Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

League games only in infoboxes

Anyone about once the FA Cup games start might want to keep an eye out for contributions from User:Gobbleswoggler. Last night this user was updating Spurs and Wigan players' infoboxes with FA Cup apps, I left a note on their talk page before 21.30 but they kept on going to the end of the game. Hopefully it was a one-off, but... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're not going to give him an "award for contributions to football" then Struway? :-) --Jameboy (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Struway2, if Gubbleswoggler is constantly adding incorrect data you can always add vandal tags on his talk page. Govvy (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, but I'd rather not start doing that till I'm convinced they're doing it wilfully, rather than just because they haven't quite grasped all the conventions yet. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't start a sentence; On 01 January 2009 etc.

There is a very bad habit that people tend to do with starting sentences: On dd month year, When reading biographies or club articles with that in it, it looks like very poor grammar. It can kind of look like a list. I hope everyone can avoid doing this. Govvy (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not bad grammar, but it can look a bit lazy. Then again, when you're creating an encyclopaedia that anyone can contribute to, you sometimes have to put up with people who aren't exactly that great at writing. – PeeJay 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Govvy means putting a 0 before the 1 i.e. 01 January rather than 1 January. --Jimbo^[online] 00:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I get the impression from this edit immediately prior to this discussion, he's on about the prolific use of "On 1 January 2009,... " etc. Peanut4 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends if the date is relevant to be honest. On the other side I think a lot of people write "On 1 January 2009," when they want to add something but don't add much else. There's nothing wrong with that, but it may need polishing a little instead. Peanut4 (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes do this (admittedly out of laziness most of the time), maybe a different way to phrase it could be suggested here and then that could become the norm. Prem4eva (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A replacement isn't what's needed. What we need is for some variation in the wording that people use. – PeeJay 00:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thierry Henry and Steve Bruce have got to FA with barely a date in sight. If people want inspiration, they need look no further than the best examples of Wiki's work. Peanut4 (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of the above - I call it the "in 1985 no-one died" style of writing, but it simply arises from several people adding one sentence each with little thought for even the paragraph, let alone the article. I guess some people just want to add information and aren't bothered about copyediting. I'm probably guilty of sometimes starting sentences with full dates when they may not be needed, but I do try to vary my writing wherever possible (I at least always try to avoid starting consecutive sentences with "on (date)". On a similar topic, I really don't like those "Timeline"/"Diary of Events" sections that appear in English football season articles, and favour integrating them into prose; there's a discussion at Talk:2007–08 in English football#Diary of the season if anyone would like to comment on this. --Jameboy (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Berks & Bucks Senior Cup

Hi there, I'm currently working on making a table listing the results from finals of the Berks & Bucks Senior Cup, this is what I've done so far, using [1] as my source and I'm wandering whether other users would consider it to be a reliable source or not? Thanks. Ben O'Bagels (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Levi Schwiebbe

Does anyone know if this player is Jewish? - Levis is a Jewish (or at least Biblical) name, and Schwiebbe sounds quite Yiddish to me...GiantSnowman 00:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter? DeMoN2009 15:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly, it's just that if he is then he can be added to the relevant Jewish footballer categories. GiantSnowman 16:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In an interview with De Weekkrant, he has said that he is a Roman Catholic and that he and his brothers were named after Biblical figures. AFAIK there are currently two Dutch Jewish footballers: Samuel Scheimann and Daniël de Ridder. Aecis·(away) ^talk 16:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ford Sporting League

This article survived a past AfD apparently mainly due to the fact that the people contributing to the AfD were under the impression that it was an actual football league involving matches between professional teams and therefore notable. This is not in fact correct though, it was merely a "reward scheme", somewhat akin to the current Fair Play League, whereby teams got points (and ultimately cash) for goals and discipline in their existing Football League games. Is it really notable......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting enough not to be lost entirely. (I like the stipulation that the cash had to be used for stadium improvements: undersoil heating anyone?) As it only ran in the 70-71 season, suggest merging it into The Football League 1970–71 or 1970–71 in English football, either of which could do with a bit of sourced content. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with having this merged into a season article. It's interesting enough to be covered, but doesn't warrant a stand-alone article. Dancarney (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also support a merge; perhaps it should be mentioned on both the articles that Struway2 has suggested. Cheers, GiantSnowman 14:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention for play-off final articles

Happy New Year all. The user Mr Hall of England (talk · contribs) has made a few recent page moves for play-off final articles, without any prior discussion as far as I could see. The page moves were to capitalise the word "final", i.e. 2008 Football League Championship play-off final → 2008 Football League Championship play-off Final, which contradicts this discussion from last year. I can see his point though, as I assume he is striving for consistency with (e.g.) 2008 FA Cup Final and 2008 Football League Cup Final, both of which are capitalised. I'd like to know if other users feel that the previously agreed convention of 2008 Football League Championship play-off final should be retained, or if the capitalisation is necessary? (and if it is, should "play-off" also be capitalised?). If we can agree on a format and put this one to bed, I'll happily do the work to bring all articles into line. Cheers. Jameboy (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your name, 2008 Football League Championship play-off final. I don't think final is a proper noun. Peanut4 (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What about 2008 FA Cup Final and 2008 Football League Cup Final in that case? --Jameboy (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And "2008 UEFA Champions League Final", "2008 UEFA Cup Final", "UEFA Euro 2008 Final" "2008 FIFA Club World Cup Final" and "2006 FIFA World Cup Final"? – PeeJay 20:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1990 FA Charity Shield

Does anyone know in what minute of the game Clayton Blackmore's goal was scored? I've found the time of Barnes' penalty, but Blackmore's can't be found for love nor money. – PeeJay 11:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• The report from The Times says it was in first half injury time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to the Sunday Times match report, in the 44th minute. Though the summary at the top for some reason gives the goal to Hughes, the reading says Blackmore "almost on the stroke of half-time". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. :) – PeeJay 12:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(Further comment) I can't actually access the link you posted, Chris. It says I need a username and password. Nevertheless, I'll take your word for it. – PeeJay 12:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Humblest apologies, this is the link meant to post.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Anon

Could an admin possibly check out the edits being made by 89.234.98.243? Have to say, I'm not very interested in dealing with them anymore. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 31 hours by EyeSerene. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to The Football League 1889-90??

Why is it a redirect to The Football League 1888–89? --Moloch981 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a {{db-move}} tag to The Football League 1889–90 so that The Football League 1889-90 can be moved to its correct title. – PeeJay 21:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved. – PeeJay 21:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose for {{Infobox football match}} changes

I sat and played around with the template, trying to make it more usable, all over the places, right now it looks a bit strange when used for two legged matches. So I put in so you can use it for both a two legged match and a Replay, changing the look of presenting the score more similar of the Super Bowl Infobox. The current parameters are the same so there wouldn't be any changes to articles needed. Here's the template and here's a test page with some matches showing replay/two legged/and a copied infobox from article. One reason for the changes as I said were for two legged matches, another is because matches like the UEFA Champions League finals don't use {{Infobox}}es at the moment. Any thoughts? — chandler — 04:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Murphy (footballer)

Can anyone with a copy of Michael Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 - 1939 find out how many appearances Jimmy Murphy made for West Brom and Swindon Town? His Welsh caps/goals would also be useful. Thanks. – PeeJay 19:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

West Brom 1929–1938, 204 apps 0 goals

Swindon Town 1938, 4 apps 0 goals

Wales, 15 caps, doesn't mention goals

From Joyce's book p.192. Should mention that Joyce gives date of birth as 8 August 1910, which isn't what the Jimmy Murphy (footballer) article says. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that, mate. I don't suppose the book gives the years of Murphy's Wales caps, does it? – PeeJay 22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

His first cap was in 1933. Last in 1938. He didn't score any goals. Peanut4 (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ta muchly. Very helpful. – PeeJay 22:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Struway, could I ask you to check on the details of a player named James Cairns. He played for Newton Heath in two spells, one from 1894 to 1895 and another in 1898. I'm specifically looking for his appearances/goals record for his other clubs, one of which was Lincoln City. Cheers mate. – PeeJay 11:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Joyce p.46, it's two different blokes rather than two spells.

James Cairns a right-half/left-back (interesting combination: presume it means he played at #4 in one game and #3 in the other) played

Ardwick 1893 season, 1 game

Newton Heath 1894 season, 1 game. No other clubs mentioned

and James Cairns an inside-right played for

Stevenston Thistle

Glossop North End

Lincoln City 1897 season, 0 games

Newton Heath 1898 season, 1 game

Berry's Association.

