedians don't bother to search out foreign language info, I don't know). The in-out section provides a way to assure readers, via a reference, that a player actually was transfered in or out of a club. There certainly are questions about whether certain players on Levante are still on the squad and with an in-out section it would be possible to document who was transfered. I completely understand Oldelpaso's concerns about recentism as it would suggest Wikipedia is a news source rather than an encyclopedia, but if the football(soccer) pages are to be considered encyclopedic, they must provide sources for who is on the squad and the best way I can think of doing that is to include transfer sections. Isaiah 20:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I have never understood why transfers in/out on a club article is concidered news. The current squad is vital information, former players also important information, then why not combine this information? Obviously squad changes have an enormous impact on how the season is going to unfold for a certain club, not to mention financial and other impacts. To understand the current events of a competition, knowledge of player moves is extremely important. If transfers are just news, what of all the different transfer pages. If they merit own articles then surely they can be added to the clubs in question, or should all of these transfer pages also be deleted? There is a problem with a lot of people posting transfer rumours and speculation though, but that I think is a completely different question. Sebisthlm 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For serious fans, I think that the transfer issue is very important, but for casual fans, it's only necessary to know who is on the squad at the moment. I have to assume that these pages are aimed at both, so information that is good for one and not detrimental to the other seems perfectly reasonable to include. This would fall under that category in my book. Perhaps Oldelpaso has a different viewpoint, so I'll wait until he/she or someone with his/her viewpoint responds before jumping to conclusions about reasoning. Isaiah 00:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

One solution I've used in the past is a line beneath the squad saying For recent transfers, see [season] in [country] football. (or wherever). Could've sworn some "list of transfers" articles were either deleted or merged to the article about that league season following AfDs, maybe my memory is wrong. The likes of La Liga 2007-08 etc. would seem to me the logical place for such information.

For main club articles, their job is to give an overview of the club as a whole, which frequently encompasses more than 100 years. In that context somebody who transferred away from the club last month is no more relevant than someone who did so in 1962. To reference who is or isn't in a particular squad, citing something like the squadlist on the club's website should suffice. There's some archived discussion on the subject of transfer sections here. Oldelpaso 17:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the archived discussion. I just note that much of it concerned British clubs which we know have gazillion sub-pages. When it comes to club articles that aren't that comprehensive, is it really necessary to keep club history and current season apart by creating sub pages with 'Club X 2007-08 season' when perhaps all they would contain would be the transfers in/out section? One option is to link to 'list of transfers' pages (as in the case of Levante) as you suggest, but many smaller countries as well as lower level leagues in the bigger countries don't have those. I would suggest we keep transfers in/out sections when there are no 'club season' or 'transfer lists' to link to. Sebisthlm 23:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. seasons

I am trying to get the self-made article Manchester United F.C. seasons to Featured List standard, and make it the first list of its type to reach that standard. However, I could use some input on how the article could be improved. There is an ongoing Peer Review at Wikipedia:Peer Review/Manchester United F.C. seasons so please feel free to go over there and lend a hand. Thanks guys. - PeeJay 02:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, that's the sort of data that should form the basis of main club articles, replacing things like lists of managers, players of the year etc. rather than being stripped off to seperate articles. - fchd 12:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

But surely people would be more likely to be searching for who a club's manager was in 1962 (for example), rather than a complete record of every season in the club's history? - PeeJay 20:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is now a Featured List candidate. I would appreciate it if all of you would comment on its candidacy here. Let's get Manchester United F.C. seasons to FL status. - PeeJay 19:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Spanish first team squads

Spanish roster rules restricts any Primera side to register a maximum of 25 (including a maximum of 3 non-EU players) players in the first team squad (as explained on the Real Madrid talkpage). Players with 26 and onwards are therefore not technically members of the first team but are primarily registered to a reserve or youth team. These roster restrictions have important effects on the Spanish club squads in the way that only players registered during registration periods during the transfer windows are elligable to play in the league. E.g. Motta and Ezquerro of Barca have not been registered and if neither of them is transfered at least one of them won't play during the fall since only one place is open in the squad (no. 13). To reflect this I think the Spanish first team squad lists should only include players with numbers 1-25, and reserve team players with first team numbers (26-) should be listed under Notable reserve team players. Any thoughts? Sebisthlm 16:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My point of view is not only for Spanish clubs, but for any football club. A club defines its own first team squad, not the media, Wikipedia, league, UEFA or FIFA. So, Wikipedia should use the club as source for that, unless there is a good reason to believe the team is providing a outdated information. In the Real Madrid example, the team has its list with 28 players. But some players don't have number yet. I think that should be followed. Why they have 28, not 25? I don't know, maybe they are trying to negotiate some players before transfer window close, and depend on that, define their squad. I believe sooner than later they will have a final list.--ClaudioMB 23:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If what you say is true then I think it's an excellent system for managing the squad lists. In other countries, where this doesn't apply, it's best to restrict it to squad numbered players - anyone without a squad number can't play for the first team, and when they do, they will get a number. ArtVandelay13 07:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Aston Villa F.C. managers

Just to ask if anyone is available to comment on the Featured List candidacy. We need some more comments either way to meet the threshold. Thanks Woodym555 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability criteria for English teams

I note that this Project's notability criteria still seem unresolved, unless I'm looking in the wrong place. Presumably, at least the top 5 levels of English football are notable, but is an 8th level English team automatically n? 7th? 9th? --Dweller 12:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the agreement is down to the 10th level, but I'm not certain. Mattythewhite 12:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be down to Step 7 (i.e. the 11th level) - top divisions of leagues such as the Manchester Football League or the third division of the Sussex County League. Number 57 12:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so the newly created Waldon Athletic F.C. article, would be notable? --Dweller 13:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Normally it needs to have played at Step 6/Level 10 to pass AfD - Waldon fails by two divisions. - fchd 13:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Where can I see an explanation of the levels? Also, would someone else try to have "a word" with the newbie originator, as he's ignoring me and putting a lot of effort into an article that may end up binned. --Dweller 13:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

See English football league system for a table of the verious levels. - fchd 13:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have prodded Waldon Athletic F.C.. I suspect the author will contest it, but if that happens I will take it to AfD next week (currently I don't have internet access at home...). Number 57 13:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it not right though that playing at Step 6 upwards is *one* way to pass the Notability requirements? Lower clubs may be notable if they are subject to significant coverage in secondary sources (I'm thinking the like of AFC Wimbledon and F.C. United, even though they entered at a 'notable' level) Paulbrock 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Notability can be obtained by meeting the usual criteria e.g. multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources. - fchd 17:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Mario Balotelli vs Mario Barwuah

I am currently involved in a dispute regarding the article name for Mario Balotelli Barwuah (full name), an Inter Milan player born in Italy to Ghanaian parents, and then adopted by a Lombardian family. The article was previously stored under Mario Balotelli, however a user moved it under Mario Barwuah citing "incorrect surname". I moved it back citing WP:COMMON but he moved it back once again. I might lastly move it back and possibly set a move protection for it, but I need some consensus in support of keeping the article under Mario Balotelli. Can you please discuss the issue in its talk page? Thanks in advance. --Angelo 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Use Mario Balotelli-Barwuah?. It should be case by case, but Christian Manfredini never used his original name, and Shaun Wright-Phillips should be the common practice. Balotelli were known in Italy, but Barwuah is in Africa. Matthew_hk tc 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's much closer to the Manfredini case rather than Wright-Phillips's. In any case, the discussion is on Talk:Mario Balotelli :) --Angelo 22:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Spam referencing?

I've just removed an unnecessary reference from Fernando Torres - I've never heard of www.abcgoal.com. I thought it must be some kind of spam, so I checked the user's contributions... see here aLii 07:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Spanish football squads

Quick question. Is there a limit of 25 first team players in a Spanish clubs squad? I've read this but just wanted to ask here to make sure. I'm wandering as an anon is exceeding this amount on Real Madrid. Thanks, Mattythewhite 21:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Football Manager is a definitive source, but on that game, you can only register 25 players for your first team, using squad numbers 1 to 25, and you can only select a maximum of three non-EU players. I assume it's the same in real life. - PeeJay 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've adressed this question a couple of posts above. It's true that the squad is restricted to 25 players (that's why Ezquerro and Motta have been stripped of their shirts and left out of the Barça squad making them illegible to play in the league). Numbers 26 and above have to be registered to a reserve team. As for RM I have twice removed the players 26 and above and put them under "prominent reserve team players" only for some anonymous IP number to move them back to the first team squad (and added to the "transfer in" table, even if Codina and Torres are the only Castilla players to actually have been promoted to the first team). Now I can't be bothered to start an edit war over it. Sebisthlm 22:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Real Madrid Wikiproject

Now available at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Real_Madrid. I've suggested the creator makes some links with WP:Football.

So that gives us Real Madrid,Bayern Munich,Sheffield Wednesday, and Sheffield United.

Do they need more consistency? Does it matter? Paulbrock 17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I really cannot see the point of these club-like projects, especially with the smaller clubs. Theres only gonna be five or six members for the main teams and two or three for the smaller teams, and nethertheless after a few months they just become inactive. What is the point? Davnel03 19:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Could we not encourage them to make merge into taskforces instead. This has been done in the past by the WP:MILHIST project and it has been successful. It keeps everything centralised. Thats my two cents anyway. Woodym555 19:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Woodym555, there is no point having small wikiprojects that in all fairness not get much attention. Sometimes they can be more like a personal crusade --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Good articles

Hello everyone. This is a plea for more player articles to be driven to WP:GA. I've become a regular at WP:GAC and I'm sick of seeing six American wrestlers for every one footballer article nominated, and having looked at Mido (footballer) and now James Milner I'm pretty sure there are dozens of articles which are close enough to be tinkered into GA status. I urge you all to take a player to GA, it's quite straight forward. The Rambling Man 20:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As a member of both WP:PW and WP:FOOTY does it really matter whether there's six wrestlers on there? Anyway, yeah there are severak articles pretty close to GA. Davnel03 18:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think The Rambling Man was just trying to say how there should be more football GA's. And may I nudge people here for possible GA's? Mattythewhite 12:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Updated template for under-21 etc. teams

I have updated the old Template:fbu21, and moved it to Template:fbu, to support any of the "under-NN" team articles. The age limit is now specified as the first parameter. For example, the old {{fbu21|name}} now works as follows:

• {{fbu|21|NED}} → Netherlands
• {{fbu|20|BRA}} → Brazil
• {{fbu|18|ENG}} → England

All old transclusions of fbu21 have been updated. Andrwsc 20:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic work, my friend. KUTGW. - PeeJay 20:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I still have several other sports on my work list: tennis (using {{davis}} and {{fed}}), rugby union ({{ru}}), cricket ({{cr}}), and if the (ice) hockey folks can get their act together and rename their national team articles to the same format as every other sport (see discussion here), then I can use {{ih}} for them. When all this is done, I estimate that about 2000 flag templates will have been replaced by about 40! Andrwsc 21:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like quite a task. I've supported the poll at the hockey team page, but let us know if there's anything else that I or anyone else can do to help. - PeeJay 22:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

League Notability

I was told that players in nonprofessional leagues are not allowed articles on wikipedia. However, I think we should make an exception for Conference north, Conference national, and Conference South. Because they are semi-professional leagues, and most of the clubs in their are fully professional clubs that have played in leagues before. However these leagues are notable at a national level at least. The sunder king 18:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've been misinformed. AFAIK, Conference National, Conference North and Conference South teams do meet notability standards on Wikipedia. Anything lower, though, and you'd be pushing it. - PeeJay 18:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The sunder king is arguing, I think, that players who have played in Conference National, Conference North and Conference South are inherently notable because the leagues are notable. That not the case. Players are not notable unless they "...have played in a fully professional league..." per WP:BIO, i.e. the Premier League, Championship, League One and Two. --Malcolmxl5 18:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that I think those leagues are professional leagues, and I am arguing against this, and that just players in leagues below these shouldn't have articles. The sunder king 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all clubs in even Conference National are professional, never mind the lower level. Literally dozens of players with no experience above Conference National have been deleted via AfD in the past, so clear precedent says that such players do not meet the requirements..... ChrisTheDude 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Clubs which have folded/been re-formed

Has there ever been any discussion about a definitive way to handle this situation? I ask because I've noticed that Scarborough and Scarborough Athletic are two separate articles, as are Aldershot and Aldershot Town, but Maidstone United covers both versions of the club in one article, as do Milton Keynes City and Wellingborough Town 2004, and in the case of the Wellingborough article when I questioned this on the talk page I was specifically told that both versions should be covered by one article. Is it simply that if the new club adopts a new name they get a new article but if they continue the old name they get rolled into the old club's article.....? ChrisTheDude 07:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the Maidstone article, the two clubs are the same. When they had to pull out of the Football League, they maintained affiliation to the Kent FA as Maidstone Invicta (playing juniors only for the first season I believe), and purchased the Maidstone United name back as soon as they legally could. - fchd 12:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't realise that ChrisTheDude 12:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Robson

Hello all, sorry to canvass for attention but I've just put Our Bobby up for peer review with a view to getting him to FA. Now I know some people will tell me to just update the table on the main project page, I've done that, but I wanted to draw some attention to it here. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man 16:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

More, I need more comment!! The Rambling Man 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, he's now at FAC - all comments welcome! The Rambling Man 10:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Antonio Puerta

I know this is not a forum, but in case you don't know Puera died this afternoon after he collapsed in Sevilla's game on Saturday. I'm not going to be on Wikipedia for a few hours, so the page will almost certainly need to be watched or semi-protected in light of recent events as IP's are already attacking the page. R.I.P. Puerta. Davnel03 14:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

RIP indeed. Poor bloke. - PeeJay 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Best thing you could have done would be to post a message on an Admins page or WP:RPP. Which gets me thinking, we could do with a list of Admins to go to that are part of this wikiproject, if there are any. Would be good keeping things close and local. --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Question re: Surrey Senior League

This article states that the Surrey Senior League existed until 2003 when it merged into the Combined Counties League, and that the Surrey County Senior League is still active. This wildly differs from the Combined Counties League page, which says that the Surrey Senior League became the Combined Counties League in the late 1970s, and that it was the Surrey County Senior League merged into the CCL in 2003, with both "Surrey" leagues now therefore defunct - which is correct....? ChrisTheDude 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of a single game - AfD

I refer all of the knowledgable people here to contribute to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayern Munich 1 - 2 Norwich City. I think that the WikiProject's notability criteria could do with some formalising/wordsmithing. --Dweller 14:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I believe the game should be historically significant and be reported by independant sources as being so. Or the final of an important cup event. --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaranda/Notabilty (sports)

Hi, I strongly recommed this project to give your notabilty guidelines for a new notabilty proposal that I'm creating on my userpage, once it is completed, I will move to wikipedia namespace for the community to decide. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

UEFA Cup / Fairs Cup dispute

As mentioned quite a bit further up the page, there is a long running dispute over whether the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup should be included in lists of UEFA Cup results. Editors are requested to give their opinion at Talk:European football records. Oldelpaso 18:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Could you express your opinion in this survey/discussion on the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and UEFA Cup? Any input would be helpful. -- BestEditorEver 12:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so it's only mentioned one other time on this page, but the link in the previous post links to the most recent archive, where it's mentioned two more times. It's getting a little old now. - Dudesleeper • Talk 12:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Dudesleeper

I noticed you removed my comment notifying other football editors of a survey on talk:WikiProject Football. I do not appreciate this. No repetition took place. My previous comment had nothing to do with the survey. -- BestEditorEver 13:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep comments on the relevant talk page. - Dudesleeper • Talk 13:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am. Please stop reverting my relevant comment on talk:WikiProject Football. -- BestEditorEver 13:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you're currently the only one in opposition on the survey, this couldn't be seen as canvassing at all, could it? - Dudesleeper • Talk 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Since (a) he is not advocating a position and (b) this is obviously the best place to put a request for comment, then no. Number 57 13:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The survey has only begun this morning, not many people have been able to respond. Hopefully more will. But what a strange accusation from Dudesleeper. I do not believe I have encountered you before. May I ask, why the hostility? -- BestEditorEver 13:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note that I posted my comment on talk:WikiProject Football nine minutes before other editors started to participate in the survey. My vote was the only one submitted. It wasn't trailing and I wasn't "canvassing" for votes. -- BestEditorEver 13:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart from your overriding my request to not post about the same topic several times, nope, no reason. The discussion, involving yourself, has been going on since mid-July. - Dudesleeper • Talk 13:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to qualify yourself. If you say you're not canvassing, I'll take your word for it. - Dudesleeper • Talk 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Spencer Trewethy

I'm planning on starting a page on this 'tycoon' ex-Aldershot owner, jailed for fraud. Could I have anyone's support on what to write and/or references? Porterjoh 21:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:CITE, thats a pretty good guide. As for what to write, try and set it out as a general Bio article explaining his life etc and then get on to the things he is notable for, in this case the whole fraud business. Just reference this bit well and you are on to a winner. If you need anymore help just message me =] --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

after a quick google search i didnt find anything, is the name right? --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Porterjoh, find sources, lots of them, then write the article. Here are a few trivial mentions[1][2][3][4](pay-per-view) Looking at it though, I don't think he's going to pass the [WP:BIO notability] test, particularly as he seems to be known for just the one event, a fraud involving Aldershot. Your best bet, I think, is to integrate the info into the Aldershot article. --Malcolmxl5 00:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. That's what I'll do. Porterjoh 17:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Template Help

I would like to use Template:Round16-CLformat in UEFA Champions League articles, but the ranking let the template could not be used. Could someone help for deleting those ranking, thanks. Raymond Giggs 04:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the seedings and changed the final to only one leg. However, the lines leading to the semi-finals and the final don't quite line up. Still, I don't think that matters too much. - PeeJay 11:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Category for players whose current status is unknown

I've had a look but can't find a decent category, and I think this could have a potential for a 'clean-up project' - I've been trying to update former Dundee United F.C. players for what they are doing now, whether it be their club, if they are manager somewhere, retired, etc. and it's sometimes difficult after exhausting Google. Perhaps other Wikipedians can update pages like these if there was a stub/category of players with unknown statuses? Something like Category:Footballers with an unknown status? Fedgin | Talk 09:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea, I'd certainly be happy to go through and add ex-Gillingham players to such a category ChrisTheDude 09:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think it is a good idea. I think WP:BIO have some categories at the moment such as Category:Possibly living people which i found out when i created Dick Taylor (football manager).v This has several related categories which might be of interest. I will echo Chris's sentiments in that i will do it for Aston Villa players. Woodym555 10:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, glad there is other support for this. Is the above category name appropriate? I'll start doing for ex-Dundee United players and hopefully others can follow. Fedgin | Talk 09:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Giles Barnes

Please can somebody please keep an eye on the Giles Barnes article as some IP/Vandal thinks that he has moved to West Ham, but Derby have reject an offer from the Hammers[5]. Kingjamie 20:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, already on watchlist. Kingjamie 20:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, annons are saying he has transferred to West Ham. Mattythewhite 19:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have watchlisted the page. Frankly there is no point asking for semi-protection because the transfer window closes in 4 hours and then it becomes irrelavent. I think we have to watch and wait. Woodym555 19:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Matty, please be mindful of WP:3RR. Any more reverts from either side and i will have to report it to WP:ANI. Only have to wait until midnight!! Woodym555 19:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been careful of keeping away from violating the three revert rule, and was waiting for someone to come by, which thankfully you did. Mattythewhite 19:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Have added it to my watchlist. --Malcolmxl5 20:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have left notes on the User talk:86.143.95.123 and on the Talk:Giles Barnes page. The anon has no excuse about warnings and lack of knowledge. I thought you would be careful, just making sure you were aware of it! ;). Good catch Matty on the whole Moustapha Salifou move. How did you know about it? Are you secretly Martin O'Neill? ;) Woodym555 20:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not - I just keep up to date with transfers! Mattythewhite 20:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sky Sports News are quoting sources from Derby County categorically denying that Barnes will be sold tonight. --Malcolmxl5 21:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Categorical denials from football clubs are about as trustworthy as one from a politician! Zat Knight committed his future to Fulham in July.[6]! West Ham quote Sky on their website:[7] with the title Barne door shuts Woodym555 21:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! Btw, have just reverted a story about Jermain Defoe having joined Blackburn Rovers. --Malcolmxl5 21:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And Dimitar Berbatov seems to have joined three different clubs! Mattythewhite 21:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh! Have just reverted a 'Defoe going to join Rovers at 11.30pm' statement. I'm going to have to stop now as I've made three reverts/edits. --Malcolmxl5 21:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll watch that one, but have to be mindful of meatpuppets accusations!!! We might have to watch all the usual people afflicted by these rumours. I will look at the recent changes to try and catch some of them! I think it is going to be crazy until the morning! Woodym555 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Berbatov has apparently gone to Manchester United for £32 million. Unsourced and now reverted. --Malcolmxl5 21:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes i saw your revert on recent changes. Lol. Woodym555 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's gone midnight, will the IPs go to bed now?!! --Malcolmxl5 23:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully!!! The articles in my watchlist have gone quiet now. Unless the news agencies are behind slightly, i don't think much should crop up now. Bring on January!! Woodym555 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sodje family

The Sodje family is a remarkable sporting family with four brothers playing football professionally and a cousin playing Rugby League. A summary can be found at Akpo Sodje. I am thinking of producing an omnibus article. Before I put a lot of work in may I have a view as to whether such an article is likely to have the support of the Project? I am not keen on producing an article that is immediately AfD'd! TerriersFan 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. Perhaps a Sodje family template to link them all is in order? :) Number 57 08:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

List of feeder teams in football

I'd appreciate it if some people could take a look at this article. I'm having trouble finding sources for anything and I know it's missing a ton of entries. Also, I'd be curious to hear people's thoughts on a possible move to something like List of club partnerships in football, since a lot of these aren't really feeder clubs per se. Recury 14:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/2007 UEFA Champions League Final

Hi would anyone be kind enough to review this article please, as I want to get it too featured article status. Cheers NapHit 15:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Scotland Discussion Page/task force

Hi

I'm new to the project and was wanting to know if it would be possible to have a area for discussion regarding all the Scottish football pages. To help that area be maintained easily. What do others think?

