Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

New article bot

Doesn't seem to be working anymore. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Its owner, Alex Bakharev, is on holiday at the mo. Should be back on 9 August. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 Summer Olympics - Day −2

Let's have a laugh! --necronudist (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not too sure we should have a laugh at a new editor's expense to be honest. Why not talk him/her through the fact that this article isn't exactly ideal instead? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm too old to be kind. --necronudist (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've prodded it. – PeeJay 14:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Flags in infoboxes to show manager's nationality etc

Is there a local consensus here to ignore the provisions of WP:MOSFLAG in club infoboxes? My removal of decorative flags from Heart of Midlothian F.C. sparked an interesting conversation at User talk:John#Hearts/Flag icons. I'd be interested to know if this has already been discussed; I was sure it had. --John (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, the general consensus was that flags were not necessary in players' infoboxes, but were acceptable in club infoboxes for the chairman and manager, as the chairman and manager are not always from the same country as the club, whereas a flag is not required to identify a player's place of birth, national team or club team in the infobox. – PeeJay 15:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

PeeJay's summary of previous consensus is spoton - flags are not to be used in player's infoboxes (mainly because of issues some browsers seem to have with it), but can be used in club/nation infoboxes for chairman/managers. GiantSnowman 16:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"It was announced that"; grrrrrrrr

The phrase "It was announced that" is rapidly becoming my greatest bête noir on Wikipedia. Typical instances might be

   "On 31 July 2008 it was announced that Fred Bloggs had signed for Melchester Rovers FC."

Either it was announced by a reliable source, in which case we simply state it as a fact, giving the appropriate citation, or it came from a dubious source, in which case it has no place in an encyclopaedic project. It is the fact of something happening, not the announcement of that fact, that comprises encyclopaedic content. Occasionally, the circulation of a rumour is worth reporting, but if the phrase is widespread, it ceases to serve as a warning that the press may have been muck-spreading, and simply diminishes the apparent confidence of an encyclopaedia in its facts. Am I right? If so, is there any way that this can be established as a house style, at least in the articles under this project (which is where I have seen it most), so that we can free ourselves of this feeling of being uncertain and denying responsibility for what is posted on so many statements? Kevin McE (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, I would agree with you. However, there are some instances where a future event is announced in advance, in which case "It was announced that..." would be appropriate. As an example:

   "On 31 July 2008, it was announced that Fred Bloggs would be signing for Melchester Rovers FC on 6 August 2008."

Do you see my point? – PeeJay 15:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Granted, but in that case it should be changed after he signs, or fails to do so. Kevin McE (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally with you Kevin McE. It doesn't matter that it was announced. The relevance is he did it. In your above example, it should simply say "On 31 July 2008, Fred Bloggs signed for Melchester Rovers." Simple. Peanut4 (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

But that information frequently (usually) isn't available, as contracts aren't public. All that is frequently (usually) known is the date on which the signing is announced. See the thread on WT:MOS on the same issue. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

But why on earth do we need exact dates? In three years time, all that will be relevant is that he signed in time for the 2008/09 season. If these dates are important, is anyone going to go back and add such minutiae to the articles of retired players? Kevin McE (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And if it's sourced then the source will most likely show the date of the announcement, should future generations be desparate to know that Fred Bloggs' signing was announced on August 1st as opposed to July 31st....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Dating is a little over done but it's massively helpful in constructing timelines - it's frustrating when you just get a month and it's not clear if it happened before a certain other event. Anyways - The "announced that" thing is indicative of all Footy player articles: recentism to the extreme. Is anyone really looking at wikipedia to see when something new has happened? Still you get the random people who "announce" complete tripe. On a separate note: it has been announced that Xabi Alonso is move to Fenerbahce! greatly turkish team! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bloody war at Gökhan Inler

It's a real siege. He HASN'T signed with Arsenal, neither Udinese ever talked with Arsenal. Sorry for Arsenal vandals... Please somebody protect the page...there are something like thousands edits in a day. Pretty exhausting. --necronudist (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Who decides the Golden generation?

Who decides which players are part of the Golden Generation as people just seem to be including favorite players without references. Dwanyewest (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources, of course. Anything unsourced, feel free to nuke. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Klasnić

I was just wondering, since Klasnic was born in Germany and did live there for his whole life until recently, how is he an Expatriate footballer that played in Germany? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I would guess it's probably because he plays for Croatia. – PeeJay 22:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Added to the tendency of some editors to go over the top when it comes to nationality, ethnic origin, or religion. He isn't an Expatriate footballer playing in Germany, nor is he a Bosnia-Herzegovina footballer. Foreign-born footballer who played for Croatia, and German-born footballer who played for another national team, yes. A helpful guideline is at WP:BLP#Categories, which says that "the article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Another question: Ivica Grlić, born in Germany, played for Bos-Herz. Understandably the category "Bos-Herz international footballers" is listed. Same with "Germans of Bosnian descent", a true statement. But then the category "Bos-Herz footballers" is listed (I'm getting confused just typing this so bear with me). Is he really a Bos-Herz footballer? If so then how can he be German of Bosnian descent? I hope that makes sense. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine - a player can have more than one nationality, and this can be represented in categories. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Irish season articles (both NIR and IRL) for 2008-09

1. I just completed the setup of the IFA Premiership 2008-09, but I had problems filling the "Team changes" section due to the recent competition changes applied by the Irish FA. So, could somebody more familiar with the topic please provide the necessary information for this section?
2. Would it be OK if I adapt the FAI League of Ireland 2008 season article to the use of fb templates? This is currently the only article not using those structures, so it would add to the uniformity of UEFA league articles for 2008. However, I do not know if such a change would be accepted. I already left a comment on this article's discussion page, but nobody has answered so far.
3. Speaking about the FAI League article, wouldn't it be better to split up the article into three smaller articles? The current format includes the first three tiers of football in Ireland, which, in my opinion, creates an information overkill and prevents quick and easy access to the desired facts, not to mention the confusion that may arise over three different (although related) competitions in one page. Hockey-holic (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding point 3, I wouldn't split the article. We manage perfectly well with the likes of The Football League 2007-08. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "season" at the end of FAI League of Ireland 2008 season be removed? All other spring-fall leagues have it that way (except 2008 LFF Lyga which maybe should be moved as well) — chandler — 16:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the word "season" should be removed, but when referring to a league season, don't we usually say "the 2007-08 Premier League" or "the 2007-08 Premier League season", rather than "the Premier League 2007-08" or "the Premier League 2007-08 season"? Therefore, wouldn't it be prudent to put the date first in all season articles? – PeeJay 16:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better to have the year(s) after as it's easier to list them together in categories wither other leagues etc. — chandler — 16:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about at least removing the word "season" for consistency; I had actually been thinking about this as well. I don't see anything in the MOS or elsewhere regarding whether the year should come first or last, is there no standard defined? This does seem to be inconsisitent across competitions. SunnyDSunnyD (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Amaury Bischoff

This article doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE, does it? If so, Why? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The article claims he has played in the UEFA cup, if that is true then I think it would pass WP:ATHLETE Natcong (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, I found a minute by minute report on the UEFA website that lists the appearence, here Natcong (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That link doesn't work for me. I was just unsure if the statement was true or not. How many players play a UEFA Cup match before making a league debut? If that link works for you and it says he played then all is good! Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the link (and it does confirm he came on), cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

With Werder Bremen, the number of players who played UEFA Cup before making a league debut is three, IIRC. Kevin Schindler, Martin Harnik and Amaury Bischoff were all part of the Werder reserve team, but were used in the UEFA Cup before playing for the first team, if my memory serves me right. Madcynic (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Tranquillo Barnetta

Can anyone have a look at Tranquillo Barnetta? An IP and and a user want to insert (unsourced) transfer speculations. I tried to talk to them but the user only claims "it's true" and the IP doesn't answer at all. --Jaellee (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this article was rather 'busy' when I was looking at wikirage some hours ago. No doubt there are reports that Barnetta may be moving to Middlesbrough but a) Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and b) being true does not mean these reports are suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedic article. Persistent insertion of these unencyclopedic edits is vandalism in my book though I see it has been quiet since midnight. I have put the article on my watchlist. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have just reverted User:Mitch884 for placing the same speculative 'report' about a move to Middlesbrough on the article and given him a polite message to stop doing it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe he'll see reason if other users also tell him that Wikipedia is not the place for speculations. --Jaellee (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just reverted him again and given him a final warning. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree that wiki is not a newspaper. No matter how certain the move is to occur, restrain from mentioning it until it is actually confirmed. Even when a player is constantly being targeted, its not worth mentioning one bit. Speculation (no matter how strong) has no place on wikipedia articles.

And just of this case, this article could use a very quick and basic re-wording cleanup. I'd be happy to expand it as much as I can but I'm really busy on other articles lately. I'll consider expanding some time in near future. Domiy (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Professional?

Are the Major Indoor Soccer League and the USL Second Division fully professional? Punkmorten (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

USL-2 is fully professional. --JonBroxton (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the MISL is as well, but I'll wait for more assured statements from someone else. matt91486 (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

MISL was a professional league before it ceased operations, yes. –  LATICS  talk  22:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Assistant-manager templates

We're not starting these, are we? - Dudesleeper / Talk 10:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, that's too much... Mattythewhite (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD it then...! Nothing as entertaining as a fight over pointless templates or navboxes! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable players sections

Are there any guidelines as to which players can be included in the Notable players sections of football club articles? A few days ago I came across the article AFC Ajax, where someone had listed just about every player who has ever been signed by Ajax. I'm sure this is not the intention of such a section, but where do we draw the line? Aecis·(away) ^talk 11:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually it's 100+ league appearances or an international-team appearance(s) while at the club. There may be others, but that should help weed out a few over there. - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another useless squad template

I think this squad template is way too much. A template for all squads playing in the Olympics is really unnecessary, we already keep templates for World Cup and Euro squads, and that's quite enough. Opinions? --Angelo (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in Olmypic templates. I'd also like to hear opinions on the Annan Athletic squad template, where only one player has an article, I find it pretty pointless. Also, the Gretna squad template, which is useless as they are no longer in the SPL or SFL. Ck12 (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the result of accepting Continental templates... Why a Continental competition yes and a World competition no? Pretty comprehensible... --necronudist (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Football at the Olympic games is open only to under-23 players, with no more than three over-23 additions, so it's a different thing. And, actually, I can't frankly remind of the Italian squads at the Olympic games, as well as other teams. --Angelo (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:2008 Summer Olympics squad templates just adding this, too show that there exist (at least) 3, there might be others uncategorised. — chandler — 15:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

These squad templates are annoying ... can't wait for {{Players in the 2008 Olympics who put on their left boot first}}. I can somewhat see creating templates for the winners, but not for every team in every competition. –  LATICS  talk  16:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with necronudist. Your argument, Angelo (open to U-23 players), is correct nowadays: but in the past, nations sent their best team to Summer Olympics, for example Hungary in 1952 and most notably other Eastern Europe countries. Olympic templates cleary match the current consensus on squad templates, but not the former (WC + current club team squads).--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Blackburn Rovers F.C.

User:Tombo1984's edits at Blackburn Rovers F.C. seem quite concerning - he persists that "team" starts with a capital T, which it clearly doesn't and removing players who are in the team's first team squad, as according to their official website's squad list. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

List of leading goalscorers for the German national football team

Should this list be merged into the German national football team article? Seems a bit pointless having a seperate article just for the top goal scorers of a particular nation or club. --Jimbo^[online] 20:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Alpaslan Erdem

Does this article qualify for speedy deletion or AfD since it is basically a duplicate of Alparslan Erdem? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Set up one as a redirect. But why does the source spell his name another way, i.e. Alperslan Erdem. Peanut4 (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have set Alpaslan Erdem up as a redirect to Alparslan Erdem. – PeeJay 00:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Alpaslan article is spelled differently because I kept reverting edits relating to his transfer on the original article. Once I found a valid source, I added the transfer info into the original article. Then I went to add him to the Galatasaray S.K. Squad and found him linked their already. Compare my edit to the edit previous on the Galatasaray article. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bored?

Have a read of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#30,382 articles related to soccer players if you haven't already. Some interestingly ludicrous points. Enjoy. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be a good time for members of this project to expand some of those stubs. Earlier this year a fair number of football articles were at FAC and most passed. However many weren't footy bios. By my quick maths we have just two football bio FAs, and 40 football bio GAs. That's 1 in 15,000 at FA and 1 in 750 at GA. Peanut4 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Good analysis, Peanut. --necronudist (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweet Gene Vincent, that EconomistBR really doesn't want to let it drop does he? Shall we have a sweep on where he'll next raise his "point".......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Witch and hunt were the first two words that came to my mind. I thought the discussion at WT:N had finished so took it off my watchlist, only for him to raise it somewhere else. Peanut4 (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

At some point, I feel as though he's nearing crossing a line with his constant crusade against athlete articles. It's a relatively minor inconvenience, but he's gone so far as to state, but then recant and merely strongly imply, that we're a dishonest cabal. matt91486 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

He seems obsessed with the idea that footballer articles are all "permastubs", however he's way off the mark there - only 10% of articles on English footballers are stubs at the present time....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Croatia national football team - is this paragraph POV?

Currently there is a small edit war going on between some users (including myself) on this page. The SUPPORTERS section keeps getting changed, and the reasons specified is that the mentioned incidents are a 'serious breach' and should not be written in a praise-worthy manner. Although I would partly agree with this (partly!), I dont think it is written in a praiseworthy manner at all. Need some suggestions on this then, and would really appreciate it seeing as it is a nominee for an FA!.

QUOTE -

Despite such infamy, Croatia have also earned popular attention for their supporters. During the 2006 World Cup, a Croatian supporter managed to evade security and make his way onto the field, approaching the Croatian players and interacting with former striker Dado Prso. The trespassing fan was later caught and arrested, despite being respectfuly noticed by the media.[58][59] Such passion was repeated during Croatia's away fixture at the new Wembley Stadium, as their fans made notice amongst London prior to the victory. In comparison, the English fans were surrounded with criticism.[60]

Similar success was further pursued at the final tournament, eventually leading to Turkey's shock victory in the quarter finals. The national football federation prompted to hire professional assistance for distraught fans.[61]

- UNQUOTE

I think that communicates the events in a really professional manner, with no direct signs of praise or biased language. Any suggestions or thoughts on this? Or would anyone else agree that this is too biased and praise? Domiy (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What does "their fans made notice amongst London prior to the victory" actually mean???!!?! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It means they made notice amongst London prior to their victory. In other words, they were remembered in the media and by English fans for making a supporting atmosphere in celebration of their victory in London. Especially worded like it is, I detect no biased language there. Its really worth mentioning that it was actually the Croatians celebrating in London while the English fans were criticized and upset. If you could think of a better way to word such content then I'm more than up for suggestions or feedback. Domiy (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is it worth mentioning? Croatia won, fans were happy, England lost, fans were sad. Happens everywhere - winners happy, losers sad. I agree with the implication of User:ChrisTheDude that phrase is not great English. Add to that being respectfully noticed by the media and Similar success was further pursued at the final tournament. I also think the comment that Turkey's victory was a 'shock' is POV. Who considered it a shock? certainly not me.--ClubOranje^Talk 12:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you approach a native English speaker for a thorough copyedit. I'm afraid just about every sentence in that paragraph needs work. And yeah, per ClubOranje, some you win, some you lose. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm the fellow involved in the "small edit war" although I would hardly characterize it as such. Domiy, everything makes it to media notice these days. The appearances of the Croatian team in the media are not especially noteworth in any way. If you go to the sources cited, I don't frankly see how you can extract from them what you're writing. Oranje had it right - winners happy, losers sad - nothing more than that. From reading the source cited for the "national federation hiring professional help for the distraught fans" you're making a huge stretch. It reads more like an tabloid newspapers drumming up a tale to sell more papers.

There is more than one comment here about the need to fix up the language of the article. The English is not particularly good and when married to a clear attempt to cast the Croat side in the best possible light rather than taking a neutral, encyclopedic approach you're getting something of a mess. As stated above, several parts of the Supporters section just don't make any sense to read as written.

I've not just worked in the Supporters section. I've copy edited (as a native English speaker) two or three other portions of the article to make them cleaner and easier to read, as well as to remove peacock terms or bits that might be construed as POV. I did it at the Zambia national team article, at the German team article - all over as a matter of fact. I don't have any kind of axe to grind here, I'm justing taking my turn at patching the article up. I replied to your earlier note at my talk page and you may wish to consider the points I've made there. Wiggy! (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiggy, I appreciate your copyedit. Its really helped the article and I thank you for that. But there are small points which I feel are worth putting forward, also based on your reply on your talk page. I'll start with Oranje's comment of Turkeys 'shock victory'. While the terming may be considered POV (MAY!), it certainly needs to be mentioned in a distinguished manner besides the ordinary victory. Croatia, on top of being billed as favorites prior to the match also had a fatigue advantage as they rested players for their previous game wile Turkey fought to the death and even had a number of players suspended or injured. On top of that, they dominated the entire game (literally!) and scored in the last minute of play. With a refereeing error, Turkey managed to stun everyone and score with the last kick of the game and then win the penalty shootout. If thats not a shock to you, then you must have really seen everything to consider that anywhere near a normal victory. Just like I said with Wiggy, football is emotional but such emotions shouldnt be mentioned on wikipedia. Although I think that you need to include such relative information to help users really understand the point. Like for example if San Marino beat Brazil, I'm certain that it wouldnt just be a simple case of saying "San Marino earned their first victory by beating Brazil". You need to mention the fact that it was an unlikely surprise and that Brazil are 5 time World Champions while San Marino have never won a competitive match. Things like this need to be considered. Hence, it was a shock that Turkey won. I think the statement that the federation hired pro help for the fans is a big issue. Part of FA criteria is that the article does not neglect any major facts. This I feel is a major fact worth mentioning!