Glossop can't have been Football League when he was there, or it'd say how many games. No dates or places of birth given for either. hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Glossop didn't join the Football League till 1898..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This book might have further info on these bit-part players..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Struway. I'll be writing to Manchester United's official stats site to inform them of their mistake now. And Chris, thanks for the book recommendation, but I already have that book, and it's very vague with regard to players from before 1945. – PeeJay 12:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, it was just a thought..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a good thought, and I thank you for it. – PeeJay 12:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Football biography

Now that the new {{Infobox Football biography}} seems to have been completed and agreement reached, what happens now? Are we supposed to be using the new infobox? If so, how do we go about changing the old style ones? And are we going to let WP:FOOTY members know or at least football bio contributors? Peanut4 (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the link you meant is to {{Infobox Football biography 2}}. I'm using it on all new articles, but it would be an impossible task to change the existing articles, unless someone can create a robot to do it, or at least a conversion tool, but as the two templates work quite differently, this may prove impossible. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some documentation added to the new template? All it says it that it's a fork of the old one. It doesn't say how to use the new one. --Jameboy (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My view would be that if something ain't broke, don't fix it - basically don't bother wasting time & resources deliberately changing the old infoboxes (and instead only change them if you edit an article) and instead begin to introduce the new infobox in ALL new articles, which would include adding it to the player style guide. GiantSnowman 00:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing there's not much change in the doc with the exception of years, clubs, national team etc, in that they're divided instead of with breaks — chandler — 06:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've extended infobox 2 to cope with managers who have had more than ten clubs in their career, such as Horst Buhtz. Madcynic (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

How many of a player's clubs can it cope with? Has it been tested against Steve Claridge or Trevor Benjamin? --Jameboy (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The template allows for up to 29 clubs, compared to Claridge's 27, so it should work. I'll give it a go sometime, although John Burridge (33 clubs) may be a problem. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Claridge's infobox now changed. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My original concern with this new infobox was precisely this - the increasing number of clubs - and I still don't see what was wrong with using line breaks in the old infobox. GiantSnowman 19:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For the few that have too many clubs, simply use the line break method in the new infobox for the first few (or last few) clubs. It does, however, seem to put less of a line break (i.e. closer together lines), but it does work. Actually looks quite a good method to use for loan spells as it brings the loan club info up directly under the parent club --ClubOranje^Talk 23:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Or simply add some more lines to the new infobox. Peanut4 (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

How many? It requires a template modification, not simply adding lines in the article template call.--ClubOranje^Talk 08:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I meant, adding lines to the template page to ensure it has enough parameters for the player who has most clubs. Peanut4 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"I still don't see what was wrong with using line breaks in the old infobox" - as per the discussion on the talk page of the template, it's because partially sighted people can apparently use something called a "screen reader" to convert web pages into audio that they can listen to, and all the line breaks meant that the screen reader would read all the years first, then the names of all the clubs, then all the apps/goals numbers, which would just be gibberish. So under accessibility guidelines it needed to be changed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't aware of that, fair enough then. GiantSnowman 12:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean that the entries in the infobox should be in the order "years1, clubs1, caps(goals)1; years2, clubs2, caps(goals)2; years3, clubs3, caps(goals)3" etc. as in the actual template, or "years1, years2, years3; clubs1, clubs2, clubs3; caps(goals)1, caps(goals)2, caps(goals)3" etc. as in the Terry Butcher article, from which I cut & pasted the text on which I based the Claridge infobox? (I hope that makes sense.) Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what order you put the parameters in when putting the infobox into an article as they all show up the same way on the page anyway. – PeeJay 12:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - I understand that it appears the same on the screen, but does it read the same to some-one using a "screen reader"? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because apparently the reader reads the HTML which the infobox converts to, not the Wiki code we write..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK - thanks. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible list of over-achievers

I have not engaged much with “soccer” on Wikipedia to date, but I was intrigued by a quiz question recently: “How many players have a Premiership, Champions League, Euro Championship and World Cup medal”? The answer is apparently “one”. It begs the question is there any reason not to pursue a “List of football players with top domestic, European and International honours” or similar? I can only think of three other British based players off-hand, although doubtless there are any number of Germans and Italians. Apologies if this already exists somewhere or there is some policy reason not to. Cheers Ben MacDui 19:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such a list. The problems would be 1) defining the list criteria: there are many possible permuatations of medals won among the competitions you mentioned, let alone other competitions (and what would "top domestic" mean?) and 2) I think sourcing the information would be difficult. Jameboy (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Top Domestic is (following the example) the highest league title on a (any) nation's football pyramid. And European should probably be broadened to Continental (nothing forces us to stay in the old continent), methinks. Though with so many competitions floating around we could have some fun time deciding which ones to include. Kaizeler (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There can certainly not be many players who have those four, not even Pelé (who lacks a Copa America) or Maradona (who lacks a Copa America, a Copa Libertadores or Champions League, though have a UEFA Cup). A player that easily comes to mind is Zidane (if it's not about winning your home country's top domestic league), Deschamps, Lizarazu and perhaps some other French from the 98-00 team. — chandler — 03:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Though it might be hard to find sources calling this special achievement this, it could perhaps be included in The Quadruple under a individual section (if it is, a win in any domestic league's top tier, the highest club competition in a confederation, the highest national competition in a confederation and the world cup) — chandler — 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK – I’ll take this as tentative support, and I will bear in mind the sourcing issue. I like the idea of making it ‘Continental’, although I confess to knowing little about South America. The existence of The Quadruple is interesting, but as this is a team rather than individual achievement I’d see it as a “see also”. If the list turns out to be very small at present, there may be a case for a “close but no cigars” section for Maradona, Henry etc. I have a rough draft that I’ll tart up a bit and then post a link here for some initial comments. Ben MacDui 20:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, with the assistance of Chandler, in mainspace at List of football players with top domestic, continental and international honours. Nineteen in the list and counting. Ben MacDui 19:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Preston North End F.C. seasons

Could some one help me with the seasons of this club or find some who supports the club who could help me with some infomation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Hall of England (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 January 2009

Poll on sports team logo use

Seems mostly to concentrate on those people who enjoy watching American college kids in suits of armour running into each other and falling over, but might be worth checking out this RFC -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Lee Sullivan

Lee Sullivan (football) - real or fake? Beve (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Rearrange these two words into a well known phrase or saying: Pish Utter. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Nanonic (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories:Foreign-born football / English-born … etc

Does anybody here have an opinion regarding the deletion of these categories following this discussion [2]. I think it’s absolute madness that these categories have been deleted, especially after just four people voted. Vintagekits has also expressed his concern at my talk page. Does anybody know if this decision can be appealed ? Djln--Djln (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Being discussed above. regards --Vintagekits (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a perfectly sensible decision. Over catergorisation in the extreme. - fchd (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Overcat, keep deleted. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As stated in the discussion above, I believe the relevant Wikiproject should have been notified which would almost certainly have produced a healthier debate with more than four contributors. My point of view is that the categories with a reasonable number of players (England, Argentina, Brazil, etc) could easily be turned into much more informative lists, like List of Brazilian footballers who have played for another national team but with clear inclusion criteria and including more relevant information such as countries played for, caps(goals), years, position, etc in sortable tables. King of the North East 23:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Middlesbrough spelling query

Hi. Sad single-issue obsessive here, sorry! Is there a reason that Middlesbrough gets so frequently misspelt in football articles as Middlesborough (the latter being in Kentucky)? Sure, it's a common enough mistake and there are usually redirects to get round it but it seems odd that it is so often used. In particular, some editors seem to go to the trouble of getting it partly-right by writing [[Middlesbrough_F.C.|Middlesborough]] which just seems weird. It made me wonder if there is some kind of template/shortcut/whatever that, er, enshrines the wrong spelling, but if there is I can't find it. And {{subst:fc|Middlesbrough}} works like a charm and indeed is used as an example at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:Fc so it isn't that ... Yup, it's not the end of the world - I just wondered if there was something obvious that could be checked or changed? If not I wish you good evening and happy editing and will get back in my box. Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be just Middlesbrough, if it does have the extra o that should be removed. Govvy (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Something I do quite a lot of. :) I was wondering if there is some underlying cause, though ... DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think your answer is in the first seven words of their article: "Middlesbrough Football Club, also known as 'The Boro'". ;-) Madcynic (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm yes! Wouldn't really work calling it The Bro I guess. Ah well, wikipedia search is my friend! Thanks for the replies. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Scarborough, Farnborough, Loughborough, Peterborough, Middles... Shouldn't have thought there's any other reason than mistakes. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Stevenage.... Govvy (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Aaah but is it Stevenageborough or Stevenagebrough, huh, huh?? DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And Oldelpaso I take your point, but the thing that continues particularly to mystify me is the use of [[Middlesbrough_F.C.|Middlesborough]] which just seems weird - check out the two-spellings-in-one - how can people get it half-right like that? Which returns me to my theory that there's some template or something which causes this particular thing. Anyway, I am sure it is a profoundly boring topic for everyone else here so I will shut up now, and continue to quietly investigate in the background before, ahem, unleashing my sensational discoveries on a startled world. Er, or not. Best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How about... if someone comes across Middlesb(o)rough in the text of an article and decides to link it to the FC, they'll just add [[Middlesbrough F.C.|...]] round the existing word without noticing whether it's spelt right or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Very true, thanks, but doesn't account for new stuff incorporating this form. (Unless they C&P'd it, of course ... hmmm.) Thanks. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I just check one thing? (I know I promised to shut up and I will in a mo, honest.) Assuming I've used the MediaWiki Search correctly, the word "Middlesborough", spelt thus, appears nowhere in template space. I think. So ... is there some other sort of template tool or shortcut-expander or something that regular football editors use? I would not be aware of this but you might ... thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at these two diffs, which I came across by chance. In the first, the editor spells both article name and visible part with the extra o, then sees it's a redlink, so in the second diff corrects the spelling of the MFC article but doesn't correct the visible part. (definitely my last word on the subject :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha!! Very clever analysis - I doff my deerstalker in admiration. In fact I think I might just hang it up for good! Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And on the other hand, please see this - the older version has Middlesbrough as unlinked text, and then in one go the editor changes it to [[Middlesbrough_F.C.|Middlesborough]]. I've written to ask them if they used some gadget but they're under no obligation to help and I am not holding my breath, and in the meantime I am going back to sleep under my desk. And a very good morning to you! :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox's