Gorillamusic 21:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You could create a task force if enough people were interested in maintaining it. See the England one for an example. Woodym555 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. next question how do I do that? (I'm on the wiki adoption program and I'm not to sure of how to do some things on here) Gorillamusic 21:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a fairly complex procedure. I would wait a few days for a consensus to develop. You need enough people who want to work on the task force to make it viable. If say, only you were prepared to update the task force, what would happen if you left wikipedia? The task force would become inactive. Project members will see this discussion and will give their thoughts. If, say 3 people think it would be viable, then we could start the process. Woodym555 22:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation

{{Football squad2 start}} Per the Manual of Style headers do not take "un-natural" capitals. Most navboxen and infoboxen also abide by this, I have changed this one to use the same style - Current Squad => current squad. Rich Farmbrough, 15:27 8 May 2007 (GMT).

Man City review

Manchester City F.C. has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKiernan (talk • contribs)

Template:National squad

I reverted {{National squad}} to an older version to get rid of the ugly purple background behind the flag. JACOPLANE • 2007-07-14 23:27

Tamworth FC in need of some serious editing.

NOTE: The following is copied from WP:NLF as it isn't getting any response.

Can anyone help out with this horribly long and news-like Tamworth F.C. article?

I don't know where to start! It needs a serious surgeons knife taking too it. --Gavinio 09:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a serious mess, what is wikiFootballs standing on having full match reports like that? They all need removing, its absurd but i can think of any rationale to delete all of the reports --Childzy ¤ Talk 14:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Absurdity is quite sufficient for a rationale. Oldelpaso 14:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed that all the junk that got cut out has now been forked off to History of Tamworth F.C....... ChrisTheDude 21:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit war regarding Dynamo Kyiv/Kiev

At the club articles, redirects and various Champions League articles. Which spelling should be used? I would say Kiev with it being the commonly used English name and the name of the article on the city... WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 20:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The club's official name, as registered with UEFA, is "FC Dynamo Kyiv". Here is the proof: [8] - PeeJay 20:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So Spartak Moscow and CSKA Moscow should be Spartak Moskva and CSKA Moskva. But YOU said to use "Moscow" there. Also [9] explained everything. It shows "Kiev, Ukraine", not "Kyiv, Ukraine". Raymond Giggs 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And that very page you linked to shows the name of the club as FC Dynamo Kyiv (repeatedly) even if it shows the name of the city as Kiev. - fchd 20:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget, PeeJay said that he would accept "Spartak Moscow" more than "Spartak Moskva". By his criteria, he would use "Dynamo Kiev", but he did use "Dynamo Kyiv". It is self-contradictory. Raymond Giggs 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Kyiv. That's the transliteration from the Ukrainian. Kiev, is an outdated spelling, and comes from the transliteration of the Russian. It's like Peking / Beijing or perhaps Bombay / Mumbai. - fchd 20:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Western Europe accepted the version "Kiev". In most of the wikipedia articles(french, german and so on), they used Kiev instead of Kyiv, although Kyiv is made. Raymond Giggs 20:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's still called Peking Duck isn't it? aLii 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

...or Chicken Kiev ;) — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 07:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We should be using the most commonly used name in English (see WP:NAME), which is without doubt Kiev. Even the club's official website is at http://www.fcdynamo.kiev.ua/. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 07:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To anyone who is interested in this, I suggest heading to Talk:Kiev/naming where there are literally hundreds of opinions. That way you can save yourselves some time. The consensus was Kiev. The Rambling Man 07:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many points there; but, not all of them are relevant to this discussion. The name that was decided upon for the city article need not be the same name as the team. For one example, see Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance (the Japanese kanji is Tokyo (or, more appropriately, Tōkyō)), but, since the official name of the company is spelled with the i, it has carried over to the Wikipedia article as well. Neier 08:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It could not explain everything although the article proves that. What we are talking about is, which name we should put in the UCL article, Kyiv or Kiev. Raymond Giggs 08:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming issue

Please see Talk:FC_Dynamo_Kyiv#Requested_move. GameKeeper 09:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The talk may be turn into a criteria-change discussion. If English criteria has been rejected in the vote, all club names should have been change into original names. So discuss it responsibly. Raymond Giggs 08:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The football club could be at Kyiv while the city still sits at Kiev, this for instance would mirror Roma/Rome and Sevilla/Seville. - fchd 13:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards are to title pages with the commonly used name in the relevant language; here English. See WP:NC#Use English words. TerriersFan 15:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay well... I have no idea to argue again. Because Seville and Rome's example is so clear... However, I still could not see any reliable source about Dynamo Kyiv as a common use. Raymond Giggs 08:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Roma and Sevilla are the commonly used English names. The English media and fans call them AS Roma and FC Sevilla. Whereas English media and fans call them Dynamo Kiev. Woodym555 08:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In the issue of World Soccer I bought today, they refer to the club as "Dynamo Kyiv". They also mention clubs called "CSKA Moscow", "Dinamo Bucharest", "Red Star Belgrade", "Slavia Prague", "Sparta Prague", "Spartak Moscow" and "Steaua Bucharest", proving that "Dynamo Kyiv" is becoming more commonly used amongst the media. - PeeJay 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Being used by some, it is still not the most common by quite a considerable margin. Woodym555 15:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but I would regard World Soccer as a good authority on the subject. Tbh, surely people would know what club you were talking about if you said "Dynamo Kyiv" rather than "Dynamo Kiev". - PeeJay 15:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, yet that runs against the principle though. I used an example to highlight my point to MTC in the discussion area of the requested move. If it was called Dhkepeh Kake(i.e. not discernible), would people still be arguing for a local name? (It is an exaggeration but to highlight my point.) Insert a metaphor about floodgates and precedents here. Woodym555 16:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I guess I'm gonna end up being one of the token opposition here. - PeeJay 16:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made a couple of searches on the BBC website for "Dynamo Kiev" and "Dynamo Kyiv". Both pop up but "Dynamo Kiev" brings up 52 pages of results [10] to 1 for "Dynamo Kyiv"[11]. Of course, things change over time but for now it seems that "Dynamo Kiev" is the common usage in English. --Malcolmxl5 20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Peejay, it was not my intention to pile on. It is just that if you allow it this once, even when in reality, there is little discernible difference, that sets a precedent for all other articles in the future. I suspect that in a year we may have to revisit the decision, but for the moment, the guidelines have to hold up. Consensus can change, as can naming conventions. Woodym555 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Champions League Group templates

I just discovered these templates for each of the eight UEFA Champions League groups:

• Template:UEFA Champions League 2007-08 Group A
• Template:UEFA Champions League 2007-08 Group B
• Template:UEFA Champions League 2007-08 Group C
• Template:UEFA Champions League 2007-08 Group D
• Template:UEFA Champions League 2007-08 Group E
• Template:UEFA Champions League 2007-08 Group F
• Template:UEFA Champions League 2007-08 Group G
• Template:UEFA Champions League 2007-08 Group H

My question is, are these templates really necessary? They will be relevant for three months at the most, they don't provide a useful reference tool and they will not be given a moment's thought after being removed from each team's page. So basically what I'm asking is, should I nominate them for TfD? - PeeJay 19:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

100% unneeded. I was about to TfD them myself. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 19:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD time. Mattythewhite 19:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. - fchd 19:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Over-template-tastic. Good-byeeeeeeee. The Rambling Man 19:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

TfDed - PeeJay 19:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Football (soccer) FAR

Football (soccer) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. __meco 20:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Gwyn Williams

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Gwyn Williams is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 11:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Radcliffe Borough F.C.

Seems to me to be overloaded with an inppropriate level of recentist detail - what do other people think.....? ChrisTheDude 16:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sort of. I'll try and give it a clean-up as I have a spare 20 minutes. Davnel03 16:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've restructed the article. I've tried to mirror Arsenal F.C. but obviously several sections are missing. I've removed all recentism in the article. The diff is here. Davnel03 17:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Aldershot Town F.C.

There is a developing section on this page giving the head-to-head record against every club that Aldershot Town have ever played. Does anyone have any thoughts on the worthiness of such a section? - fchd 19:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea. Soccerbase does it already, and is much more suited to that sort of thing. ArtVandelay13 20:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Vince Hilaire

I have kicked off an article about Vince Hilaire, former Crystal Palace, Portsmouth and Leeds player (and others) of mostly the 1980s, if anybody would like to take a look and perhaps expand it. --Malcolmxl5 23:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A pretty well-known player to only be wikified today, surprised he didn't have an article already. I wonder who is the most famous player not yet in Wikipedia? --Jameboy 23:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was surprised too. I was adding a few players to the Senrab F.C. article having found a Times story about the club and saw that there was no article for him so... It really needs an info box, I'm sure there's one or two here who like to do that sort of thing, and a photo, which is going to be difficult to get hold of, I think. --Malcolmxl5 23:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like inserting infoboxs, but I've had a stab and have inserted the required infobox in. Some fields are missing and need to be filled it, I've just based it of what's in the text. I'll try and find a pic of Flickr that we can use that go against Wiki guidlines. Davnel03 13:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yordan Letchkov

If there's any administrator out there, please help revert the vandalism and page move at Yordan Letchkov. Thanks. Chanheigeorge 01:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. I also made a little cleanup in the article, and left a warning to the vandal user's talkpage. --Angelo 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Chanheigeorge 03:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Footballers in Country by club

I have noticed that the categories within the [Category:Footballers in England by club]-type categories are using two different naming conventions. Most use the Category:Team name players convention (e.g., [Category:Everton F.C. players]), but others use Category:Team name footballers (e.g., [Category:Ankaraspor footballers]). I prefer the "players" convention, but wanted to see if we could get a concensus before changing these. Best regards. Jogurney 02:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of these clubs run several sports under the same team name, so it is necessary to use "footballers" instead of "players" to differentiate between the players of each sport. - PeeJay 07:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The are some unusual discrepancies, though, e.g. x F.C. footballers doesn't make any sense. Also, the names need to follow the name of the club's article as far as possible, and they don't always. ArtVandelay13 07:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I wasn't arguing against changing "players" to "footballers" in every instance. Just in the instance where it is not clear that the club is a football club in the club name. - PeeJay 08:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, sure, but F.C. footballers does exist, particularly with Spanish clubs, and it's jarring. ArtVandelay13 08:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Or you could use [Ankaraspor F.C. players] to differentiate it between say the basketball club (see Category:Maccabi Tel Aviv F.C. players and Category:Maccabi Tel Aviv B.C. players as an example). Number 57 08:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are perfectly good football articles being put up for speedy deletion?

Perfectly good football articles have been put up for speedy deletion over the last few days, such as France B national football team and John Forrest (footballer) for example. Just thought I'd bring it up, it seems concerning that deletionists are having a bit too much fun. Mattythewhite 09:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll never stop people with new toys. Just be patient, add the hangon and justify it on the talk page. If you need to, give me a shout and I'll step in and remove speedy tags where appropriate notability is asserted. I've removed one speedy tag today but replaced it with a prod because while the article was about a seemingly notable player, no verifiable sources were provided. The Rambling Man 09:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And I've given that article a little cleanup. Mattythewhite 09:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahmad Tukmachi

Please could someone with more knowledge about football take a look at this article? It doesn't seem right to me - I can't find any reference to someone of this name winning so many awards and listed in the company of Ronaldo and Zinedine Zidane, but if it's a hoax, it's a well-written one. Thanks --kateshortforbob 14:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On second glance, I'm pretty sure this is a total fabricaton, and and prodding it as such. --kateshortforbob 14:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I speedied it, it was perhaps one of the blatantest hoaxes I've ever seen here in years. A guy playing the Asian Cup at the age of 9? Come on... --Angelo 14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Nobility guideline for National B team

• France B national football team were named proposed deletion. But there is England B, Scotland B, Northern Ireland B and Republic of Ireland B, and, lot of B team article were not created. Matthew_hk tc 15:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly doubt about their notability, the existing ones are almost all very short (all players' lists, actually) and can be easily merged into the main national team's article when they need to be referenced. --Angelo 15:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy tag on that one and replaced it with a {{prod}} so the discussion can continue. If need be may I suggest that someone who feels strongly either way should take it to WP:AFD. The Rambling Man 15:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ashgrove United F.C.

This article has existed since February but appears to be a complete hoax. The only positive match on yahoo is its own Wikipedia article, and the creator and major contributor, Folski (talk • contribs), has also attempted to introduce inaccurate information to the Ruud Gullit article. Thoughts? SteveO 22:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I recommend prodding the article. - PeeJay 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks a definite hoax, same applies to Christopher Foley. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've boldly deleted them both under speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#A7, i.e. non-notability. We'll see how long it takes before the complaints roll in. The Rambling Man 09:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Canterbury City F.C.

This club has been revived in the Kent County League. Is it appropriate to include an infobox with current details on the article, or is the new club not considered to be the same entity as the old one..........? ChrisTheDude 07:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would count it as a continuation of the same club - their website says they "relaunched" it. Number 57 08:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles that need watching: maintenance

Shouldn't we prune the Articles that need watching subsection to keep it short and up to date? As it is now, it has many old watch notices that are probably not vandalism targets anymore. I think the list should only contain active targets. Alexf(t/c) 14:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been monitoring it recently and actually they are almost all targets. I check the article history, if it has been vandalised more than 3 times in a week then i leave it up. Also you will find that most of the articles are semi-protected. Maybe we should add another column to symbolise those that have some sort of page protection. Woodym555 14:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your 3 times a week measure sounds reasonable. I would go for it as a yardstick for removal. Anybody else? Regarding your idea of a column to show protection, I am not too keen on it as it would be harder to maintain. Just using a measure like yours sounds enough to me. Alexf(t/c) 15:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I had tried a semi-protection tag before but i did find it useless if i am honest. I think the best way is the current system of :

• three instances of vandalism in a week
• Add a new date in bold if you have updated. (The current (updated) makes no mention of when it was updated.)

Does that sound workable? Woodym555 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As an afterthought, could we not split the table into Highprofile targets such as Ronaldo and ManU and then Edit Wars, or something of that ilk? Woodym555 16:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not for adding more columnns or tables as it is harder to maintain. The bolding of the date is a good idea. The current system works if it is kept trimmed, else it becomes too large to read and use effectively. With the 3-per-week system, it should not grow too large, and if it does, it will be pruned eventually so it will change in size as time passes. Barring any dissenting comments, we should start working on this premise. Alexf(t/c) 18:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would wait a couple of days for other comments. I don't think 2 people and 8 hours could qualify as consensus! ;) Woodym555 18:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm Dudesleeper, and I endorse these suggestions. - Dudesleeper • Talk 19:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have introduced the new policy and reworded the intro. I have started checking for vandalism etc on the pages. Any problems with the wording? I added the semi-protected addendum because Semi-Pro stops ips vandalising. Occasionally some articles are protected for no reason, or for an outdated reason. Contacting the admin to unprotect it or go to WP:RFPP would be advisable in these cases. Lets see if this updated system works. Woodym555 20:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sorted the list with newest on top, with the rationale that they should probably require the most attention as they are fresh and active. The idea of pruning the list when a week or two has passed without vandalism on a specific article, will make it easier to look for them from the bottom, as the most "stale". Hope it helps improving the system. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst i agree with the reasoning, we lose some of the added benfeits of the table as it was. Druing your edits you have taken out the bold text which highlighted long term cases. The general convention on wikipedia is to add new things on the bottom, as in talk pages and help pages. With it as it is, should the updated tags go on the top or the bottom of the date added? Woodym555 17:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought the bolded dates are not needed if newest is on top. I can take the job of restoring the bold is requested. Not a bg problem, I'll look into it later this afternoon after work. As per yout question, the updated should be on top so we always see freshest first. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bold dates restored. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets see how it goes. I don't think it matters what goes on top to be honest. They are either being vandalised or they are not. I think the new system should help us to monitor these articles better. Woodym555 17:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-league clubs in Scotland and Wales

Is there any guidance on notability crtieria for NL teams in Scotland and Wales? If not, I have a few suggestions:
Scotland - teams that have won or reached the final of the Scottish Amateur Cup, the first round of the Scottish FA Cup, or which are members of:

• Highland League
• East of Scotland League
• South of Scotland League
• Junior Leagues

Wales - teams that have won or reached the final of the Welsh Cup, the first round of the FA Cup, or which are members of:

• League of Wales
• Cymru Alliance
• First Division of the Welsh Football League

I would think Welsh teams playing in English leagues would have English criteria applied to them. Thoughts? Number 57 15:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As for Welsh teams, I would think that teams eligible for the Welsh Cup would be sufficiently notable, and draw the line at approximately the same level as in England. That would mean all 3 divisions of the Welsh League, plus the Welsh Alliance, Mid Wales League, and the top division of the Welsh National League (Wrexham Area) in addition to your teams. - fchd 16:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, sounds fair enough to me. What about the Scottish teams though? Number 57 19:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why "teams that have reached the first round of the FA Cup"? That isn't a criterion for English teams..... ChrisTheDude 21:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A long time ago, before structured football existed in Wales, Welsh teams were allowed to enter the English FA Cup. - PeeJay 22:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I realise that, but we don't state that any English non-league club that has reached the first round of the FA Cup merits an article based on that alone, so why apply it to Welsh clubs......? ChrisTheDude 07:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise that it didn't apply to English clubs, but I would say any non-league club strong enough to reach the first round is notable. However, I'd imagine most of the English teams would qualify for notability on their league membership (e.g. being members of the Isthmian league or such), whilst this might not be the case for Welsh clubs. Number 57 07:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

History of Tamworth F.C.