And again, I appreciate the effort of your re-wroding, but you have turned it into another statement that slightly neglects some facts. The supporter that entered the field during the 2006 World Cup wasnt really seen as a celebrity or hero by his countrymen as you stated. I specifically initially wrote such info based on what was true (and the refs can back this up). It was actually the general World Cup media who promoted him more. He wasnt really proclaimed much in Croatian culture. It was the media who actually said that such passion hasnt been seen for a while and that the fans support and athletic ability deserved to be awarded as he pointed out numerous security flaws. We'll never know how many future field invasions that fan has stopped by alarming the security so much that their barriers are easily passable. I dont think such needs to be mentioned as it is way to hypothetic, but you need to make sure you dont neglect the major facts. He was NOT a countrymen celebrity, he literally was a worldwide celebrity for that short time. I'm just going by what the references say and what pretty much every news story said, so I think that deserves to be slightly changed.

Again, as it may sound like I'm making excuses for the actions, I'm just trying to ensure that all the facts are known, thats part of a good article. Another example is the Nazi shape during the 2006 friendly. It needs to be considered that such actions have never occured before and strangely enough only took place in Livorno, a state full of communism past and present. Thats why I initially noted them as 'domestic Croatian fans', I think that sums it perfectly. While its not good to make it sound biased, its also even worse to make it sound like you are giving a bad name to the subject article. Consider the rightful facts before you decide on the prose wording! And I mean that in the most kind of manners, just sharing my opinions. Domiy (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I happen to agree that there should be some sort of mention of Turkey's victory. (I watched that game and couldn't believe my eyes.) It just needs to be framed up right and put in the proper place. The follow up stuff on psychiatric support for the fans doesn't wash and isn't supported by the reference that was cited.

I don't see the guy on the field being such a big deal. It was just a guy on the field. But to describe him as being lauded by the world media is kinda silly. The problem is that the incident was described in an over the top manner in an article full of other incidents/events being described in an over the top manner. Its not reading as encyclopedic or evenhanded. You can't write the article like the team or the country is at the centre of the universe and expect it to be taken seriously if everything is some kind of magnificent. If the field invader wasn't a celebrity in Croatia, he sure wasn't any kind of global celebrity. It boils down to a trivial incident being overplayed by the media. I just don't see that portraying him as some sort of global hero works for the article. CROATIAN FAN SAVES WORLD FOOTBALL! RESTORES GOODWILL BETWEEN PLAYERS AND FANS! RETURNS PASSION TO THE GAME! IDENTIFIES SECURITY BREACHES AND SAVES THE FUTURE OF THE SPORT! WORLD PEACE FOLLOWS! Um. No. If everybody pulled that sort of stunt there would be no football. He's already had his fifteen minutes of fame and served his "purpose" by providing some fresh copy for the reporters at the tournament. The rest of the world has moved on.

As for the swastika, that was another incident in a string of unsavory incidents involving Croatian fans. What makes it a big deal is the fact that the team and the federation ended up being fined and facing sanctions over repeatedly uncivil behaviour by the fans. It is part of a pattern of off the field behavior that could have affected the team on the field. And that's not something unique to Croatia. There have been similar problems in Italy, Germany, and other footballing nations. "Domestic Croatian fans"? "Only in Livorno"? That's putting too fine a point on the whole thing for the average reader. I don't recall any more recent problems of the sort involving Croatian fans, but it was clearly an issue early on. If its resolved then maybe the section should end with some sort of comment about how Croatian supporters have conducted themselves in a more positive manner in recent years.

Again, I think its important to be evenhanded and non-sensational. The tone and content of the article should be encyclopedic and the really trivial stuff has to be weeded out.

I'm sure it'll come together over time. Wiggy! (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Due fairness, fair enough. Alas, I dont know why you keep saying that he approached the Croatian players "there". I think that stating more specifically that he 'interacted' with Dado Prso is a more revealing prose. You even went ahead and stated he was accompanied of the field by the player, again failing to mention his name. At least give me that. Domiy (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Caps - what qualifies?

With international caps, a number of players are listed as having caps which exceed the actual full international appearances. What is Wikipedia consensus on cap count - full A internationals, or appearances for the national team. To clarify, New Zealand (and many smaller back water nations) pay their national team agains visiting club sides from bigger footballing nations - eg Southampton visited NZ and played against the national side. Steve Sumner, who was captain for several years is listed as having 105 caps, yet only actually played in 58 full internationals against other national sides (as far as I can tell). England perhaps has similar situation with so called B internationals. I would think only full A internationals shouldd be noted as caps.--ClubOranje^Talk 01:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it had to be a FIFA recognized senior cap to qualify. B teams are sometimes listed seperately, if listed at all. But as far as I know, National sides against Club sides aren't FIFA recognized and thus shouldn't count toward a players caps. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the above statement. Only full A internationals should be listed as those are the only ones that are officially recognized by FIFA. The.Narko (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree in principle with Hubschrauber and The Narko, I wonder about how that fits with the display in the infobox, where the field enquiry is caps, but the display is Apps {appearances). Steve Sumner made an appearance for NZ against Southampton, but did not gain what FIFA (or I) would regard as an international cap that day. Does the infobox display need to be changed? And what do we do with a case where the only international appearance was in a non-international? Kevin McE (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is why I asked the question. I have been noting total appearances in the text, and updating infobox to full international caps only, but I then noticed Sumner was listed in All Whites article as cap record holder - which I believe actually belongs to Vaughan Coveny according to this information. The caps vs apps argument for infoboxes could be carried through to club appearances too, but we have a consensus on league appearances only qualifying for that (although I believe it should be official competitive appearances for club stats, but that is a different argument).--ClubOranje^Talk 10:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• There was a similar discussion in Scotland after we played a friendly against a Hong Kong Airport Workers XI (or some such) when the dreaded Berti was manager. The SFA argue that the game should count as an international (probably because it was one of the few games we won while Berti was around) but FIFA told them otherwise. I think the consensus has been to keep that game in their appearance totals, but to qualify it (see Lee Wilkie for example). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Gambrinus liga

This appears to be the only remaining article on a league which is under the sponsored as opposed to unsponsored name. A move request has, however, been rejected twice, in large part due to an inability to agree on what the unsponsored title of the article should actually be. Could we try and thrash out a definitive unsponsored name and then put in a fresh move request............? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say 1. Liga (Czech Republic) or Czech 1. Liga, which matches Czech 2. Liga. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would second a move to Czech 1. Liga. Alternatively, I would suggest Czech First League in order to get rid of the ordinal in the name. However, if the latter is deemed acceptable, Czech 2. Liga would have been moved to Czech Second League as well for consistency matters. Hockey-holic (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Czech 1. Liga is not bad.--Latouffedisco (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Importance scale

On the imoprtance scale it says that "Teams with nationwide notability. Players or managers that have participated at international level or in a top-level league. Mid-level leagues." get mid-importance. The question I have is: How exactly do you assess nationwide notability? Just by playing in a nationwide league seems inadequate to me, as teams such as 1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig certainly have that notability, in spite of playing tier V. So, historic feats must be taken into account too. Would that mean that for instance, any team that has won a European competition (no matter which one) is mid-important? Would you go so far as class a winner of national championship or cup as md-important automatically? I'm asking, because there are a large number of articles on German clubs that lack an importance rating, and I'm trying to get the hang of it, so to speak. -- Madcynic (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say they are still of mid-importance due to their record from the GDR period. It would be similar to a club in a major country that had significant success in past decades but has fallen on hard times in recent years, eg Nottingham Forest. Mid-importance is quite a broad spectrum really. Only the top 20-30 clubs in Europe should be high importance. Most professional teams will have mid-importance because most professional teams have a nationwide notability, even if they are not in the top division at that time. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Points for being the successor club to Germany's first national champions? A founding side of the DFB. So they at least inherit some of that glory, I would guess, and that should maybe get them mid importance? Wiggy! (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

IP 79.77.111.24

The above anon editor seems to be working their way through Category:Darlington F.C. players, adding some very useful stuff (infoboxes where there are none, honours) but at the same time removing anything they don't like such as WP:Persondata and unused parameters in existing infoboxes. I've pointed them at the infobox documentation, hopefully they'll take note, but people may want to keep an eye out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember an anon who was editing Darlington player articles and was removing Soccerbase links. Probably the same person. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a different IP doing the same a few days ago. Peanut4 (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Might rephrase the bit about useful addition of honours. This diff has Andy Crosby winning a 2004 playoff final with a club he'd left in 2001... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

MLS All-Star Game?

Junior Stanislas‎ played in the MLS All-Star game for West Ham, but has not played in a competitive league or competition, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Is this game notable enough to keep the player as I prodded the article and it was contested saying he played in this game? --Jimbo^[online] 20:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it was just another pre-season friendly though no doubt the MLS All-Stars are a big deal in the States. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Faroese Premier League

Are players from this really notable? I assumed the answer was so obviously no that it wasn't even worth asking, but the way this AfD is heading would suggest otherwise... пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

On a different but related note, I've just noticed that there are individual season articles for this league for every season from 1976 onwards, but all under a sponsored name which wasn't adopted till 2005. I really can't summon up the energy to move them all right now...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved all the articles accordingly. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not eager with amending WP:ATHLETE for all top-flight players regardless of the country they come from. Playing with teams such as S.P. Tre Fiori of San Marino, UE Sant Julià of Andorra or USV Eschen/Mauren of Liechtenstein is not a proof of notability, and it just cannot be. These league receive little or no coverage at all, it's just ridiculous. --Angelo (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've uncovered six more foreign players from this league with articles: Milan Kuljić, Vlada Filipović, Rafał Kwieciński, Levi Hanssen, Ralph van Dooren and Jacob Bymar. All but one have been created by the same user (User:Shustfan), who has !voted keep on the article currently at AfD. I'll prod them all, but he'll almost certainly de-prod them. We seem to be really getting bogged down in AfDs at the moment, not helped by a certain user doing a lot of de-prodding, keep !voting and DRVing... пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Rafał Kwieciński was a long-time pro in Poland, Ralph van Dooren played in Eredivisie and Eerste Divisie, Jacob Bymar is an Under international for Denmark and played in Superligaen. So? --necronudist (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, that's not what the articles say. They only list appearances in the Faroese league. If you can add their stats, please do. Also, youth caps are not deemed to confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually articles don't tell the whole story: see Rafał Kwieciński, Ralph van Dooren, Jacob Bymar. --necronudist (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I've deprodded and added the stats. Can anyone with access to Playerhistory.com say if Milan Kuljić has played professionally? пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

He played in Druga Liga Istok (Div.II East) and Druga Liga Zapad (Div.II West) in 2001-02 season and was on Bosnian Radnik Bijeljina roster in 2002-03 season (stats unknown). --necronudist (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Division in Serbia and Bosnia - I don't believe they are professional leagues. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a clue. --necronudist (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Footballer of the year articles

In Germany the Footballer of the Year title has just been awarded. As I was looking at the list I was wondering why its name is not 'List of German footballers of the year'. Actually all those articles (from all countries I mean) are named xy's footballer of the year, but most of them are just lists and there is no reason why they should be anything else. But per Wikipedia:SAL naming conventions their name then should be 'List of xy' if anyhow feasible, which is actually not the case. To make my point, I was wondering whether these article should be renamed.

Regards, OdinFK (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent seasons

User:Concertmusic has been adding "Recent seasons" tables to a number of German clubs. They cover the last ten years of the club's history. Is such a table necessary or should notable league positions rather be explained in prose? -- Madcynic (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the very definition of WP:RECENTISM? I would advise either having a table showing all club's history (better in a separate article entitled X F.C. seasons), or nothing at all. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in it, especially if there aren't articles on the seasons in question. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and if you're going to have a reduced list, it makes sense to have the most recent seasons, as it contextualises the club's current state. It's also fairly commonplace in the football media. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Definitely seems like WP:RECENTISM to me. By all means create individual season articles and move the info there, but it has no place on the main club pages. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like recentism to me too. As Number57 says, I would suggest putting all, preferably in a separate article, or none at all. Peanut4 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Might be nice to marry the two ideas outlined here and include a section that lists the ten most recent seasons (which is short and simple) and ends with a wikilink to a page which includes a complete historical record for the club. That would be a pretty neat resource in a standardized format. Wiggy! (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Wiggy's solution is a good one. For some clubs, we don't have the resources to have all seasons listed some places, so it's best to get down the information we can. We have lots of issues with Recentism in the project, but we shouldn't be overreacting to things. We just need to do the best we can with expanding historical data with the manpower that's willing to do it. matt91486 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Edition"??

There's a teeny tiny thing which is annoying me about some of the articles on football competitions (such as the 2007 FIFA Club World Cup, various FA Cups and some Champions League articles. Please note: these are not "editions" of competitions. There are no edits made. There are no editors to make edits. These competitions are not books or newspapers, and the word "edition" is utterly and completely wrong when used in the context of a football competition. Please stop using it: use "competition", "staging", "season" - anything but "edition". El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a stab in the dark but I guess this is courtesy of our US friends. For what it's worth, I agree - it's annoying. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"There are no editors to make edits" - how do we correct it then? :-) Agree with you though, I'll try to amend this where I encounter it. --Jameboy (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that seasons of competitions should not be referred to as "editions". I usually change this wherever I see it, and I will make an extra effort to do so from now on. – PeeJay 11:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Edition is not derived from to edit; the verb is derived from the noun, which in turn is derived from the Latin dare (to give) with an abbreviated version of the prefix ex-. An editor was originally therefore someone who puts out a publication (not someone who hones and adjusts it) on puts on an event. It is perfectly valid, etymologically, to describe the 2006 World Cup as the 18th edition of the tournament, even if it is not to everyone's taste stylistically. Kevin McE (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps a common use argument should apply here. But I'm unsure as to whether the rest of the world (outside the US) use such a turn of phrase. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is, etymologically, ok to use (although I have actually seen no source whatsoever that links the latin to putting on an event) it, but all that basically means is that you would be fine to use it at the Roman World Cup in 10 AD instead. In no dictionary that I have found is the word "edition" in any way linked to any type of competition, including American ones. To use it for competitions, in the modern world, is wrong, regardless of the history of the word. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is frequently used by journalists and commentators, so it is rather arrogant to declare it to be "wrong". My reference to the etymology of the word was to refute your illogical assumption that it is necessary to have edits made in order to have an edition,and I refer to an English words with Latin roots, not the Latin language, so your sarcasm is ill-directed. It is a valid word choice, even if not to everyone's choice. Kevin McE (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That said, it's entirely unnecessary to use it when there are so many equally cromulent alternatives, so we should still avoid it if it's going to raise some people's hackles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up with a reply that incorporates the word "embiggen", but I just can't do it :( – PeeJay 12:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Weeeeell, it's not really a valid word choice, even if it is "frequently" used by journalists and commentators (and if we're going to roll with the anecdotes, then I can honestly say I've never heard it being used when referring to sporting competitions), because the lack of dictionary-ratified use as a reference to sporting competitions would suggest that it's a neologism, and should therefore be avoided. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 12:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was unaware that there was a big difference between British and American usage with edition. In the US, it's pretty acceptable to use and there is no connection in that context between editing and editions. matt91486 (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested page move Assistant referee (association football) → Assistant Referee

Just dropping bu as I recently came accross the page named at the top. You'll probably be able to guess from my username why. I thought that given the redirect page would appear to be a shorter title without the brackets that it would make more sense for the current redirect page to be the name of the current title and the current title being the redirect page. BigHairRef | Talk 22:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this title came about because of the merge discussions on Talk:Referee (football)#Merger and the potential conflict with Asst refs in Ice Hockey. Also can some admin or whoever merge Talk:Assistant referee (association football) and Talk:Assistant referee together, it seems the latter talk page was forgotten on the last move. 81.79.98.52 (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understood it in Ice Hockey the officials are still named "linesmen"? In either event having the page Assistant referee as a redirect dosen't seem sensible.