The football infoboxes have a place for youth clubs. In Scotland, the clubs players were once signed from were called Junior Clubs, and despite the name they were not youth teams, as shown in this article on the association. If I knew how to change the Scottish football article infoboxes to show Junior team rather than youth team I would as I do think it is misleading. Any ideas on what can be done to rectify this would be appreciated. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The youth clubs section is for clubs played for while the player was a youth; it can be any type or standard of club, from Geoff Horsfield's Sunday team to Andrew Barrowman's schoolboy days at Rangers F.C. The senior clubs section is for a player's adult career, again whatever the quality of club. When a player comes up through the youth system of a professional club, it's generally taken that he becomes a "senior" when he turns pro. So you could include a Scottish junior club in either section, depending on whether the player was a youth or a "senior" when he played for them. hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem for me is that on occasion a player was picked up late from a Junior team, so we can't say he was a youth. Also, as in this particular player, he can rejoin the Juniors after his senior days are over. You say the Junior team he has returned to can be placed in the senior section, but that would be even more confusing. Can you imagine if he returned to the same Junior team, we would have the same team in the youth club and senior club section. This I think would confuse the uninformed reader. Cheers. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of changing the infobox on Paul Wilson (footballer born in 1950) to reflect how I understand the text of the article. Don't know the dates for the Maryhill loan, but probably you can add those. Many players join "lesser" clubs after their pro career, but these are still recorded as senior clubs. Couple of things: the article might be better called Paul Wilson (Scottish footballer), as the only other PW (footballer) is English. And you'll need a source for his mixed parentage: Wikipedia is quite hot on anything remotely unusual in a biog of a living person being reliable source, see WP:BLP. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your quite right, I should have named the article as you suggested, and I'll dig out a source for his mixed parentage. Not sure if its still right concerning youth/junior clubs but I'm not one to argue incessantly. Thanks for your help. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Cheers. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In infoboxes, "senior" clearly means "adult" as opposed to "not Junior in the Scottish sense". If anything needed changing, then the correct approach would be to change "senior" to something less ambiguous, not to change "youth" to "junior" as (I would venture to suggest) only a small percentage of Scottish players started out in the Juniors, so the change would just cause all manner of confusion on the pages of all the others (you'd end up with Rory McAllister having Aberdeen listed as a Junir club, for example). I also don't think there's a problem with having the same club appear in both the "youth" and "senior" sections - Simeon Jackson has Gillingham in both sections and I don't think even the most uninformed reader would be confused by it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't compare playing for Gillingham youth team and playing for a Scottish Junior team who are not a youth team. I would disagree with your assertion that most players from Scotland did not come through the Juniors, it doesn't happen nowadays, but at one time they almost all came through the Junior game. Take for example the Lisbon Lions team. According to wikipedia eight of the twelve came through the junior ranks and I'd bet if we checked the other four they would have also. Now, that's eight players from a single side, imagine how many others have done it throughout Scottish football. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Back in the day, almost every senior club had junior clubs which were informally affiliated to them. Young players would be sent out to the juniors to toughen them up, basically. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was only citing Jackson as an example of a player who has the same club in both the youth and senior sections of the infoboxes, I wasn't attempting to make any sort of direct comparison between the Gills youth team and a Scottish Junior club. I stand corrected on the number of players who started off in the Juniors. But the way I see it is: if a Scottish player played for a Junior club as a youth, it goes in the "youth" section. If he played for a Junior club as an adult then it goes in the "senior" section. If he played for a Junior club as both a youth and an adult, it goes in both sections. I don't think we need to add extra sections or rename the existing ones -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What age does he have to be to stop being called a youth? And if he joined a senior club from a junior club as an adult (which did happen) is his junior club placed in the senior club section? When I said above that it could cause confusion, I meant that anyone with no knowledge of football or Scottish football would not understand why a team who are not a youth team are in a section called youth team. If the reader follows the links he will find that it says specificaly that junior football is not youth football, as shown here at the Junior association article. If we follow the rule that we call it youth football because he was a youth, where does that leave someone like Theo Walcott when he played for Arsenal senior team as a youth? It would be ludicrous to say his youth team was the Arsenal first team. Why is it ok to say a Junior team is someones youth team when the fact is, it wasn't? Granted, it may cause a lot of hassle if we had to change these sections for Scottish football, but are we not an encyclopedia where we have to have citable facts in our articles, or are we happy to bend the rules to make it easier? Titch Tucker (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless an answer is found to this problem I shall remove all Junior clubs from the info boxes of all players concerned, as the information is just plain wrong. I am not here to cause problems, I'm here to ensure wikipedia gives readers the facts. They also don't belong in the senior section, as the article on junior football once again specificaly say's they are not senior teams. Titch Tucker (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite reading the entire discussion, I still don't see what the problem is here. Clubs are listed under the "Youth clubs" section until the player starts playing first team football. After that, all clubs are listed as "Senior clubs". – PeeJay 20:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say something similar. I don't know what the "problem", Titch Tucker, is referring to. Peanut4 (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is this: "The Scottish Junior Football Association ("SJFA" for short) is the governing body for the junior grade of football in Scotland. It is affiliated to the Scottish Football Association, the governing body of football in Scotland. Junior-grade football is commonly mistaken for a level at which boys' football is played, but the term "junior" refers not to the age of the players but the level of football played." According to Titch Tucker, this means that those clubs are not Senior cubs and hence should not be listed under Senior clubs. However, as the SJFA article goes on to explain, junior clubs are not necessarily limited to youth football.Madcynic (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I know how Scottish football works. I simply think suggesting "Senior clubs" and "Youth clubs" are the incorrect terms, is a (possibly pedentary) interpretation of language, rather than anything to do with football. Peanut4 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely if the SJFA make a point, and we at wiki also make it, then it has a lot to do with football. As our article say's "Junior football, as opposed from senior football, has existed since the early 1880's". And also "Junior-grade football is commonly mistaken for a level which boys football is played". My only reason for bringing this to peoples attention is accuracy. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely a case of verbal pedantry. Anyway, if anything needs changing – not that I think it should – it would be the "Senior clubs" bit. What it should be changed to, however, is another matter. – PeeJay 21:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing every single players' clubs is not the right way to fix this "problem" then. Peanut4 (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I should have thought that if junior-grade football is often mistaken for boys' football, including an adult's junior clubs correctly in the "senior clubs" section was a pretty good way of helping to eradicate people's misconceptions. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Peanut4 (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a case of verbal pedantry. Think about it, if a reader unfamiliar with football came to an article telling them a player played for Maryhill, they would be told it was a youth club. They would be wrong, are we here to give out wrong information? Titch Tucker (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

But if Maryhill was placed in the senior section, then the reader would know the player played for that particular team at a first team, adult, senior level, and not as a youth. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) That would be an argument for heading the sections Youth career and Senior career rather than Youth and Senior clubs, but that's nothing to do with Scottish junior clubs; it could be Real Madrid in there and still be misleading in that regard. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the infoboxes, as I see it, is that they were made for the relatively modern player. All Todays football clubs (as far as I'm aware) have youth club directly connected to them. When I was kid I played against Celtic boys club, who had a very loose connection to them. Many other youths would join the Junior ranks, playing alongside older players. I myself had a trial with Yoker Athletic F.C., but unfortunately I was not quite talented enough to make the grade. I still feel there is a problem here, but the phrase "flogging a dead horse" comes to mind. :) Titch Tucker (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand what the problem is that you're referring to. No-one says the youth clubs have to be pro clubs, or attached to pro clubs. If it can be sourced in the text, then there is no problem, as far as I'm concerned, about putting the village club that George Best played for when he was nine, or any other such example. Peanut4 (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just my point. There are no sources to say that x played for a youth team called y when y is a junior club. If you can find one for me I will be very surprised indeed. I can assure you, when I had my trial I was not trying out for a youth club. I'll say it once more, we are giving out the wrong information. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh? Thierry Henry for one has five youth clubs and all very well sourced. Peanut4 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? I asked you to give me a source for a Scottish Junior club being termed a youth club. If you can't, we are giving out the wrong information to the reader. How can you argue with that? Titch Tucker (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

But there should be no difference between Thierry Henry and any Scottish player, whose clubs can be sourced. If a source can be shown that Player X played for Celtic in his youth, but a club such as Maryhill J.F.C. or anyone other junior football club in his adult career, then put them in the correct respective careers. Either the problem is the section titles, or there is no problem at all as far as I see it. Peanut4 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2009(UTC)

If you look at one of my previous posts you will see I remarked that either the infobox has to be changed ie, section titles, or the Junior clubs would have to be removed from that section. We are all about giving reliable sources, so if we have those sources for Thierry Henri playing for five youth clubs, great. If we don't have reliable sources telling us Scottish Junior clubs are youth clubs then they don't belong there. In fact, there are reliable sources to tell us they are not youth clubs. Titch Tucker (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If you want to propose at Template talk:Infobox Football biography that the sections be renamed Youth career and Senior career, or some other wording, then please do so. I might well agree with you. But the problem is with the wording, not with the concept, and threatening to remove information from infoboxes because you don't like the wording isn't a good way to do things. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree pretty much with Struway. I don't think it's makes a difference whether its "Youth career" and "Senior career" or "Youth clubs" and "Senior clubs". But if it makes it easier to understand, then I would support a change. But removing what is factually correct information, is not a good idea. Peanut4 (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if I sounded as though I was acting like a bull in a china shop. That was not my intention. I have put forward a proposal to change the section title at Template talk:Infobox Football biography as Struway suggested. I'm not sure who else I should inform, so any ideas would be welcome. Thanks. Titch Tucker (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul Wilson

Following on from the above discussion, there is also an English footballer located at Paul Wilson (footballer born 1977), so shouldn't the other be moved back to Paul Wilson (footballer born 1950) and Paul Wilson (footballer born 1968)? GiantSnowman 23:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Scottish one should stay at (Scottish footballer), on the basis it's the obvious difference between him and the other two. With the English ones, they could be dabbed either by playing position, (English football defender) and (English football striker), or by year of birth as (English footballer born xxxx). Unless the current (English footballer), with several hundred FL appearances, is considered as the main article of that name, in which case just the new one should go to (English footballer born xxxx). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Kit body.png

Someone has uploaded a blue version over the transparent one, and for the life of me I can't find out how to revert - anyone.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've reverted it. It should perhaps be requested to be locked for uploading a new version on commons, though I dont know the procedure to request it _{— CHANDLER}^{#10 —} 10:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Mile Oak Rovers F.C.