What a mess...... ChrisTheDude 21:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks more like a list of selected events from the club history. All we can do is just to completely rewrite it. --Angelo 21:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

AFD it, a whole load of recentism in there. Davnel03 17:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention for football clubs

There's currently an ongoing discussion on Talk:FC Dynamo Kyiv about how such article should be named, with the (presumably) correct English name (Dynamo Kiev) and the official name as possible choices. I feel this is a serious matter, as:

• On one hand, the current naming convention states we should use the English equivalent name;
• On the other hand, finding a shared and fully accepted one is often a pretty hard issue (see Talk:F.C. Internazionale Milano for a clear example), thus deeply underming consistency in club names.

I feel we should therefore discuss the naming matter right here: my suggestion is to create a consensus in order to exempt football club articles from the naming convention cited earlier, and instead name all clubs using their (transliterated) local name, with no provenience distinction at all. And now, guys, share your thoughts. --Angelo 23:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak support - In principle, I would agree that all club articles should use the club's transliterated local name. However, in some cases, the local name is not recognisable to many people. For example, while FC Dynamo Kyiv and FC Dynamo Kiev are recognised as being almost interchangeable, the vast majority of people would not recognise FK Crvena Zvezda as being the same as Red Star Belgrade. - PeeJay 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

First, nobody forbids to create a redirect from Red Star Belgrade to FK Crvena Zvezda. Secondly, you're fully right in that particular case (Red Star Belgrade is much more recognisable than FK Crvena Zvezda), and I would not oppose an addition supporting the usage of English names in such particular cases. --Angelo 23:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Qualified support I have the same reservations as Peejay. As i suggested on your talk page we do need a new guideline for football related articles. I don't see how this could work logistically, given Peejay's example. Yet a fluid process whereby common sense prevails would be problematic as well. People have different standards of common sense. I think there should be a clause such as: Where the local name can be reasonably described as similar to the common English name then the local name should be used. In cases such as Red Star Belgrade where the local name cannot easily be distingushed in English the name used should be the common English name.

I understand that this in itself brings up problems with consistency between all articles but i think it is a reasonable compromise and should avoid any serious controversy. Woodym555 23:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To me it's okay. I share your (and PeeJay's) concerns as well. --Angelo 23:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Support using the (transliterated) local name for all clubs. It's common sense. - MTC 06:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• There is already a naming convention under Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Sports teams which should be viewed by all. I think this is what we would need to amend if consensus supported it. Woodym555 12:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Defaultsort

Ontheveldt has taken it upon his/herself to begin changing all of the Mc defaultsorts to Mac, so that they all appear at the top of the M section in categories. There seems to be a boatload left unchanged at this point. Should we be letting this continue, or should we put the articles back as they were before there's even more work to do? He/she enquired here but hasn't yet received a response. - Dudesleeper • Talk 14:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

They should be changed back, IMO. Mc and Mac are usually listed separately in indices in books, and it's the same, for example, on StretfordEnd.co.uk. - PeeJay 14:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Telephone directories sort Mc and Mac together, as if both are spelt Mac, so if you're not sure whether it's Macdonald or McDonald, you only have to look it up in one place in the book, not two. Struway2 | Talk 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica are sorted together, as if spelt Mac. Struway2 | Talk 15:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, we'd better leave them the way they are. - PeeJay 15:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Has this been suggested on the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I think it would be good to let the project, and wikipedia as a whole debate the issue or at least validate it. Woodym555 16:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about this and I see from Cat:Living people that quite a number of 'Mc' are integrated with 'Mac'. An awful lot [12] are not though and I imagine a bot would sort this best. --Malcolmxl5 21:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Club articles, guidelines on what not to do

Given the number of times that these issues seem to be raised in the discussion archives and at the template club article, i think we should have a list of what should not be in the main club articles.

• Famous supporters, Reason:unencyclopedic, usually unreferenced, should be in article of supporter if notable.
• Last season, Reason:Bias towards recent events, see WP:RECENT, an essay of the topic. Keep the history sections proportional.
• Recent transfers, Reason:Again, WP:RECENT. In 5 years time will we want to know every player that moved in that season. This information should be in Example club in 3333-34 articles or on the list of transfers in country articles.

Are these suggestions workable? Have i missed anything or is my logic flawed? Comments? Woodym555 19:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I started a sort of "guide to writing good football club articles" a couple of months ago, but never really finished it (User:Oldelpaso/On Football). Perhaps it could be developed further and moved into the WikiProject pages once it looks reasonable. Oldelpaso 20:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good. I think we can add in the subtitles from the club template and then discuss what to do. Can i edit your "on football" page? Thanks Woodym555 20:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Oldelpaso 20:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The subject of Football transfer sectoins has been discussed before. The question was posed that in the case of South American clubs without Example club in 3333-34 articles is it worth creating Club Atletico Ejamplo in 3333-34 just to shift the transfer info there? The recent transfers section gets deleted and replaced with current transfers at the start of each season (Apertura and Clausura) so I think the 5 years point is redundant, and anyway it counts more strongly against transfers being included in Example club in 3333-34 because the info is supposedly unwanted by anyone. If the recentist article is to be taken to its logical conclusion surely the current squads should also be moved to Example club in 3333-3334' as well. I find the recent transfer sections useful to determine who has gone where and check whether the player article, new club current squad and club template have been updated properly. Regards, King of the North East 15:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a degree of common sense to come into this. For smaller clubs where it is not feasible to have separate articles, then it should be included in the main article. Yet we have to remember that this is an encyclopedia and not Wikinews. For European clubs the recent transfers sections become absurd during the transfer windows. Generally for clubs in Europe that play in the top flight or have recently, then separate articles are worthwhile and the main page will become too long. Only when WP:SUMMARY is used should these guidelines come into account really. Woodym555 16:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Template for Football Venues in Scotland

Just noticed that this template is incorrect. For example Raydale Park is not a First Division Stadium as is Victoria Stadium. This template needs updateing but I seem unable to do this as it does not have an edit option. Can someone have a aloo at it. I noticed this on the Annfield Stadium page as I was updateing the page and also wanted to update the template but I can't. Gorillamusic 22:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You can edit it using this page link: Template:Football venues in Scotland. I am not sure what specific revisions you want otherwise i would do it for you. If you have any problems leave a note on my talk page. Woodym555 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the template. If anyone is wondering why the SPL only has 11 grounds, its because I haven't included Gretna's Raydale Park, as they are currently playing at Motherwell's Fir Park. Number 57 13:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

1904-05 in English football

Did anyone know that 1904-05 in English football has been moved to 1904–05 in English football (with an endash)? is this not the sort of thing that ought to be talked about first? Struway2 | Talk 12:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted this for consistency purposes. endash has no place in article titles.Daemonic Kangaroo 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is acceptable. WP:DASH states: "The en dash may be used in a page name, for example, Eye–hand span. Editors should provide a redirect page using hyphens when dashes. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). Regardless of whether the page name includes a dash, the associated talk page name should match the page name exactly." Although moving all the pages (and fixing any double redirects) would be a very time consuming task, which isn't really necessary in my opinion. Dave101→talk  20:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Football squad2 start

Does any body know why the footer for the Football squad2 has changed. Kingjamie 18:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"International goals" table

A newie has added an "International goals" table to Jermain Defoe, which appears to list each moment when Defoe scored a goal for England. Any thoughts on whether his international goals are notable enough to make this a worthwhile addition to this article? (His goals for England are actually rare but it doesn't follow that they are notable!). Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 21:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Football rivalry articles

I made an article about the rivalry between Arsenal and Man United. But I want to state that this rivalry is an outdated rivalry after Chelsea being stronger. However, I think this rivalry should be added because it is a well-known-legend. Raymond Giggs 01:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

However, the article is listed as an AfD after I started that in 10 minutes only. But I have no time to develop it, so I hope someone to build it for me, thanks. Raymond Giggs 02:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure whether the rivalry would be notable enough to warrant its own article. If you were re-create it then you would need lots of independant sources backing up the article's claims so that it doesnt look like original research --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael Knighton

You may recall that Michael Knighton unsuccessfully tried to take-over Manchester United in 1989 and subsequently acquired Carlisle United. A user (User:Factmaster07), who appears to be a lawyer, has repeatedly deleted most of the article content, and added this legal statement:

“ LEGAL ACTION The eminent London Law Firm David Price - Specialist Advocates in Media Law - in 1996 this Firm successfully won substantial libel damages for Knighton when they sued the Sunday Times Editors and Reed International Books for publishing their..."The Sunday Times Illustrated History of Football". In this publication, like so many others before them, they claimed, inter alia, that Knighton did not have the funds to Complete his £20m bid for Manchester United in August 1989. Evidence produced in the High Court in London proved to the Court that the publishers malicious and damaging claims were completely unfounded and untrue. Indeed, his lawyers demonstrated to the Court that not only did Knighton have the financial wherewithal to Complete the Takeover of Manchester United by buying all of Martin Edwards shares, further, the lawyers also proved that Knighton had sufficient financial clout to carry out the proposed development of the Stretford End of Old Trafford Stadium. ”

I have tried to delete any content in the article that is potentially libellous, insulting or speculative, but he keeps coming back. (Goodness knows what he's charging for working at 1:39 on a Sunday morning!) I guess this should go to an administrator for review. I certainly don't want to get involved in any form of legal dispute, and I'm sure that Wikipedia doesn't either. Any one got any ideas? Daemonic Kangaroo 05:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Took to ANI. Davnel03 08:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Factmaster07 now indefinitely blocked. Davnel03 09:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Attleborough Snooker Football Club

Quite how this article - Attleborough Snooker Football Club has survived I don't know. It was put up for speedy deletion but the creator (whouse username is Attsnkfc and who has only edited on the one article)simply removed the tag, then semi-protected it yet nothing has been done since. The squad has players with wiki links, mostly red links, but the ones that aren't are links to totally different people. From what I can tell they seem to be playing Sunday League football. And the only sources are from the clubs website. It surely fails notability and surely is relevant for Speedy deletion? Perhaps someone could have a look at it? ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this club is about as non-notable as you can get. - fchd 14:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No assertion of notability. I am going to speed it. --Angelo 14:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems non-notable enough to me. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 15:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 UEFA Champions League Final

Would anyone be willing to support the article in its nomination for FA status, thanks NapHit 15:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Martyn Rogers

This article looks a bit suspect to me. Hoax perhaps? - PeeJay 21:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that a Martyn Rogers is manager at Tiverton Town F.C., but the name received 0 hits on the official Plymouth Argyle website. The article was originally about the Tiverton manager, so I have reverted it back to that. Number 57 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Club season Manual of Style

Following suggestions in an earlier thread, I drafted a Manual of Style proposal for club articles. Feel free to discuss it and modify it in case you have some good ideas for improving it. --Angelo 01:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, regarding the infobox, would we be able to satisfy the Fair Use criteria by using the club logo there? - PeeJay 08:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it is very low definition. That seems to be the norm at the moment.

Can we have a what should not be included:

• Recent transfers, see WP:RECENT.
• Game by game results of every game played this season or match summaries of every game this season. Most clubs are over 100 years old this falls under WP:RECENT
• Generally, please be aware of recentism creeping into articles. Woodym555 08:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a club season article, not a club article, so transfers and match results should be included. - PeeJay 09:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Answers:

• The logo is valid under fair use as long as a valid rationale claims its use for all articles regarding the subject.
• About transfers, a consensus passed, through a lot of AfDs, to keep several football transfer lists by season (even if I don't agree with it), and in any case all featured transfer moves should be sourced in order to be included in the section;
• About games, they are quite notable, as they are actually the core of a club season, and should be always included when possible (of course, only competitive matches, with no match reports, I really dislike them).

Lastly, please let me note WP:RECENTISM is just an essay, and I would not interpret it that radically. To me it means just "use articles in order to fully review the subject, not simply covering the most recent events regarding it". --Angelo 10:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologise completely, i was thinking about club articles, not season articles. What a rather large blooper!!! Ignore everything i have said on this topic, i agree with angelos suggestions. With regards to Recent, it is just saying don't place too much emphasis on the current events. If there is a 100 yearold club and 95% of the history section is about the last 10 years, then it is too biased. It is about being proportional. (We do need a list of what should not be in club articles though.) Woodym555 10:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Couple of points:

• Perhaps any additional info re the league placing could be included in parenthesis, e.g. League position: 3rd (UEFA Cup), 20th (Relegated), etc.
• The infobox is very wide - perhaps the attendance fields can be changed somehow to reduce the width somewhat? I'd also like to see average included too, as this could be more relevant to a season of figures than simply high and low. Fedgin | Talk 10:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just one new suggestion:

• Perhaps re-order the sections a little bit. Priority seems to be being given to trivial information like the club kit, while match results are languishing at the bottom of the page. I would put match results as near to the top as possible, after the season overview, and probably split them by competition (League, Cup, Europe, Friendlies/Pre-season). - PeeJay 11:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I re-ordered the sections following the suggestions above, and reduced the infobox width. Average attendances are excessive detail to me, as well as hardly verifiable information (at least in Italy). To Fedgin: you can easily include additional information just featuring them explicitly into the "league result" parameter in the infobox. --Angelo 12:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the lead should always include the dates that the article covers. For example, if a player is transferred on 31 May 2008 it may not be obvious to the casual reader whether this should appear in the 2007-08 or 2008-09 season article because it lies outside of the normal football season. A brief sentence along the lines of "This article covers the period from 1 July 9998 to 30 June 9999" should cover it. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 12:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And what if a club announces a new football coach two days after the last matchday? It's not that obvious. I think old football seasons end, and new ones start, with the last competitive match. --Angelo 12:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditionally, the football season technically ends on 30 June and the new season starts the next day, 1 July. I believe that was the reasoning behind the date that the summer transfer window opens, IIRC. - PeeJay 13:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, traditionally (in England) the season ends on the last day of May, and re-started on the 1st August. The period in-between was the "close season", and clubs could not play games etc. The start of the new season has in recent years been brought forward to 15th July. - fchd 13:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh right. I wasn't aware of that. I guess that's more of a reason to leave the date boundaries up to the individual editor then. - PeeJay 16:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the leagues than run through a year, like Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Russia IIRC? Punkmorten 19:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Season ends on 31 December and starts on 1 January for those leagues, to fit with the winter transfer window. - PeeJay 19:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Come on, I wouldn't be that strict. Let the editors decide themselves when a particular season for a particular club starts and ends, case by case, according to their common sense. --Angelo 20:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm just stating what date ranges I've been using for the Manchester United F.C. seasons articles. - PeeJay 20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

All issues discussed here were addressed. If you do not have any other particular suggestion for improving this proposal, I would move it to mainspace right now. I would also consider to start a taskforce for enforcing this MoS in order to feature it to all existing club season articles. --Angelo 22:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst i agree it should be moved into mainspace and put into the main footy navbox, i don't think a taskforce is neccessary. There aren't that many articles in the Category:English football club seasons that need to be changed to follow this guideline. I think making editors aware of it on the talk pages should suffice for now. If needs be we can start implementing when we can, in a few weeks time. Woodym555 23:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right but I feel this is going to be a really hard job, due to possible resistancies from users who maintain such articles. Many of the existing ones look like almanacs and are full of unnecessary statistics and other kind of superfluous information, such as FC Barcelona 2007-08 season and F.C. Internazionale Milano 2007-08, and thus need some prose at first. By the way, should we think about a naming convention for such articles? I would suggest Club FC season 20xx-xx or something like this. --Angelo 23:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to edit your template but can you add 'clear:left' to it, so it provides a gap between text? Can you also make certain fields optional - namely the two attendance fields - as these figures may be hard to obtain and would better not appearing rather than leaving blank fields. Good idea though. Fedgin | Talk 13:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I made the two attendance fields optional, and added the 'clear:left' field. --Angelo 13:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Pavarotti and Modena F.C.