It would make more sense (IMO) for it either to be the main page for the association football officials with a {{for}} tag at the top of the page to the Official (ice hockey), or for the page to be a disambig for all the potential uses of assistant referee? BigHairRef | Talk 13:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Manchester United F.C. records and statistics

Hi guys. I don't normally canvas like this, but after initial interest in this FLC, the discussion seems to have stagnated a bit. If people could take a look at the article and make some more comments, that would be awesome, and some Support votes would be even better. Also, to those who have already commented, I have responded to all of your concerns, so feel free to reply to me. – PeeJay 15:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Alex Brash

From reading the article, it appears that Brash played in Scottish League First Division for (at least) the 1984-5 season. Is this accepted as a fully-professional league, in the spirit of WP:FOOTYN? CJPargeter (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Scottish First has always been fully professional -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For info, it's worth looking at the league at the time; Scottish Football League 1984-85. From what I can see, the league contains what are today four semi-pro clubs and ten professional clubs. If this was the typical composition of the league until the restructuring in the 1990s, I would suggest no. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's only really in the last 10-15 years that most of the SFL1 teams have been fully professional. In the 1980s it was the exception for teams to be fully pro. St. Johnstone won the First Division in 1990 and 1983 as a semi-professional club. The player concerned would more than likely have played in a Scottish Cup or Scottish League Cup game between two fully professional teams, however, and he also played in an unusually good Forfar team in the early 1980s. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this rather expose why professional/non-professional is a fairly useless basis for judging notability, and that we should be concentrating on a level of football instead? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm dismayed that somebody who played over 500 senior first-team league matches – including the second-highest level in Scottish football – would be considered for deletion. This feat alone is surely worthy of encyclopaedic value? Disappointing that so much effort goes into deleting new articles. •Oranje•·Talk 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

500+ games isn't that interesting, there must be plenty of players who have played that many games at semi-professional level. Graeme Armstrong is interesting despite never playing fully professional football because he set the Scottish Football League record for appearances. Brash played for the best Forfar team I can think of (the early 80s team that was well up the First Division and reached a cup semi-final), but there's nothing particularly notable of itself there. Although I suppose there is a argument that someone who has played 500+ games at semi-professional > someone who has played <10 games at professional and then quits football completely, but I think that is an argument for creating a higher bar than 1 game as a pro makes a player notable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Player History

Would it be helpful to set up a subpage somewhere where an author could request help from someone with Playerhistory access? We could just do it by sections, where someone requests and someone with access can quick just respond with team - app - goal data for them to incorporate in their own article? matt91486 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest, what makes Playerhistory a reliable source? Insofar as I can tell from the outside, it's a collaborative resource which invites contributions from those with "good knowledge of soccer (football)". Some months ago, so you'll have to take this as purely anecdotal as I doubt I could find the thread again, I was reading the forum, where what appeared to be established editors were arguing the toss about sources for a particular player's clubs/apps, and the "sources" were largely stuff I wouldn't consider remotely reliable. Now I may have got the wrong end of the stick, and without having access I couldn't see what actually appeared on the site for the player in question, but it gave me no confidence at all in their methods. Perhaps someone who knows how it works could put me right on this? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In essence, playerhistory.com is just a wiki - it's people adding stuff. There also seems to be little/no verification needed for adding information about a player, which is something that worries me about it. So I'd take quite a lot of what is on there with a pinch of salt. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I was also under the impression, you shouldn't really add sources which are for subscribers only. While, it's useful to add the stats where they don't yet appear, they will eventually need a separate verification anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's a pity, though; a reliable source of stats for more obscure players/teams would be nice... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be one of the benefits to we Americans generally having a more enthusiastic view of statistics that most of the American professional sports have pretty solid databases online. I suppose it's not ideal to have to use playerhistory, but sometimes it's all we have to double check something. I thought on their application for submitting stuff they required a source listing though, which is at least something to factor in. matt91486 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a PH contributor and I can tell you it isn't a wiki. Members are the most "reliable" in football research (like Pierre Lanfranchi) and the work we do is extremely sourced. We've solved many obscure cases and we've found rare data. PH si for football what ISOH is for the Olympics. However, I can't spare data 'cause it's all copyrighted, and it is a pay-site so as you can easily understand it's not possible to share it. --necronudist (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How can statistics that are taken from other sources be copywritten by that website? That doesn't make a bit of sense. Especially so if we're referencing it as the source of the statistics. matt91486 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ask to the admin... --necronudist (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity then, how has it been used as a source at all before? matt91486 (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just looked at the "Disclaimer" on that site - their terms and conditions are absolutely amazing! Basically you have to agree that all your contributions are your own work (yeah, right!) and then "waive any moral rights to your contribution" so that from the moment it is submitted, you are giving away the copyright from your hard work to www.playerhistory.com! I certainly won't be signing up for that, or to view at a minimum of 99$ (I presume USD?) for 6 months. - fchd (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It certainly seems a little ridiculous to me. All we can do with that attitude is hope that the sports-reference network starts to put together a site on worldwide football. I've never heard of, say, Baseball-Reference being against being cited as a source. matt91486 (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt: I'm the admin and owner of Playerhistory.com It's very easy to take copyright on data when you collect it from old newspapers. We have data which no one else have in many countries. If i see anything copied to other sites without my permission i'll be very angry. We have spent almost 7 years making playerhistory so i hope you understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 16:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you have created an article about yourself. Perhaps you would like to add some verifiability to your own article about yourself to show why you are notable, and your commercial website, which you also created, to show why that may be notable and which you have happily advertised on Wikepedia contrary to Wikipedia guidelines (Please be sure to quote reliable sources without original research), while an admin considers speedily deleting them. Oh, that's right, you already opposed that. Perhaps they will need to go through AfD.--ClubOranje^Talk 11:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Alexa ranking for the Website is well over 100000. Does it meet WP:WEB? - fchd (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, if you get information from newspapers, the newspapers retain the copyright. You do not have the authority to claim copyright over a) facts in the public domain, or b) other peoples work. That's how it would be in the UK at least, it may well be different in Norway. - fchd (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That depend how old the newspapers are, same about photos. They are not copyrighted forever. And i can assure you that we NEVER use Wiki as source. A site with more errors and wrong facts is hard to find. An example is Bovar Karim. First of all Mohammed is NOT his middle name. Second, Bovar has never heard of Mohammed Karim (His so called father) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 16:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about the expiry of copyright, 75 years or something. That still does not give you the right to then claim copyright over that information AT ALL. Also, I've had a quick look around your forum - sources being quoted there include the RSSSF and www.tonykempster.co.uk - how do you have the bare-faced cheek to claim any sort of copyright of data picked up from those sort of websites? - fchd (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

fchd is right - you cannot claim exclusive copyright over public domain material, although you are perfectly free to use it in derivative works and claim copyright on them. However, the original material is still public domain no matter what and can be used by anyone, just as you have. In any case, sports statistics are not copyrightable in the first place - copyright applies to the expression of ideas and creative works, not bare numerical facts. Finally, for the record, Norwegian and indeed UK law are not very relevant to this discussion - Wikipedia's servers are located in the US and for the purposes of any discussion we operate under US copyright law. Qwghlm (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cheap shot at us. Much appreciated. matt91486 (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I totally was not intending for this to become a big thing. I just was hoping someone might be able to help figure out the career path and appearance data of Emílio Peixe a little better than I've been able to. Sorry for accidentally opening a whole can of worms. matt91486 (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I promise you Matt that is NOT a cheap shot. That is a fact. Try to check up on Bovar Karim then you see my point. Even many of the football logos you have are fake. Most lightly have they been taken from brandsoftheworld which have 40/60 in favour of fake logos. The problem with wiki is that it's to easy to contribute. People don't give a shit to check their facts and they are mainly copycats.

Emilio Peixe
União de Leiria 2003-2004 2/0
Sport Lisboa e Benfica 2002-2003 2/0
Alverca 2001-2002 Loan 7/0
FC Porto 2001-2002 0/0
FC Porto 2000-2001 2/0
FC Porto 1999-2000 21/0
FC Porto 1998-1999 13/1
FC Porto 1997-1998 1/0
Sporting Clube de Portugal 1996-1997 10/0
Sevilla FC 1995-1996 5/0
Sporting Clube de Portugal 1995-1996 10/1
Sporting Clube de Portugal 1994-1995 21/1
Sporting Clube de Portugal 1993-1994 26/0
Sporting Clube de Portugal 1992-1993 29/1
Sporting Clube de Portugal 1991-1992 27/0
Sporting Clube de Portugal 1990-1991 Apprentice 1/0

I've corrected Karim Bovar's article. --Latouffedisco (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bovar Karim is NOT son of this Mohammed Karim. Bovar does not know who this person is. I spoke to Bovar personally as he is playing in my city for Tromsoe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.40.206.84 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Football Guide

With what seems to be a recent increase in articles being created which are either clearly non-notable or simply poorly referenced, I've been thinking that perhaps we should create a guide for both new and established editors which could list the following:

• A quick guide to what makes players notable, perhaps in the form of a table of teams fully-pro legaues, arranged by country.
• A list of useful external links (e.g. Neil Brown, Player History, National Football Teams, Weltfußball, Soccerbase)
• Possible exceptions to standard notability rules.

What are people's thoughts on this? Any other suggestions for things that should be included? Cheers, GiantSnowman 13:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We've been sort of working on the league part earlier, it should be in the first archive now, so we can start work on that portion from there. matt91486 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You can try Soccerassociation

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability are both linked from the front page. Not sure if that's what you mean. --Jameboy (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure how it would prevent the creation of most of the non-notable/rubbish articles, though, as in my experience they're created by newbie editors who sign up and immediately create the articles before they've even had a welcome message. So by the time someone from the project saw the article and thought to point the creator to the guidelines, the article would already be in place....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Man Utd Task Force (MUTF)

Hi, I'm here to notify that the Manchester United task force is up and running. If you want to join, feel free. H2H 13:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Graphics help needed

Hi, could someone who understands the kit protocol please take a look at the home kit on Huddersfield Town F.C.. The left sleeve, as you look at the shirt, should also be blue and white stripes. I should be grateful if someone would fix it, please. Smile a While (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow that was quick! Many thanks! Smile a While (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

commons:File:Captain sports.svg

I noticed this rather useless symbol cropping up all over the place in squadlists. In the spirit of the manual of style (Textual information should be entered as text rather than as an image) I've commenced replacing it with the word "captain". However, it is in hundreds of articles, so any assistance would be appreciated. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's getting on my nerves - how is it an improvement on the text? It's unclear and looks like the copyright logo. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree. We should all make a stand and remove the image whenever we see it. The same goes for bolding of international players. And those stupid new "injury" symbols which I have seen from time to time.--JonBroxton (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion might break all sorts of Wiki-etiquette, but if the use of the symbol is not justified, can the image not be deleted, or proposed for deletion? Kevin McE (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that would be the appropriate bit of process and frame up a proper formal debate. I don't note that the image is being used for anything else. Wiggy! (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The image is on Commons. As it is used on some other Wikipedias, it is unlikely to be deleted. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of it. It removes the potentially useful link to captain (sports) and is non-standard. I tried deleting it on Commons twice but to no avail. Qwghlm (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What over-rules what?

I've been working on 2000 Football League Second Division playoff final and I have a query about what sources over-rule others. The contemporary match report from The Independent, which I've used as a source, states that Wigan's Stuart Balmer slid in in a vain attempt to stop the Gills' first goal, however I've got the video which the club released of the TV coverage of the match and it was in fact Arjan De Zeeuw, not Balmer. Obviously, based on WP:V we should go with what a reliable source says even if we know, off the record like, that it's wrong, but in this instance could I use the correct info and cite the video/TV coverage....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, good question. There's a Cite video template, and there's no problem with citing from pretty much any medium as far as I'm aware. I think whatever you are wishing to cite would need to be stated in the match commentary or analysis for you to use it though. I would have thought that that relying on your own observations of the match would constitute WP:OR, if not WP:POV. I could be wrong, I just think that anything with a visual aspect could be open to interpretation, depending on camera angles, the viewer's knowledge of the players etc. --Jameboy (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cite video includes a quote parameter btw, so you could include quote from the commentary to assert the relevant fact. It may be worth trying to find another printed source for the match report, but if the error is widespread I would add a footnote to acknowledge as such. --Jameboy (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

At the most basic level, if the cite from The Independent is clearly wrong, doesn't that make it invalid? While TI may generally be a reliable source, if you have evidence that definitively refutes the source, as in this instance, I don't see how you can use the cite. We all make mistakes. Even reliable sources. Go with the truth and give TI a pass in this case. Wiggy! (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In the pace of a football game, it's very easy to pick out the wrong man. And in the cut and thrust of meeting deadlines, it's also easy to write the wrong name in copy. I think common sense prevails over WP:RS in the first instance, and using the video to correct the name of the player. You can always add notes to any footnote, or add a specific footnote, to explain which player did what. Peanut4 (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Birmingham Post agrees it was de Zeeuw {NewsUK - use your library card if it asks) and so does the Daily Mail [1], Birmingham Mail [2], Belfast News [3], The Guardian [4] and no doubt lots more. Nanonic (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently "my institution has not been setup for barcode access" - could you tip me the relevant details of one of the articles so I can cite it........? Cheers!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Found it another way, cheers for the tip, though. Maybe I can pinch my parents' libary card numbers, they live in a different region :-) - ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, Newsbank (which may be the same thing as Newsuk) is accessible via library details (my library gives me a pin number which allows access to Newsbank, Times Digital Archive etc and also works for library stuff like renewing books online) or, if you go in through a valid link, without needing your own login, so its links are usable for referencing. For instance, this links to the Times report of that game, and should be freely accessible. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The things you do when you're bored - User:Foxhill/internet reference sites accessible with a valid UK Library card (needs updating tho). Foxhill (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

An additional resource which I've used before is Access World News; it's an American university resource, primarily, and it can be accessed by logging into a host university's library website. matt91486 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Overcategorisetion

This was already deleted, but it came back again yesterday. Can it be speedy deleted or does it need to go to CfD again? EP 13:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Players now passing WP:BIO

Just to let everyone know, there'll be a few more players passing WP:BIO due to the start of the new season, so there should probably be some deleted articles brought to WP:DRV, or notifying the deleting admins asking them if the respective articles can be restored. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Updating player stats

Sorry if this has been asked before but I wanted to ask rather than just edit away merrily and then find out that I'm screwing up. How are player stats (appearances / goals) updated in the infoboxes? Do we edit after each game? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes that correct, but at this point it is only league stats, although that may well be something we look into shortly.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  17:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Morrsion

I have just created This article after he made his professional début for Leicester, finally meeting the criteria to have his own article. However I know very little about him and so it is still very bare and so I am asking for help on getting more info with sources to improve it, particularly about his time at Cambridge, thanks for any help you can give. Skitzo (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Michael Morrison (English footballer) and not Michael Morrison (footballer)? I can't see any other footballers of that name. --Jameboy (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

because the Michael Morrison (footballer) article was locked and couldn't be created, I have no objections to it being renamed once that is no longer the case.Skitzo (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to the correct location. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

National team page crests?

OK Ive found a bit of a problem which seems to effect all of us. I nominated Croatia national football team as a featured article and while it is close, one of the main reasons it was opposed and not promoted as it seems is because the main image of the team crest is used. Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Croatia national football team/archive2 and see for yourself the comments that people left. They say that since it is a copyrighted image, every effort should be made to use a different one, despite its tag on the image source page. They recommended that I use a basic flag of the country to represent the national team! To me, thats obscured!

And obviously, I told them that this is the case for EVERY national team page on WP. Didn't seem to do much help as it seems. So, if we are going by what they argued about the crest, then that means every national team page has the same problem. Can I get some support or backup on this? How can I go past this? The Scotland national football team is a Featured Article and they have the exact same type of FIFA/UEFA Scottish crest on their page. I'm a little bit upset over the fact that clearly the same rules didnt apply for them as it would seem. Again, how can I back this up? I'm pretty sure they are able to be used, I'm just not too smart when it comes to image information etc. THANKS! Domiy (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The same user has been arguing on non-free content review that all crests should be deleted and replaced with national flags. One of the logos specified by the user is the present Scotland crest. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Is displaying spots for European qualification in standings futurism????????

A quote from the talk page of the Ukrainian Premier League 2008-09 article:

Andrusha, is it possible to include the templates for European qualification in your script? The current version looks a little, let's say, blank. If you need help with the code for that, feel free to contact me... Hockey-holic (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hockey-holic, no team has qualified for Europe for next season. Entering such information is futurism, IMO and I have flags in my scripts to allow it when necessary. Yes, the table looks blank - Because the season has just started. No one is relegated and no one is yet going to Europe for the 2009-2010 season - YET. Theoretically these kind of standings were only implied on by our team of contributors. I prefer the style the our Persha Liha has but to make any waves while the contributions are going on. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What the...??? I always thought that it is a very broad consensus to display those spots (as well as the relegation spots) in a standings table during the whole season and not just in case of a mathematically assurance of the spot. Or did I miss something? Hockey-holic (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that even though it does seem to be common practice, it is futurism and not a great idea in my opinion. You see things like "promoted" or "relegated" in the text captions when the team have played one or two games, complete nonsense. - fchd (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Football review page

Via the WP:GAN pages, I've just become aware of two projects which have their own review pages, WP:MILREV and WP:CHIREV. I was quite impressed with how handy they seem to be. How would other WP:FOOTY members feel about us setting up a similar one here? Peanut4 (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd definitely support this. I've been thinking for a while that our assessment department needs an overhaul. The current page doesn't make the process clear, and those strikeouts look horrible. --Jameboy (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Apparently review and assessment are two separate sections. I'd still support your proposal though. --Jameboy (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This certainly is a good idea. Let's get it off the ground ASAP! – PeeJay 00:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me, as long as there are plenty of editors willing to give it continued support. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 07:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that's one of the bonuses of creating the page. I used to contribute a lot to football-related peer reviews, FACs and FLCs. I do so less now because unless they are listed on the WP:FOOTY page, I don't notice them as much. And personally I think some of them get lost in a lot of information there. Having a separate page, I think will give a more concise central area of information for established editors to help out, but may also draw in new reviewers to contribute more. I'm sure, I'm not alone in seeing particularly peer reviews have only one or two people post comments. We don't all always have time to review everything, but I reckon an all-encompassing, central page, will make it easier for people to contribute more. Peanut4 (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else with any suggestions on whether the project adopts this review page? Peanut4 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Community Shield appearances - notable or not?