Not needed, surely....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. TfD posthaste! – PeeJay 11:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Football clubs - singular or plural?

I've just been traipsing through some of the club articles and there seems to be some confusion as to whether a football club should be referred to as a singular or plural entity, even on some featured articles. For example, Everton F.C. opens with:

"Everton Football Club is a professional English football club..."

Then in the next paragraph, it reads:

"Everton were founded in 1878 and have a notable rivalry with Liverpool F.C."

So what is everyone's thoughts on this? Personally I'd always go with the plural, but is there a general grammar guideline that could be applied here? Bettia (rawr!) 11:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the old AmE vs BrE noun again, see American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. Nanonic (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're comparing two different things there - "Everton" and "Everton Football Club". "Everton Football Club is" definitely seems correct, as "club" is singular. But is "Everton" singular or plural? "Everton was" and "Everton has" just don't sound right to me, "Everton were" and "Everton have" do sound right. Perhaps someone else can explain this properly? Beve (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about hard and fast grammar rules, but what sounds right to me is to treat the club as singular and the team as plural, so you'd say "Everton F.C. was founded...." but "Everton were beaten by Liverpool......" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to add a bit more to this, see the third comment from the Aston Villa FAC where the singular form was corrected to the plural form in keeping with British grammar. However, the first sentance is kept as a singular. Bettia (rawr!) 12:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think basically if you could substitute "the club" for "Everton" and preserve the correct context, then it should be singular, if you could substitute "the team" and preserve the correct context, it should be plural. To avoid tortured grammar you could always say "the club was founded" rather than the odd-sounding "Everton was founded". "The club were founded" is definitely wrong.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That comment in the AVFC FAC is wrong. A football club is a singular thing, not a collective, so Everton Football Club should take a singular verb. Everton the football team is a collective, so takes the plural. What gets messy is when people write "the club" or "Everton F.C." when they actually mean the team. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that a football club is an abstract entity and therefore can't actually "do" anything other than be formed or cease to exist. Most uses of "the club" or "Everton F.C." are just lazy shorthand for the team, the board of directors, or even the fans and could be rewritten accordingly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The short answer to this question is that it's both, as noted above. This is a little thing called the discretionary plural, whereby the term "may refer either to a single entity or the members of the set that compose it". Therefore, "Manchester United Football Club is an English football club", but "Manchester United have won the FA Cup 11 times". – PeeJay 13:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion some time ago at WT:WikiProject Football/Archive 22#Mass grammar change on team articles. And the MoS is unusually explicit on the subject, which I'm sure it never used to be, saying that in BritEng, "names of towns and countries take plural verbs when they refer to sports teams but singular verbs when they refer to the actual place (or to the club as a business enterprise)". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Football (soccer) songs.

I see a good idea on an article that is up for AfD. I was hoping others can see the idea instead of deleting this, Football (soccer) song - AfD we should keep and fix it up to be a decent list. Govvy (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Bookerman sockpuppet?

I was curious, the account has been used very specificily. A bit like a sockpuppet account. I thought the owner might be, User:Juzhong. Can an admin investigate? Govvy (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fülöp Márton and Márton Fülöp

What is going on here? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best to change the former into a redirect to the latter. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. – PeeJay 20:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sunderland A.F.C. squad

How comes the flags have been removed from the SAFC squad list? CumbrianRam (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your answer lies at the featured article candidacy page. Basically it breaks WP:MOSFLAG. Personally, I think it's a change for the worse because you can no longer see at a glance, the nationality breakdown of the squad. Peanut4 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks mate, I don't like it either, it looks ugly, but hey. CumbrianRam (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If it somehow breaks MOSFLAG, can we initiate a discussion to alter it, because it's a big loss to squads. matt91486 (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But I'm not sure the best way to change it. It appears that a country's name needs to be next to any flag for accessibility reasons, but putting each country's name would look even uglier than nothing at all. I suppose there may also be problems about identifying a player's nationality rather than simply country of birth. Peanut4 (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't like at all! Flags show a player's nationality at a quick glance, and are extremely useful in my opinion. I agree with Matt, if this removal of flags is going to become common across the whole of Wikipedia then we need to argue against it! Cheers. GiantSnowman 02:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Awful, a change for the worse. The flags in team squad are certainly not for decorative purposes, they help to identify the players nationality at a glance. For me this is a good example of how rigid adherence to policy can work to the detriment of the project. King of the North East 02:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Spot on. It looks to me that it's using policy to help a minority but hinder the majority of readers. Peanut4 (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In reading WP:MOSFLAG#Use_of_flags_for_sportspeople, it doesn't appear that having the flags in the table contravenes the guideline. The fact that the country name pops up when you mouseover the flag seems to satisfy the accessibility aspect. I don't see a problem. --JonBroxton (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been through this before a long time ago, it was recommended past in the project to put the flags back due to the diversity of a football soccer team it is useful. Govvy (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't like it, but as Jon pointed that link out, they should stay I think. Sunderland06 (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) My argument may not be the best, but here goes: I see no reason why flags should be replaced by text in the squad lists as they convey the same information in a concise manner and they add some decoration to what would otherwise be a block of text. Imagine how ugly the table would look if it read "1 Scotland GK Craig Gordon; 2 England DF Phil Bardsley..." etc. Flags must be kept, and if that goes against WP:MOSFLAG, then the guideline needs rewriting. – PeeJay 11:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Here, here! — _CHANDLER^#10 — 12:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If the flags go it will destroy a helpful piece of information which would talk an annoying amount of time to look up. DeMoN2009 16:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading the current FAC, it looks like we might need to include both flag and the country name. This will need a change at the template if this goes ahead. I think we need to keep the flags, and if that means having to enter country names, so be it, but I would rather have just flags. Peanut4 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't MOS:FLAGS#Country_can_sometimes_be_omitted_when_flag_re-used cover it? Oldelpaso (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on that, you could presumably get around it with a key attached to every squad table. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(to Oldelpaso) It appears it does. Peanut4 (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

José Francisco Cevallos

On loan at one club for six consecutive years? Surely not correct...GiantSnowman 02:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The most I've seen is three years, but it could be possible... DeMoN2009 16:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Graham Westley

Could an admin possibly semi-protect this page and discipline User:82.70.192.33 - he and some other anon editors seem to think Graham Westley's middle name is "Chipmunk". Oh dear. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the vandal. I haven't protected the article since that IP seems to be responsible for the majority of the vandalism, but I have watchlisted it. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Hudson (soccer)

Not convinced whether this person passes the notability test, especially as it was a promotional article until I cleaned it up. Can someone check whether he played in a fully-professional league, or tell me whether being manager in the third tier of US soccer is considered notable enough? Thanks. Qwghlm (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see on the net (on forums mainly); he signed YTS terms at West Ham, played for West Ham youth and reserves (1996-99) - went on loan to Luton, played for Luton reserves (1999) - signed a 2 year professional contract with NEC Nijmegan, played for NEC reserves (2000-01) - returned to England after a year and the contract was cancelled by mutual consent after his father was in a car accident. Then went on trial at Port Vale in 2002 but got injured without making the first team. Hope that helps somewhat. Nanonic (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Post War English & Scottish Football League A - Z Player's Database confirms that he never played a league game for West Ham or Luton Town...I dunno about any English cup games, or about his career in Holland or the States. Cheers, GiantSnowman 13:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No mention of such a player in The PFA Premier & Football League Players' Records 1946-2005. By looking at his profile (or I assume it's him) on Playerhistory, I see he has played five games for Wilmington Hammerheads in 2008.[3] They play in the USL Second Division, which, according to its article, is a fully pro league and so he passes WP:BIO. Now it needs a cleanup so it can sufficiently pass WP:N. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that the USL Second Division is fully pro, despite its prior name of USL Pro Soccer League. According to an article in When Saturday Comes 261 (November 2008), contrasting David Beckham's salary with that of the typical MLS player, Kevin Souter earns $12,900 a year –less than the minimum wage in his native Scotland– and is "one of more than a hundred players in the 14-team league who earn $33,000 (£18,000) or less per year". Assuming wages are lower as you go down the pyramid, surely the average USL2 player couldn't be anything more than semi-pro. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the United States has three fully-pro leagues - the MLS, and USL 1 & 2. Even if the wages for pro-players are low, it doesn't mean that the league itself isn't a fully-pro league - as Angelo has pointed out Serie C in Italy has low wages but is still fully-pro. GiantSnowman 16:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just found this press release from a USL-affiliated event, which describes USL 1 and 2 as "professional" and the USL Premier Development League as "pro/am". Not quite sure how USL2 players manage to house themselves, but it does look like its professional. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to remember that living conditions in the US are much better than here in the UK, and much cheaper. Oh, and the PDL's description as 'pro/am' means that it semi-pro, being made up by a combination of semi-pro older players and young, amateur college players. Quite a few current MLS/USL players will have played at their local PDL team while at college, for experience and not money. GiantSnowman 17:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember an article about the defunct California Victory which indicated it had players who worked in the front office and other jobs to make ends meet. I suspect it was an aberration (since the club disappeared quickly), but I doubt all USL-2 players are full-time. Jogurney (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