I know this is somewhat weird, but a wise IP user is continuously adding Luciano Pavarotti into Modena F.C.'s list of noted players, using two very doubtful weblinks as a proof of his alleged past experiences with the club. I've looked around and around into reliable football sources and website, and all I found was nothing at all except an interview to an athletics coach, and Pavarotti's schoolmate, where he says he was goalkeeper with "Lepanto" during his school years[13]. In any case, I removed Pavarotti from the list, but this friend readded it twice. Right now I need some help in order not to fail the three revert rule. --Angelo 15:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't players in "Notable players" be notable for their achievements at the club, not their achievements in general? This is why I removed David Beckham from Preston North End's list of notable players (but, naturally, he has since reappeared there). - Dudesleeper • Talk 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I "continuously added it" because you kept reverting my edit without any sort of explanation in the edit summary. You have also falsely accused me of engaging in "personal attacks on your talk page" and even tried issuing an "official warning" when all I have written at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Angelo.romano was a polite template asking you to refrain from removing content without an explanation in the edit summary, so it seems like whatever issue you have here goes past the verifiability of the content itself. As to the issue of "notability," if the player should be notable for their achievements at the club, it would be more appropriate to place the information in a separate part of the article. It is certainly notable that a person of Pavarotti's magnitude once played for Modena FC. 68.45.106.216 16:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Daily Telegraph he played for Modena in Serie B. Number 57 16:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I included that citation in my original edit. After User:Angelo.romano removed my original edit without explanation, he explained in my talk page that he considers the Daily Telegraph to be a "minor website" and not a verifiable source. 68.45.106.216 16:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is he never did it. You've found two only sources stating he did play for Modena FC, one of which saying he was a winger, despite the fact he played as a goalkeeper; but did you ever had the suspect those sources might be stating something wrong? I've really searched through dozens of football-related and news websites, and what I found was a single interview to a schoolmate of him in which he says Pavarotti played a goalkeeper in his high school years for the local school team. Only two sources saying this for a man of such artistic stature, with no citation at all in the whole official Modena FC's history page and the current Italian news, makes me think they are wrong. Sometimes even journalists make mistakes, remember this. --Angelo 16:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

pavarotti was proud and open supporter of juventus and was seen on a documentary very upset when juve lost champions league final. modena fc might not want to publicize that home town player supports different club, no? 70.20.168.134 22:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't make any sense. If Pavarotti played for Modena, they would want to tell people about it, given his profile, as it would enhance the profile of the club, regardless of the club he supported. Suffice it to say, if Pavarotti played for Modena, we would certainly know about it. - PeeJay 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If those sources are wrong, fine, but you have to offer an explanation for your revert when you do so, and offer proof that the intial citations are wrong. You did neither of these things, instead choosing to falsely accuse me of engaging in "personal attacks" when I did nothing but politely ask you not to remove information without an explanation. The only proof you've offered so far is "I know it isn't true." 68.45.106.216 17:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You left a message on my talkpage using a standard template commonly used for vandals deleting content. As I am an established user in this project, I saw this as a personal attack. About the proof, how could I find a source explicitly denying a fact that never happened? Tend me an answer to this question, in case you have any. --Angelo 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Telegraph citation is to a light-hearted space-filling quiz at the end of an article by a cellist about something else entirely, As such I didn't consider it a reliable source, regardless of the Telegraph's general reputation for reliability. So I reverted once, when the Telegraph item was the only source cited. Struway2 | Talk 16:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

According to that Telegraph citation, Pavarotti did play for Modena, but it does not mention whether he played professionally or not. As such, we cannot really make any mention of a "football career" in his article. - PeeJay 17:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a passing mention of Pavarotti being "...a member of the [Modena] town's soccer team." in a couple of profiles[14][15] on the BBC website. --Malcolmxl5 22:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but no one can find any mentions of him actually playing for Modena, which is a prerequisite for him being a notable Modena player. - PeeJay 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A little snippet in The Times (last paragraph) says that he was a "...former amateur goalkeeper..." The International Herald Tribune[16] mentions in passing that "...Luciano Pavarotti once had trials at 17 [with Modena]..." If these are correct then there's no notability in footballing terms here. --Malcolmxl5 00:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Overall after weighing up peoples arguments I'd say there is consensus to remove him from the list of notable players, there are no clear sources indicating he ever played a professional football game for the club; everything is far too vauge --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

RAI Radio1's "Sabato Sport", currently on air, just said Pavarotti was part of Modena FC's youth squad. I don't know if it's possible to find a podcast for the program and use it as a source, in any case trust my own words. --Angelo 14:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Pavarotti has never played for Modena as far as I'm aware, the British press is smoking something. I watched a documentary about Pavarotti, which detailed his early days playing football even showing images... he played for a team called Lepanto as a teen, he started as a goalkeeper and then was briefly a left winger. I have heard that Pavarotti was a fan of Modena and Juventus, but was never on the books. If we can find a single Modena game summary that mentions him amongst the squad during their time in Serie B, then add him. Otherwise no. - The Daddy 20:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Assists

A user keeps insisting to include "assists" into the stats table for Wesley Sneijder, even though this information is not available (they simply put "0" when they don't know the actual number). I think it would be difficult to find reliable sources for this, but does anyone know whether this has been discussed here? JACOPLANE • 2007-09-10 07:09

Seems like a waste of time in you ask me, verifiability will be hard for assists. Warn him with {{subst:uw-unsor1}} if it continues --Childzy ¤ Talk 07:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Assists aren't properly defined, and for the most part not officially recorded anywhere. I know there are some exceptions, but my opinion is that this is a Verifiability nightmare. - fchd 08:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to remind you, in case you don't know, that this issue was already discussed a few months ago. All you have to do is to advise the user in his talk page to please stop and revert all his edits in case he keeps on including such statistics. --Angelo 09:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

List of West Bromwich Albion F.C. managers

Hi, I'd really appreciate any feedback on List of West Bromwich Albion F.C. managers. I'd like to put this forward as a Featured List candidate at some point. I've managed to eliminate all redlinks (albeit that some of the articles are stubs), but am wondering whether there should be more introductory prose? Also are general references sufficient, or should I be citing each row individually? Any advice welcome. Cheers. --Jameboy 11:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have left a fairly detailed review on the talk page of the article. See the featured List of Aston Villa F.C. managers for inspiration. Any questions, just leave them on my talk page or on the article's talk page. Woodym555 15:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Drawing inspiration from anything Villa-related would be a first for me :-) Seriously though, thanks for your excellent feedback, and I will try to get the article up to a similar standard to the Villa one. --Jameboy 16:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

and there's more ;-) cheers, Struway2 | Talk 17:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Palace F.C.

This article's history section is, to be quite honest, an ungodly mess. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, most of the information should be put into a separate history article, and even then it's probably too much detail. Some of the info could even go in individual season articles. - PeeJay 16:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Football squads

What's our norm for football squads in club articles? Should every article use the 'football squad' template, or can others be used, such as this squad? GiantSnowman 21:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We should always follow the Club MoS, so using the football squad template. I am going to remove it. --Angelo 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Francisco Javier Sánchez Broto

This article is a nonsensical mess basically, which is a nightmare to tidy up due to difficulties in telling what is and what isn't vandalism. My last attempt at a cleanup was reverted by an anon, and I'd appreciate someone looking over it to see if I removed anything which shouldn't have been. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 18:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Anything unverified can and should be removed per WP:BLP. Oldelpaso 18:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested to read, though, that he "enjoyed soccer as a dwarf of the game" as frankly I don't think there are enough dwarves in football :-) ChrisTheDude 06:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Women's football

The 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup started yesterday, so if you see any good data or information in the press or online about Women's football - now is the time to update articles. Women's football doesn't get that much publicity so using the four-yearly press attention to improve our coverage is too good an opportunity to miss. 84.64.25.108 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking for a while for any useful stats websites, but have failed miserably. For UK-based news I tend to keep an eye on Fair Game and Women's Soccer Scene, but there's no statistical archives at either of them. I can't even find up-to-date squad lists anywhere for most teams. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 07:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Stirling Albion F.C. Pages

Hi All.

I am currently editing/creating the pages relevent to Stirling Albion F.C. so far I have done work on the Stirling Albion page and nearly all the players. I have also worked on the Annfield, Forthbank, and King's Park F.C. pages. I would be grateful if someone could have a look at what I have done so far and leave a few comments on the relevent discussion pages. As I'm wanting these articles to be sutible for inclusion is the project. I have not fully finnished all the articles yet as I still have to catogarize and reference most of them, but I should have this done within the next few days. I would also like peoples opinions on creating a match article on Stirling Albion's promotion play off final against Airdrie United F.C.. If you want you can post on my user talk page as well and leave use full hints on that for the articles especially the match article Thanks Gorillamusic 11:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• A few pointers on the main Albion article:
  • Don't put the club name in bold every time it's used, only the first usage (in the opening sentence) should be in bold
  • Remove POV/inflammatory language such as "A lot of money was wasted on past-it players", "Alas 2 schoolboy errors", "a particularly inept defeat", "an uninspiring team", "incredible form", etc - none of this is acceptable under WP:NPOV
  • "a 3 v 2 win" and similar uses look very odd, I've never seen a scoreline written in that fashion in UK football
  • Section headings should not take unnatural capitals, so it should be "Club records" not "Club Records" etc
  • Quite a lot of spelling errors e.g. "infront", "scoreing", etc
  • "This successful run has seen them climb to 2nd place in the Scottish Second Division and leave them in with a great chance of promotion." - doesn't this refer to last season? In which case it's hugely out of date
• A few things to be going on with there :-) Having said that, the general structure/layout/etc looks good, the quality of writing just needs tightening up somewhat ChrisTheDude 11:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Players who have played for Everton and Liverpool

Seems like over-categorization to me. Think it would be better to remain as the Switching Sides section within Merseyside derby, or if it gets too unwieldy it could break out as a list article. What does everyone else think? --Jameboy 11:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should post it for deletion. I remind of a similar category being already deleted (maybe it was about Celtic and Rangers, but I am unsure about this). --Angelo 11:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jameboy, the Merseyside derby article should suffice for the moment. I will list it at WP:CFD soon. Woodym555 12:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There's also Category:Players who have played for Dundee and Dundee United. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A list of current ones taken from above.

• Category:Players who have played for Celtic and Rangers
• Category:Players who have played for Everton and Liverpool
• Category:Players who have played for Dundee and Dundee United
• Category:Players who have played for Heart of Midlothian and Hibernian

There was an article once but was deleted as unmaintainable. AFD. Category:Players who have played for FC Barcelona and Real Madrid was deleted per this CFD. Can anyone find anymore? I will try and do a group nom, the reasoning of the Barcelona CFD is still valid today. Woodym555 16:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The categories listed above are now listed at WP:CFD. The direct link is here. Your input would be appreciated. Woodym555 21:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Bill Ridding/William Ridding

Are these two articles about the same person? They certainly seem to fit each other's time-frame. - PeeJay 11:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect so. William Ridding played for Tranmere Rovers both at the start and end (1935) of his career and Bill Ridding was manager at Tranmere Rovers from 1939-1945, so it's quite likely they are one & the same. I'll do a bit more research - if they are, I'll merge the two articles. Daemonic Kangaroo 11:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Very likely to be him. By the way, he is mentioned as "later to be manager of Bolton" in this text I've found about a 6-1 Tottenham win to Man Utd. [17] Another source states he started with Tranmere before joining Man City in 1930 [18]. --Angelo 12:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Another reference [19] includes the phrase "In 1930 City lost 2-3 at Leeds. The goalscorers were Matt Busby and Bill Ridding, who 28 years later were on opposite sides as managers at Wembley when Bolton beat United 2-0" so I guess we're on pretty safe grounds to merge the articles. Daemonic Kangaroo 12:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I say yes, go ahead and merge them, using the "Bill" version of the name, as that seems vastly more prevalent ChrisTheDude 12:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've merged the two pages now. The article on William Ridding can be deleted now. - PeeJay 12:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to delete. Merges should always be left as redirects to preserve the history. Oldelpaso 18:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Any point in this template?

I was going to put Template:Lincoln City F.C. Player Sources up for deletion, but I thought I'd check here first if anyone thinks there's any point in keeping it. It contains links to the Soccerbase and Sky Sports websites, but any external links on a player's article should be directly to a webpage about that player, not these general ones. It's only transcluded on one article. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 18:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No point in it, tbh. Subst it onto the article it's already on first, then TfD it. - PeeJay 18:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Now done. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 19:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C. and Manchester United football rivalry

This article needs redirecting. How about Rivalry between Liverpool F.C. and Manchester United F.C.? Anyone feel like making this move? The link on Template:Liverpool F.C. will have to be altered too. Bobo. 01:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does it need moving? - PeeJay 08:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If "F.C." follows Liverpool, it should also follow Man U. - Dudesleeper · Talk 09:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and once that's changed then surely the word "football" doesn't need to be in there? "F.C." clearly denotes football and the word makes the title read clunkily.... ChrisTheDude 09:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Then surely the article should be moved to Liverpool F.C. and Manchester United F.C. rivalry? - PeeJay 09:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. м info 21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Listing cup games in stadium articles

User:Everlast1910 and myself have turned our attention to Villa Park. (Currently aiming for GA then probably FA.) What do editors think about listing every semi-final game and the corresponding scores in the main article. (see Villa Park#FA Cup Semi finals for an example) I don't think it is neccessary but that is a personal opinion. The information is already listed at FA Cup Semi-finals so the information will not be lost if it is removed from the article. Opinions? Thanks Woodym555 18:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really necessary, IMO. Maybe the notable ones, such as the Man Utd v Arsenal semi-final in 1999, could be included at a stretch, but most of them could be left out. - PeeJay 19:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No way. It needs to be referenced for a start off. Davnel03 19:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the 1998-99 semi-final was particularly notable anyway - I had to look it up to see what happpened. Of course now I recall Giggs' goal but a single goal don't make a match notable in my eyes. - fchd 19:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What is notable enough?

Recently User:SchuminWeb speedy deleted an article on John Ball (soccer). John Ball is a fully professional player, who competes in the USL-1, the second highest level of US soccer. When asked for justification for the deletion, he claimed deletion criterion A7 (non-notable individuals), and the reason for no AfD was WP:SNOW. Obviously I disagree with him, as my impression of the notability standards for soccer players is that if they have played professionally, they are notable enough for Wikipedia (correct me if I am wrong). The discussion can be found at User talk:SchuminWeb. In your opinion, am I in the right or am I wrong? Cheers! м info 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in order to test this, I got a deletion review on which resulted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noureddine Maamria, because Dino Maamria had played for Charleston Battery in USL-1. The result of that afd was delete. Robotforaday 23:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so what about the other USL First Division players, like Chad Severs? Punkmorten 06:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this the same John Ball that played professionally for Chicago Fire F.C.? If so, he should clearly be notable. If I recall correctly, he may have even played on one of the US Open Cup winning squads. In my opinion, the AfD should be reversed. Jogurney 03:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I did a quick review and confirmed that this indeed is the former Chicago Fire player (certainly notable). I've requested a deletion review [20]. Best regards. Jogurney 03:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Good work, although I hope it won't cause people to ignore the question which prompted this, which is, are players in USL-1 notable? Is it a fully professional league? Robotforaday 10:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what constitutes a "fully professional league". My understanding is that all players in the USL-1 are paid by the teams - which implies that all clubs are professional (rather than amateur). However, I'm not sure payment is sufficient to meet the "fully professional" standard, since some of the lower-tier clubs in England are excluded as being "semi-professional" (not sure what that means). If the requirement to be "fully professional" means that the players are full-time (i.e., no part-time or full-time jobs during the season), I think USL-1 could fail the standard. I think I remember reading (not sure) that some players do have other jobs during the season. Any help would be appreciated. Jogurney 13:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"some of the lower-tier clubs in England are excluded as being "semi-professional" (not sure what that means)." - it means the players are paid money by their clubs, so they are not amateurs, but the pay is not enough to live on alone therefore they have day jobs as well ChrisTheDude 13:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. According to the USL, both USL-1 and USL-2 are professional leagues [21]. The only question is whether any players are paid so little that they must have day jobs (I'm assuming players with side jobs such as running a soccer camp don't make it semi-pro). Jogurney 14:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming this article is reliable, USL-1 and USL-2 are not "fully professional" because "many players have to supplement their income" [22]. Does everyone agree? (Seems harsh to me, and I'm not ready to start AfD-ing all of the USL-1 players). Jogurney 14:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the way I understand it, though I share your sentiments over it being harsh. I'm all in favour of including these guys, but truth is they (probably) aren't fully professional, and so don't count.

And Jogurney - I do believe that the case is that if players supplement their incomes by running soccer camps and the like, then it still counts as other income unless the camps are being run by, and thus they are being paid by, the very team that is paying them wages as a football player. If they are being paid regularly by a seperate source, then they're technically running two jobs part-time and thus count as only semi-professional, or at least that is how I understand it. Falastur2 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Bad fair use" notification for club badges

I've been notified that three club badges I uploaded, Image:AFCPort.jpg, Image:OldCarthusiansFC.png and Image:AFC Wallingford Badge.png are going to be deleted due to "bad fair use" claims - can anyone see what's wrong with it and why someone feels the images should be deleted.....? The rationale used is exactly the same as on, for instance, Image:Aldershot Crest.png, which isn't being challenged ChrisTheDude 06:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems BetacommandBot to be broken, It happened to me as well with Gela Calcio's logo a few time ago. AFC Portchester's crest is in any case much larger than 300px, it should resized. --Angelo 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That bastard bot again? it caused mayhem on this image Image:sunder.gif until someone added a rationale, it also spammed the talk page of Sunderland A.F.C.. The sunder king 10:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If no-one minds, I'll remove the bot threats and ensure the fair use is bang on (well, as bang on as I think it needs to be...) The Rambling Man 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Angelo beat me to it. And he's right, the Portchester crest needs to be resized to less than 300px.... The Rambling Man 10:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm reuploading it in PNG format (with transparency) and width size equal to 300px. If the author gives me the authority, I can speedily delete the old JPEG version. --Angelo 10:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me ChrisTheDude 10:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Club Addresses

Someone has removed the road and postcode from Keepmoat Stadium, which I spent a while tidying up and referencing, with the tag that it is "inappropriate for Wikipedia". Some stadiums have addresses, some don't in the location box. However, I don't think that an address is "inappropriate". Thoughts? Da-rb 10:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think addresses should not be posted (neither do phone numbers or email addys). See WP:DIRECTORY. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 11:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think including the address is appropriate. If someone wants to find out a club's address/phone number/post code/email address, they can check out the club's official website, which should be linked to in the club's article. - PeeJay 11:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Alex - Wikipedia is not a directory. Number 57 14:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories on player's religion - relevance?

I have seen today a user adding countless Category: Portuguese Roman Catholics to players (e.g. Ricardo Quaresma) and Category Argentinian Roman Catholics to players (e.g. Gabriel Batistuta). I do not know if this has been discussed before. Is this relevant? Aren't we overcategorizing? Given that most of the population of Portugal and Argentina (in these two examples) are overwhelmingly Catholic, we would be adding categories like this by the thousands. What's the point? Furthermore, what should we care what a player's religion is unless it has a lot to do with the person (on the players article), for example with born-again people like Kaká where it is prominently mentioned. Can we have a consensus here? Thanks. Alexf(t/c) 13:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A player's religion is not relevant, except in the cases of players like Kaká and Linvoy Primus, for whom religion is an important part of their character. Those categories should be removed. - PeeJay 13:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's my opinion too. That makes two votes for removal. Anybody else? Alexf(t/c) 13:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that someone's religious views are their own concern and not worthy of a category. To me it's no more relevant than their racial background. Religious views are only worth mentioning where they conflict with the norm for an individual's country/team e.g. catholics playing for Northern Ireland or protestants playing for Everton. As I'm on dangerous ground here I think that I'll stop now. If these categories come up for discussion, I would probably "vote" for deletion. Daemonic Kangaroo 15:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Daemonic Kangaroo. I am not asking here about deletion of the Categories themselves which is another controversial issue. What I'm asking here is if I should go on and remove the category link in the footy players articles, which I believe is correct and I am given to understand you vote for it too. That makes 3-0 for removal so far. Thanks. Alexf(t/c) 15:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur. An editor was adding the Nationality Muslims category to many footballers in the past, and we removed it on the basis that the player was notable as a footballer not as a Muslim. The same goes for other religions. However, if for some reason a footballer is a notable adherent of a particular faith (like a cleric or theologian) it would be reasonable to give them those categories. Jogurney 16:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep: I agree with all the sentiments here, except, that Jews are not just a religious group, but also an ethnicity. I think that them and Assyrian, Circassion (sp?), Tatar, Armenian ethnicities make them notable where they play. Removing the Category:Argentine Jews from Juan Pablo Sorin's article makes sense and it also doesn't. Sorin is notable among Jews for the fact that he is Jewish, not for his real football skill. -NYC2TLV 01:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Football club seasons MoS

I have moved the Manual of Style proposal for football clubs into mainspace on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons. And now we can possibly move to the next phase, i.e., to apply the MoS into all existing articles. --Angelo 21:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this, and I'm up for doing the Scunthorpe one for last season , but do you propose we would keep one active as a work in progress for the current season? (Da-rb 22:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

You can already start an article for 2007-08 Scunthorpe's campaign, there are already plenty of articles about current seasons for football clubs. --Angelo 22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I propose some last minute changes to the MoS proposal? I think the columns in the match results tables should be reordered. In the league results table, perhaps make the order Date, Opponents, Venue, Result, Scorers, Attendance, Position. Then for the cup results table, the order should be Date, Round, Opponents, Venue, Result, Scorers, Attendance. Finally, I would propose that each row be coloured according to the result of the match, i.e. #ddffdd for a win, #ffffdd for a draw, #ffdddd for a loss, per Manchester United F.C. season 2006-07. - PeeJay 22:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem about the colours. About the columns, I think it's better to keep Scorers as last-placed, due to the fact its content length may dramatically change from match to match. --Angelo 22:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But regardless, the column width would remain the same throughout the entire table, whether there were no goalscorers or ten in a game. See the Manchester United F.C. season articles to see what I mean. - PeeJay 22:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmm... I don't know, I dislike the small fonts (maybe because of my myopia :), but we can improve it. The one included in the current proposal is directly taken from Bristol Rovers F.C. season 2006-07. In any case, the current MoS is not definitive yet (and maybe will never be). --Angelo 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was never a fan of the small font, but I liked the general look of the results table from the Bristol Rovers season article better than any other I'd seen, so that was the one I decided to use on the Manchester United season articles. It just seems to me that the most important information should come first, and the less important information should go last; and to me, that means attendance and league/group position going last. - PeeJay 23:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's give it a try, to me it's no problem, in any case we are always in time to revert it. I would also make the colour look softer and more similar, there's way too much difference and contrast between them, as you can see yourself (I just changed it). --Angelo 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The colours look fine to me as they are now, but that may just be me. I find the red and green to be self-evident in terms of their symbolic nature, and the neutral colour obviously represents a draw. - PeeJay 23:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this choice? (see the MOS page). --Angelo 23:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't see much difference, though that may just be to do with my monitor and the ambient light. However, if it works for you, go for it. - PeeJay 23:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:PeeJay2K3 about the column order (although I don't see much point in noting the attendance, although a lot of other seem to like it), but one thing I would be dead against bringing from the Manchester United season pages would be the miniscule font. It is way too small. I'd much rather see rows split onto two lines than have to increase my text size to read an article, then need to change it back when I visit another article or webpage. About colours, no real issue over having them or not, but if they are there make them as pale as possible to aid contrast with the text. - fchd 16:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As to colours, may I direct you to WP:WAI#Color. If it helps, I see your "draw" colour as a slightly lighter version of the "lose" colour, not as a different colour (the "win" colour is significantly different). I could be convinced the draw/lose lines were red, but would have no idea what colour the win line is meant to be.