With the 2008 FA Community Shield coming up tomorrow, there is every possibility that Man Utd will give debuts to one or two of their young players. Therefore, so that we have a discussion to fall back on when articles for Rodrigo Possebon, Fábio da Silva and Rafael da Silva are created, I would like to know whether a player whose only appearance came in the Charity/Community Shield is notable or not. – PeeJay 10:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd be inclined to say so. It may only be a single match but it gains a fair piece of coverage. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It might only be a glorified pre-season friendly, but it is a professional first-team match, and passes WP:N itself, so according to policy, I'd say it was notable. More people will watch it than the Johnstone Paints Trophy games combined, and they allow notability. Peanut4 (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an official, competitive match, and a high profile one, so they definitely confer notabiity. User:ArtVandelay13 11:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

They are, unfortunately with the current limitations of the league only rules on the infobox it is likely that the stats will be added to the infobox. Game itself is notable though for sure.Londo06 11:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering do Rodrigo and Rafael get a medal/honour for being part of the match day squad? I presume they do. In which case should an article now be created for them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.155.189.84 (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Navboxes

So the Confederations Cup navboxes have been appearing, now international youth squads are getting navboxes such as {{Argentina Squad 2008 Summer Olympics}} {{Chile U-20 Squad 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup}}. I thought we were going to allow World Cup squads and the highest level of continental tournament, not everything. Anyone object if I send these and others like them to TfD? EP 08:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

They should be deleted. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr Hall of England

Is moving season articles against policy again. I've left another warning on his talk page. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 17:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've joined the two threads to avoid any navigational issues (the headers were identical). It would appear that the first thread involves the user editing against policy, but from the new thread below it seems he is now editing according to policy. --Jameboy (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr Hall of England is making a lot of page moves[5]. I'm not sure what he is up to, would someone like to check it out? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have left him a message to suggest that he stops moving pages[6] before someone steps in and stops him with a block. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that wasn't necessary. It seems like all he's doing is replacing the hyphens in article titles with endashes, per WP:DASH. – PeeJay 20:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see anything wrong with his page moves. Peanut4 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fine, I'll strike out my message and apologise to Mr Hall if that is the case. What do we do with these[7] and [8]? Duplicate articles, one with a history and one without. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

1920–1921 in English football should be redirected to 1920–21 in English football. Peanut4 (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's done though we have no history in 1920–21 in English football. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

All sorted now, thanks for your input. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Bradley (soccer)

I don't really have the time for this argument, but is rumour and speculation about possible transfers acceptable now? Are we going fill up lots of articles with this non-notable gossip?--ClubOranje^Talk 07:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with speculation being present on an article, but ONLY if it's referenced from a reliable source, such as the BBC's gossip & transfer section. GiantSnowman 10:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with BBC's gossip section is that it is based on other sources. It's whether those sources are reliable. Peanut4 (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In my experience the VAST majority of sources on the BBC section are British newspapers, which should be reliable enough...however, if there's any doubt then I'd prefer the gossip being left out of the article. GiantSnowman 11:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but a lot of the tabloids make up rumours simply to sell papers rather than because there is any truth in the rumour. Secondly a lot of agents are in journo's back pockets and help make up the rumours to get their players a new club, or improve potential offers. I do suggest taking any rumours, however reliable, with a pinch of salt. Any stories without quotes, or simply "A close friend / A source close to" aren't worth the paper they are written on. Peanut4 (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't treat any of the tabloid UK papers as anywhere near reliable, particularly in the area of transfer speculation. And as the BBC's section in question is based on those papers, I'd treat it as crystal balling verging on guesswork, with the odd bit of complete fabricaiton thrown in. - fchd (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely give tabloids a wide berth. GiantSnowman 11:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems with including this in an article?

On the Croatian national team page, I contributed to the 'Records' section by splitting it into two distincted subheadings named 'Domestic' and 'Official'. The domestic section included the basic info on the national team milestones etc, but the newly included 'Official' section was deleted (the edit was reverted). One user argued that it was, amongst possible bad wording, a clear form of unnecessary trivial content. I need some opinions. Here is the paragraph:

___

"Croatia are also renowned in four particular records in the FIFA and UEFA holdings. In the 2006 tournament, Josip Šimunić received three yellow cards in a single match due to an error by referee Graham Poll. Shown his second booking in the closing stages of the match against Australia, he was not dismissed until Poll realized the inaccuracy after the final whistle, marking the first time that such an event took place in the history of FIFA's organization. Robert Prosinečki is also the only player to score for two different national associations in the World Cup tenure, having scored a goal for Yugoslavia at the 1990 tournament against the United Arab Emirates and then scoring twice for Croatia during their 1998 endeavour. In 2008, Ivan Klasnić manifested a new milestone in European Championship history. His goal against Poland made him the first player to score at the competition subsequent to undergoing severe surgery. At the same tournament, Luka Modrić recorded the earliest goal of the competition's narration, marking the record with a fourth minute penalty against Austria."

____

I can understand a slight argument of bad wording in some minor areas of this paragraph, and the sentence about Klasnic being the only surgery patient to score may be somewhat trivial, but I think the other mentions are generally very much worth including in such a section!

Is this trivia or is it worth mentioning? Domiy (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Simunic incident is already mentioned in the history section dealing with the 2006 World Cup games. Prosinecki scoring for two countries can be mentioned in the part of the history section dealing with the 1998 World Cup games. Klasnic scoring after surgery is pure trivia as far as the team is concerned, but it is obviously worth mentioning in his own article. Modric scoring the first goal of Euro 2008 is worth mentioning as part of the history section about Euro 2008. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Jmorrison230582 on these points. guidelines suggest incorporating this sort of trivia for want of a better word elsewhere in the articles if possible--ClubOranje^Talk 00:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit War at Club America

There appears to be a slow edit war at Club America, between two editors User:Dedos07 and User:Jcmenal. It revolves around a statement that appears in the intro paragraph, which I would say is inflamatory, it is however sourced. What I am not sure about is even though it is sourced it seems to be WP:POV and I don't think will stand the test of time, Also where to refer the edit war to, it has been going on daily for a while and has had at least one violation of WP:3RR. Any ideas about the edit in question and the edit war? Paul  Bradbury 14:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also all sources are in spanish so I can't tell if they are acurate or not. Paul  Bradbury 14:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be accurate. I do think it's a legitimate statement to make about the team, but I think the word choice might be bad. I'm going to be bold and switch it to "reviled" instead of hated. matt91486 (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What the sources say is that according to a survey of 1,000 adult Mexicans on the voting register conducted by Consulta Mitofsky last January at the start of the Clausura 2008, they're the most hated. That's not quite the same thing as they are the most hated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. It also says that 43% of the people surveyed gave América as their most hated team, which was the highest percentage, but hardly conclusive. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right that it should probably be clarified a bit more, but I do think it's valid to include if we can figure out the right way of phrasing it. My word choice was reverted for switching hated to reviled to be more diplomatic, and I have no desire to engage in an edit war, so we'll see if any compromise can be reached. matt91486 (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Club's player profiles

Has anyone else found clubs simply copying word-for-word, the biographies that have been written on here, to put on their own club profile pages? Not sure whether to be upset or flattered. Though it does make it useless as a source or external link!! Peanut4 (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the biggest worry with this is that our articles may be mistakenly tagged as copyvios and speedy deleted. matt91486 (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was one of my worries too. Hence my first reaction. Peanut4 (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I once saw the one sentence in my stub article of Paul Watson (footballer) used on the Conference site - I was delighted. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye, Grays Athletic use Wikipedia all the time. They're proper pikey, they even use Wikipedia articles to fill up their match-day programme. I get a strange sense of satisfaction when I beat the club's PO to the crunch when they sign players, and I know he'd be looking at their Wikipedia to write their profile. --Jimbo^[online] 01:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had to deal with it in the past when my local newspaper decided to nick passages of some of the articles I'd written. As per Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content I got them to put a notice at the bottom of the article saying 'Information on this page was taken from the article Swindon Town Hall at Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License'. You can find email templates for doing this at Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter. HTH. Foxhill (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice one. Didn't know that existed. Might fire off some emails tomorrow. Peanut4 (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If a picture has "Some Rights Reserved", could a newspaper use it in an article? Such as this local rag article and the image in Fabian Wilnis' infobox? 01:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the rights that are reserved. That particular image is licensed under CC-BY-2.0 so it's ok to use for commercial purposes and alter it etc but it muse be attributed to whoever too the pic (in this case some flickr user) and have a note about the license (see also Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia#CC-BY). Nanonic (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And now in the match programme at the Huddersfield-Bradford game tonight (less said about that the better), Stuart McCall's profile was entirely taken from the wikipedia biography. Grrrrrrr. More things to get angry about mind. Peanut4 (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd get in contact with the club and ask them if they could give credit to Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed the Bradford City webmaster regarding the player profiles on the website. There's not much I can do about the Huddersfield match programme. It just made me wonder how much stuff in programmes, etc, is being taken directly from wikipedia. Honestly, I couldn't believe what I was reading. Pure laziness on their part, if nothing else. Peanut4 (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert Grizha

I should welcome a view on this article, please. The official club website here doesn't list him (English translation here) so I am not seeing how to verify the content. TerriersFan (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Appears legit see [9] Paul  Bradbury 22:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Ukrainiansoccer.net, Grizha has never played for Vorskla, although many sources show him with squad # 99. Probably he is in the reserves. Jogurney (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

League Cup and player notability

This must have come up a million times before, so I ought to know the answer, but as the League Cup starts again tonight, and hitherto non-notable players will quite possibly make their first-team debuts in it, I'll ask it again. WP:ATHLETE says players have to have played in a fully professional league, or it did last time I looked at it. The League Cup is a cup competition open only to members of a fully professional league. Therefore, does playing in it make a player notable, or not? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does - the League Cup is on firmer ground here than FA Cup (which is not fully professional), even if ironically enough, clubs use it for some of their less well-known players (well, mine does at least..). Qwghlm (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Scotland logo

A user made this change to the Scotland national football team article earlier. The new image is basically identical to the previous one, but the user is claiming that it was his own work! Could somebody please flag this up? This must be infringing copyright. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Riding on the Bus of Glory

WtWtWtWtWt (talk · contribs) seems to be having fun on his own moving articles around in the Conference National, bless him he's even updated the related templates. Anyway, would anyone who knows a bit more about it like to move Bus of Glory back to Cambridge United F.C. and The Destiny Train back to Stevenage Borough F.C. with their associated talk pages. Here's hoping the kids go back to school soon. Nanonic (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverted and blocked. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Colin & Coin West

In January someone made an article for Colin West, a footballer from the eighties. A couple of weeks ago, someone evidently searched for Colin West, but made a typo. Seeing no article, they created one. So we now have another article for the same player at Coin West. Any chance someone can perform a merge? Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved some of the info across and set up a redirect. Peanut4 (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Marcelo

Does he really require his own template? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not. Can templates be speedied for no real content? matt91486 (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Commemorative coins?

There is currently a discussion at Talk:UEFA Euro 2008#Commemorative coins? in order to determine whether or not information about Euro 2008 commemorative coins should be included in the article. However, it seems that very few people actually visit that particular talk page now, and so there has only been one reply. Therefore, so that we might achieve a more rounded view of consensus, I would like to invite you all to comment on the discussion. – PeeJay 08:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with the licencing of these images, this came up at the FLC Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)/archive2. Someone with better German than I needs to verify the licence at the Austrian mint website. If they are free I would leave them in, but if they are copyrighted then they probably fail WP:NFCC#8. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not the inclusion of the images that I'm worried about; it's the inclusion of the information about the coins themselves. If the info is included, and the images are properly licenced, then the images should stay, but I don't think the information itself is worthy of inclusion due to its tenuous connection to the tournament. – PeeJay 14:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont think they warrant a section on their own, as they currently are being used, possibly include them in something along the lines of a section on the cultural and social impact on the host nations Fasach Nua (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps, although I'm not sure that several lines of prose about COINS is actually needed. The only thing that is special about these coins is that they have a special pattern on them, and as far as I can tell from the images, only the year and the cities mentioned actually link the coins to the tournament. Not pertinent whatsoever. – PeeJay 10:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think to state they exist is suffieient (probably stamps too) Fasach Nua (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Leicester City F.C.#Managers

can you add this to your watch lists as an unregistered user keeps altering Nigel Pearson's statistics to include the cup games, yet they are for league games only. Skitzo (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The other managers' stats are for all competitions. Why aren't Pearson's? Mattythewhite (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The way I understood it on that page there were just for league games, as players info box stats are. Skitzo (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The source used is Soccerbase, which includes all competitive matches. Guess you didn't know that...? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Arsenal F.C. managers uses all games at least - if the stats for all competitions are available then they should be used - but then I don't agree with the league games only rule for infoboxes either... Qwghlm (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No I wasn't aware of that Matty and I also agree that 1 rule should apply for both the current situation can cause confusion as I just demonstrated. Skitzo (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Most managers' lists include cup games, and often have a footnote to say so. Peanut4 (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympic matches

How should Olympic matches be counted? Added to U21 and/or a separate designation for (dispensation) players? Chelseabob (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympics are represented by an U23 team (with 3 overage players) so I think a separate section would be the better option. Skitzo (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Clitnovici

I've been trying to check into the information in this article as requested in a recent AfD, and it seems as though the Elche information doesn't check out (According to LFP.es, anyway); I haven't looked into the other sides yet. He is frequently listed on Elche on a variety of Wikipedia pages, though, so it does pop up in google for him, and I can't tell if all the other language sites are mirrors as I suspect or something different. Anyway, I just wanted someone else to have their eyes on this article as well since I'm nearing the 3RR with an IP who is restoring the information. matt91486 (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Gretna F.C.

Is the current Gretna F.C. the same club as the one that went bust earlier this year? The article Gretna F.C. claims so but I can't find any sources to back it up - the new club was actually founded & entered into a league before the old one was formally liquidated. Contributions & consensus at Talk:Gretna F.C. welcome. Qwghlm (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Jose Calado

There appear to be two articles for the same player: José António Calado and José Calado. Could someone please blank the Jose Antonio Calado page and set up a redirect instead? Thanks. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (DIY job)

Exiled football clubs

Working on the FC Büsingen article, I noticed there is no Category:Exiled football clubs. Should there be one? The likes of Gretna FC and Barry Town, among many, would fit it quite well. EA210269 (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How would Gretna qualify? They played in the English non-league system by choice. - fchd (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking about clubs that crossed border to play in a nother country/state, either by choice or force. There is quite a few around in Europe, like San Marino Calcio playing in Italy, AS Monaco in France, Derry City in Ireland, all the Welsh clubs in the English league system. But also the French an Luxembourgian clubs that played in Germany during WWII, being forced to. The proposed category wouldn't just be for clubs forced into Exile. EA210269 (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Football clubs in Liechenstein (e.g. FC Vaduz) play in the Swiss league system as well. A good idea for a category IMO. GiantSnowman 10:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a good idea, there should be separate categories for currently exiled clubs and formerly exiled clubs. - MTC (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the description "exiled" at all. Mind you, I can't think of anything better - "football clubs playing outside their own country" sounds equally terrible....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think exiled is the right description either. I thought categories were supposed to link like articles. If you put Gretna and Monaco in with teams who turned their backs on their respective FA, it is like comparing apples with oranges. Still I think ChrisTheDude's suggestion is the best one but isn't quite catchy. Peanut4 (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How about "football clubs playing in a foreign league"? That said, I think exiled is the most accurate description. - MTC (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with exiled - it could be a self-imposed exile, for whatever reason? matt91486 (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - whether their exile is self-imposed or forced, they are still estranged from their parent Football Association. GiantSnowman 16:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think, a short sentence at the top of the category page could easily explain what the category is about. Also, there is this article to go with it: Football clubs playing in the league of another country. EA210269 (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe try Category:Expatriate football clubs or Category:Expatriated football clubs and attach the explanation. [Expatriate] might be closer than exiled to what you want. Wiggy! (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the second one, as some clubs actually have moved back to their home countrys league. EA210269 (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have created the category, now we only have to fill it with clubs! EA210269 (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy. Kind of an interesting aside. Well done. Wiggy! (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The Monaco case is a bit complicated: there is no FA in Monaco and AS Monaco is not the only Monegasque team playing in France: there are other minor clubs such as "Omnium Monaco".--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an FA in Monaco[10], and there is a league (albeit a small and amateur one). AS Monaco are still an exiled club even though Monaco's FA isn't affiliated to FIFA or UEFA. If there are other Monegasque clubs playing in France then they are exiled too. - MTC (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know that, thanks. --Latouffedisco (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the remit of the FFF, does it cover Monaco? If Andorra and the Faroes can get FIFA/UEFA membership, the only reason I would imagine Monaco not being a member would be a French Veto Fasach Nua (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is all speculation, but if you look at the population of the small country, only 16% of the 32,000 living there are actual citizens and therefore be eligible to play for the country. Propably not enough to make it worth having a national team and joining UEFA/FIFA. EA210269 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is speculation either way, and as France was one of the older federations, it is entirely possible there are anomolies there similar to the Home nations. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Pepe

I guess since Template:Marcelo was deleted, this one should be too, right? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, a pointless addition to Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 12:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Template was deleted. Please tag as CSD next time for faster admin action. Thanks! -- Alexf⁴² 13:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarumio at WP:AN/I

As many of you are aware, this editor has made excellent contributions to the lower league pages but also has made many edits against consensus despite multiple warnings. The final straw for me was a run of subversive edits where, once again, FC was removed from articles, this time in the main text rather than the infobox. I have raised a report against him at the incident board here- I just wanted to project to know what was going on. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made a proposal for community sanctions against Sarumio at ANI. Please go along there and argue against, propose a tweak or support it. --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Current proposal seems to be a compromise on Dweller's original suggestion. It's a three-month topic ban - i.e. Sarumio is welcome to edit Wikipedia as long as he avoids editing football articles for three months. After that time he's welcome to edit football articles, but any further transgressions will be subject to stricter sanctions, including a possible indef block. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

Special:Contributions/Zombie433 - mostly badly written articles of questionable notability. Punkmorten (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronaldo's career statistics

I try to improve Ronaldo's article. Unfortunately I can't find information about Ronaldo's matches/goals in some competitions.