But in this crazy modern-world we live in, are any footballers AT ALL full-time? Well technically no, top-rate players also have advertising contracts, and broadcasting contracts etc. GiantSnowman 19:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but I thought the idea of a fully-pro league was that no squad members needed to work part-time to make ends meet and that the squad were paid sufficiently to be full-time (even if they have other advertising or promotional duties). Jogurney (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I was being deliberately pedantic - apologies. But all the sources point to USL2 being a fully-pro league - albeit a relatively poorly paid one - and if you can find a source to counter this then we'll have to change it to semi-pro. GiantSnowman 23:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We have always considered USL-2 fully professional for notability criteria. matt91486 (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Pablo Bastianini

Hi, could someone revert this please? The editor has done it twice already today using 2 different IPs, I can't revert again due to 3RR, (the bit about him being most famous for playing with Yeovil can go though) Regards King of the North East 21:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK you can brake the 3RR rule if it's for reverting a continuous flagrant vandalism... --necronudist (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive football editor

Teammates, coaches and (hopefully) referees,

To your attention: mind this extremely disruptive editor, whom operates solely on PORTUGUESE FOOTBALL: PASD08, whose "skills" consist in "contributing" with the following: gluing all sentences into one, making for a very difficult to read article, but much much worse, this: he removes all LINKS and REFERENCES provided, as well as other templates and PCupdates (examples http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Aly_Cissokho&diff=prev&oldid=263153809, http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Jo%C3%A3o_Alexandre_Santos&diff=prev&oldid=261325223 and http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=F%C3%A1bio_Coentr%C3%A3o&diff=prev&oldid=262329686).

This "user" previously operated under the account PARARUBBAS, (example here http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Evaristo_Man%C3%BA&diff=prev&oldid=226047221) first, then switched to PEP10, example here http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Jo%C3%A3o_Pereira_(Portuguese_footballer)&diff=prev&oldid=257327999)

After repeated warnings (User talk:Pararubbas and User talk:Pep10, including in what it seemed to me as his native tongue, Portuguese, which were overlooked, a checkuser was filed and both accounts were blocked indefinitely for continuous disruption. Incredibly, he sometimes added (adds) INFOBOXES of players, which on occasion i told him we highly appreciates and no one removes, asking him to respect others' work as well. Right...

This case(s) has been repeatedly reported to WP/ANI (last update here, under my anonymous IP http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive505#Likely_sock_of_indef_blocked_user), but the lack of feedback has been overwhelming, that is why i also tip my teammates here, also having joined "the force" recently and this being a football matter.

P.S. By the way, look one of his "contributions" i reverted, in AD Fafe (Portuguese modest club). If anyone can make anything out of this, sorry for any incovenience and please restore it...(http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=A.D._Fafe&diff=prev&oldid=248436577)

Attentively, surely hope for a "sending off" or at least a "yellow card" :)

From Portugal, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Siblings of different nationalities?

Where a player accepts an invitation to represent the home nation of a parent or grandparent (country X), rather than his place of birth (country Y), is that sufficient evidence to suggest that the family were raised as Xians, or do we remain true to the assumption that a players' nationality is indicated by his place of birth? Is Lancashire-born Marc Tierney, obviously bearing a proportion of Irish blood as well as an Irish surname, more Irish than English given that his brother played for Ireland U21s? Is his Colchester team-mate Kemal Izzet Turkish on the basis of Muzzy's caps? Kevin McE (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered that myself. Gabriel Zakuani has lived in England since he was 6, and has played his entire football career there, but plays internationally for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. His brother Steve [4] is about to be drafted to play in Major League Soccer, and is classed as English as he has not made any international appearances at any level. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Accepting an invitation to play for a country other than that of their birth is evidence only that the player received an invitation to play for that country and accepted it, so that their sporting nationality changed from that of their birth. It can have no bearing on the nationality, sporting or otherwise, of a sibling. Muzzy Izzet always wanted to play for England :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Munich air disaster PR

Hey guys, I've listed Munich air disaster for a Peer Review, with a view to getting it to FA status in time for the 51st anniversary of the crash in four weeks. I know I've probably left it a bit late for that, but better late than never. Anyway, the PR has already had a couple of comments from members of WikiProject Aviation, but it could definitely use a contribution from a football point of view. Anyone who comments will get a great big kiss from me (or, if that puts you off, anyone who doesn't comment will get a great big kiss from me)... Cheers. – PeeJay 23:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nick Blackman

Version one, version two. Take a pick? Mattythewhite (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Version two. By a country mile. Peanut4 (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I've let him know about article layouts as well, as he seemed inclined to swap level 2 and level 3 headings on a couple of articles[5]. --Jameboy (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Category deletion 2

This football related category has been nominated here, I have put forward my argument as to here it is a noteworthy category but your opinions are very welcome.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenzin Tsering and WP:ATHLETE

I'd appreciate it if some editors familiar with how professional football actually functions, and the application of WP:ATHLETE, could head over to the AfD for this Tibetan footballer to try and find consensus; it is mainly politically motivated at the minute. Cheers, – Toon^(talk) 22:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The only political voting I have seen was keep votes. Which isn't logical voting. Govvy (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

After a split...

After splitting an article (as I have done to Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup statistics, splitting it into Intercontinental Cup statistics and FIFA Club World Cup statistics), what should be done with the original article? I thought about turning it into a sort of dab page, but I'm uncertain. Guidance pls. – PeeJay 19:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much benefit of a dab page. I'd either PROD of AFD it. Peanut4 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Before you delete it, you need to check/fix all the incoming links. After that it can be deleted - I don't think a disambig page would serve any purpose in this case as the article name combines two topics in one. --Jameboy (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just one thought... deleting it means losing the edit history of the original article. Not sure if that is important or not. --Jameboy (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be, actually. After mergers, the merged pages have to become redirects in order to save the edit history, in compliance with the GFDL, so that might have to be the case with splits too.

My other concern is that there have been a couple of objections at Talk:Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup statistics to the splitting of the article, which makes this even more of a dilemma. Obviously, the creation of two further articles isn't a problem, but the potential deletion of the original might be. – PeeJay 20:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, that breaks GDFL. Might have been a better idea to move the article to one location, and then split the other stuff off it. Can still be done by an admin by deleting one of the two split articles, moving the old one, then restoring the new version and then making an edit with a summary detailing the split. Then the original page will be a redirect which can be deleted (if nothing points there). пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would split out... probably the FIFA Club World Cup part to another article, and move the original over the new Intercontinental Cup statistics — _CHANDLER^#10 — 08:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added a {{db-g7}} tag to the Intercontinental Cup statistics article I made, and once that's been deleted, I shall move the Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup statistics article to Intercontinental Cup statistics, removing the stats for the FIFA Club World Cup. Cheers. – PeeJay 17:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please have a look at User:Gethomas3's edits? They keep restoring the old version of Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup statistics to the old title, despite the split of that article having been performed with a supporting consensus (two supports on the article talk page plus no objections in this discussion here, compared to three oppositions on the article talk page; seems to indicate a consensus in favour of the split to me). I informed the user of this apparent consensus after they reverted for the first time, then warned them after the second revert. They have now reverted three times, despite the warnings. What should the next step be? – PeeJay 12:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, Gethomas3 has a point. You really should check the consensus again as the majority voted against the split. Taking "no objections in here" as votes for splitting is definitely not the right thing to do. You don't get to split an article, then make some comments in here in order to get help about finishing the process and later claim you saw no objections. It gets hard to assume good faith when your actions and words look so... twisted. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 14:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I accept that perhaps I took the wrong course of action. I mistakenly believed that if no opposition to a proposal was shown, then that could be taken as support for the proposal. I mean, the editors who commented above had (and still have) every opportunity to object to the split, but since they didn't, I assumed that they had no problems with it. Anyway, that aside, Gethomas3's actions right now are completely in the wrong, regardless of what I did. Not only that, but they also seem completely unwilling to make any edits other than incorrectly performed reversions of the page move. – PeeJay 21:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So, when are you going to undo the changes? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 00:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Matches at the Wembley Stadium (1923)

User:Mr Hall of England created this category a few minutes ago, but I'm not convinced of its worth. And even if it does serve a purpose, I'm fairly sure it should be called Category:Matches at Wembley Stadium (1923) (no "the"). What does everyone else think? – PeeJay 18:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What other matches (with articles) other than FA Cup finals, League Cup finals, the 66 World Cup final and the 96 Euro final? — _CHANDLER^#10 — 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about ones with articles, but Wales played some rugby union internationals at Wembley between the knocking down of Cardiff Arms Park and the building of the Millennium Stadium. – PeeJay 18:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Various European Cup finals, Football League play-off finals, Football League Trophy finals, Charity Shields and World Bowl (American Football) would also be included, to name a few. I'm marginally in favour of keeping the category, but as you say, lose the "the". There's also the option of widening the category to something like "Events at Wembley Stadium (1923)", to include Live Aid for example, but as it was primarily for sporting fixtures that may not be the best course of action. --Jameboy (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, despite the fact that it was a sports venue, I think that Category:Events at Wembley Stadium (1923) sounds like a better title for the very reason you suggest. – PeeJay 19:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be moved to Category:Events at Wembley Stadium (1923), if it is to be kept. King of the North East 21:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

CfR lodged -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Everton goalkeeper 1931 FA Cup semi-final (Coggins?)