Obviously the match outcome is written on each line, and I don't have a problem reading the text on any of those coloured backgrounds, so there is no accessibility issue as such. I'm just pointing out that using those colours isn't as meaningful to everyone as those with relatively normal colour vision might assume. Around 8% of men suffer from some degree of red-green colour blindness.

I like the layout in general, by the way. Struway2 | Talk 09:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidently there's a few things we have to consider with regards to colour. As for the result column, instead of putting "Won", "Drew" and "Lost" in each cell, wouldn't it be better just to put the score of the club the article is about first, and then the opposition's score, with a footnote saying that "Team X's score is written first"? For example, if Man Utd lost an away game 3-1, the score would be written in the Man Utd season article as 1-3, even though it was United who were playing away. - PeeJay 10:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with leaving out the Won/Drew/Lost and putting the subject's score first is IMO that we've been trained to read a football score as home team first. The casual reader doesn't necessarily read articles serially, especially if they're looking for something specific in a lengthy table, and can't be relied upon to read notes (if some of the stuff I have to revert is anything to go by). If I land in the middle of a long list of results, and see Man Utd had played Man City Away 1-4, I'd assume it meant United had won 4-1, as they were the away team. Even if I'd seen the note saying otherwise, probably :-) Struway2 | Talk 10:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The way of indicating the result directly comes from Bristol Rovers F.C.'s layout. I'd prefer the way you're suggesting, since this layout is about a single team, and I consequently tend to read the result in the form "myclub vs opponent" (and so the result), even if it was actually an away match. About the colours choice, I really don't know what to say, in any case I would suggest to indicate the match result (possibly together with the opponent club name) in bold text to make it look more eye-catching. I have also changed colours to make them a bit more distinctive, and added a legend indicating their particular meaning. --Angelo 10:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll be pleased to know that I now see the colours as all different :-) and the legend helps. Having looked at the Bristol Rovers one, the other thing gained from including W/D/L in the result column is an at-a-glance indication of parts of the season when they had a good or bad run, though the coloured lines would also show that. If the W/D/L are staying out, I'd be tempted to bold and centre the scores. Struway2 | Talk 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the year and kickoff time are needed in the results table. The year can be deduced from the name of the article, and the time seems like unnecessary detail to me. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 10:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The year I can live with as is, but kickoff time isn't really that useful. When you look back on a season, does anyone really care whether the game was a 12:30 kickoff or a 5:15 kickoff? - PeeJay 12:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to express my total disappointment with those editors who discuss this initially, because they intentionally (as stated in the proposal discussion) do not warn dozens and dozens of contributers to club season articles "due to possible resistancies from users who maintain such articles". I think that is disruptive, creating a separation between those editors who often access this talk and those who don't. I really hope that is not the common practice here. Also, that's is not a good start to define something that could have a big impact over so many articles (at least 33 this year alone). So a real discussion in the MoS's talk page will start after all articles have been warn about what's going on. I'll try do make the call. Regards. --ClaudioMB 15:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We started discussing the matter over a month ago (look at the archives, we discussed this for a very long time before starting a proposal), you've had all the time to join the discussion. It's not our fault if you don't have this page on your watchlist, so please calm down. --Angelo 15:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you said to me calm down. My point was calm, but firm with something that I consider wrong. Yes, lots of contributers didn't watch this page, and they miss that discussion, but intentionally do not invite or warn those contributers "due to possible resistancies from users who maintain such articles" is unacceptable. So, I believe anyone is against to restart this discussion after invite and warn those contributers. That's what I proposing in the MoS talk page. That will be a real consensus.--ClaudioMB 16:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Bolding every other word isn't really an endearing way to write. Just thought you should know. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I got your point. Thanks.--ClaudioMB 16:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking the archives, I found the reason to start this MoS. It was because an editor "requested to update A.C. Milan 2007-08 to make it look like Chelsea F.C. 2007-2008". But, Angelo found Chelsea F.C. 2007-2008 "pretty ugly and messy". I find "pretty ugly and messy" too strong for Chelsea F.C. 2007-2008 article, and even offensive to those contributers who are trying to make it a pretty nice and organized article. Could you explain how Chelsea F.C. 2007-2008 is "pretty ugly and messy"? Or did you start this MoS with the intension of block that kind of style since it has been used by many editors? (Arsenal F.C. 2007-08, FC Barcelona 2006-07 season, FC Barcelona 2007-08 season, S.L. Benfica 2007-08 season, Chelsea F.C. 2007-2008, Crewe Alexandra F.C. 2007-08 season, Leeds United A.F.C. 2007-08 season, Manchester United F.C. season 2007-08, Plymouth Argyle F.C. season 2007-08, Real Madrid C.F. 2007-08 season, Sunderland A.F.C. season 2007-08, and West Ham United F.C. 2007-2008).--ClaudioMB 17:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that it is "pretty ugly and messy". It's just an indiscriminate collection of statistics with no written account of the season or any explanation of why those statistics are relevant. The sooner that type of season article is eliminated, the better. - PeeJay 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You seem to be implying that Angelo is the sole contributor to this MoS and that he has unilaterally drawn up a new Manual of Style. This is not the case. This concept has been discussed several times before, see the archives for the conversations. Angelo is simply the person who instigated this latest round of discussion and taken the initiative. Personally i think it is ugly and messy because it is very disjointed and is the very definition of an "Overwhelming table of contents". It seems to be over sectioned. The article is just a random list of statistics. The most prose it has is in the footnotes explaining the tables. The reason that many articles follow this style is because some clubs have only one person creating the articles. They will follow precedent. Perhaps they see what one club has done and follow that example. That is what i do when creating my featured lists and articles. There are many articles that follow varying styles. See Category:English football club seasons and its various subcategories for examples. The point of this discussion was to create a centralised template that people can refer to and to create a template for editors to follow. The discussion has been open for a while now. Woodym555 17:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification, I've created only FC Barcelona 2006-07 season and FC Barcelona 2007-08 season. Each one of the others, I believe, were created by different editors.--ClaudioMB 18:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but they followed your example, evidently not knowing that there were much better options available to them. - PeeJay 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also I know there are good editors here trying to create a good MoS. That's excellent. --ClaudioMB 18:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't act so offended that people don't like your idea then. - PeeJay 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

About the "pretty ugly and messy", I still find it very rude. If I find an article like that, I'll go to the article's talk page and explain my point to how to improve the article. Please, do not call anyone's contribution "pretty ugly and messy" --ClaudioMB 18:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not? It's not a personal attack. Just an opinion of that person's individual contribution. - PeeJay 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Because you don't create a good environment making that kind of commentary.--ClaudioMB 19:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(again thanks Peejay ;) It is not any one person's contribution, per WP:OWN. That being said, i did not mean to offend those who edit and contribute to articles and i don't think many people would be offended. It was intended as constructive criticism and it is of course my personal opinion. (have a look at FAC for the spirit in which that comment was made). I have expressed my view in this particular forum because the opinion is true for a number of articles. I am not going to copy and paste the same argument on every talk page. With hindsight something could have been added to the talk pages about the discussion that led to the recent MoS though. It was regretful that you and presumably other contributors feel left out of the decision making process. Woodym555 19:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that's a destructive criticism. For me, constructive criticism is like: that page has this and this problems, and could be fixed this way.--ClaudioMB 19:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Users Angelo and PeeJay had been hard on my contributions in Wikipedia Football for while, so I'll be hard, but fair, on their comments. --ClaudioMB 19:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Suits me. We won't get anywhere by pussy-footing around. - PeeJay 19:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me here that while you argue over this issue, you all seem to be pursuing approximately the same goal. Obviously we all want a clearly defined MoS for these articles. You seem to be in agreement that there should be sufficient prose in the article. You seem to agree that too many tables full of info aren't the optimal solution, and are to be avoided. Infact, I can't quite determine where you are disagreeing, save for that of the manner in which people are commenting on other people's contributions - and if I might venture a brief comment on that matter, with all the best intentions in the world I would point out that number 7 on Wikipedia's 12 rules of safe behaviour is be gracious in how you treat other users and their work. That said, I don't see the comment "pretty ugly and messy" as very ungracious, so please don't take this as a criticism, but merely something to bear in consideration to lighten the atmosphere here.

That said, it seems interesting to me to comment that both the proposal for the MoS by Angelo and the counter-proposal by Claudio seem to adhere to two things that you are looking to avoid - too little prose and too many sub-sections, though I do appreciate the effort and thought which has gone into each. I can't help thinking that rather than put two proposals forward and then argue over which is better, a better way of proceeding would be to take things step by step and debate whether certain things should be included or not, thus contructing a MoS as we go. For instance, with what section should the article begin? Should all of the games that the team plays be stored in result form? And if so, in what style? Should tables be coloured? And so on. It may seem a time-consuming process, but I think that it could be achieved acceptably fast, especially if we debate several ideas at once. And I also suspect that you would find that you agree on more things than you would presently think that you might. This way also has the side-effect of producing a MoS which is the combination of everyone's opinions and ideas, as opposed to the "least undesirable" of a very small number of alternative solutions. Falastur2 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Falastur, first of all it's not my proposal, but a collaborative effort, and result of thorough discussions on the issue; I just followed all suggestions coming from such discussions and then I finally created and moved this proposal into the mainspace a month later, and only once I figured out it was ready to be finally approved by the community. About the main issues, it's first wrong to say the version I supported lacks of prose, in fact it provides a "Review and events" section which is expected to be the real core of the article (see U.S. Città di Palermo season 2007-08 for a short example), whereas Claudio's counter-proposal, undoubtebly based on "his" FC Barcelona 2006-07 season article, provides overview and events as optional sections. The main issue regards how much and what kind of information to include into the MOS, and Claudio's proposal is clearly full of fuss completely unrelated to the main subject, such as "contract expiration dates", friendly matches, most frequent pitch formations and lots of other tables. In short, his proposal clashes with WP:TABLE (excessive use of tables), WP:NOT (excessive statistics and other kind of really unrelated information) and, in a minor extent, WP:ACCESS (full of superfluous styles and drawings that makes his proposal clash with a number of basic accessibility principles). --Angelo 23:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Angelo, at least be fair to say that my proposal is based on FC Barcelona 2007-08 season and other 32 articles listed here, not in the last season one that was the first. You know that, we already discuss that in the MoS talk page. That last season one I already explain to you that it needs to be improved since I didn't work on it since the new season started. Please, be fair. --ClaudioMB 23:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You've started first FC Barcelona 06-07 [23] [24], so I'm technically right when I say they all start from FC Barcelona 06-07 article. Why don't you instead give an answer to the issues I raised? You know, your overuse of tables, accessibility, generalized lack of prose, indiscriminate collection of unrelated information... All those articles share the same layout, and thus they all need some form of improvement. --Angelo 23:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

About prose. If you take a look in all 33 articles listed here, you will see that losts most of them has few or no prose at all. I created just 2 (Barcelona's ones). There are, probably, over a hundred of contributers to those articles, and looks like the prose it is not a big issue for them. Also, I not at all against include prose at all, I think it will improve those articles. By the way, if anyone wants include prose in the Barcelona's ones, thank you very much. Also, a remind that Wikipedia also incorporates elements of almanac as stated in Wikipedia:Five pillars. Almanacs does not have much prose. I think the balance between prose and table depend of the kind of the article. An article about the club should have lots of prose and few tables. A club season's article could have more tables than prose.--ClaudioMB 23:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

About friendly matches, most frequent pitch formations and lots of other tables. All of them are about the club's season, I really cannot see how they are completely unrelated. Friendly matches (some editors like to call it Pre-season) are not that important but I watch Football news, and they talk a lot about them in the pre-season. Most frequent pitch formations (by the way, I didn't include that section, thanks for remained me), is based on all competitive matches, and show readers the probable start 11 and their positions on the pitch. Without that, some readers could wonder: "ok, this team has those twenty some thing players, but who are the most important ones, the start 11 of this team?". Most of the matches I watch, they start talking about the start 11 and their position on the pitch. About "contract expiration dates", it's just a column in Players information. This table is a resume of the relation between each player and the club.--ClaudioMB 00:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have work on those articles for quite a time and several editors have discussed it and asked me for changes on the templates that generate those tables. It's not like I'm working alone and I have created everything myself. By the way, all tables are generated by templates in order to allow the editors to focus in the information, without concern about arrange table code.--ClaudioMB 00:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

With regard to contract expiry dates, how can you possibly know for certain when a player's contract is due to expire? That sort of information is usually kept confidential between the player, his agent and the club, and any information about it from news agencies should be treated as speculation for that very reason. It is because of this that I am against including contract information. I am also against the inclusion of the date/year a player was signed, as that has no bearing on the season the article is about. There is no need for a player's career appearance/goal record, age/date of birth or injury status either. The only player information that should be included, IMO, is squad number, position, name, nationality, an appearance/goal breakdown by competition and a minor note - such as "(c)" - to denote the captain (and possibly vice-captain). Anything else is irrelevant to the season the article is about. - PeeJay 01:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I maintain Barcelona's one, I find those information very easy. Like I said in the introduction of the contra-proposal, most of the section could be optional because there are hundreds of clubs and it is much easy to find information about some clubs than others. But if second division clubs like Plymouth_Argyle_F.C._season_2007-08#Squad_information, since to find them. The idea behind Players information is to give readers a glance about the relation between club and players in that season, and could be optional. What I don't find fair to readers, is to eliminate some good information just because all clubs doesn't have them. I believe readers care to read about 1 or few clubs, they will not get upset because dozens of other clubs don't have exactly the same information. They will be wondering if they cannot find some information about those he/she care. Furthermore, the information could vary from each article, but, all information presented should have the same style. If you look FC Barcelona 2007-08 season and all others articles similar to it, you see all information follow the same style (except to some information added by other editors, that I didn't have the time to set yet). Regards --ClaudioMB 14:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But the point is that not "all information follow the same style", otherwise we wouldn't be having the discussion in the first place. I think players contract expiries are completely irrelevant to the topic under examination in a club-season article, they have no bearing on the performance that year. If the information can be reliably sourced, place it on the individual player's article. Let's concentrate on the really important things - a brief resume, a list of results, and the players appearances/scorers. Anything else is icing. I'm sorry, Claudio, I definitely wouldn't support any standard based on the Barcelona 2007-08 article - it's way to complicated, and the text is full of POV as well. Are you expecting to have your proposal officially adopted as part of the MoS, or merely going to be putting it as a guideline? - fchd 16:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize if I have been too harsh on my discussion. Yes, yesterday I was really upset. Also, I'd to explain that I didn't jump on this discussion from nowhere. Back in June I started the FC Barcelona 2006-07 season, then move to FC Barcelona 2007-08 season, then I started to create templates (see Fb templates) to facilitate entering information. Then some other editors start other articles based on FC Barcelona 2007-08 season. I started help them and make changes as they asked. Why I made changes, because that idea could be good and other editors could start use it. If the idea was not good, someone could ask to removed it or it would die in that article. So far, dozens editors have used those templates and I've got several request to add something and just one request to remove something. Based on that, I don't think that is a bad style. Could be improved, of course yes. Anyway, I've never try to impose anything on any editor. I already had some discussion about how to include information, but I never impose anything. Just before I start this discussion, I was try to start a discussion between the editors to standardize the date, following Wikipedia MoS. Now, I'd like to ask to restart the MoS discussion from begin and consider both proposal as equals for discussion. Also, wait for all contributers to those club season articles to be aware about what is going on. Thanks. --ClaudioMB 15:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Flags in infoboxes

What's the consensus for having flags in player infoboxes to show what country a player was playing in? My personal view is that we should include them, although not for players who spent their career in only one country. GiantSnowman 18:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we've discussed this multiple times before, and most people were against it. Apart from anything else, in IE at least it causes the "club name" column to stop lining up correctly with the seasons and makes it into a confusing mess.... ChrisTheDude 20:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

See for example what the infobox for Steve Lovell (Welsh footballer) would look like in IE if the flags were added - by the time you get down past about the third club the names have completely stopped lining up with the columns to the left and right (e.g. he played for Gillingham from 1987-1992, but the presence of the flag makes that club's name line up (roughly) with the line above in the "years" and "Apps" columns), and it looks a right mess.... ChrisTheDude 20:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems both impractical and unnecessary to me. --Malcolmxl5 21:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Recently, I've taken to removing all flags from infoboxes, regardless of whether they're in the "place of birth" field or the "clubs" field. - PeeJay 21:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would say that the flags in the info boxes are ok when next to place of birth but definetly not next to clubs they have played for as if people want to know where that club is bassed they can click on the wiki link for the club that is in the user box.Gorillamusic 21:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If people can click on the wikilink for the club to find out where the club is based, why can't they click on the wikilink for the place of birth to find out where that is? - PeeJay 21:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but it rather seems that the thing making the lines misalign in the screenshot above is the presence of reference numbers in the year column, not the flagicons. If you look at the line spacing between "74 (3)" and "unknown" the spacing appears to be as it should be, yet in every spacing with a reference number in superscript, the line spacing is forcibly increased. Falastur2 22:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The distortion of infoboxes in some browsers has nothing to do with the presnce of reference numbers. Removing flags from infoboxes has become a bit of a chore, but it is neccessary in order to stop them from appearing almost uninteilgable. Flags next to place of birth and national team do not distort the infobox, but they are completely unneccessary, as the countryofbirth paramater should be filled in, and the name of the national team. so in effect the flags appear next to the written name of the country in both instances, therefore the flags are are completely decorative and WP:FLAGS says that flags should not be used decoratively, or next to the place of birth (see WP:FLAGS 2.1.3 and 2.1.4) King of the North East (T/C) 23:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's got nothing to do with the references. If you look at the screenshot, the appearances and goals are still lining up perfectly with the years, it's only the club names which are shifting out of line, ergo it can only be the flags that are doing it.... ChrisTheDude 07:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. My mistake. Shame that IE doesn't like flagicons. Falastur2 18:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, remember that you can specify the size of flagicons with the size= parameter, so it is possible to make them line up again. There are lots of reasons for including or removing flag icons from infoboxes, but the default size isn't one of them. Andrwsc 19:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair play, I didn't know you could do that. But it seems like an awful lot of hassle for something which I don't feel adds any significant value to the infobox..... ChrisTheDude 07:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the picture example looks messy, regardless of lining up issues. However, a single flag - showing country of birth and/or national team represented - provides an effective enhancement of otherwise monotonous textual representation. A nice compromise perhaps? Fedgin | Talk 09:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Since this discussion, apparently, comes and go, why not create a subpage in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players for this discussion, every one enter their position (a consensus is form), then when someone else comes again talking about it, just suggest to the person goes to that talk page, read it and enter his/her position. If at certain moment there is a change in the consensus, then a action could be done.--ClaudioMB 16:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability query