• Cruzeiro
  • 1) League. In season 1993 Ronaldo played 14 matches and scored 12 goals in Brazil Championship. He also played in Campeonato Mineiro (season 1993, season 1994) but I can't find any information about his apps/goals in this competition. Please, help.
  • 2) Copa do Brasil. In season 1993 Cruzeiro played 6 matches, at least 2 of them without Ronaldo. Did Ronaldo participate in this tournament? How many goals he scored?
  • 3) Copa Libertadores, season 1994. Again, need information about Ronaldo's matches/goals. He surely played at least 1 match and scored at least 1 goal (vs Boca Juniors).
• PSV
  • Various sources state that Ronaldo scored 55 goals in 57 matches, including 42 goals (46 matches) in Eredivisie and 9 goals (7 matches) in UEFA Cup. However, his participation in KNVB Cup is unclear. In season 1995-96 he possibly made 3 apps and scored 1 goal. In season 1994-95 PSV played in KNVB Cup only 2 matches, of which second surely without Ronaldo (vs SC Heerenveen). So, Ronaldo played vs Roda JC (5-10-1994) and possibly scored a hat-trick? Please, help me to verify this. --Eichel-Streiber (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Professional status for league play: Deletion of Shaun Cummings

The article Shaun Cummings underwent an AfD in Feb 2008. It was subsequently re-created in August 2008 and I've just speedy deleted it under the WP:CSD#G4 criterion (recreation). However, the arguments at the AfD were all based on Cummings not competing in a professional league - even though the team he is with, Milton Keynes Dons F.C., specifically states that it is a professional club. Am I reading "professional" incorrectly? Thanks for helping my interpretation. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It all boils down to whether he's actually played a league game or not. If he hasn't then he hasn't competed in a professional league, just sat around looking on forlornly. Merely being on the books of a professional club that is in a professional league isn't enough. Nanonic (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Veliče Šumulikoski or Velice Sumolikoski

A minor scuffle has broken out at this Macedonian's page as to whether the transliterated name should be used or not. I know this a little "broken-record"-esque but I'd prefer this to be resolved here for the global good (it's happened before and it'll no doubt happen again)... Opinions gratefully accepted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this news story is of help here, and suggests Veliche Shumulikoski is the right name. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Veliche Shumulikoski is the English spelling of such names. I think it should be spelled as the original name from Macednia. On the Croatian page and others from the Balkan languages, all the symbols/letters are used according to how they should be. Dado Prso is consistently spelled as Dado Pršo and so on. Domiy (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, players are usually listed by the original spelling of their names, provided that the source language in question uses Latin script. It's true that Macedonians use cyrillic script, so that could be an argument for using English transliteration. However, just like Serbian (and unlike Russian) cyrillic versions can be easily converted into latin script because phonetically these two scripts are identical, they only use different simbols (unlike Russian or Ukranian, which feature different phonological systems and who are always roughly transliterated into English). It has been usual for decades to transliterate them into Latin script when the country was still part of Yugoslavia. Therefore the names should be listed in "Šumulikoski" format, just like Predrag Mijatović (and not "Предраг Мијатовић") or Darko Pančev (as opposed to Дарко Панчев). Another issue could be that Macedonian is linguistically related to both Bulgarian and Serbian, so the dilemma is whether to use the transliteration style used for Bulgarian names (like Hristo Stoichkov) or Serbian names (which use serbo-croatian Latin script according to which Hristo's last name would be spelled "Stoičkov"). The bottom line is that it's up to Macedonians and the governing bodies of Macedonian language to decide how they want their names spelled internationally, but since there's already a long tradition of spelling Macedonian names using the serbo-croatian Latin script, there's no point in confusing readers by inventing an entirely new set of rules for this. Timbouctou (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Soccerbase

Is it just me, or has Soccerbase really gone down the drain? We, Bradford City, have four players whose stats all start afresh ignoring their old clubs. And tonight I've found, they have the wrong Alex Rhodes at Rotherham. It was never perfect before, but now it's essentially totally unreliable. Peanut4 (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't be sad to see Soccerbase eradicated. I've never found them to be all that accurate, and for us to have to email them just to get them to check their facts, which I'm certain has happened before, sort of defeats the object of such a site. – PeeJay 23:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I emailed them a while ago, the stats were changed. Did so again and got nothing. Have emailed them tonight, but don't expect to hear anything. Frankly, it's a mess which isn't worth using at this point in time. Peanut4 (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I emailed them some weeks ago to point out they'd included several former Brentford players, each of whom would have been about 12 at the time, in the teams for the 1988 UEFA Cup final. They're still there... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So, a "radical" proposal - do we now consider Soccerbase to no longer be a WP:RS? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Soccerbase usually starts the season like this - players given new profiles before they're identified, it's usually corrected soon enough. I think we should still consider it a reliable source, for all its faults. At the moment, it's the best thing we have. 09:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I treat Soccerbase as a useful resource which is generally reliable for bigger clubs, more recent years, and major competitions, but the user has to be aware of its limitations. There are very few reliable sources which are totally reliable for everything they're used to cite. I'd certainly be happier with them if they could be bothered to correct errors when people take the trouble to contact them. And there are plenty; compare Soccerbase's Alex Bruce with Alex Bruce on Wikipedia, for instance. But as you say, what's the genuine alternative? English football doesn't have the wealth of commercially-run free-access stats sites that US sports do. Some clubs have excellent unofficial stats sites, though it isn't easy to persuade reviewers that an unofficial non-commercial site can be reliable. But many (most?) clubs don't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to see a source that's 100% reliable and completely infallible, but I don't believe it exists. I once emailed the BBC, which I'm sure some people would argue is possibly the most reliable source in the world, because they'd published a music news story which centred mainly on the supposed success of Nelly Furtado's album Nellyville, which is actually by Nelly, an artist of a different gender, nationality and skin colour......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As an online, live source it is probably the best for English stats. It just needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. But for historical facts, and by historical, I would even include last season, I would say any decent book is a far more reliable source, e.g. Football League Yearbook (ex-Rothmans). Peanut4 (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd completely ignore it for Scottish stats, especially outside the Scottish Premier League. Players going on loan from the SPL to lower league clubs are routinely given new IDs and profiles, leading to at least one duplicate per player, e.g., David Goodwillie moved from Dundee United F.C. to Raith Rovers on loan last year, with his original two-month loan spell extended. The first spell was captured incorrectly here (as simply 'Goodwilly'), while the extended spell was correctly recorded here. •Oranje•·Talk 10:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua (again)

My proposal to deal with this issue is that we make it a project policy to define inclusion criteria on an article by article basis, on the grounds that criteria for Argentina players would need to be different than the criteria for Lithuania players (massive difference in length of existence, tournamnet participations and honours). The same goes for Liverpool F.C. and say Halifax Town F.C.. I have proposed criteria for the Argentina list here. I think tackling the issue on an article by article basis would be a much more productive approach than mass tagging or mass deletion of sections, waging edit wars and violating WP:3RR. Please feel free to add your support (or tell me I'm talking crap) below, or even get stuck in and attempt to raise the subject of well defined consensus based inclusion criteria on the article of your choice. cheers EP 23:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The easy choice, which would avoid any suggestions of WP:POV or WP:OR, is to simply delete any sections. Drawing up different levels of criteria for Halifax or Liverpool, etc, would also be WP:POV or WP:OR. How do you define all teams in between? Do teams change criteria as they go up and down the leagues? The only consistent criteria with which to base such sections on is something the club themselves define, e.g. Hall of Fame, captains, players of the year, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The sections are useful for articles that do not have a List of templetown F.C. players article. They provide a general overview of which players are important in a way that a category cannot. If providing an overview of the more notable players in a clubs history by using criteria like 50/100+ appearances, topscorer, multi award winning players and international appearances is WP:OR and WP:POV in notable player sections, how can the practice feature so often in featured articles like List of Gillingham F.C. players, List of Ipswich Town F.C. players? EP 23:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

People will always want their favourite players included - and when they do make any subjective list inevitably there's accusations of WP:OR. So we have to be objective, but any inclusion criterion which is objective, yet is a low enough requirement that keeps everyone happy by including who they want (e.g. 100+ appearances, top scorers, players of the year) is going to be long - too long for the main article in nearly every case. So split off the list sections into daughter articles that are linked to from the parent, and have these lists as comprehensive. If you like, have more than one list - e.g. List of Template F.C. players, List of Template F.C. top scorers and List of Template F.C. Players of the Year. Wikipedia is not paper, we have the room for it as long as the club and its players are both notable. Seem familiar? It works well for many articles under this Wikiproject's remit and I don't see why this is made out to be such a big issue when a workable solution exists. Qwghlm (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but there is absolutely no need for anyone to delete the notable player sections for articles that do not yet have the List of players article. I believe attempting to define sensible criteria is a much better approach than mass deletion and tagging things in a pointy fashion. EP 23:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm also of the view that there should be some standardized approach that accomodates the interest of editors in the topic without relying on mass deletion and pointy edits (and the resulting chaos). I don't agree that the list has to be so long as to make everybody happy - it just has to be long enough to be credible and workable. Inevitably some folks pet players will be left out, but playing personal favorites is not the point of the exercise. Some sort of effort should be made, otherwise this'll just go on forever. Wiggy! (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It will be hard to figure something out as each club has a different history, tradition and level of success. However, I'm against the removal of the 'Notable players' sections as I find them very informative and important (and isn't that the whole point of an encyclopedia?). If I see and know for a fact that a player is not notable I just proceed and remove it, simple as that. Regards. Bruno18 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest there is no issue here to be solved. What support he has received at the ANI thread for his philosophy has been more than cancelled out by criticism of his behaviour in enacting it, and nobody acting against him has been sanctioned as far as I am aware. Currently, on the team articles I've looked at, in terms of actual edit warring, he is the only person removing/tagging, whereas multiple editors are reverting him. Therefore, per WP:CONSENSUS I would say there is nothing needed to be done here, he is in the minority and is not enforceing a gold standard policy like BLP, so he is bound by 3RR like everybody else. His approach in this matter (and also regarding the other issues he involves himself in) has long since been shown to be disruptive and pointed, and on past experience he has no interest in involving himself in discussions like these from a constructive angle (in fact his latest comment shows that he thinks the sections are nonsense), so in light of all this, why should anybody feel the need to jump through hoops to accommodate him? On the actual issue, I am in agreement with one of the ANI posts, that these sections have a way of balancing themselves out, whereby scrutiny ensures outrageous additions are quickly identified and culled.

If guidance is still need in light of this, I personaly would only support as a minimum, setting a maximum limit on the number of players that can listed in the section, to be set as a ratio of number of games played by the team or other relevant formula, just as a loose bar to show when a section realy has gone overboard with fandom. But I don't think any other measure of famousness can be applied to all teams, it's ultimately all about the personal endeavour of the player for the team, irrespective of golas/appearances, and sometimes also about 'golden generation' phenomena. The max number would ensure proper context in the history of a team, and hopefully prevent recentism. And it should be remembered, that these discussions should be about who is a famous player, not a list of notable players (I'm talking about main article sections only, not player lists), as because of WP:ATHLETE, we will, or should have an article for every single national team player. MickMacNee (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI he has started this section at Wikipedia_talk:Notability. MickMacNee (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had issues with a lot of these "Notable players" sections. Unless a specific reason for notability is set (which may be different for each club or team) it just becomes a list of the editors' favourite players, and not very encyclopaedic. Reasonably good examples for criteria are at England, Everton or Sudbury Town. The criteria are different for each, but relevant for the club/team in question. Dancarney (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua 2. MickMacNee (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Final suggestions on improving this article?

Hi, once again I come in need of final assistance. I am thinking about nominating the Croatia national football team for an FA once again. It has undegone thorough copyedits and all sources have been updated and fully listed in the correct manner, with all of them being reliable ones.

Looking at the page, would anyone have any more suggestions as to what I can do to improve this article before it is nominated? Are there any sections that I am missing or could something be possibly expanded? Thanks! Domiy (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A just quick suggestion, I'd recommend using "while" instead of "whilst." Whilst is still correct, but it's just antiquated usage. matt91486 (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I really think the article still needs a very thorough copyedit by someone whose first language is English. It's got a lot of phrases like "The national team's correlation with Thompson's music has augmented" and "Bilić himself attracted esteem for his management rapture with Croatia, which also aroused the side's temporary nickname" which just aren't coherent English at all - what on earth is "management rapture"? Other than that it's looking good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

MOS:DATE#Consistency within articles says that the same date format should be used throughout an article; this article uses both day-first and month-first formats (if you're not seeing the difference, try turning your date preferences off).

When using cite templates, the parameters should be filled in appropriately, e.g.

• names of newspapers are works, not publishers, and should appear in the work= parameter
• uefa/euro2008.com should be something like publisher=UEFA | work=Euro 2008 website
• there's usually a better alternative to just using the domain name as a work or publisher
• publication dates should always be included for news sources
• there's no need to add italicisation; the templates italicise works and leave publishers in plain font automatically.

hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the suggestions here, I would suggest a formal peer review. Peanut4 (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks a lot. Its good that basically what your saying is that a few language issues are at hand. I understand. Kind of a bum seeing as I have contacted numerous copyeditors who said they would improve the article. It has gone at least 3 different copyedits so I guess it still seems that its not quality enough. I would actually agree as well. Some of the copyedited material does seem a little hard for me to read.

So I should just work on fixing up the references. Thats cool. The refs that have no publish date on them are solely due to an inability. Some news stories, strangely enough, have no publish date at all on them. Domiy (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If I have some time later today, I'll work a little on phrasing in the article instead of writing a formal review response. matt91486 (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple other things though, dealing with references that you might want to think about - you should cite the volatility of the world ranking in the lead, and you should make sure to have your references after punctuation marks. Personally, I prefer only referencing at full stops, but the MoS says commas and such are acceptable. And if you can find any information, it might be helpful to get those red links in the player table to blue links. I'm never sure how much that impacts FA decisions, but it could play a role. matt91486 (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at United States men's national soccer team

There is currently an edit war going on at the above article over whether AS Monaco should be listed with the flag of Monaco or the flag of France. I don't know enough about the subject to get involved, but perhaps someone who does could provide some reliable sources and leave a note on the article talk page? — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 07:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Flag of France, because AS Monaco plays in the French football system and are affiliated with French Football Federation see this link.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to use the flag of Monaco, except when the club is representing Ligue 1 in European competiton, much in them same way Cardiff City F.C. is treated. However, if this is causing an edit war, probably the most useful solution would be to remove the flags altogether. - fchd (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference between AS Monaco and Cardiff City is that Cardiff City hold full membership with the FAW, while AS Monaco are members of the FFF, not the Monegasque FA. Therefore, Monaco should use the French flag. – PeeJay 08:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that Monaco may be members of both FAs. However, since they play in the French league, they still use the French flag. – PeeJay 08:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

When John Collins made one of the early Bosman ruling transfers from Celtic to Monaco, Fergus McCann argued that Celtic were due compensation because Monaco weren't a French club and weren't part of the EU. His case was chucked out, so I would tend to side with the view that Monaco is to all intents and purposes a French club. If football had developed differently in Wales, it is more than possible that Cardiff could be playing in a Welsh league now. Indeed, they have represented Wales several times in Europe as winners of the Welsh Cup, whereas they have never represented England in Europe. Monaco is basically a micronation and could never be capable of sustaining a professional (or even semi-professional) league. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

AS Monaco is definitely considered French for all purposes. Just as somebody's nationality is defined by UEFA and FIFA by the national team they play for, so are clubs considered to belong to football associations, not countries. Since AS Monaco has always been affiliated with the FFF and since it represent France in European games, the club is definitely French. By contrast, you might compare them to Liechenstein's FC Vaduz - which play their games in the Swiss championship, but represent Liechenstein internationally, since they are affiliated with Liechenstein's FA and the Swiss league is therefore considered a dual-country competition. No such thing with Monaco. As for Cardiff - no doubt about it, the club is Welsh, is affiliated with the Welsh FA, plays in the Welsh championship and represents Wales in European competitions. Monaco doesn't even have a national team, which means they don't have a national league either and so they don't qualify as a football nation at all (unlike other microstates such as San Marino or Andorra) Timbouctou (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Monaco do have national team and league, as I pointed out in an above section. This strengthens the argument that AS Monaco should be considered a French club (If Monaco's only footballing entity was AS Monaco, then I would say that the French league is a dual-country league and AS Monaco are Monegasque).

The Swiss league shouldn't be considered a dual-country competition. I used to think this, then another editor e-mailed FC Vaduz (see the second-last comment) to ask if it was possible for them to qualify for the Champions League from the Swiss league, and the replay was that they can't, so the Swiss league cannot be considered a dual-country league. FC Vaduz should only be considered a Liechtensteiner club for this reason.