Can anyone confirm the name of Everton's goalkeeper in the 1931 FA Cup semi-final? I think his surname is Coggins but I don't believe he has an article yet. Ideally I'd like to create at least a stub for him but even just his name would be great. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it is Bill Coggins, just found it here.[6] --Jameboy (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

EFCHistory.co.uk mentions him in passing as Bill Coggins (there is also a team pic with him on there). Nanonic (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

He was Billy Coggins (William Herbert Coggins, born in Bristol 16 September 1901, died 1958) - his Everton profile is at [7] and Everton's summary of the match is at [8]. He had previously played for Bristol City (1925–1930, 171 league matches) and went on to briefly play for QPR (6 matches in 1935–36). There, the stub is practically written! --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That is great, cheers. I'll go with "Billy" as it comes from the official club website, but also create William and Bill as redirects. Many thanks for your help. --Jameboy (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Supporters' Trusts in the UK

Supporters' Trusts are gaining momentum in the UK, but there doesn't appear to be much structure present for them here on Wikipedia. If someone could set some ground rules for the articles, it might help with article creation here. I just created this, which seems to be the only notable trust-related page besides this. Would we benefit from having someone define appropriate categories and templates for Trust pages? Is this even the right place to ask? - Phwoar (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also Supporters Direct, Wednesdayite and Arsenal Supporters' Trust. In general, I would say that some trusts are sufficiently notable to have their own article, but others are not. Those that own significant portions of their clubs, such as Stockport and Sheffield Wednesday, will have plenty of third party sources and definitely merit articles, but I don't know whether smaller trusts would. In all cases though, the existence of a trust is something worth mentioning in the Supporters section of a club article. Category:Supporters' trusts probably ought to be created. Perhaps I'll do it now. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a few more in to the category as well, thanks for doing it. The Rangers one might need a bit of work, sounds like it was written by someone close to it. Qwghlm (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

19xx-yy in English football

I was toying with the idea of picking a season article from the 20th century and trying to work it up to FA standard because, well, just because I felt like it really, but I was wondering if we had any sort of Manual of Style for such articles? Glossing over the fact that most of them are completely unreferenced and quite badly written, there's a wide varieties of different styles used - some include full league tables (duplicating content from the equivalent "The Football League 19xx-yy" article), others don't, some include a "diary of the season" plus a separate list of "significant events", others don't, some include lists of "star players" and "star managers" (POV alert!), others don't......the variations are endless. What do people feel should/shouldn't be in there, and how should the sections be arranged.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd had similar thoughts and had made a bit of a start on improving 2007–08 in English football a little while back, trying to start shaping it into summarised sections that could point to the daughter articles where they exist (e.g. Premier League season, Football League season, FA Cup season etc etc). Admittedly I didn't get too far and I've been working on other things. We need to be a bit flexible with any MoS as the 1888–89 article will look very different to the 2007–08 one for example, due to the increased number of competitions and the amount of source information available, but there are some principles that should apply throughout. Diary of the season, list of events, star players, star managers are all big no-nos for me. Referenced winners of awards and prose-based information on the season's events are good though, with some supporting lists or tables where relevant. Not sure what to do about the lists of deaths and managerial changes. If there are daughter articles for leagues then I would put the full league tables there and summarise in the season in English football, maybe showing the top and bottom few teams in each division. One more thing, we could do with a "country football season" (or whatever you might call it) infobox/template. I knocked up a rough draft in my sandbox a while ago just to start getting some ideas on what could be included. The Premier League season one is below it for comparison. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jameboy, but I would also suggest that a summary of English teams' involvement in European competition during the season be included. – PeeJay 16:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Jameboy. I don't mind the lists of "deaths", etc, because they are not easy to change to prose and I feel are noteworthy enough without becoming trivia or opinion on what and what not to include. Peanut4 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Premier League seasons

Hi everyone, I was wondering whether anyone was willing to help me with my mission to clean-up the Premier League (English) season articles because at the moment they are all over the place. If anyone can help, let me know here or on my talkpage. I asked PeeJay but he said he is too busy at the moment. Cheers. 03md (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Continental championship player categories

I noticed there are categories for the players who competed in most (if not all) of the FIFA Confederation Championships (e.g., Category:1989 Copa América players or Category:UEFA Euro 1992 players). These seem to be under-populated, but before I start adding them to the relevant articles, I wanted to confirm that the project members agree that these categories are useful. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the use of these categories and fully populating the Copa América categories is about halfway down my ever increasing things to do list. King of the North East 20:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User: User talk:82.43.33.249

This user keeps adding non players to the Blades squad list - he's had repeated warnings about this and various other edits and I'm fed up of reverting them. If I'm not being paranoid can we look at this user's access? Thanks

Bladeboy1889 (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you need, report him to the vandalism pages on WP:ANI. Peanut4 (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That was easier said than done - those pages are constantly being edited so it took about twenty attempts to actually post something without an edict conflict. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Kaizeler

I think we need to watch out for this user's edits at the minute. They have started creating "fb" templates for various football associations and clubs and adding them to the 1955-56 and 1957-58 European Cup articles, which is completely unnecessary. Help please. – PeeJay 21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That sketch pic looks evil on that profile! Govvy (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The fb templates category and subcategories need reviewing generally I think. Lots of them, little evidence of documentation and I have no idea how to use most of them or what they are for. --Jameboy (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a quite smart thing to have, or some sort of shortcut system for FA's, because every article isnt "Country Football Association", it will make things easier some times. Perhaps something like {{nft}}. {{nfa}} perhaps, to use with substitute. — _CHANDLER^#10 — 21:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks okay, I don't think Kaizeler is doing damage, I did like his plan out too, User:Kaizeler/Clubs Govvy (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

On quick glance, it looks like he's simply trying to reinvent the wheel. Peanut4 (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to understand why you need to apply templates to links that are working perfectly normally - it just obscures things for editors. Add to that the amount of pointless admin you create by having to create a template for each team. Not knowing the correct link target is not a good reason for knocking up a load of templates. If you don't know the article title you are linking to, go find out. Templates are supposed to make things easier - this doesn't, and I would go further and say that I think these templates should be deleted. --Jameboy (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

100% spot on. That was the way I understood it first time round. Peanut4 (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A template like {{subst:nft|France}} would be useful (even if all articles are in the same format, and therefore everyone knows where they are) but {{subst:nfa|France}} would be totally unnecessary especially as everyone might not know where the article exists? — _CHANDLER^#10 — 22:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As Jameboy quite rightly says, if you don't know where the article is found simply search for it. Peanut4 (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why are there any templates to make linking easier? If everything you have to do is search for it? I think subst:nft is useful even if I know exactly where the link is located. — CHANDLER^#10 — 22:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

subst:nft is very useful, but it's even better because it's only one template. What Kaizeler is doing is creating a new template for every single club/association he/she comes across, and that's not good for anyone. – PeeJay 22:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand that creating new templates for all clubs is not necessary. But many fb templates (the one for tables etc) need the clubs to use this template, so I'd understand if someone creates a club when they need (Only today I created {{Fb team Wimbledon}} for use in a table). The association templates could be made into one imo. — CHANDLER^#10 — 22:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if User:ClaudioMB hadn't been so template-happy when he created the "fb" table templates, those templates would work just fine with simple wikilinks. But no, we had to use templates. I would happily destroy all of the fb templates in favour of a simple wikitable. – PeeJay 22:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

True, though I like the idea of standardizing league tables etc. Though it ofc could be remade so all team links are wikilinks instead of other templates and other things to make them more customizable. (for example, I don't know if the current table system allows point deductions?) — CHANDLER^#10 — 22:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

One problem I envisage with the fb templates is that they don't account for change of names, e.g. Swansea Town to Swansea City, or Hartlepools United to Hartlepool United. It makes it too easy for the naive editor to make mistakes. Peanut4 (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I think it does. However, I'm not sure that the team fb templates allow for piping to the clubs' old names, which is a big pain in the arse. AFAICT, we now have multiple templates for clubs' new names and old names. Not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination. – PeeJay 22:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Have we just made the exact same point on a little tangent at the same time? If so, I think it proves something with these templates. Peanut4 (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I think we have. But yes, there is clearly a big fault with these templates. I'm sure it could be fixed, but there will be other faults in the future, so why bother carrying on fine-tuning the templates when we can just use a simple wikitable and regular wikilinks? Surely it's not hard to do the maths to work out goal difference and points (the only function these templates actually do)? – PeeJay 22:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What about using this template on {{nfa}}, to be used like {{nft}}, right now it works with FIFA country codes and country name, produces the link to the FA linked in the country's name, just like the nft. — CHANDLER^#10 — 03:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the {{Nfa}} to replace all the templates that currently are in this category Category:Fb FA templates — CHANDLER^#10 — 14:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming that this new template only works with the FIFA-designated three-letter abbreviations and the country's name? – PeeJay 14:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Right now it's only the FIFA 3 letters (and country name), but ISO or IOC (and others) can be added quite easy. (Though I've added some custom, like Bosnia, US, China, and some, not all of the obsolete, Yugoslavia, USSR, Dutch East Indies etc) — CHANDLER^#10 — 14:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, nice one. Good work dude. – PeeJay 14:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Season: Manual of Stlye