I'm just looking for another opinion on CUAFL Plate - a cup competition for teams in a single university who have been knocked out in the first round of another cup competition, which itself is possibly not notable. Surely that's pushing the boundaries of notability a little too far?! — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 09:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I share your sentiments about the Plate. Surely non-notable. CUAFL Cuppers, however, is a little different, being the main cup competition of a County Football Association... Robotforaday 13:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the CUAFL Plate, and the CUAFL Shield and CUAFL Vase for 2nd, 3rd and 4th XIs also appear non-notable. As Robotforaday points out, Cuppers is a main County FA cup, which I am less sure about in terms of notability. Number 57 13:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that Cambridge University is a county FA, which I suppose lends the article a bit more credibility. The other county FAs only seem to have articles for their main cup competition though. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 14:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Club season MoS

If anyone could give your thoughts on these topics: Category, MoS_tag and Process. Thanks. --ClaudioMB 17:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Colombian football

I have recently been adding some categories to Colombian footballers and have noticed that there are an awful lot of young players in Category:Colombia international footballers. It seems that User:Crzdcolombian is including youth level players despite the instruction not to include "players who have only been capped at Olympic, Under-21 or other junior levels" in the category header. I'm not sure what to do about it, trawling through the whole category would be very time consuming, any ideas? King of the North East (T/C) 10:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page, it seems no-one has actually informed him of his mistake. Perhaps that might be a start? :) Number 57 10:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

After several hours work I have removed around 70 players from the category. There are dozens of awful articles with references to things like Colombia MNT, Colombia NT, RB, LB, poor spelling, grammer references to managers and other players by nickname only, external links to completely unrelated players, etc. Something really needs to be done about in and I dont have the time to do it all myself. King of the North East (T/C) 02:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Germany/West Germany - urgent

You may remember this discussion a few weeks ago, where User:Matthead insisted that use of 'West Germany' was incorrect, and we should use 'Germany', but he lost the argument against overwhelming consensus. Well, he's started to remove references to West Germany from masses of articles, and he needs to be stopped, and all of his vandalism needs to be undone. What to do? ArtVandelay13 15:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You should report him to ANI. Davnel03 15:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The article Germany national football team covers all of the DFB team history since 1908. The POV-fork West Germany national football team has been replaced by a redirect (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Germany national football team). There are still many articles that need to be updated accordingly. As recommended by Hanlon's razor, I did not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. It seems I have to reconsider, though. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is fair to replace the wikilink, but you are also changing the display text, which is what I presume most objections are from. For example, if the original wikicode showed [[West Germany national football team|West Germany]], then please only change to [[Germany national football team|West Germany]]. In other words, leave the piped link displaying as "West Germany" but feel free to bypass the redirect. Similarly, please leave all instances of {{fb|FRG}} intact. These templates already cause the wikilink to point to Germany national football team, so there is no reason to change from "FRG" to "GER". Thanks, Andrwsc 16:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The very editor that reported me at ANI has reverted [25] [[Germany national football team]] to [[West Germany national football team]]. Besides, why should the use of FRG, the abreviation of Federal Republic of Germany, be limited to the 1949-1990 period? Why is {{fb|FRG}} (mis)used to hide a link to the German nft article behind a display of "West Germany"? For that (doubtful) purpose, something like {{fb|WGER}} or {{fb|GER|1949-1990}} would be less flawed.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

FRG is used as the abbreviation for West Germany because FRG was the official FIFA country code for West Germany from 1949 to 1990. After the German reunification the FIFA country code for Germany became GER. The {{fb}} template uses the FIFA country codes, therefore the current usage is correct. - MTC 18:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary when I reverted your changes to the Alan Ball article you can't change history. At the time of the 1966 World Cup, the team England played was known (in the English speaking world at least) as West Germany. I changed your edit to [[Germany national football team|West Germany]] which is directed at the Germany national football team article even though it displays as West Germany but even this does not appear to be acceptable to you. Daemonic Kangaroo 16:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

West Germany, You probably want to merge that with Germany... but no so stop this. West Germany was the common name for the West German team, and it's always been West Germany. That's why it says West Germany on all articles about the World Cup's they where in until WC '94 for example. FIFA calls them West Germany and Germany FR, Not Germany. West Germany is the common name and ppl might think you mean Both West and East Germany, together if they say "Germany" and references it to some time during it being divided. Chandlertalk 16:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank your for pointing to this FIFA page, which proves my point and contradicts your own. On this page, FIFA uses "FRG", "Germany FR" and "Germany Federal Republic" in the match detail and line-up boxes. These terms are appropriate for 1970 and for 2007, as the DFB team then and now represents the Federal Republic of Germany. In the text, they use "West German(y)" three times, but the plain "German(y)" eight times! And what about the link to the classic match "England - Germany 1966"? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       18:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

England did not play Germany, they played West Germany. Just watch this video Video on YouTube and no, dont read the title, listen to the first goal comment. Chandlertalk 19:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no point discussing this; the discussion has already taken place: West Germany is the accepted English usage, in all media, and in all official documents, right up to FIFA. This is vandalism, and it needs to be stopped, and Matthead probably needs to be banned. I've reported it at WP:ANI. ArtVandelay13 17:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthead behaviour is unacceptable. He is going against consensus and disrupting the project. A block is needed to protect the project. --Malcolmxl5 23:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Attempting to change any truth in history is unacceptable, although the particular editor cannot win, because he is the only one who believes in that version of the past. I note also that myself and many other editors are reverting his changes as fast as they are being made to our watched articles. So he is dealing with many from his standpoint as one individual. I don't believe any action at WP:ANI will do any good. We all just need to remain vigilant. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for being vigilant, and for the very helpful suggestion to examine "the editor's psyche" [26] -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       04:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

a) He's not the only one believing the same thing, and b) the continuation under the same name, and effectively the representative team of the DFB, is how it is treated in Germany. I accept however that consensus here is against that view, and that the one editor you refer to above cannot win the argument. - fchd 19:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Germany-nft and West Germany-nft are continuous is generally accepted, and to have one article for the two makes sense. However, Matthead wants to remove all mentions of West Germany, even to the point of removing redirects, despite the extremely wide use of "West Germany" in the English-speaking word. His position is indefensible. ArtVandelay13 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter McKenzie page

Hi all. Just looking for some advise regarding why the link for Peter McKenzie is redirecting to the Stirling Albion F.C. page. I was wanting to create a page for Peter MacKenzie as he is the current Stirling Albion chairman and also a former player for the club. Is there anyway of getting this link set up for a page on Peter Mckenzie. Thanks Gorillamusic 09:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you should be able to do this if you click the link at the top of the Stirling article that says "Redirected from Peter McKenzie" which will take you back to the redirect, and you can remove the redirect there, and create the article. Alternatively McKenzie (football)&redirect=no click here. Bigmike 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Women's football project

There seems to be a new project for Women's football (Wikipedia:WikiProject Womens football). I think this might be better run as a task force of WikiProject Football. Any thoughts on this? --StuartBrady (Talk) 14:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, as any football article will have a WP:FOOTY header on the talk page and follow this projects MOS, making this new project a sub-project or a task force would be a good idea. As a task-force, the parameters can be added to the existing {{football}} template to give assessment etc. Creating a whole new project wouldn't seem to be the best way to do things especially when it comes to user-interest - as it may run the real risk of dying very quickly. Foxhill 15:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Foxhill. Just as the women's game itself, in the past, has run the risk of dying very quickly. A sub-project would be the safer and more subtle option. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Womens national squad templates

Should we get making squad templates for the Womens World Cup? Also, what should the naming convention be exactly? Mattythewhite 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The same but with "Women's World Cup" instead of "World Cup". A few seem to already exist. ArtVandelay13 23:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Toulon Tournament

I was surprised to see that the Toulon Tournament didn't have an article, despite it being an established youth tournament. I've created the article, so please feel free to add to the article and subsequent subpages. GiantSnowman 23:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Flagicons

This is probably not the correct place to bring this up, but does anyone know what has happened to the flagicons. All I can see, both in IE7 and in FireFox, is an empty rectangle where the flag should be. Some flags such as Wales & Northern Ireand seem OK but most of them have gone. Any ideas? Daemonic Kangaroo 10:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing, hopefully it's only temporary. Govvy 10:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Its happening everywhere. Some sort of server issue. Oldelpaso 10:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, glad to hear its not just mine. Wonder when it will be fixed? - The Daddy 14:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Tamworth

I've come across a couple of Tamworth related articles that I'm considering nominating for deletion but would like to know opinions here before I proceed. The first article is History of Tamworth F.C., and is essentially a recreation of material that was deleted from the main Tamworth F.C. article for being unencyclopaedic. I think I'm on pretty safe ground with this nomination but I'm unsure what specific reasons to give for it, so suggestions would be welcome.

The second article, Tamworth F.C. season 2007-08, I'm less sure about. I can understand the reasoning for these season articles to exist for clubs at a higher level, but I don't think that a club playing at the sixth level of English football is notable enough for such an article. Any guidance on this would be much appreciated. Simon KHFC 01:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd keep both of them. The history one needs a major cleanup, but the season one, I'm not too sure on.. Mattythewhite 11:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Stirling Albion & Airdrie United, play off final match article

Hi again. I'm just writing a article on the two games played between Stirling Albion and Airdrie United in the Scottish First Divison Playoff 06/7. The playoff was a two game tie. I would like to include both games in the one topic as it was one tie. Would this be ok to do. The article would not be as indepth as the FA Cup 2007 Final one but it would be very similar - as I am using this as a template to try and write the page. The page would include:

• Short summary of the final
• Short report on each game
• Details of the teams for each game
• Statistics for each game
• and (maybe) After match reports.

I have started this in My Sand Box to see how it looks. I would appreciate input from some of you, thanks Gorillamusic 14:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article candidates

Do we list GACs somewhere? I'm working on Klaas-Jan Huntelaar (a lot still needs to be done), but I think it's ready for GA-status. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-16 16:29

I'm not sure we do. I think a list could be created though. I have just put Oxford United F.C. as a candidate and it would be nice to see other candidates. Eddie6705 16:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Preston North End manager up for speedy deletion

Will Scott [27] has been nominated for speedy deletion despite managing P.N.E. in the late forties. I'm not sure why. Nick mallory 04:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reason given is: "It is a very short article providing little or no context" Here's the entire article:

  Will Scott managed Preston North End football club in the English Football League from 1949 to 1953. He had earlier managed Blackburn Rovers in 1947.

I didn't nominate it, but I kinda get the point. Can you include this info on another page? --Mud4t 06:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, the subject of this article is notable although the article needs expansion. More research is need to include his career as a player, but being a stub is not grounds for deletion. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh it's all gone quiet over there......

Anyone care to take a gander at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Gillingham F.C......? ChrisTheDude 07:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Northwich Victoria

Can any admins unprotect this article? It was protected because Jon McCarthy's nationality was being changed, but now he's left, it's no longer needed. Mattythewhite 16:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I contacted the admin who blocked it. I might theorically unblock it by myself, but the admin left a summary asking to contact him before unprotecting the article. --Angelo 16:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The (presumably) same vandalising user was back with a new alias just last week fiddling about with more nationality stuff - apparently just for the sake of p*ssing other people off. I think it needs to be left alone for now. - fchd 17:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The user involved doesn't care for just Jon McCarthy. They are some sort of nationalist who has been changing the player status of every player to reflect that they are English, even since Jon McCarthy has left the team. I had a bot owner automatically revert these edits a while ago, but the bot ended up dying and I haven't had the time to organize another person to operate such a task, so until some sort of measure like that is completed, this insane user won't stop. He came back after months of protection time and time again. If someone else could find a bot operator to handle the task of auto-reverting the removal of the players template, then the article could be unprotected, but I don't have the spare time to organize that at the current moment. Cowman109^Talk 03:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Defunct clubs?

Does anyone have any idea if MK Scot F.C. and Loughton Orient F.C. are now defunct? Neither seem to be playing in any league this year, and I was thinking maybe they should be moved to Category:Defunct English football clubs. Thanks, Number 57 15:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't find anything either way, to be honest, but it might be a bit premature to assume they've folded straight away, they might resurface next season.... ChrisTheDude 18:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Scot certainly appear to have folded during last season, but then they have gone away and re-surfaced before. Loughton Orient were supposed to have gone to the N Bucks & District League according to the Cherry Red Non-League Newsdesk Annual, but that league's website makes no mention of them. - fchd 18:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Scot resigned from the league in April and Orient disbanded during the close season (I gather.) --Malcolmxl5 19:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Nottingham Forest and Carling Cup record

Can somebody please update the quickest ever goal in the Carling Cup second round as Paul Smith after 5 seconds for Nottingham Forest v Leicester City on 18 September, 2007. For more information about the goal, please see the players page and its in the information section near the bottom. Please can someone get back to me and verify to me whether this is the quickest goal in the Carling Cup, maybe in world football and he's surely the quickest goalkeeper ever to score in the world? Please reply, regards, Smithy33 19:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's just wait a little and see (the match hasn't even finished yet by the looks of things). It is probably not the fastest goal ever (3.17s according to [28]) though it may well be the record for a goalkeeper, and the League Cup as well. I'll scout a bit for the stats but it might take a bit of time to come through. Qwghlm 20:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The BBC give the time of Smith's goal as 23 seconds, which is a tad different to 5 seconds..... ChrisTheDude 21:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As does Forest's own official website, so it would seem that anyone claiming it was 5 seconds has a dodgy stopwatch.... ChrisTheDude 21:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, he probably can claim the not-exactly-prestigious distinction of "quickest goalie to score form the kick-off"...... ChrisTheDude 21:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Darren Moore (footballer) → Darren Moore on Backlog

Can somebody please move the Darren Moore (footballer) article to Darren Moore as the move has been supported and it is part of the Backlog list on WP:RM Kingjamie 17:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Qwghlm 20:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Cleanup

I have revived Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Cleanup by turning it into a collection of ways people can help this project, though the creation of articles, destubbing, addition of infoboxes and images and also giving expert advice to others. All in all it's a short list of topics that bored project members can look at and tasks for those that want a new challenge. Enjoy. Nanonic 01:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Category :The Football League players

I AfD'd this a while back, and while I stand by that, I'm willing to admit defeat. However, shouldn't it at least be renamed to Football League players? The current name makes them sound like a bunch of travelling musicians. ArtVandelay13 23:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh? What on earth is the point of this category? Robotforaday 00:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a category containing every single player who has played in the Football League and has an article on Wikipedia. And I agree, it should probably be renamed to remove the "The", as should the main The Football League article. - PeeJay 08:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A category for every Football League player would consist of hundreds of thousands of entries. Would that be at all useful? In my opinion, No. However, I reluctantly agree about the naming - it's another example of popular use winning out against the real name. - fchd 08:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's just grammar, really. However, where were you guys back in May? ArtVandelay13 09:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't really monitoring WP:FOOTY back in May, so I have an alibi :-D - PeeJay 09:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would repropose it for deletion, this is crazy, as it regards a set of three different divisions (Championship, League One, League Two). Sincerely, I don't think two keep votes out of three make really a consensus. --Angelo 09:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Four divisions in fact, before 1992. ArtVandelay13 09:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I never saw the point of this and the similar Category:Premier League players - any nom for deletion for either and I will happily support. Qwghlm 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone want to nominate this, then? I think it's best that I don't after one failure. ArtVandelay13 22:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Lee A. Martin and Lee B. Martin

These two articles really should be moved to better names in line with standard disambiguation practices, but unfortunately we can't use the usual "(nationality footballer)" or "{footballer born year)", as they're both English and they were both born in 1968!!!!! Any suggestions......? ChrisTheDude 12:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is also Lee R. Martin, the current Manchester United F.C. winger. I would suggest changing Lee A. Martin to Lee Martin (fullback), Lee B. Martin to Lee Martin (goalkeeper) and Lee R. Martin to Lee Martin (winger). - PeeJay 12:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think they're best left as they are because they can't be disambiguated in the normal way. Lee R. Martin, however, should probably be moved to the standard Lee Martin (footballer born 1987). — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 12:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just use full names, or leave it as it is. Do not use roles, as goalkeeper and winger are not only football roles, and players cannot be strictly associated to positions. --Angelo 12:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How about doing Lee Martin (born [month, year])Gorillamusic 19:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Gasheadsteve's suggestion is the best, keep it simple. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 20:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've just discovered there's also Paul Smith (footballer born 1976) and Paul Smith (footballer born 1976a) - they were not only born in the same country in the same year, but in the same month of the same year! ChrisTheDude 21:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• and there are two John Smith's both born in the same year and both played for Torquay United! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiGull (talk • contribs) 08:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Football player databases

When researching articles about players from pre-Soccerbase, I often find the lack of player information very frustrating. There are several databases for England internationals, and for Scotland internationals there is the excellent London Hearts site. But I have had no luck finding an equivalent database for players from Wales, Northern Ireland or Republic of Ireland, not to mention countries outside the British Isles.

Furthermore, there are some brilliant databases for individual clubs; e.g. Liverpool, Derby County, Ipswich Town and Swindon Town, to name but a few. Soccerbase is generally good for recent players and www. allfootballers.com lists details of every player who has played in the Football League/Premiership (but does not cover Scottish clubs for example).