Cardiff City no longer compete in the Welsh Cup, and they no longer have any way to represent Wales in Europe. Cardiff City should be considered an English club for all current topics. - MTC (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Good luck trying to make "Cardiff City is English" stick. ;-) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

MTC, You're missing the point. The fact that FC Vaduz cannot qualify for Champions league by playing in the Swiss league actually confirms that the league is dual-country because it covers territory of two distinct football federations as recognized by UEFA. It's just that football associations have a right to choose how to pick their representatives in European competitions, and since Vaduz is considered a Liechensteiner club, they qualify as champions of Liechenstein, which is in turn determined in a cup competition organized by Liechenstain football association, regardless where they finish in the Swiss league, where they play every season. The same goes for Swiss clubs, so a Swiss club in Euro competition is considered to only represents Switzerland, even though it could in theory play their league games against Liechenstein clubs in order to win a European spot. On the other hand, AS Monaco is fully integrated into the French league system. Unlike the Swiss-Liechenstein case, only one federation is responsible for the competition (since the Monegasque football federation, if such a thing exists, isn't even recognized by UEFA). As for Cardiff City, they're Welsh as far as I'm concerned. I guess they would have to be listed as Welsh if they ever appeared in Europe, but would have to win a spot through the English league system. But that's just a guess.Timbouctou (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point (or I just don't understand your reasoning): FC Vaduz are unable to qualify for the Champions League at all because they compete in the Swiss league. The Liechtenstein Football Cup allows the winners to compete in the UEFA Cup, not the Champions League. To be a considered dual-country competition, all clubs in it must be treated equally, but the fact that Liechtensteiner clubs cannot qualify for the Champions League means that they are treated differently to Swiss clubs and so the Swiss league is not a dual-country competition.

Maybe saying Cardiff should be considered English is a bit of a strong statement, but I do think they should always have an English flag beside them (in current topics, not in competitions they got into through the Welsh Cup) instead of a Welsh flag. Maybe they should also have a footnote to explain the situation in all cases too, come to think of it that would also be a good idea for all the other expatriated football clubs (including AS Monaco) too. - MTC (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the flag issue, just as an example, the Weltfussball.de website actually shows Cardiff and Swansey with the Welsh flag, while Monaco is shown with the French flag. Vaduz in turn is shown with the flag of Liechtenstein. EA210269 (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple explanation for that: Wales and Liechtenstein's FAs are FIFA-ecgnized, Monaco's is not. Madcynic (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

FIFA lists AS Monaco as a French club when reporting on club competitions ([11]). Jogurney (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox International Football Competition

I noticed that this template has a field entitled "Best Player". This seems like a poor term to use. Better would be Player of the Tournament, which I think is how Xavi was designated for UEFA Euro 2008. Dancarney (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Translating foreign references with inline citations

I'm trying to translate essential parts of some foreign references using inline citations, which is basically another reference within a reference. I've read the pages and seen the examples, but I still have no clue how it works. Since the article is going up for FA nomination shortly, I want to get this done ASAP. Could somebody please explain to me how inline citations are done and what are they called? (footnotes/notes etc?) In other words, what should their title be where they appear.

Additionally, how do I get them to appear. I (slightly) got the idea of making the reference within the reference (although I still dont get it much at all). But do I need to add a template etc under the correct heading like you have to add the tag

under the references section?

Really, I'm clueless, really need help please! Domiy (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date-autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional, after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages of using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors, and the consensus for change is overwhelming. I seek in-principle consensus here for the removal of date autoformatting from the main text of articles related to this WikiProject, using a script; such a move would also be sensitive to local objections on any article talk page. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links.

You may wish to peruse the following capped text to compare two examples, with and without date autoformatting. The DA is set at international style—the one pertaining in this particular article—to show all WPians how the blue dates are displayed to visitors. MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted, analogous to our highly successful guidelines for the use of varieties of English. The choice of style is audited during the running of the script to ensure that it is appropriate to the article (i.e., consistent, and country-related where appropriate).

Two examples for comparison

EXAMPLE 1 Original

Marshal Suchet had received orders from Napoleon to commence operations on 14 June; and by rapid marches to secure the mountain passes in the Valais and in Savoy (then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia), and close them against the Austrians. On 15 June, his troops advanced at all points for the purpose of gaining the frontier from Montmeilian, as far as Geneva; which he invested. Thence he purposed to obtain possession of the important passes of Meillerie and St. Maurice; and in this way to check the advance of the Austrian columns from the Valais. At Meillerie the French were met and driven back by the advanced guard of the Austrian right column, on 21 June. By means of forced marches the whole of this column, which Baron Frimont himself accompanied, reached the Arve on 27 June. The left column, under Count Bubna, crossed Mount Cenis on 24 June and 25 June. On 28 June, the column was sharply opposed by the French at Conflans; of which place, however, the Austrians succeeded in gaining possession.

To secure the passage of the river Arve the advanced guard of the right column detached, on 27 June, to Bonneville, on its left; but the French, who had already fortified this place, maintained a stout resistance. In the mean time, however, the Austrians gained possession of the passage at Carrouge; by which means the French were placed under the necessity of evacuating Bonneville, and abandoning the valley of the Arve. The Austrian column now passed Geneva, and drove the French from the heights of Grand Saconex and from St. Genix. On 29 June, this part of the Austrian army moved towards the Jura; and, on 21 July, it ...

DA-free

Marshal Suchet had received orders from Napoleon to commence operations on 14 June; and by rapid marches to secure the mountain passes in the Valais and in Savoy (then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia), and close them against the Austrians. On 15 June, his troops advanced at all points for the purpose of gaining the frontier from Montmeilian, as far as Geneva; which he invested. Thence he purposed to obtain possession of the important passes of Meillerie and St. Maurice; and in this way to check the advance of the Austrian columns from the Valais. At Meillerie the French were met and driven back by the advanced guard of the Austrian right column, on 21 June. By means of forced marches the whole of this column, which Baron Frimont himself accompanied, reached the Arve on 27 June. The left column, under Count Bubna, crossed Mount Cenis on 24 and 25 June. On 28 June, the column was sharply opposed by the French at Conflans; of which place, however, the Austrians succeeded in gaining possession.

To secure the passage of the river Arve the advanced guard of the right column detached, on 27 June, to Bonneville, on its left; but the French, who had already fortified this place, maintained a stout resistance. In the mean time, however, the Austrians gained possession of the passage at Carrouge; by which means the French were placed under the necessity of evacuating Bonneville, and abandoning the valley of the Arve. The Austrian column now passed Geneva, and drove the French from the heights of Grand Saconex and from St. Genix. On 29 June, this part of the Austrian army moved towards the Jura; and, on 21 July, it ...

EXAMPLE 2 Original

On 5 July the main body of the Bavarian Army reached Chalons; in the vicinity of which it remained during 6 June. On this day, its advanced posts communicated, by Epernay, with the Prussian Army. On 7 July Prince Wrede received intelligence of the Convention of Paris, and at the same time, directions to move towards the Loire. On 8 July Lieutenant General Czernitscheff fell in with the French between St. Prix and Montmirail; and drove him across the Morin, towards the Seine. Previously to the arrival of the IV (Bavarian) Corps at Château-Thierry; the French garrison had abandoned the place, leaving behind it several pieces of cannon, with ammunition. On 10 July, the Bavarian Army took up a position between the Seine and the Marne; and Prince Wrede's Headquarters were at La Ferté-sous-Jouarre.

DA-free

On 5 July the main body of the Bavarian Army reached Chalons; in the vicinity of which it remained during 6 June. On this day, its advanced posts communicated, by Epernay, with the Prussian Army. On 7 July Prince Wrede received intelligence of the Convention of Paris, and at the same time, directions to move towards the Loire. On 8 July Lieutenant General Czernitscheff fell in with the French between St. Prix and Montmirail; and drove him across the Morin, towards the Seine. Previously to the arrival of the IV (Bavarian) Corps at Château-Thierry; the French garrison had abandoned the place, leaving behind it several pieces of cannon, with ammunition. On 10 July, the Bavarian Army took up a position between the Seine and the Marne; and Prince Wrede's Headquarters were at La Ferté-sous-Jouarre.

I look forward to your feedback. Tony (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. Punkmorten (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• In principle I like the idea. In practise I think that if you're going to do something like this, there would need to be a project wide consensus on how the non formatted dates should be laid out in the event of a dispute. For instance, how should the World Cup, David Beckham and Mexico national football team be presented? Hopefully I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but experience tells me conflict's possible. 82.5.72.161 (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

More squad templates

Category:2008 Summer Olympics squad templates. Have the flood gates been officially opened now? Punkmorten (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. There should be a squad template for every world cup, every continental finals tournament, and every olympics. --JonBroxton (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ashanti Gold SC

Zombie433 (talk · contribs) is creating a string of articles about footballers, some of which are getting deleted for non-notability. I have advised him to avoid disappointment by reading WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. I see that he has several articles on players whose claim to fame is playing for the Ghanaian club Ashanti Gold SC. Can anyone who knows that scene advise whether this counts as fully professional level? JohnCD (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

According to this article published in a Ghanaian newspaper in February, Ghana's top level league is considered fully professional. Besides, it seems some pretty notable transfers have been completed in recent times, involving Ashanti's players (like Daniel Opare's transfer to Real Madrid or Sadick Adams' to Atletico Madrid) and I doubt these clubs would sign amateur players. Furthermore it seems Ashanti players often get called up for the national squad. On account of all this I would assume Ashanti players meet the notability requirement. Timbouctou (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

England Captain

as far as i am aware the permanent role is still vacant, but someone who is unregistered keeps adding Rio Ferdinand's name to the role, unless i missed the announcement this is not the case and needs to be kept as TBA until the permanent captain is announced. Skitzo (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The announcement is due on Tuesday with Rio is one of the favoured candidates but adding him as captain now is just speculation. P.S. It can be just left blank pending the announcement. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Arsenal Stadium

Hello all. I'm reassessing the Arsenal Stadium article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I've added a few citation needed tags to the article and placed it on hold for seven days for improvements. At the end of the week, I'll make a decision about whether or not to delist the article. Nikki311 18:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Propose to re-include the nickname parameter on the player infobox

I didn't see this happen and don't agree with it, so please comment at Template_talk:Infobox_Football_biography#Nickname_part_3_-_propose_to_reinclude. This post is for notification only. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

History of Bradford City A.F.C.

Has anyone got any comments / improvement suggestions / oppose / approval votes, for History of Bradford City A.F.C.'s FAC? It's been a bit quiet so far and only one brief comment in the past three days. Peanut4 (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Peanut4 (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(association football)

I have noticed that midfielder has been moved to midfielder (association football) and the same for striker. I can see no justifiable reason for the move. I have not requested the reversion as I wanted to detail it here first.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  11:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the moves made by User:Lucy-marie. There was no need for those moves to be made. – PeeJay 12:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And I've advised her to take these kind of moves to WP:RM where her requests, on numerous occasions, have been strongly opposed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice one PeeJ, was about to go and do it myself.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  12:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I recently move Captain (football) to Captain (association football) is this a justifiable move --Jimbo^[online] 12:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, since the article only covers the captain's role in association football and not any other form of football, I would say that was a good move. – PeeJay 12:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

She also moved Striker to Striker (association fpptball) (yes, those pp's are deliberate). I've fixed that too. I've asked her to come here to chat it over first and then, if necessary, go to RM. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I know we're supposed to be bold, but I thought making those moves was a bit too bold without discussing it first. And a bit careless with the 'p' typo, especially considering how many articles link to it. Beve (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and she's insistent that her move is still correct, citing boldness. It seems difficult to explain to her the consequences of her carelessness. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox flags

I've been doing a little bit of work on Jesper Blomqvist. While I was checking a couple of his foreign language pages for ideas, I came across his infobox here. Specifically the flags by his club history. They're not real logos, but very good imitations, with free licences. I was wondering

a) If these flags can technically be used in our infoboxes, or if implementing this would be easy, and

b) What everyone's opinion would be on their use?

If there's been a discussion on this before could someone point me to it, as either way I'm curious? BeL1EveR (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't they add anything of value at all. For instance, what does the Manchester United add that the words "Manchester United" don't convey anyway? - fchd (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What if a footballer played for Club Nacional (Paraguay), Atletico Nacional and Club Nacional de Football? When using the abbreviations in the infobox they would look like: Nacional
Nacional
Nacional.

I personally think that using country flags in infoboxes will be very useful and informative but I think it has been already decided to not include them in the infoboxes. Those "club flags" can help in my opinion.Bruno18 (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't like them either. They aren't "official" in any way, unlike national flags, and look cluttered. It's fine for clubs which have flags, but what about ones which don't? Is someone willing to make a club flag for EVERY TEAM IN THE WORLD? If not, then it will just make the infoboxes look stupid. --JonBroxton (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't like them. Let's keep infoboxes uncluttered. An explosion of color like in your sample doesn't strike me as befitting a serious encyclopedia. There were discussion on this before. -- Alexf⁴² 06:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

They are a combination of inaccuracy and original research. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, WP:FLAGS#Use of flags for sportspeople says explicitly, "Flags should not be used on sportspeople's individual infoboxes." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And they break the row alignment on the football infobox. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

GOAL.COM as a reliable source?

Why do I keep hearing that goal.com is not a reliable source? I keep getting linked here and told that a verdict has been reached on Goal.com in the sense that it is not reliable? What is the true condition on this? Are people unaware that Goal.com is run by different journalists who publish stories just like any other website? What makes SkySports reliable over Goal? Is it because SkySports is a common English tabloid and Goal is a not so common one? Everything that I have ever read on Goal.com has been basic facts which I already know, and I'm sure not many other people would argue that they are publishing false or 'dodgy' information. So therefore, the better question is, what makes Goal.com and UNreliable source? I've already had a few statements deleted because they were cited with links to Goal! Domiy (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A large proportion of Goal.com contributors are unpaid amateurs like us rather than professional journalists. See the "Write for us" tab linked from the front page. Sky Sports is part of News Corporation. I wouldn't say that goal.com should never be used, but if there is an alternative ref from a mainstream news organisation then that should be used instead. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call goal.com a reliable source when it is written by volunteers. Peanut4 (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources that are professional that I would not consider reliable sources (most of the red tops in england for a start). Reliabilty has nothing to do with whether you get paid to do it or not, it has to do with reliability. If goal.com is reporting things as fact that are incorrect on a regular basis it should be considered unreliable, if not then it shouldn't. I can cite many instances of incorrect fact checking and even liabalous reports in many publications that are considered reliable. The fact is that most of the articles on the internet, goal.com etc. are pulled directly off the wires (such as AP or PR Newswire) hence the same article appearing on many sites. Paul  Bradbury 21:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of Goal.com's articles are speculative based on rumour. Some are factual. Most Goal.com articles are sucked from the ether and there is little hope of verification of their content unless the same story is elsewhere supported. If they are reported elsewhere in what is considered 'more reliable' sources, then why not simply cite the 'more reliable' sources. Part of the big problem with Wikipedia, particularly when it comes to WP:BLP and other current events, is many things are written and once they are written the amatuer wiki editor believes it to be both notable and gospel, as the avaerage wiki editor doesn't question each article on its merits. It was in the telegraph seems good enough for some people. Fact is, if it was in the telegraph but non specifically say things like believed to be or reported to be and the like, it is not reliable. A reliable article will announce the source of the information...At the post match interview Alex Fergusson said.... The requirement for verification is not only first level from WP, it must apply to the source too, otherwise the source is simply unreliable. One of the most common I have seen recently - transfer window specific - transferred for an undisclosed fee believed to be xxxmillion. If it is undisclosed, where is the verification as required by Wikipedia guidelines. Record it as undisclosed - what it is believed to be by some is not encyclopedic--ClubOranje^Talk 00:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Real person or hoax?

Hello, I was wondering if I could recruit the help of a knowledgeable individual or two who may have better footy references than the Internet. A few months ago, someone created an article Robert Smith (manager). As you can imagine, it is somewhat difficult to verify that an individual with the name "Robert Smith" is real without any references being provided, because any criteria of search is either far too broad or too narrow to yield meaningful results (I did try, however). The creator of the article is long gone, so I feel that this will be the quicker way to the answer that I'm looking for. I'm just wondering if I should clean the page up a bit because he is a real person, or tag it for deletion as a hoax. Any help would, even if it is just directing me to a better place to ask, would be appreciated. Cheers, CP 16:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

{{cite book |author=Joyce, Michael |title=Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939 |pages=244 |publisher=SoccerData (Tony Brown) |location=Nottingham |year=2004 |isbn=978-1-899468-67-6}} will confirm the existence of a Robert "Bob" Smith, born 15.12.?? in Atherton, who played as a right-back for Bolton (89 league games during seasons 1932-33 to 1935-36 incl), then went to Colwyn Bay, then was with Huddersfield Town in the 1936-37 season but played no league games. No mention of Brentford. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I will add the citation to the article, thank you very much! Any mention of his death in that book? Cheers, CP 19:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

you need to add the stub tags as well. Skitzo (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I added one, although I'm not really familiar with the project (I found the article while cleaning up Category:Possibly living people), so please do add more/different ones if they are required. Cheers, CP 19:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No mention of death. Don't know if that means he isn't/wasn't at date of publication, or just lack of information. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Should this article not be named Robert Smith (footballer born 1912)? He was a player before he was a manager, and there is no mention of his managerial career in the article at present. Peanut4 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

or Bob Smith (footballer). Could do with someone with a Bolton Complete Record-type book. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How to describe a great goal without POV etc

Currently I'm trying to get Croatian team page to FA status and that means that a lot of copyedits have been going around on the page lately. I have left a note on the talk page saying that I feel the new wording is getting much too basic and predictable, which is the absolute opposite of FA criteria which states it must be enticing and brilliant. This is a prime example (and this is my own personal opinion). I proceeded to add in a sentence mentioning Suker's fabulous goal at Euro 96 (the long range lob over Peter Smeichel). This was my initial revision:

--"with Davor Šuker commemorating one of Croatia's most influential goals; receiving the long pass, he guided the ball towards the goal before lobbing Peter Schmeichel from the 12 yard deficit."--

I admit it may be a tiny bit POV because of the word 'influential' but this can easily be alternated. One of the copyeditors (for the 10000th time, the greatest respect goes to their efforts) reworded this to the following:

--"with Davor Šuker scoring after receiving a long pass, and then lobbing ball into the goal from the 12 yard mark.[22]"--

This is just a little bit too basic for my liking. Its the most common wording you will ever hear on any football articlem thus certainly not meeting FA status if this is the case.