Why is there no manual of style for a Club's Season page? Was there some decision made once to avoid it or has it never been considered? Morry32 (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons Is that what you're looking for? — CHANDLER^#10 — 13:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That page is a good start for a MoS, but it doesn't take into account recent developments with regard to the infobox or the various sections. For example, there is no longer any need to have the club's kits in a separate section as they can now be put in the infobox. – PeeJay 13:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Football Conference article moved

I see that Football Conference has been moved to Football Conference (England) and the original page turned into a disambiguation page, but (probably unsurprisingly) nothing has been done about the 1000+ links that still point to Football Conference...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A very strange move, considering the other links are not called "Football Conference", but only links to American football conferences. — CHANDLER^#10 — 15:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest moving back The Football Conference, place the new page on Football conferences, with a link to each on both. — CHANDLER^#10 — 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

there are no pages beginning "Football Conference" other than seasons of and redirects to the Football Conference, so even if the editor wanted to list other uses, Football Conference (disambiguation) (or as Chandler says Football conferences) had to be the way to go. Is it practical to move it back, or has it got too messy? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, the move should be reverted and the dab page deleted until an RM can be fulfilled. – PeeJay 15:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. - fchd (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I tried reverting the moves, but something went wrong. It says a admin needs to move the pages. — CHANDLER^#10 — 16:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've fixed the double redirects caused by moving it back. The original mover had changed some redirects, such as Nationwide Conference, to go to the (England) name, so I've undone those. They did also change some major templates e.g. {{Football in England}}, which I've left alone as they're only single redirects. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

He's gone and re-moved the articles... Can some admin take care of it and revert it? — CHANDLER^#10 — 00:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

1911census.co.uk

Just to let people know about the http://www.1911census.co.uk/ website, which is quite similar to findmypast.com in that full names, DOB and POB details of people (and so footballers) can be found. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Bayern Munich or Bayern München?

I see on the Landon Donovan article two users are continuously reverting each others edits over the dispute as to whether to refer to FC Bayern Munich using their German name or an English translation. Personally I think it should be using the English translation, this is the English language Wikipedia and the club has always been called Bayern Munich in English to my knowledge. However I'm unsure what steps to take to resolve this issue. Ben O'Bagels (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Im pretty sure it's been disscussed to death about local/english names, and if a team has a english website with a name there, that's the one we should use. [FC Bayern] seems to use Munich — _CHANDLER^#10 — 14:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

en.wiki.x.io - Munich; de.wiki.x.io - München. München redirects to Munich here on the English Wikipedia. Beve (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to give User:Grant.Alpaugh a huge slap upside his head. Not only is he campaigning for Bayern Munich to be referred to as Bayern München on Landon Donovan's article, but he also seems to think that, amongst others, Hannover 96 should be piped to "Hannoverscher von 1896" on the United States national men's soccer team article! Does this not seem crazy to anyone else? – PeeJay 14:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not just that, it's straighforwardly wrong - their fullname is "Hannoverscher Sportverein von 1896", no-one would ever say "Hannoverscher von 1896". Not that we should use the fullname either, the shortform common name is entirely appropriate. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page to Wikipedia:Naming convention#Sports teams. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No question, the common name in English is Bayern Munich, strange half-translated hybrid that it is. English usage isn't consistent on this - we don't use AS Rome but sometimes use Inter Milan, for example Knepflerle (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I hate the usage of "Inter Milan", but I guess we have to keep using it because so many people don't realise that "Internazionale" is the name we should be using. At least, the Italians rarely refer to the team as "Inter Milan", preferring "Internazionale" or just "Inter". – PeeJay 16:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue there is we have to cater to the novice and draw a clear distinction between the two Milan sides. Beve (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should, even if they officially have Milano in their name, it just makes it look like "Glascow Rangers", "Sporting Lisbon", "Arsenal London" or (to my own dismay what UEFA have done to my local team) "AIK Solna" (We're a Stockholm team damnit!) — _CHANDLER^#10 — 16:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As one of the two users involved in it being "Munich" over "München", I clearly fall on side of Munich. It's common sense to use the most widely-recognized English name over the German one. Grant's argument is that we wouldn't use 'Seville' over 'Sevilla', so we should use 'München' over 'Munich'. Well, that's true, because the team IS called Sevilla by most English-speaking media outlets. A better comparison would be teams from Russia; under Grant's standard, we should be using CSKA Moskva instead of CSKA Moscow, which is just as silly. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