It occurs to me that I cannot be the only one who is having problems getting information about players outside my own favourite club, and that many editors will have collected their own list of club databases. Perhaps we should share these resources by creating a list of player databases available on the web, either as an article in its own right e.g. List of football club player databases or as a section of the WP:FOOTBALL project. Hopefully, given time, this can be built up into a comprehensive list of Internet sources, not just for British players but for players from throughout the world. Your thoughts, please. Daemonic Kangaroo 12:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Also don't forget Neil Brown's site, which covers every post-war football league player, albeit grouped only by club ChrisTheDude 12:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this could be worthy of doing, as I've stumbled across a few 'Where are they now?' sections on fan sites. Former Newcastle and Norwich players are two that stick in my mind. Anybody care to start a page then, with sections on club-specific players and more generic sites? Fedgin | Talk 12:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to make the page. I think a subpage of WP:FOOTY such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Sources would be good. I don't think it should be in the mainspace personally. I can add some Villa ones that i have accumulated. Woodym555 12:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For Northern Ireland (and Ireland before the split) I can recommend Northern Ireland's Footballing Greats. Work in progress but very informative. Has an international players A-Z, articles on many players with details such as caps at junior levels, club apps etc both ancient (Gideon Baird (died 1897)) and modern (Damien Johnson). Struway2 | Talk 13:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants Arsenal data Gunnermania has always been good for anything 1930s onwards. And when I've been researching North London derby-related data, a good website for the side down the road from us is Topspurs. Qwghlm 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

PS Remember Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Links exists already so it might be worth just expanding that rather than create a new page. Qwghlm 13:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That lists external links though and does not actually contain a list of sources. Should we create a sub-section for sources or should we shift the meaning of the links page slightly? Woodym555 14:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

StretfordEnd.co.uk is a fantastic website for Man Utd players' appearances and goals records, but there's not much there in terms of biographical information. Also, the Welsh Football Data Archive is good for the Wales national team, but there's no way of searching for an individual player's records. - PeeJay 14:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, for Newcastle United - Newcastle United a statistical journey... is excellent. The front page says that "All statistical information contained within this site has been studiously checked and has been validated from a minimum of two different sources before inclusion. Where possible official sources such as NUFC (club info, match programmes, etc.), Rothmans & FA manuals, etc. have been used." Be nice if all sites could say the same!

and Leyton Orient - The Men Who Made Leyton Orient FC. By Neil Kaufman, who is (or was at the time) the official club historian, info comes from his complete-record type book. Includes triallists, wartime guest players, etc. Struway2 | Talk 14:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made a start at a revised links page in my User:Woodym555/Sandbox. Take a look and edit mercilessly if you want! I think it currently looks muddled and needs updating. It might need a table for the English clubs because when all of the links listed in this discussion are added, it will get messy. Also the other links need integrating into the separate countries sections. (I don't speak German though). Any comments (or even better, edits) would be appreciated! Woodym555 14:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments and the edits to Woody's sandbox. This is exactly what I had in mind. There's clearly a lot more to add (no Scottish clubs yet) but I suggest that Woody's sandbox be merged with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Links and perhaps the link on the main WP:FOOTBALL page can be beefed up a bit. I hadn't spotted it and nor, I guess, have many other editors. Daemonic Kangaroo 04:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What about teams from other countries? --Kaypoh 05:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, it would be great if there was a list of databases covering every club/natioanl team throughout the world. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way all the links have been moved across to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links page now. I agree that they need to be highlighted more on the main project page. I think it could do with revamping to be honest. I will have a go in my sandbox. Woodym555 15:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Modification to Infobox football club

Hi. I'm suggesting a modification to {{Infobox Football club}}. I've noticed that Liverpool F.C. and Real Madrid C.F. have now added current season bits to the infobox. However, the only place for this is to put it in the image caption, at present. I'm suggesting adding something to it permitting the display of the current season above the image, in its own optional tag, such as I have demonstrated on User:Simmo676/Infobox Football club with current plus an example use. With the new influx of football club season articles I think this would be very useful. --Simmo676 23:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would instead remove the current season bit at all, this is absolutely superfluous. The template was created in order to feature really prominent information about the club, not links to current season articles which are just a form of recentism. --Angelo 00:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I was suggesting it because there are similar inclusions of "current event" things in articles such as Premier League, FA Cup, Football League Cup and Football League Championship, and in other events like Formula One, Heineken Cup and National Rugby League. Or would a better suggestion be the use of a separate box like on NASCAR and Rugby union? --Simmo676 00:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

All the articles you mentioned are about competitions, not clubs. --Angelo 00:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that is true, and now I've found some other clubs from various sports (Arizona Diamondbacks, Japan national football team, Adelaide United FC) with the current-news template above their infobox. Seeing as that's rather widespread, I think therefore that style might be more suitable, rather than my suggestion. A different question now though, is whether having a box like that at the top of the page would contravene the football MoS in any way, or would proceeding with styles like those be fine? --Simmo676 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

club season categories

After going into the detail of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic F.C. season 2000-01 debate i noticed that the club seasons categories are a mess. Several categories such as Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2007-08 season are in the Category:English football club seasons when this category includes non-English clubs. There is also the underpopulated Category:Football (soccer) clubs season which should contain all of the Category:Football (soccer) clubs xxxx-xx season. There is also the overarching Category:Seasons in football (soccer) which contains country subcategories.

• In Summary i think that all of the Category:Football (soccer) clubs xxxx-xx season categories that currently reside in Category:English football club seasons should be moved to the Category:Football (soccer) clubs season as they contain several different clubs from different countries. I am also thinking that there are too many categories for it to be a worthwhile navigational aid. Yet i can't see how the situation can be improved to be honest. Any suggestions or objections? Woodym555 00:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't even have an article namestyle as well. There is "Celtic F.C. season 2000-01", but also "F.C. Internazionale Milano 2007-08", "Chelsea F.C. 2007-2008" and so on. We should decide first this, and then consequently decide a unique category name. Consider it as a tree, in which the root node is "Football (soccer) club seasons", with "Football (soccer) clubs xxxx-xx season" and "Football (soccer) club seasons by country" as possible children. --Angelo 00:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A tree with too many branches that needs a good Tree surgeon. Just looking through the myriad of categories and naming styles made me a bit sceptical as to how useful it can be. We do need to develop a standard. I think that Wiki United F.C. season 3007-08 should be the norm if you ask me. There is a little difference to be honest but i do think it needs a standard name. I think that including the word "season" is needed because it explains the specifics of the articles in the category. These are not history articles, they are season articles. My two cents anyway. Woodym555 00:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jordan Older - AfD?

Somebody created an article, half in English, half in Portuguese about some American player I have never heard of Jordan Older. Most of the wiki links point to American Soccer League clubs that make no mention of him. Some are to Portuguese language purporting he might play in Brazil. I feel it is a candidate for AfD but am not sure it is for speedy deletion. I have never posted an AfD request and whe I started I had some trouble or maybe I do not understand the instructions yet. Anyway, I would appreciate if you guys can take a look and if you feel it is a candidate for AfD to post it. Thanks, Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 00:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it is suitable for Afd. he seems to meet the notability guidelines in that he has played in the top tier of a European League. That being said the article needs a lot of cleanup, removing POV edits and sourcing. In particular much of the text seems to be a duplicate of his own website that used to be maintained by his mother. An infobox would be good, ({{Infobox football biography}}). Woodym555 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is a bit of a mess and I think we should take a look at this first to establish whether he is in fact notable per WP:BIO. I'm not sure that he is. He seems to have played for a number of second tier (or lower) teams and certainly not for the U.S. national football team. We need to establish what teams he has played for and whether they were in a fully professional league at the time. Once that's done, the article will either stay or can be taken to AfD. --Malcolmxl5 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that Older meets the notability guidelines. I don't think he has ever played in a fully professional league (although I'm not very familiar with the lower levels of Swedish and Brazilian football, so it's possible that one of those clubs was in a fully professional league). We need to be very careful about the claims on his website (IIRC, it is run by a family member and is prone to hyperbole) - since he only trained or trialed with many of the clubs listed. Best regards. Jogurney 02:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked to see if he played for Ljungskile SK in the Swedish 2nd level (as suggested in the article) and the only mention of him appears to be that he trained with the club prior to a match in 2005. I think this should go to AfD and if the authors can somehow show that Older played in a fully professional league the AfD will result in keep. Jogurney 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject template now protected

An admin, MZMcBride has now protected the Wikiproject template (Template:Football). I've contacted him about it but I'm concerned that ONLY allowing admin to change this means that we won't be able to add Taskforces or make changes in the future. I'm not too sure about this - what do (more knowledgeable) people think? Paulbrock 23:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree with the move, I added the Wikiproject Argentine football parameter a few months ago, I believe that it should not just be the admins that are allowed to create wikiprojects and taskforces. The page should be unprotected ASAP, although maybe semiprotection to stop IP editors would be reasonable. I mean the template is on my (and many other) watchlists, if it gets vandalised it will be reverted almost immediately. King of the North East (T/C) 23:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally disagree with the choice, however the move is technically correct according to WP:PROT, since Template:Football is an "editorial template that need rarely to be changed". In any case, there are a number of admins in this WikiProject (including I) who can modify such templates on request. --Angelo 23:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for this editor

An anonymous editor has been going around changing a number of articles on promising young players to say that they play for Manchester United, and then editing the Manchester United F.C. Reserves & Academy page to reflect their edits. None of their edits have been sourced, and often overwrite much of the player's history. Another IP was conducting similar edits last week, and there was also a registered user who I believe to be a sockpuppet of these IPs following a similar agenda. I recommend this user be reported at WP:ANI, but I'm not sure if that is the appropriate course of action for anonymous vandals. Suggestions. - PeeJay 11:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I really hate all those paragraphs about transfer rumours and links. These should be removed at sight, as I did right now. That's all you can do, there's still not enough evidence of what you say and, by the way, blocking IP ranges is supposed to be avoided when possible. I would instead consider semiprotecting such articles in the future, and only in case the user don't stop. --Angelo 11:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Okay, I'm sorry, I didn't realize the real impact of the user's edits. Block IP is an option in this case. Sorry again. --Angelo 11:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look to me to be anything requiring more than the relevant warning (probably {{verror2}} in this case). Report them at Administrator intervention against vandalism if they persist after a final warning. If an IP has never been warned a block request is likely to be declined. Oldelpaso 12:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I had a added a missing warning (he had none), before your post. I put him on my watch. I am a firm believer in catching and warning every instance of vandalism and reporting to AIV when they go over the limit. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 12:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Undiscriminate/unsourced changes of caps/goals

If I add plus one to caps for a player, I indicate that he played this Sunday against so and so. I do not see anybody doing that, just wildly changing caps/goals to the point that they are totally unreliable. Today I see this guy who from Sept 16 to Sept 18 (so far) has posted countless cap jumps, some significant without remorse. I reverted two of his in pages I watch. What are we supposed to do here? Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 21:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Lately there's been quite a few people who ONLY update stats, and it is annoying. I wish they would spend their time making more positive contributions, rather than overwriting the same thing time after time. I think as a bare minimum, people should put something in the edit summary and also update the pcupdate/ntupdate parameters. I must admit that I don't always mention the latest opponent, but that is because I usually only update the stats as part of another edit, and usually only for club games and where the stats are serveral matches out of date. As to what we can do, we can warn people, and even block them, but I think in the long term we should try to educate people (maybe a guidance comment at the top of the football infobox would help?), and also encourage them to make positive contributions to the text in Wikipedia rather than focusing purely on numbers. --Jameboy 23:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User Talk:89.216.191.30 adding caps(goals) indiscriminately and all unsourced. Sometimes adding big jumps. See: his contributions. Keep an eye on him. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 18:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Denis Law

Hello all. I'm just about to nominate Denis Law at WP:FAR. The promotion was nearly two years ago and with the tightening of areas such as WP:CITE, WP:MOS (for which the Law article has many problems) I do not believe it would get close to FA today. Thoughts/objections before I go ahead? The Rambling Man 08:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The original nom hasn't edited in over a year. I think the article has issues but it could be easily rescued. I think an FAR would be good for it. Unless someone is willing to take it on that is. A good copyedit would benefit it hugely. It also needs an image from somewhere. Woodym555 11:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll take it to WP:FAR. Compared with the only other footballer FA (Bobby Robson), there is a considerable amount of work that needs to be done. The Rambling Man 11:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's done. All contributions to both the article and the FAR are greatly appreciated. The Rambling Man 11:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You forgot about Gilberto Silva also being FA :-), but your point is a good one, there is a significant difference in quality. I have a book on Denis Law somewhere, will see if I can dig it out and contribute. --Jameboy 12:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, cough, I meant ex-footballer, obviously...! The Rambling Man 12:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have listed as being FAR on the main page. The link is Wikipedia:Featured article review/Denis Law. By the way, i have rejigged the Featured content on the main page. Can everyone look at the discussion above for what else needs to be done (In my opinion anyway). Thanks. Woodym555 12:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Main footy page overhaul

I have had a go at fulfilling my statement made earlier about reorganising the main page. I have created a draft at User:Woodym555/Sandbox for your perusal. The main points to note are:

1. Manual of style moved to near the top, Reason= Most people will come here looking for advice.
2. Removed news section, (hidden at the mo)Reason= intermittently updated, not used, serves little purpose. if kept, should robably be renamed to Project landmarks like MILHIST have.
3. Created an open tasks area that consolidates existing sections. Reason= This creates a centralised area for editors looking to get involved.
4. Showcase revamped. Reason= I have split up the mammoth table. We at footy have simply got too many great articles! I think it also helped to split up those articles that have been under review and failed etc. This is hardly notable enough to have in a table with those that have passed. Real Madrid for example has had several FAC nominations with the statement - our club is better than those featured, so it should be featured.
5. Article improvement drive removed (hidden at the mo) Reason=inactive.

I have numbered them for easy rebuttal. I submit my proposal. (Would prefer if you didn't edit any stylistic changes into the proposal without consulting here or at least leave a good edit summary :) Thanks Woodym555 01:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about changing the table of Featured / Good articles for a while. There were maybe a dozen when it was created, but now it is huge. An "articles requiring comment" section was what I had in mind, so certainly I'd agree with that change. Oldelpaso 11:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would move all current FA and good articles to a new sub page, along with all past peer reviews/FACs. I agree about only keeping current PRs and FACs on the main footy page. Dave101→talk  09:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we already have enough subpages at the moment. I think the showcase is good on the front page because it shows what the project has done. It also shows editors what the articles should look like as well as the MOS pages do. The current spate of Featured Lists are all mimics of each other because editors have seen what other people are doing. I think the fact that no-one knew the links subpages existed shows that subpages are less effective in this case. What do people think about the other changes? Given the size of the project now and the number of editors, could we not think about creating an in-house review section much like the Milhist review page. Most people who comment on the Peer reviews and FACs are editors from football anyway. Is this viable, do we have enough editors to make it work? Woodym555 12:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the MILHIST page made by transclusion? I don't see the point in shutting off articles from the main peer review page, but a pages which transcludes all the football-related ones in the same place may be useful. Oldelpaso 12:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep it is transclusion. Although it does have its own Review pages, sometimes bio reviews are transcluded there. It should start off as a transclusion. Woodym555 12:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

An anon ip (someone not logged in?) came up with a good solution. Per this oldid, we could use collapsible tables. It works well in my opinion. It does not take up much space yet it lists them all. At least we could use it for the previously reviewed articles. Woodym555 13:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with all Woddy's suggestions, and would also support the use of collapsible tables, in fact I was about to suggest it myself when I noticed somebody else got there first :-) ChrisTheDude 12:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In case you hadn't noticed, i have now implemented the changes and included collpasible tables for all of the featured/good/reviewed articles. Woodym555 17:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Most extreme case of recentism ever........?

Boston United F.C. - the section on "Re-Building The Pilgrims For 2007/08" is longer than the section devoted to the club's entire history! ChrisTheDude 23:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the usefulness of such a paragraph? I would remove it all, if you agree. --Angelo 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The section also just looks like a list of transfers, which I'm sure are discouraged from club pages. Peanut4 23:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, hard to justify its existence. A sentence in the history about changes to the squad should suffice (IMO of course). Woodym555 23:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed whole section. Davnel03 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tamworth F.C.

Can someone please help keep an eye on Tamworth F.C.? The user User:Stew jones is reverting mine and User:Robwingfield's edits. The user is at least giving a reason for reverting Rob's edits, which are to the "Notable Players" section, which needs changing anyway, as its subjective and POV. His revert to my edit is changing "Current squad" to "Current First Team Squad", which is against the MoS and is incorrectly capitalised. Also, he's adding bold for player's who have been capped internationally and Transfers, which, funny, we've just been having discussions about, which we all know what the outcome's have been.. Thanks, Mattythewhite 06:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice that there's no discussion about it on Talk:Tamworth F.C. Perhaps a politely worded explanation there would do the trick. Oldelpaso 08:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried engaging him in discussion in the past on other articles to no avail, as have others. I'll add something to Talk:Tamworth F.C. anyway... robwingfield ^«T•C» 11:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here we go: Talk:Tamworth F.C.#Disputes around style and notability of players. robwingfield ^«T•C» 11:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Current season in infobox

Relating to a previous discussion, please note this edit to S.K. Brann. We need to come to an agreement about whether this is acceptable, if it is, add a new parameter to the infobox, if not change the footy MOS. I am undecided at the moment, anyone who feels strongly either way should make their case. King of the North East (T/C) 10:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree with adding a new parameter to the infobox. Better leaving the old separate box, or even better to include nothing at all. --Angelo 10:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not particularly a fan of the club season articles, but if they exist, it makes sense for them to go in the infobox. Number 57 13:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That was me. I follow the dicussions in this page and will follow whatever consensus that is reached here. I made the change because it was a better solution than using the large {{current sport-related}} template. Rettetast 22:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Question re: old-timey playing positions

As I'm sure you're aware, we now have stub categories for players based on playing position and decade of birth. If I create a stub for a player from before the 1960s and the source gives his playing position as "centre half", should I use the stub category for a midfielder or a defender......? ChrisTheDude 12:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that an "old-timey" centre-half would fall under the category of "midfielder". However, it is difficult to determine an absolute date for when the centre-half migrated from the centre of midfield to the centre of defence, so I understand your dilemma. - PeeJay 12:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I had the same problem with Jack Pitt. He was a wing half. After a bit of pondering I categorized him as a midfielder in the end. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 13:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the old positions could be grouped into "full-backs" (right-back and left-back), "half-backs" (centre-half and right and left wing-halves) and forwards (outside right, inside right, centre forward, inside left, outside left). I would class the full-backs as defenders and half-backs as midfielders, while the forwards are obvious. - PeeJay 13:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think centre-half might be the only one which would cause the problem cited above because, as you rightly point out, over time it changed from a midfield position to a defensive one. Full-backs have always been defenders and centre-forwards always forwards, and if a source lists a player as "left-half" or "outside-right", terms which were essentially abandoned along with the 2-3-5 formation, you know where you stand, but with a centre half, especially one from the 1950s/60s, it's not so clear cut.... ChrisTheDude 13:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, this seems like somewhat excessive stub sorting to me, I don't see how it aids navigation or finding something to work on, but maybe I'm wrong. Robotforaday 20:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sections about players' international careers

This is a topic that's been bothering me for a while; Should player pages have a chronological biography or should they be sectioned off into club and country? I guess there's no hard and fast rule needed, but I prefer the chronological way (e.g. see the Javier Mascherano article).

Over the summer, I put a lot of time and effort into rewriting the Fernando Torres article, but have come back to the site after a period of inactivity to find that it has been re-sectioned from chronological into club & country. My gut tells me to revert it to back to the way it was written (this version) partially because I prefer it that way, but also because no rewriting has gone into the re-sectioning, it's just a mindless copy&paste effort — it reads better in the order it was written.