Can I get opinions on this? Which wording is better considering the FA prose criteria? Any suggestions? THANKS! Domiy (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There should be a reliable source describing that Suker goal using florid language while stating that it was one of the best scored in a European Championship tournament. eg Daily Record (Scottish newspaper) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Scotland national football team review

Scotland national football team 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.

Please alarm anyone else involved. Domiy (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Germany or West Germany?

I'm having a bit of a discussion with an anon over at Talk:1974 FIFA World Cup about whether the country that existed between 1949 and 1990 should be referred to as Germany or, as was the status quo, West Germany. Further opinions would be welcome. – PeeJay 17:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We've had big, big arguments about this in the past (I wouldn't be surprised if this was the same person). Officially, what we know as West Germany was always called Germany, and that term is used in German, but West Germany was the commonly used name in English until reunification, so we should use that. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to file a checkuser if you really believe that among 80 million Germans, only one disagrees with the odd views promoted on English Wikipedia. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be West Germany per WP:COMMONNAME. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Besides, East Germany also participated in that particular World Cup.  ARTYOM  18:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely use West Germany per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The German Democratic Republic also had participated in the Olympic Games in Munich in 1972. According to the infallible English Wikipedia "common name", Munich was transferred from "West" Germany to Germany in 1990, yes? -- Matthead  Discuß   19:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed on the article page that you are arguing that the team should be called Germany because the DFB has existed since 1900. The same Irish Football Association has existed since 1880, but that association now only governs football in Northern Ireland. By your logic we should call the Northern Ireland national football team, "Ireland". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

At best using "Germany" would be confusing (as East Germany were still competing during the period in question), at worst it is plain wrong – English speakers almost exclusively referred to the country as "West Germany" in that period, so WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE dictate that "West Germany" should be used. Sorry if you think that these are "odd views", but saying that we should use "Germany" because that's what the Germans called it is like saying that we should use "Deutschland". There's also no denying that the two states did not reunify until 1990... — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that probably the most reliable source on the subject have the following opening sentence in their overview of the 1974 World Cup:

"West Germany were champions on home soil" — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 20:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; it should be clear to any reasonable English speaker that West Germany is the correct term. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There is really nothing to discuss, It's West Germany.[12][13][14]. On fifa.com many links to the team from that time are marked Germany FR, but in all the text it's West Germany and East Germany. — chandler — 21:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

While its perfectly ok to use West Germany on the english wikipedia, please keep in mind, from the political side, the West was always the considered the legal continuation of the pre-war Germany, as evident in reparations paid after the war. East Germany in turn considered itself to be a new country, completely detached from Germanys history, especially the Nazi era. On the football side of things, the West German championship is also considered to be the continuation of the German championship played until 1944. As a matter of fact, the East German "regional" champions were invited to participate in the early post-war years but the Soviet occupation authorities refused the clubs permission to travel to the west. West Germany is fine to use to make it easier to differentiate for people, but its certainly not correct. EA210269 (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not really true; while West Germany considered itself to be the legal inheritor of the status of Germany, East Germany made the same claim for its duration. Since West Germany largely absorbed East Germany in the reunification, it has been retroactively been declared the successor, but there were competing claims for the duration and they should be given equal weight, especially in situations in which both are present. matt91486 (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Without making this to much of a political discussion, the East, to my knowledge, denied all responsibility for the Nazi-past, claiming to be completely anti-fasist while the West took the responsibility for that. The West became the successor of Germany, and with it Nazi-Germany, in 1949. The term West-Germany has never been officially used for Germany in the Federal Republic. EA210269 (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the Federal Republic of Germany. — chandler — 09:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A bit harsh, my friend! Its just an open discussion! If you can't respect other peoples opinion, maybe you shouldn't take part in it. EA210269 (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the English language wikipedia, just because the term "West Germany" was never used in Germany (Even though It has a article on the german wp de:Westdeutschland.), it is widely used in the rest of the world in not only English but probably many other languages, I can myself only confirm Swedish though. — chandler — 09:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The West may have eventually taken responsibility for it, but not for a couple decades. But anyway, yeah, we're probably beyond the scope of this Wikiproject discussion, but needless to say, I'm quite in favor of using West/East Germany (or their formal distinctions) to differentiate on an equal plane. matt91486 (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Both countries claimed to be successor of Nazi Germany. Neither country accepts responsibility for what happened there, and how could they - neither were Nazi Germany. However, both countries paid reparations, the East even more extensively than the West. Also, from what I recall, until 1972 the term Westdeutschland was used regularly in the GDR to refer to West Germany. Madcynic (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Football Alliance appearances

Should Football Alliance appearances be counted as league games for the purpose of infoboxes. I would say yes, as it was set up as a league parallel to The Football League. Even though it was effectively the second division it was still of a high standard and contained some very notable clubs, so I don't see how it can be classed as a non-league competition.

If we are including them should they be separated from Football League stats somehow or lumped together?

Opinions needed please... — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a league, so include them. Lump them in with the Football League stats - appearances for players with clubs that move between Football League and Conference are all in together. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Conference and other non-league appearances are used in the infoboxes, so there's no reason why not to include the Football Alliance. Peanut4 (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, you've confirmed what I suspected, but I wanted to gain consensus before making changes. — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're worried about misinterpretation then maybe a footnote like I used for Herbert Chapman to differentiate between his Southern League and Football League appearances might be a good idea? Qwghlm (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sister clubs heading on Template:Sheffield United F.C.

Is this info really needed on Template:Sheffield United F.C.? Surely it would be better to place it under a "Sister clubs" heading on the article Sheffield United F.C.?

As things stand the Sister clubs section of the template appears on every article that is in some way connected to the Blades, such as Steel City derby, and on such pages it isn't immediately clear what the heading "Sister clubs" refers to as it looks as though it is separate from the Sheffield United Football Club part.

Besides that the blue on red looks awful in my opinion, so even if we are going to keep it wouldn't it be better to include it as part of the main template rather than giving it a separate heading, i.e. something like:

Sister Clubs: Chengdu Blades^o  · White Star^o  · Ferencváros^o etc.

My vote would be to lose it completely on the template though. — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The importance of these articles in relation to the core topic of Sheffield United has not really been asserted, so I'd be tempted to remove them from the template altogether. As a minimum, I'd say remove the coloured heading and integrate into the main part of the navbox, as you suggested. I'd recommend dropping a note on the SUFC task force talk page first, though. I don't know how the water lies between the SUFC and SWFC wikiprojects, but if you feel that your point may be taken less seriously because of your affiliation, I'd be happy to take it up on your behalf. --Jameboy (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Lists of FA Cup Finals in club navboxes

OK, I had tried to ignore these, but a list of FA Cup Finals has finally been added to my club's navbox (Template:Manchester United F.C.). Personally, I think it's a bit POV-ish to only include FA Cup Finals, and to include all the finals that some teams have been involved in (in Man Utd's case, that's 58 finals, including the Community Shield) would take up A LOT of space. I would not be sad to see these removed from navboxes, but before I remove the list of FA Cup Finals from the Man Utd navbox, I'd like to know what everyone's opinion on these is, as I wouldn't want the Man Utd one to be the only one without said list. – PeeJay 14:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think, if such an inclusion was made, the next step would be to have a list of championship winning seasons, of European Cup finals and so on and the template would be bigger then many a club article. If it absoluteley has to be included then only the winning sesons, to keep it at a resonable size. EA210269 (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why FA Cup Finals and not European Cup / Champions League Finals? That's plain daft, POV pushing the importance of the FA Cup much higher than it presently is. It's a bit like placing internationals in bold type, for some clubs that is quite interesting (ie teams that have a few internationals), but it loses all meaning with a lot of clubs (ie teams that have none, or some bigger clubs where almost every senior player is). The only realistic option is to remove it. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that User:Mr Hall of England even removed the list of Southampton's League Cup final appearances from their navbox. If that's not POV-pushing, I don't know what is! – PeeJay 15:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he added that league cup section himself and then changed his mind, though. --Jameboy (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse! Anyways, I guess we've come to a satisfactory consensus here. If you see a club navbox with links to FA Cup Finals, they should be removed. – PeeJay 15:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed to these recent additions. The main club template should be for core articles only IMO, with an "all articles" link to the club's main category being sufficient if people want to find out about more specific info such as individual players, managers or matches. Individual matches are not part of the core topic, and as has been pointed out, it gets a little too much for clubs that have competed in many finals. --Jameboy (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of FA Cup Finals is totally unnecessary and will lead to clutter. Celtic have appeared in over 50 Scottish FA Cup Finals, imagine that navbox. Dancarney (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A potential solution is that the finals could have their own navbox, conjoined to other boxes, so they don't clutter up the main ones. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

While that solution would be acceptable, what's wrong with clicking on the Category:Wikipedia F.C. matches link at the bottom of the page? Granted, there isn't the benefit of being able to see which match articles still need creating, but it cuts down on unnecessary templates. – PeeJay 15:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You could even include a link to Category:Wikipedia F.C. matches in the infobox itself to make navigation from pages in the parent cat such as Wikipedia F.C. easier. Qwghlm (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to see them go. Whilst we're on the subject of cluttered navigation boxes, would anyone like to respond to my earlier post on the subject? I'd like to hear some other editors views on the matter... — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 17:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you should have clubs with thier FA Cup Finals in but I think it's best to do clubs under 11 finals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Hall of England (talk • contribs)

Why 11 finals? Surely that's POV too. It really has to be all or none, and since all of them would take up too much space, it has to be none. – PeeJay 20:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarumio dispute now at RFC

I know it's asking yet more of your time to be diverted from enhancing the encyclopedia, but I do urge those of you who have been involved in the disputes surrounding Sarumio to participate in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarumio, even (especially?) if you disagree with my perspective on it. --Dweller (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Estonia national football team

Hi, I need some help. Recently I made the right kits for the Estonia national football team, but I don't know how to add them to the right place. I tried but now I messed it up, I also added the kits to the discussion page of the article if someone could put them there by their own. Can someone put the kits there by their own or can someone tell me how can I do it myself? Thanks.

Sixest (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to re-upload the images so that the file extension is in lower case, i.e. , etc. – PeeJay 20:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Sixest (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cowdenbeath F.C.

Matthew Doherty's article has been prod'd because he "has appeared on loan for a semi-professional club, but this still means that he fails WP:ATHLETE", but the Scottish Third Division is a fully-professional league, which satisfies the notability in question, doesn't it? - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought the Scottish Football League was semi-professional? Mattythewhite (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah me too. I thought players had to have played in the SPL in Scotland to pass WP:ATHLETE / WP:FOOTYN. Peanut4 (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The history section of the SFL's website only mentions a professional status. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost all the clubs in the Second and Third Divisions are semi-professional. Semi-professional teams are sometimes even in the First Division. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But I'm asking if the professional status of a league overrides the semi-professional status of a club, in terms of notability of a player. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that's a good question. The cut-off really ought to be a professional / semi-professional league rather than all the clubs being fully professional. For a start there is one Dagenham player who is still semi-pro. Does his existence mean that all players in League Two at the moment would not pass WP:N? I think not. But on the same score, a team from the Conference got promoted and decided not to go fully pro, then League Two would suddenly not pass WP:N even though it's a fully-professional league. Peanut4 (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. This surely can't be the first time it's been brought up? Either way, Doherty's (and Sean Mackle, another prod) article seems to satisfy WP:Athlete. - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly Gretna aside, I'd be very very surprised if there has been a single fully-professional side playing in Scottish Division Three since it was formed. A league in the UK is neither professional/semi-pro/amateur - only the constituent clubs can make that decision on their own financial strength. - fchd (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How do we define a "fully-professional league" as per WP:ATHLETE? Is it essentially whether all its constituent parts are pro or not? Peanut4 (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, hang on. WP:ATHLETE states Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league. There is NO WAY that either the Second Division or the Third Division could be described as fully professional. I take fully professional to mean that the clubs organise on a professional basis, the vast majority of their senior players are football players for their living. Semi-professional clubs organise on the basis of players who have a real job, then train and play football a few hours a week in their spare time for a low wage.

Obviously you will get exceptions, such as the odd player who wishes to keep his real job or study and only trains part-time, or the odd club who bucks the trend and achieves promotion to a professional league. These are very quickly rectified, by the player giving up one career path or the club turning pro or being relegated, because semi-professionals don't survive for long in a largely professional environment. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither Doherty nor Mackle satisfy WP:ATHLETE. Neither have played in a fully professional league (only the SPL and First Division are fully pro). пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Our first division is a professional league, and then it could be argued against the second and third division sides as there may well be clubs that are not professional in the same way that an SPL side is. Come on the Mothers (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ordering of seasons

There are several football articles including recent seasons and also articles covering seasons of specific clubs. I'm wondering how these season tables are suppossed to be ordered. Recent seasons first or oldest season first? Has there been any decision on this? It's probably of minor importance, but the question pops up quite often and there doesn't seem to be a general consensus.

In my opinion tables covering recent seasons should definitely be ordered with the most recent season coming first. The most recent season in that case is just the most interesting for the reader.

In case of an article covering all seasons of a club I'm not so sure. Personally I still favor going with the most recent season first as it is still the most useful to the reader. On the other hand one might argue here that first things should be first.

Regards, OdinFK (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If such a section must be included in the article, then the most recent season should come at the bottom. Obviously it would be best if the information could be put into a Wikipedia F.C. seasons article, but this isn't always possible. – PeeJay 07:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

For chronological list articles, such as an article covering all seasons of a club, the Manual of Style requires them to be ordered earliest-to-latest, i.e. most recent at the bottom. I'd agree with PeeJay that such information would be best in a seasons article, but for consistency, if it's included in another article the most recent should still go at the bottom. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with disambiguation

Two men named Henry "Harry" Davis played for Sheffield Wednesday around the turn of the century, Harry Davis (footballer), born 1879, and another player who does not yet have an article, who was born circa 1873. Since the latter won an FA Cup with the club it is about time that he had an article, which would obviously involve disambiguating the two articles. Since his date of birth is not known precisely (I have looked everywhere and can't find anything more specific than "cs 1873/1874") is it still OK to use this as the disambiguator, i.e.:

• Harry Davis (footballer born 1879)
• Harry Davis (footballer born c. 1873) – (per WP:DATE)

or should a different method be used? Playing position is not really useful in this case since back in those days most players played in a variety of positions and both players played regularly as forwards. Any other suggestions? — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 16:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As suggested works for me.--ClubOranje^Talk 09:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Zidane brothers

I just came across some information about two brothers of Zinedine Zidane (born 1972), and something seems a bit fishy. The two brothers are Djamel Zidane (born 1955) and Mohamed Amine Zidane (born 1983). This means that the three brothers are 53, 36 and 25 years old respectively. Technically speaking such massive age differences are possible, I know, but I've got my doubts. Are these really brothers, or is one of them for instance the cousin of the other two? Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This article [15] states that he has three brothers, Nordine, Farid and Djamel, and does not imply that they differ radically in ages. It says they grew up together. The fact that the "brother" here born in 1983 was born in Algeria, when ZZ's parents were living in France at that time, makes it seem unlikely. Maybe the older brother Djamel is the same guy as in the wiki article, but I'm not sure. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that article would surely have mentioned footballing brothers if ZZ had had any, so I'd say these two guys are not ZZ's brothers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If in doubt remove the claim per WP:PROVEIT. — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 22:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed per unsourced. The relationship was added very recently by an editor mentioned further up this page and even assuming good faith, I don't believe it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Z. Zidane has no familial tie with these two players.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am very doubtful of this information, as said above we would have heard about it before now. Come on the Mothers (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a well known hoax, 100% agree with Latouffedisco. --necronudist (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

List of York City F.C. players

Just wondering if people think players with Midland League appearances should be included in List of York City F.C. players, which I can now include with the new book. I'd say so, just thought I'd get more input. Also, is there a way to blacklink using the sortname function? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be included - I've counted Lancashire League apps on Liverpool's list. You can use the {{sort}} template, e.g. {{sort|Bignutz, Jimmy|Jimmy Bignutz}}. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to change the template you're using, you can blacklink with sortname if you add the parameter nolink=1 or =any non-blank value, it says here. And agree with ArtVandelay about the Midland League apps, seeing as your column refers to "first-team competitive" they ought to be in if you have the figures. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough I asked the same question about List of Gillingham F.C. players (although obviously referring to the Southern League as opposed to the Midland League) and everyone said no, don't include them....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the context. If you're talking about League games then I wouldn't include them, but if you're talking about total competitive first-team games then I would include them... — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 14:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

and on the timing - whether you're asking before taking a list to FLC, when including them might mean including a load of non-notable players, or after, when you can include what you think should go in, as opposed to what FLC reviewers might think :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Either change the note at the top of the article from "Generally, this means players that have played 100 or more first-class matches for the club." to something which suggest it doesn't include the non-league period, or just put them all in. I'd be tempted to include those who played non-league, but I suppose you could add a separate list below the main list to show those who played 100 or more non-league appearances. Peanut4 (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think i'll just put them into the list and rewrite the lead, as it currently implies that there is no source available for player appearances in the club's first non-league period, which of course is not true. Cheers! Mattythewhite (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable former players list

User Fasach Nua seems to be on a one-man crusade to rid wikipedia footie articles of lists of notable players. He created Template:Famous players, and is systematically adding it to team pages where players have been listed as being 'notable former players' of the club. I take exception to his argument that the list is unverifiable and overly based in POV because:

• Each player (with a few exceptions) has an article about him or her. The very fact that they have an article makes them notable, otherwise the article wouldn't exist.
• Nowhere do the notable former players lists claim that they are complete. They are simply lists of players who used to play for the club, many of whom have had storied and successful careers. This isn't POV. This is fact.

Now, I agree, that in an ideal world there should be some kind of formal criteria for determining notability in this case - international caps, # of appearances for the club, # of goals for the club, or even doing something worthwhile AFTER they leave the club. David Beckham's career at Preston North End was completely unremarkable, but I don't think anyone would argue that his career has been 'notable' since then, or would campaign to have him removed from Preston's list. However, until someone sits down and creates the criteria, I don't see the problem with having the lists there. Fasach Nua's efforts seem somewhat useless to me, and contrary to Wikipedia's aim of providing useful, interesting content for readers. Anyone have any thoughts? --JonBroxton (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Fasach Nua. Unless there is some kind of criteria defined (e.g. 50 caps for international teams, players with over 200 apperances, then any notable former players section is by very definition WP:OR and mere opinion. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. These sections should be removed on sight when there is no criteria for inclusion. Rettetast (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, In an ideal world all lists would have a strict criteria, but until such a list can be made, it's better to have a fairly subjective list of former players than none at all. For certain clubs, I may never be able to find detailed enough information to create a proper list of former players, but until then, I think it's useful to give an overview of former players, and to create links to player articles. I appreciate that no page like this will ever reach featured status, but until then, I think this adds to rather than detracts from the information on Wikipedia. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't reading the player articles give you the information required to determine if they are worth mentioning in the list? Maybe there should be some criteria aswell, but the criteria should be defined before mass removal of these sections. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Fasach Nua. This has been argued to death really. There must be a definitive criteria for "notable players" lists. To be honest, I don't think David Beckham should be added to Preston's notable list, maybe others disagree, but that demonstrates the WP:POV aspect. Peanut4 (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't get this at all. David Beckham used to play for Preston. David Beckham has had a successful, notable career. Both facts. Therefore, David Beckham is a notable former Preston player. What's to disagree with? --JonBroxton (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem. Does notable past players mean the player is notable, or the player was notable while at the club? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't see Beckham's career at Preston as notable. Any player with an article on Wikipedia is by definition notable. The whole lists themselves are therefore either incomplete or opinion-fuelled sublists. They need a set criteria, i.e. X appearances with that club, an international while at that club, or hall of fame, or something similar. Peanut4 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It also seems sad to me that we're arguing about a list of notable Preston players, when the Preston North End F.C. article is itself only Start class, has a substandard lead, an expand tag, and largely unreferenced. Editors should be trying to expand articles rather than continue to have edit wars, over WP:POV lists. Peanut4 (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

By definition, all players of football league clubs are notable, aren't they? So a "list of notable former players" should include ALL players who have turned out for that club. That is unless we narrow the criteria down further to make a list of "more notable" players, but that criteria must be properly defined, as it has been in the case of most of the separate article lists that exist for some clubs, or else we're looking at WP:NPOV and WP:OR breaches. Whether that defining criteria addresses players particularly notable for what they did at that club, or players who are especially notable that just happened to have played for that club, is a different matter. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the term prominent should be used instead of notable. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Prominent is just as POV though. Peanut4 (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Prominent gets rid of the argument that all players with articles are notable. Anyways, why don' we start working on a criteria of some sorts. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, I agree with Fasach Nua's edits. No information is preferred (WP:OR, WP:POV, you name it) to bad information, especially in such volume, not the other way round. I prefer "famous" and then citations for each player, rather than appearance/goals/assists/cards criteria, as that in itself is WP:OR. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed here numerous times. As I've said before, I feel that these sections are horrendously POV and should be avoided unless a reliable source has published a list of "legends" or something similar which can be cited. I would still avoid them though as people will still be tempted to add their own POV afterwards.

The new template seems to be stirring up quite a lot of ill feeling. Fasach Nua has even been accused of vandalism in this edit summary [16], which I feel is bad faith. Personally, I agree with Fasach Nua's edits and I believe that Wikipedia guidelines back the addition of the template and/or removal of the lists. — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it was my edit that has been accused of bad faith, I think I should respond here. To be fair, Fasach Nua has done nothing but engender bad faith by making pointy edits over the last several months. I will be the first to applaud his effort to develop a template like he has, but the way he goes about inserting it, with no edit summary and at the articles where it is most controversial, is part of a systematic attempt by Fasach Nua to fight what he terms "the mob" (read: the entire WP community). I don't think it would be correct to remove or template tag the sections until there is a criteria for inclusion because, and this is important: these sections have existed for years and years in many of these articles entirely without controversy until just recently. I think it would be in bad faith to remove these sections because they violate some yet-to-be-created criteria. Say what you want about POV, but consensus determines what is and is not POV, and the fact that these sections existed for so long on very high profile articles for as long as they have is proof that they are not improper. I agree that they should be refined by a criteria, but until that exists, we should leave these sections as they are. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There have been multiple things that have been left alone for years that are not desirable, unfortunately. This could be one of them. It it just that one day, someone could discover that X is wrong despite it being there for years - X is not right because X has been there for a long time. These sections do violate some criteria and it's "yet-to-be-created" - namely, WP:OR. x42bn6 Talk Mess 03:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, many of the articles in question are some of the most viewed articles on the encyclopedia, so to say that no one noticed these sections is a little silly. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006 not all these pages are being "forgotten about". There are people who notice and don't fix for various reasons (laziness?) - not fixed doesn't imply not incorrect. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Former/famous/notable/prominent players sections are useful and informative.
2. As they appear now, many of these sections need to be improved/weeded.
3. Finding general overarching criteria for all of these sections for all clubs and national teams would be an impossible task because each team has a different history, tradition and level of success.
4. Team specific criteria should be developed in order to set a standard for inclusion.
5. Members of this project that come across articles with poor/recentist/subjective sections should facilitate improvement by starting talkpage discussions in an attempt to develop reasonable criteria with the usual editors of the page, a minimum of 50 appearances barring exceptional circumstances would be a good starting point, other criteria such as World Cup Winners, players of the season, Hall of famers, league topscorers, etc could be used in appropriate circumstances.
6. If we all begin to use this process when coming across poorly defined sections, the Encyclopaedia will be improved and the methodology will become established, hopefully putting an end to the edit wars over such sections. -Thank you EP 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think that we should be figuring out a proper methodology instead of just ridding the lists. I feel like it's important and completely encyclopedic to acknowledge the role that certain players have played in a clubs history; we can't always fit them in prose sections, so the lists of notable players serve as a jumping off point for more thorough investigation by a reader. matt91486 (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

To support Matt's point, properly defined inclusion criteria are used in many featured articles such as List of Gillingham F.C. players and List of Ipswich Town F.C. players (to use the same 2 random examples as above). These notable player sections sections are appropriate in articles that are not substantioal enough to warrant their own List of players type article, they should be improved, not deleted. EP 22:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I find those sections to be informative and useful and in my opinion they should not be deleted. The ideal will be to come up with some sort of criteria, that way we don't get rid of the section.Bruno18 (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless criteria are defined then a "notable players" section is clearly POV and OR. It might as well be entitled "my favouritest players" as without criteria editors will just add whoever is "notable" in thier own eyes. If criteria cannot be found then the section should be a link to List of Templeton F.C. players in the interim. One of the worst examples of these lists can be found at Grimsby Town F.C., a fairly non-remarkable Football League club. Their list includes players who played 20 or less games, and then went on to be journeymen. It's important to stress that the criteria should be on an individual club/national team basis. Things such as a well-documented "greatest ever team" poll is a good example. Perhaps the club or national association has a "Hall of Fame", such as Colchester United or England. Lower division clubs could perhaps list players who've received caps whilst playing for the club, semi-pro/amateur teams could perhaps include ex-pros or players who went onto be pros, provided they didn't just play a handful of games. Dancarney (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that what User Fasach Nua is doing is disruptive, an doesn't lead to anything good, plus he seems to be very closed minded to others, an example of this is the fact that the User EP try to implement guidelines in the Argentina national football team, notable players section yet he doesn't seem pleased by it as this example shows. Now he has move on to other sport as well, like American Football example, something must be done as he doesn't seem interested in making things better, what he seems to care about is being right an everybody else wrong. I wonder who is next in his list? hollywood stars?? Bocafan76 (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is removing large amounts of unsourced, POV information necessarily a bad thing? x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: If the players concerned are that famous, shouldn't they already at least be mentioned in a summary of the club's history? Which would then render the "famous former players" section redundant. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It doesn't always necessarily work like that. Ideally yes, they should; practically, that's not always possible. I actually wholeheartedly agree with the suggestion made above - to keep the lists as they are for now, and remove the template that is being added, but for someone to actually come up with some way of determining the factors by which someone should be included in the list, with a view to implementing the standards as time goes on. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• FWIW I updated the New Zealand national football team notable players some weeks ago as there were a whole host of one game wonders and mostly smacked of recentism. I notead all the inclusions and exclusions on the talk page indicating why they were in or out. Mostly comments regarding this were favourable, but the main point is at least there is a start to some basis for inclusion.--ClubOranje^Talk 03:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Football in the Phillipines...

I was wondering on whether or not FC Korsaaven, Laya FC, etc.^←more are notable? Using Google, I can't find any real assertion of notability or really ... anything about the club at all outside of message boards. It looks as if they play at the top level of football in the Phillipines ... but is that enough? (I'm sorry if I'm rambling, I haven't slept.) Latics (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If they have played in the top division of a FIFA-affiliated country, I would say yes, they are notable. - fchd (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on the top level conferring club notability. matt91486 (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Giovani Dos Santos

Anyone read and understand Spanish? Is that link to giodosantos.com his official site? Govvy (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

According to this 400-500 million people can understand Spanish. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to be rude! I wanted to know if this is his official page or not. Because the wiki rules clearly state no non-English links unless it is directly related to him. Hence official or not! Govvy (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly Giovani Dos Santos official website, as you can read at the top of www.giodosantos.com page: Giovani Dos Santos / Mi Sitio web Oficial, meaning Giovani Dos Santos / My Official Web Site. Hope that helps. --Carioca (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Galatasaray S.K.

This page is a constant site for edit wars over the "nationality" of various players who are either German or Turkish. A cursory glance at the history of the article reveals a number of reverts and counter-reverts while no-one seems prepared to discuss the situation. Either I take it off my watchlist and get over it or we here can come up with a solution. It involves players like Baris Ozbek (a typical reversion) who was born in Germany from Turkish descent. I'd like a definitive answer as to what nationality we'd place against him (and the other players who seem to be part of the continual edit warring). Once we have a clearly defined consensus here, I'll be happy to warn, block, protect where necessary. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have Galatasaray in my watchlist anymore and I'm already getting tired of the Turkish kids that continually post invented transfer rumours of all kinds of players that "they would love to have" in Galatasaray. Sheesh! (Ok. I vented). As per your question, (sorry I digressed), I would say unless they hold a Turkish passport if they are born in Germany they are German, period. It's irrelevant where their parents came from same as an Argentine with an Italian last name (a huge number of them have it), does not make him Italian. -- Alexf⁴² 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to put a Turkish flag beside a player who has played for the Germany U-21 team and no other national team. This page gets vandalized all the time. The flags get changed all the time and players who aren't on the squad are added when a rumour of there transfer is around. I say Semi-Protect it. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And what about players like Aykut Erçetin who are German-born, of Turkish descent, who haven't played nationally yet? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If he holds a German passport, he's German. If he holds a Turkish passport, he's Turkish. Let's go raid his safe and take a look! --JonBroxton (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

According to http://www.transfermarkt.de he has played 19 times for Turkey U-21 [17]. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Real person or hoax? Part 2

Hello. Since you were all so helpful last time, I was wondering if I could bother you once more. Continuing my clean up, I stumbled upon Amiya Deb. At first, I thought he was this fellow, and so updated the page, until I realized that he was supposed to be a footballer, not a cricket player. A more specific Google search then revealed no information on this individual. Before I tag/nominate this article for deletion as a hoax, I was wondering if perhaps anyone could confirm that he was a real individual? There was a previous AfD, but it was kept because of the possibility of more sources arising. That was almost three years ago and it hasn't happened. If anyone could shed some light on this, it would be appreciated. Cheers, CP 03:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Mohun Bagan AC squad lists, there was an A.Deb in the 1934 squad, Amio.Deb in 1935, and Amiya Deb in 1936. And see their history page here. There are team photos from the mid-1930s including an Amiyo Deb, which is presumably the same chap. Unfortunately the words don't confirm his hat-trick, but it does mention them winning the Dwarbhanga Shield in 1933. Might be the same chap as the cricketer; if the cricketer's birth date is accurate, it would make the footballer quite young when playing, but not ridiculously so. And Mohun Bagan is a Calcutta club. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'll just have to leave it for now until someone can make the connection between the two... thanks for the help again! Cheers, CP 15:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright

I've just found this image of former Manchester United player William Longair, who played for the club in 1895. I want to upload it to Wikipedia to use in the article I'm writing about him, but I'm not sure of its copyright status. Obviously the image was taken more than 70 years ago, which may have some bearing on it, but I'm not sure. Help please. – PeeJay 08:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

At the least it qualifies as {{PD-US}} Fasach Nua (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Full names of Brazilian female footballers

Does anybody here knows a source where one can find the full names of Brazilian female footballers? In particular, these five:

• Andréia Rosa
• Erika (footballer)
• Francielle
• Maurine (footballer)
• Fabiana

Thanks! Chanheigeorge (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

pt.wikipedia has some but no more than a forename/surname here. Interestingly, the CBF don't even have a section for the women - so much for the promise to launch a women's league and cup for 2007.. Nanonic (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha! here about 3/4 down on the right, links to small profiles of all the women in the squad. Nanonic (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Chanheigeorge (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You can find Andréia Rosa's full name here (CBF's official website). Note that as CBF's page doesn't use diacritics, the correct spelling of her name is Andréia Rosa de Andrade. --Carioca (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Link spam

Using the player profiles from harriers-online.co.uk as an external link on player articles is link spam, right? I removed a link from Simon Russell and User:Harriers9, a serial adder of links to this website, seemed quite offended. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say so. It looks like an unofficial website. It's probably run by User:Harriers9 and hence a thinly veiled attempt to advertise his site. Peanut4 (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem with unofficial websites as such, if the page linked adds quality to the article, as might be the case under WP:ELYES section 3 or WP:ELMAYBE section 4. The one added to Simon Russell doesn't. Haven't looked at any others, but if they're of similar limited quality, then serially adding them is linkspam, yes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Update scores and caps via bot?

I am no member of this WikiProject but I wondered about one thing (sorry if it has been proposed before but I couldn't find anything): I have seen many users making the effort to update caps and goals after each time a match was over (like this) and I think that is kinda tedious to do. Can't a bot be requested to update stats? The bot could run on request, like with a talk page where you provide it with links to match reports (FIFA?) and it then goes and updates all related articles (also the player's articles). What do you think? SoWhy 21:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As impressive as some of Wikipedia's bots are, I don't think a bot like the one you suggest would be as simple to make as it sounds. – PeeJay 21:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course it would need to be set up to always use a certain source format and the tables would have to follow a certain standard but I don't think that's problem? Before setting it up and running it, of course I think some kind of environment has to be set up to allow the bot to fill in the details automatically but that could be done, couldn't it? SoWhy 21:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

wikinews:User:SportsBot already does the results and tables on WikiNews for football and other sports but there are problems with it occasionally (such as it not having updated the Premier League table so far this season). Problems that may arise include verifiability and applicability (which site, which stat, what types of games?), bulk updates (10-12,000 updates 1-3 times a week take time, especially if something goes wrong), websites that change, scraping information from copyrighted pages/databases and last but not least - the bot owner disappearing and thrusting the updating back to the community. The owner of SportsBot has been invited in the past to bring the bot across to Wikipedia to update league tables etc for Portals but has declined. Nanonic (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A update bot would be helpful as I manage my team's stats and can't keep it up as I update the team a the player's profiles...in eight languages. So I would be grateful if a bot or bot system could invert the caps and goals to all interwikis after entered once. -Lemmy- (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been suggested before that the best way around this would be for Commons to allow the hosting of templates that could be called by all language Wikipedia's. That would allow you to just update one template which is then transcluded automatically wherever it is needed. Unfortunately, no-one's come up with an elegant way of coding this yet. Nanonic (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Although useful, I find the stats a bit annoying at times - I have quite a few footballers on my watchlist, so it tends to get quite clogged up with lots of (apps=apps+1) edits, often without the pcupdate updated. I'd support anything that could improve this. I do update stats myself, but usually only if they are very out of date or if I'm making another edit to an article. --Jameboy (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)