Anyway, because I'm feeling lazy I thought I'd try to have a discussion about the issue before doing the editing. Who prefers each way? Why? Should I revert the article? aLii 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question. I tend to separate out once there is enough info to create at least a 'stub' section for the International career, purely because I think the article jumps around too much if you are constantly switching between club and country. Each seems to flow better if you deal with them separately. I wouldn't like to see a hard and fast rule though, I think it should depend on the player concerned and the editor's preference. For example, if someone only won one or two caps, it might be better to merge it in. If an article reads well I think the section order should be left alone. --Jameboy 15:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer splitting it into Club career and International career sections myself. Although the two careers run in parallel, and affected by one another in terms of injuries and stuff, they are separate and, in my opinion, they should be treated as such in the player's biography. - PeeJay 15:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally Prefer splitting because club and country are different levels of football, although chronological order has certain advantages. Like Jamesboy I wouldn't like to see a hard and fast rule. I would suggest that there are hundreds of player articles out there needing expansion, infoboxes, appropriate categories etc, maybe it would be better to focus on improving them, rather than simply reordering fairly comprehensive articles. King of the North East (T/C) 16:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I personally prefer club and country seperated, as for me, that makes it easier to navigate, rather than cutting from one to the other all the time. But having said that, I wouldn't go into articles that are already well written and well organised and go changing it just because that's my preference. We don't need a hard and fast rule. Robotforaday 20:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I much prefer splitting into club and international career. However they are not entirely independent of each other obviously and I can't see any problem in references to each other particularly international in club. E.g (and this is quickly thinking off the top of my head), say for Emile Heskey. In club section, you could say. "His form at the start of the 2007-08 season for Wigan earned him a shock call-up to England after X years." The international section could then give more details about it. Injuries would obviously take affect in both, particularly the likes of Beckham and Rooney in recent years. Peanut4 21:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Either way can work. I'd advise keeping it in whichever format was being used first on a particular article - there's no point making changes for the sake of it. Oldelpaso 15:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding current season tables

Hi, on the Aston Villa F.C. Reserves and Academy there are a number of tables that i think are not really relevant to a wiki. Mainly these are the 2007-08 tables of games played and of Under 18 top scorers. Should i just remove it all? Seems incredibly WP:RECENT to me. Comments? Thanks Woodym555 14:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with your point. Note they are not relevant to Wikipedia, not "to a Wiki" where they may be relevant, depending on that particular wiki's aim. Just thought I's point out the distinction as I have seen that error made before. :) Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 15:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was a typo :( .I am sure that some wiki, probably a football one would have it. I don't think it is even relevant to Wikinews. Woodym555 15:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Football FAC need feedback

2007 UEFA Champions League Final and James Milner are current FAC which are in desperate of feedback. Buc 11:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also List of Liverpool F.C. managers which is a current FLC, that could do with some feedback NapHit 14:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Great London? London?

Do you think Old Trafford is in Manchester, or Greater Manchester? I go through the wikipedia articles, and found that the whole part of London is called "Great London". So is it need to say that Emirates is in Great London? I couldn't get the sense. Raymond Giggs 14:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's actually Greater London, not Great London - see that article for an explanation of the difference between the two.... ChrisTheDude 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Old Trafford is in Stretford in the borough of Trafford, which is part of the metropolitan county of Greater Manchester, but is not in the City of Manchester itself, as my fellow blues delight in pointing out. London is an unusual case, as the City of London has a special meaning, and London can be defined in a number of ways. This can all get rather confusing for a non-native. In short, Arsenal's ground would generally be referred to as being in "north London". Oldelpaso 15:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Regular use for Arsenal's ground would definitely say it is in London. Old Trafford, though I would say isn't in Manchester, but is in Trafford, Greater Manchester. - fchd 15:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Because PeeJay keeps editing into "Old Trafford, Manchester" all times, in this year's Champions League and Carling Cup article. Raymond Giggs 16:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

*Rolls eyes* Talk about name-dropping. Anyway, should we really be using counties when a town/city would suffice? Surely it would be better to put "Old Trafford, Stretford" or "Old Trafford, Trafford" instead? Similarly, how about "Emirates Stadium, Islington" and "Stamford Bridge, Fulham"? - PeeJay 17:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that regular use places Manchester United (and Old Trafford) in Manchester similarly to clubs in Greater London being placed in London. --Malcolmxl5 17:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

High level category renaming proposed

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 27#Category:Footballers by club and subcategories. I think I'm right that the top level category should be renamed, but the subcategories should not. Perhaps someone from this project can drop by and comment? Apologies for the late notice (not my nomination). Cheers, Xtifr _tälk 03:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Request rename proposal (Liga)

The Swiss 1. Liga should be renamed, in order not to confused with La Liga (Spain), Portuguese Liga, Liga I (Romanian), or all these "Liga" should be considered, likes the great work for Bundesliga. Matthew_hk tc 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets get a merger with this...

I feel S.S. Lazio records and statistics and S.S. Lazio European record only needs one article, obviously there needs to be a clean-up too. Opinions? - Soprani 17:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They can be obviously merged. Do it, then I'll come back to delete the unnecessary latter article (Lazio European record, I mean). However, it is better not to include unnecessary and superfluous information, such as match lineups, referees, --Angelo 17:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC) In second thought, I would just delete the latter and keep the only relevant information, i.e. the first two boxes, in order to merge them into "records and statistics". No need at all to include all lineups, referees, scorers and so on for each of the finals, this clearly fails WP:NOT (indiscriminate collection of information). --Angelo 17:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

West Ham United F.C. player subcategories

I'd like to nominate the deletion of the West Ham United F.C. player subcategories:

• Category:West Ham United F.C. captains
• Category:West Ham United F.C. defenders
• Category:West Ham United F.C. forwards
• Category:West Ham United F.C. goalkeepers
• Category:West Ham United F.C. midfielders

As far as I know, these are the only categories with the club & position combination, and looks like overcategorization to me. Chanheigeorge 21:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is the only club with these sub-categories then I would support this. --Malcolmxl5 21:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, get rid of them, we have position categories, we have club categories, we don't need this intersection. ArtVandelay13 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put a requested category merge at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_1#West_Ham_United_F.C._player_subcategories. Chanheigeorge 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There's also:

• Category:York City F.C. defenders
• Category:York City F.C. goalkeepers
• Category:York City F.C. midfielders
• Category:York City F.C. strikers

--Jameboy 22:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Added requested category merge at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_1#York_City_F.C._player_subcategories. Chanheigeorge 22:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ref infobox?

I'm about to create a bundle of stubs on the ref's at the 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup but can't seem to find an appropriate infobox for them. Has someone else already created one for refs/assistants/officials? 86.21.74.40 21:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that there is one yet, but I think that it would be a very good idea to create one. - PeeJay 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've mocked one up at User:Nanonic/test based on the football player infobox, you can see it in action at User:Nanonic/test1. I would welcome comments from people on whether this is appropriate (especially from those more familiar with match officials and their status) before I move it over into the template namespace. Nanonic 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine. Fedgin | Talk 07:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This has now been moved into template space at {{infobox football official}}. Usage instructions are included. Nanonic 19:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Real Madrid C.F. Matches 2007-08

One of the weirdest articles I've ever seen around here. Please enjoy it and then tell me your opinion; do you think we might consider deleting it, considering we already have a Real Madrid C.F. 2007-08 season article? --Angelo 20:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Should be nommed for deletion as a lower quality duplicate. Does Spain have the same copyright rules as Britain? Am i correct in thinking you are not able to list the games until they have been played? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodym555 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that Spain's laws are more relaxed than in Britain. As far as I know, you can post the entire fixture list freely. Nevertheless, the page should be deleted due to the existence of Real Madrid C.F. 2007-08 season. Perhaps a redirect to that article should be set up in place of the fixture list. - PeeJay 22:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I just nominated this article for deletion after a PROD request of mine was contested. Discuss the matter here. --Angelo 15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Adamboyd.jpg

I did not upload this image, but does anybody know of any criteria that can help save this pictur from deletion, as it helps improve the quality of the Adam Boyd Good article. Kingjamie 16:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's not much that could be done to save that particular image. I'm sure there's a way of getting a free alternative. - PeeJay 17:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It fails WP:FAIRUSE #1 and might fail #8 as well (does it really add significance to the article? I doubt it). All you can do is to look for a free alternative. --Angelo 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Although he isn't a regular at WP:FOOTY, I happen to know that User:Bretonbanquet is an Orient fan - maybe it would be worth asking if he's got a camera he could take to a game and try to snap Mr Boyd in action.....? ChrisTheDude 23:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris, that's a good idea Kingjamie 18:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war with the Liverpool F.C. home kit

Can the group please help settle an edit war with the Liverpool kit graphic? It shows no sign of ending.

Normally, it looks like this: a simple representation of the kit, with some detail:

Original

However, User:Xhandler seems intent on changing it to this (his own creation), which has more detail than the simple kit graphic can handle (it doesn't particularly represent the real life kit)

Xhandler

What's not up for debate is that the crimson colour used on the second image is dead wrong. So - little help? ArtVandelay13 21:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Real Madrid C.F., Manchester United F.C. Have small details, don't see why Liverpool shouldnt (when they have more or less the same adidas design as Real's Home one). And the one you want doesnt represent the real life kit in any way. Chandlertalk 22:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[29] [30] [31] Chandlertalk 22:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have two criticisms of the kit that User:Xhandler did. First, the kit is not the right shade of red. It should be closer to what it was before. Second, the lines on the kit body should be smoother. Try doing this with Adobe Photoshop or something, not just shitty Paint, and maybe anti-alias the lines too. Other than that, I don't see why the kit can't have a bit of detail, like the Man Utd and Real Madrid kits do. - PeeJay 23:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would avoid overly detailed or exact kits for a number of reasons that mainly boil down to a) maintaining the page when the kit's change and b) copyright. For b) we all know how anal wikipedia is about copyright's and the UK laws regarding copyright and intellectual property include the design of clothing. So, if you're going to use an overly exact miniature of a licenced kit, make sure you either file it under a very very very good fair use exemption or have attained the permission of both the kit maker and the club itself. If you're going to go even further and include miniature logos, then consider the fact individual clubs licence their use separately and that the Football League have succeeded in preventing all kinds of companies (including Panini stickers) from using them through the courts. In short, simple is best. Nanonic 23:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you. Too much of detail is quite unnecessary. --Angelo 23:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I made some small updates Chandlertalk 02:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with including minor details is that they look a lot more intrusive at the size of the kit template than they do in real life. See the Manchester United or Middlesbrough shirts for examples. Let's just use the template as it was originally intended, to give an indication of the colours/kit used by the club, and not try and include each individual manufacturers' trademarks and foibles. - fchd 05:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep it to the simpler version - trends in shirt such as the decorative stripes etc. change more or less every season, and it is better to get an historical overview of the kit than delve down into petty details. That said the football kit templates do look a bit dated, and there are so many of them it can be highly confusing when putting them together. I might start seeing if there is a compromise between making them simple and making them pretty. Qwghlm 09:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it just my monitor/eyes or has he changed the colour of the kit since you made all your comments above? I mean you're all talking about it being the "wrong" red, but I see those two kits as being the same colour. aLii 00:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I changed the design too.. that's what the "Well I made some small updates" comment was... Chandlertalk 04:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Club Deportivo Sahara Español

Is this club notable? It seems to be part of a Mexican amateur division called Adecmac soccer league, and I sincerely doubt about the actual notability of the amateur league itself. Thoughts? --Angelo 13:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Burnley F.C.

On Burnley F.C.'s page there is a section of club records. But the section also includes a top five list of current players of appearances and goals. Is this not a tad bit of WP:Recentism? Peanut4 23:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

England youth team players

I note that most of the players in the squads for England national under-17 football team, England national under-18 football team and England national under-19 football team have had articles created although very few of them seem to have made any first-team appearances for their clubs. Does playing for England at this level make them sufficiently notable to have articles yet - or has someone jumped the gun? Daemonic Kangaroo 12:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Football (soccer) says these are notable, although it references a discussion ongoing at WP:FOOTY/notability. 84.64.25.108 13:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's news to me...... ChrisTheDude 13:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Youth players are not notable. Punkmorten 13:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

News to me too; they haven't been considered notable until now (and from what I recall, the vast majority have been deleted at AfD for not having played in a fully-professional league). I certainly wouldn't say the U-17 world cup is the "highest level of football". Number 57 13:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly consider them non-notable as well. - 14:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs)

Definitely non-notable, and maybe even eligible to speedy deletion in some cases. WP:BIO is clear: only players who played in a fully professional league can deserve an article. Period. --Angelo 14:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because a player hasn't played in a league doesn't prevent an article being created. As long as they meet the general criteria at Wikipedia:Notability then there shouldn't be any prejudice to addition (this has overturned some AFD's in the past). Also, since everyone here has thoughts on this issue, would this be a good time to finally ratify or thrash out our notability page? 84.64.25.108 14:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is valid only in a few exceptional cases in which notability is established (for instance) by massive media coverage, and surely not for every 17-year-old boy anonymously growing up in any club's youth system. The football notability page has never achieved full consensus behind it, and it's been inactive for a long while, so consider it as a kind of draft with no official value. --Angelo 14:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would say that any player who has played at national U-21 level or above is notable, whether they've played in a professional league or not. Anything below that, i.e. U-19, U-18, U-17 levels, is not notable, in my opinion. - PeeJay 14:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In major countries, all national U-21 team players are also fully professionals. The only exceptions could come from minor countries, such as San Marino, Andorra and a few others, but I deeply doubt about the notability of such very minor players who often come from fully amateur clubs and have no media coverage at all. --Angelo 15:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see where you're coming from. It's difficult to think about this on a worldwide scale, rather than just the major nations. - PeeJay 15:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many U-21 players are notable, even if they are not playing in a fully professional league. However, I don't believe that all U-21 players are notable (they should have sufficient mentions in reliable sources, etc. to meet the general notability criteria). Jogurney 16:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you give any examples of any U-21 players who don't play in a professional league, but that you think are notable? - fchd 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've successfully argued for keeping many youth player's articles. If you want to save the player I suggest that you find some media coverage of them. This added to youth international appearances is generally enough to sway any AFD into non-concensus, and hence a "keep". aLii 15:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

International players in football club squads

An IP user is changing lots of football club squads, bolding the players with full international caps. As I see no reason at all to do so (club level is by definition different than international), I am considering to revert all this stuff (which, by the way, looks a bit weird), as you can see here. Let me know your opinion on the matter. --Angelo 16:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been done en masse to what seems like the majority of major teams. To me it seems unnecessary. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 16:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Completely pointless. Mattythewhite 16:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pointless and ugly.King of the North East (T/C) 20:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's exceptionally pointless when applied to teams like Man Utd, where pretty much the entire first-team squad is an international. - PeeJay 20:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely ugly. Get rid of it I say. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 19:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• 88.109.247.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), another ip, properly same person. Matthew_hk tc 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Bolded for International caps

See F.C. Barcelona squad list. Is it me or is it an irrelevant idea? El-Nin09 15:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#International players in football club squads for an earlier discussion. Try not to fragment discussions. Thanks. (and no i don't think it is a good idea!) Woodym555 15:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite the general consensus against bolding internationals in the previous discussion, little seems to have been done about it see: Sevilla, Barca, Atletico, Bilbao, Benfica, Sporting, PSV, Ajax Bayern Munich and VfB. Thats 10f from just 5 minutes of looking. We really should prepare a case against it and start reverting it before it spreads out of control. King of the North East (T/C) 18:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. I have to admit that i haven't even reverted it to Aston Villa F.C. yet. I suggest the reasoning used is thus: To maintain continuity amongst football (soccer) articles International caps should not be bolded. This is for several reasons. For teams such as Manchester United F.C. every player will be bolded. Playing at an international level means different things for different countries. To play at an international level for England/Brazil is on a different scale to say the Faroe Islands or Samoa. Bolding makes no distinction between the number of caps. If the fact that they have played for the national team is notable, then it will be listed on their individual and national team articles. The current squad lists are discussing what they have done for their club and not what they have done for their country. (We could write something to that effect in the Footy MOS.) Woodym555 18:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Ditch. The Rambling Man 18:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Woodym on this also. Govvy 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely ugly. Ditch. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 19:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Woodym, wording to that effect would be great, you have my backing to put it in the MOS. King of the North East (T/C) 19:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, i have added in a section on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs MOS page called To be avoided. Might be worthwhile if people checked it! Could probably expand it with other stuff like famous supporters sections. Woodym555 19:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen how many articles do this. Hertha BSC Berlin, PFC Levski Sofia, St. Mirren F.C., Lillestrøm S.K., ADO Den Haag, Olympique Lyonnais, Galatasaray S.K., Neuchâtel Xamax, Kilmarnock F.C., NK Dinamo Zagreb, VfB Stuttgart, Valenciennes FC, FC Sion, FC Metz, Helsingborgs IF, Everton F.C., LASK Linz, IF Brommapojkarna, Strømsgodset I.F., Columbus Crew, Stabæk Fotball, Borussia Dortmund, FC Basel, Rangers F.C., RC Lens, FC Dallas, Celtic F.C., Motherwell F.C., 1. FC Nürnberg, AS Monaco FC, Red Star Belgrade, FC Schalke 04, Real Zaragoza, Eintracht Frankfurt, AZ (football club), Sparta Rotterdam, SC Heerenveen, FC Girondins de Bordeaux, Hammarby IF, SV Werder Bremen, APOEL FC, AIK Fotboll, OGC Nice, AJ Auxerre, FC Sochaux-Montbéliard, Hannover 96, FC Lokomotiv Moscow, FK Austria Wien, FC Groningen, Getafe CF, VfL Wolfsburg, Odd Grenland, Sporting Clube de Portugal, FK Sarajevo, AEL 1964, Hamburger SV, FC Red Bull Salzburg, SC Bastia, Malmö FF, Beşiktaş J.K., AS Nancy, NAC Breda, Racing de Santander, Le Mans Union Club 72, FC Utrecht, Willem II Tilburg, FC Metalist Kharkiv, Vitesse, GAIS, New England Revolution, ... the list just goes on and on. I think we should make absolutely sure that if policy is against doing this, that policy is well documented, and that if there are any users who are still bolding the names of players with international caps, they are made aware that such edits will be reverted. --StuartBrady (Talk) 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Rasitler seems to be rather keen with bolding international players. Should probably have an an eye kept on.. Mattythewhite 19:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Have fixed a large number, 80 or so. Phew! --Malcolmxl5 21:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ive just done another 50 or so, UEFA 06-07, 07-08, and Champions league 2007-2008 participants. King of the North East (T/C) 21:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

i do not see the harm in showing what payers have received the honor of playing on the national level.like i feel it shows that these players are some of the best in the country and that it should be shown. but that is my belief on the subject. and sorry for putting them in for the swiss leagues i will take out any that i see for i did not know before =X. (RissederEngel)

I quite like the idea myself. While in smaller clubs it works one way, when you get to bigger clubs, such as Manchester United, it also shows which players do not have international caps. - fchd 06:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea; but, just bolding the player names may be confusing (are they the team captains? new players? etc). Since most players have their country's flag beside their name, maybe we can develop a standard which modifies the flag icon in some way for international-experience players? Neier 06:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Another confusing factor arises with players like Darren Anderton if he gets bolded in the A.F.C. Bournemouth squad, it implies that he has played international football whilst at Bournemouth. If people want to list this kind of information it could be done on Templeton United statistics, or perhaps on Templeton United international players, this would have the added benefits of listing former as well as current players that are internationals, and differentiating between Templeton United international players and Templeton United internationals (with other teams). King of the North East (T/C) 11:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gillingham F.C. actually has a section showing all players who have ever won caps while at the club, broken down into current and former players. Obviously this would only work for clubs with comparatively few international players...... ChrisTheDude 12:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I really fail to see the usefulness of indicating international players within a football club. International history of players regards only a single subject, that is the player. There's no link at all between international caps and football clubs, in short. Come on, Wikipedia is not a football almanac. --Angelo 15:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For a small club like Gillingham, though, it's a major event if one of its players is capped..... ChrisTheDude 15:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For which national team? Being capped for England is different than being capped for Liechtenstein, I hope you agree with me. In this case, you would agree we cannot establish international caps as "absolute" relevant facts, due to the fact they have different importance according to the international team. --Angelo 16:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Angelo I completely disagree. I see international caps as relevant information, no matter what the country. Being capped means you are among the best players in that country, and it is completely irrelevant that you would need to be considerably better to gain such recognition in another country. - fchd 18:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• 88.109.247.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), another ip, properly same person. Matthew_hk tc 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)