<pedant>Actually it would be TsSKA Moskva, which is even sillier</pedant> пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a <pedant> tag now? Just what I've always needed! Beve (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Googlefight...! While I know that this is definitely not the best meter to use, it bears some evidence anyway. Doing that Bayern Munich wins over Bayern München with more than 10:1 hits on English sites. Actually Bayern Munich is still more often used, even if you include German sites. OdinFK (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We're still having the same problem with User:Grant.Alpaugh over at Talk:United States men's national soccer team. He's been editing and insisting on piping names such as [[Hannover 96|Hannoverscher von 1896]] , [[Standard Liège|Royal Standard de Liège]], [[Borussia Mönchengladbach|Prussia 1900 Mönchengladbach]] or [[Borussia Mönchengladbach|Borussia 1900 Mönchengladbach]], [[FC Bayern Munich|Bayern München]] or [[FC Bayern Munich|Bavarian Munich]], [[Villarreal C.F.|King's-Town]]. Can someone not already involved in this discussion please step in? He's the only one on his side of the argument and has been continuously re-editing the roster section for the U.S. team. I already provided data for the "Google news test" per the Wikipedia:Naming convention#Sports teams earlier in the discussion. His tone is so condescending and he's usually relentless when he picks up an idea whether or not the WP community agrees with him. This seems to be that kind of issue. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've finally crossed paths with Mr Alpaugh. He believes the German name for FC Bayern Munich should be the one bolded in the lede, even though the article is named in the English manner. Perhaps I've missed something in the manual of style? - 22:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't this guy just blocked a few days ago? Surely you'd think he'd have learned his lesson by now? – PeeJay 23:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for being late to the party, but I only just realized this thread existed. Simply put, all of the policies you are using only refer to article titles. I'm not stupid enough to start asking for pagemoves, but the simple fact is that we can link to articles however we want. Since that is the case there is no policy reason that we can't do exactly what I'm proposing. I think that having double standards leads only to inconsistency, so I'm simply proposing a unified standard: use the actual club name except for the "Club/Football Club/Sports Club/whatever" part of the name, which everyone agrees we can do without seeing as every English club competition page removes the "(A.)F.C." from the clubs in question. The reason the "But, Grant, 'München' has an English form, 'Munich'" doesn't work is that the same is true of the Portuguese names "Jose" or "Christiano" and yet you would never see "Jose Mourinho" or "Cristiano Ronaldo" as "Joseph Mourinho" "Christian Ronaldo." This is precisely the same thing. "Sevilla" and "Napoli" have the English names "Seville" and "Naples," but simply put the clubs do not, so it is incorrect to refer to them by that name. It is unencyclopedic to be imprecise and inaccurate in this mannor, and I intend to stem that tide with regards to the articles I care about, namely North American ones. I apologize for edit warring or pointy editing, as those were my only policy violations, but from a policy point of view I am 100% correct, and I would love someone to actually argue against these points based on their merits. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How can you say that you are 100% right in terms of policy when there is no policy to speak of? In instances like this, there is only consensus within the community, which you have ignored time and again. – PeeJay 00:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I just posted this on the USMNT talk page, but its worth re-posting here. Grant, this utterly absurd crusade of yours is making you a laughing stock, damaging your previously good reputation, and creating a new reputation for you as a short-sighted, obtuse troublemaker. If you can point me to one single English language soccer source where Villarreal is referred to as "Kings Town", or where Jose Mourinho is referred to as "Joseph Mourinho", and where the article is a serious journalistic piece and not a joke, then I will concede that there are points of precedent. However, as I am certain that you will not be able to do this, then you simply need to stop. The reason Bayern Munich needs to be used in the English language version of Wikipedia is because 99.99% of the English language soccer press uses that name when referring to the club which, in German, is called Bayern Munchen. Is it an inconsistent, badly translated mongrel name? Yes, it is. But despite this, IT REMAINS THE CORRECT COMMON NAME FOR THE CLUB IN ENGLISH, and therefore HAS to be used - doing otherewise will confuse casual readers, and undermine the integrity and usability of the soccer pages in this project. It's not a case of it being a nickname, or a club name being translated for poor uneducated Anglophones. Hibernian is not called Hibs because the club is called Hibernian IN ENGLISH by the English language soccer media. Portsmouth is not called Pompey because the club is called Portsmouth IN ENGLISH by the English language soccer media. Villarreal is not called Kings-Town because the club is called Villarreal IN ENGLISH by the English language soccer media. Sevilla is not called Seville because the club is called Sevilla IN ENGLISH by the English language soccer media. Napoli is not called Naples because the club is called Napoli IN ENGLISH by the English language soccer media. Jose Mourinho is not called Joseph because the man is called Jose IN ENGLISH by the English language soccer media. Therefore, Bayern Munich should not be called Bayern Munchen or Bavarian Munich because the club is called Bayern Munich IN ENGLISH by the English language soccer media. The end. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say consensus helps establish the page names, and the links should follow that very closely, with perhaps some minor amendments, e.g. dropping F.C., etc. That is whether we follow English-common names or the local names. Wikipedia follows a consensus and so the team names on squad lists should follow that same consensus. Peanut4 (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I do however, now have some concern with simply following this. It doesn't take account of pages with commonnames which are the same as their town/city so may be different to avoid disambig pages, e.g. Barcelona, Roma, Milan, Rennes, Liverpool. Some may simply drop the FC, AC, etc. Others may be less obvious. Peanut4 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, in that case you would simply use a normal disambig: Barcelona, Liverpool, Milan, Roma. Isn't that how we've always done it? --JonBroxton (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask then why the UEFA Champions League articles always refer to Bayern Munich simply as Bayern? Surely your argument extends even to the Champions League articles. Why should (I would guess) some of the most viewed articles not follow this consensus-driven formula? A fair point, no? Any thoughts on the matter, PeeJay? -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct. But I think your tone is perhaps a little uncalled for. I'm merely commenting on the matter above. I wasn't aware Bayern Munich were referred to simply as Bayern elsewhere. Peanut4 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No tone was intended, but I'm simply trying to point out the blatant double standard being applied. This is why we need a defined standard for use within the project. I'm creating no more chaos or inconsistency than others within the project, and yet I'm the one being told over and over again what a damage I'm doing to my reputation and how I need to be slapped upside the head (maybe also uncalled for?). That's all I'm saying. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe the instances where Bayern Munich are referred to simply as Bayern should be changed. I know I'm responsible for some most of them, but I don't see why I can't change my opinion on things. Anyway, I don't understand your apparent desire to lay down rules and guidelines governing the way people refer to teams in their common vernacular. Short names should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes it's appropriate to refer to the team as "Bayern", other times it's appropriate to call them "FC Bayern Munich" and on some occasions it may even be appropriate to call them "Die Rote", but there shouldn't be a guideline to say that we always drop the "FC" from the club name to form the short name (or similar). – PeeJay 00:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But there IS NO DOUBLE STANDARD, Grant. That's the point you don't seem to be getting. Bayern is most likely used in the same way that Pompey, Hibs, Spurs or Villa is used - a shortened nickname for the team in informal journalism. But, in formal journalism, in the English language, the team is called Bayern Munich. Not Bayern Munchen - that is its formal German name. Not Bavarian Munich. BAYERN MUNICH. As I said before, it's a badly translated, mongrel-hybrid name, but nevertheless it is it's name. There's just no getting away from that fact. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that if the UEFA Champions League articles, as arguably the most important club football articles in the encyclopedia aren't held to the standard I'm being dragged over the coals for, then there is clearly a double standard. Either we should develop a policy regarding how to refer to teams in tables, templates, brackets, etc. so that all articles are consistent, accurate, and professional, or we shouldn't and there is no reason not to pipe articles however we want. Since the standard I propose is based on objective analysis of the club's name and not on the shifting standard of whatever the English (read: British) media refers to the team as (which, not insignificantly is often wrong; see Sporting Lisbon or World Club Cup, et. al.) I think there is no logical reason to reject it. Personal preference is not a good enough reason to be imprecise or inaccurate. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, perfect. Then I would like to officially and formally suggest a new policy as follows: On all English-language Wikipedia soccer pages, when linking to other soccer teams, the link text be the most commonly used non-nickname version of that team's name in the English language, as used by the majority of the world's English-speaking soccer media. Where there is no translated English language version of the team name in common usage, then the team's local name should be used, omitting the usual FC/SC initialisms, unless the FC/SC initialisms are required to disambiguate the name. Therefore, teams such as CSKA Moscow, Rapid Bucharest, Red Star Belgrade, Legia Warsaw, Rapid Vienna and Bayern Munich would use the English language versions of their names rather than CSKA Moskva, Rapid Bucuresti, Crvena Zvezda Beograd, Legia Warszawa, Rapid Wien and Bayern Munchen. Similarly, teams such as Roma, Sevilla and Villarreal should retain their local spelling as there is no translated English-language version to use. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So, wait. Can you better explain your point? How would you link to some examples? I think I understand your idea, but maybe not. Specifically how would you treat Bayern, Sporting CP, Sevilla/Napoli, Milan and Inter, and things like CSKA/Red Star. Actually pipe them the way you are proposing. Again, this is for national team templates, tables, brackets, etc. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Links would be piped as 'Actual name of team on the first line of the page in question|Most common name used in English' - so, Bayern Munich, Sporting Lisbon (or Sporting CP would be acceptable too), Sevilla, Napoli, Milan, CSKA Moscow, and actually Red Star Belgrade wouldn't need a pipe because Red Star Belgrade directs to the page without one. So it would be like that. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with any of that as long as it is universally enforced. Well, okay one problem I have is that the word "Lisbon" appears nowhere in the club's name. This isn't a translation issue, but instead an issue of the British media calling the club by the incorrect name. I would say that "Sporting Portugal" is actually the best name, because abbreviating "CP" makes it appear that "Club de Portugal" is a common abbreviation or type of club. I guess theoretically we should even abbreviate it to just "Portugal," as "Sporting Club" is actually more analagous to "F.C., etc." but I'm willing to accept that this is like Atletico Madrid, that strictly speaking should be just A.C. Madrid, i.e. Madrid, but that is obviously problematic. So I suggest Sporting Portugal. Also, I really think that Inter Milan should be referred to as "Internazionale Milano" (sp?) since the word "Milano" actually appears in the name. Other than those though, I have no problem with what you're suggesting. -- Grant.Alpaugh 08:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Sporting Portugal" isn't an option in my opinion. It's got to be either "Sporting CP", "Sporting Lisbon" or just "Sporting" if the context is such that they couldn't be mistaken for any other team with "Sporting" in their name. – PeeJay 20:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Foreign players in La Liga

I've been looking at a few pages for Spanish teams and have noticed that a lot of them have a Foreign Players section. In most of them there's text a bit like this (taken from Atlético Madrid):

In the Spanish league only three non-EU nationals can be registered and given a squad number for the first team. Those non-EU nationals with European ancestry can claim citizenship from the nation their ancestors came from, e.g. Maxi Rodriguez can claim Italian citizenship as he has Italian ancestry. If a player does not have European ancestry he can claim Spanish citizenship after playing in Spain for 5 years. Sometimes this can lead to a triple-citizenship situation as in the case of Leo Franco, who is Argentine-born, of Italian heritage and can claim a Spanish passport, having played in La Liga for over 5 years. In addition, players from the ACP countries—countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific that are signatories to the Cotonou Agreement—are not counted against non-EU quotas, due to the Kolpak ruling. However, Atlético currently have no players on their first-team squad who are ACP nationals.

It seems a bit clumsy having this repeated for many/all Spanish clubs, so I think this should be included somewhere else with some kind of "see also" bit before this section of a club article. Would it be better to have a section in La Liga, or should there perhaps be a new article called something like Non-EU national players in La Liga? Additionally, this needs to be referenced from somewhere, not sure where to look, though. Dancarney (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems a bit unnecessary to have a whole article on it, I would have thought a section in La Liga, called something like "Squad restrictions", would suffice. The squad sections of the respective clubs could then have a note at the top/bottom saying something like "For details of squad eligibility, see La Liga#Squad restrictions". Only better worded :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the information could be added into the introduction of the List of foreign La Liga players article. King of the North East 20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that list article is slightly different as it's all non-Spanish players through the league's history. Not sure if it's worth noting there or not. Anyway, I've done a few bits and bobs to La Liga#Players, any further input (particularly references) would be great. Dancarney (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter Løvenkrands

Can somebody please have look at Peter Løvenkrands? He seems to be on trial in Newcastle and some IPs seem to consider this important enough to add it repeatedly. In my opinion this is not relevant until a contract is signed. --Jaellee (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

His trial is definitely worth mentioning in the prose of the article, as long as it can be referenced. But he shouldn't be classed as a Newcastle United player until he signs a contract. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Information about trials is something I would expect in a sports magazine and not in encyclopedia, but if that's the consensus I will leave it in. --Jaellee (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a consensus that I would support. If he doesn't get a contract, he probably wouldn't even put it on his own CV. Kevin McE (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think trials are important enough to be put in the prose, IF the player is one whom you would not expect on the receiving end of suh an invitation. I.e. if Newcastle invited a 17yo tier V player from Lesotho...Madcynic (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It may not go on his CV, but I have a feeling it would go into an (auto)biography, which is why I would support putting it in. – PeeJay 20:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You, me and Lovenkrands will only put something successful on their CV. Wikipedia is meant to be balanced, so I wouldn't use a CV as a guide. It's fact that he is having a trial, so I think it's more than worthy of inclusion. It is relevant to how his or any other player's career pans out. Peanut4 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think trials are generally not noteworthy, per WP:N#NCONTENT. If a trail is noteworthy in the scheme of things for an individual's article it simply means they have done bugger-all else of note. The less noteworthy an individual, the more noteworthy a trial (as noted by Madcynic above), but based on that logic, every nobody that has a trial deserves a page because their trial is noteworthy, which clearly should not happen. Having a trial is less noteworthy than having a contract and never playing (thereby failing WP:ATHLETE). As for it being a fact, so what? It may be a fact that he drives a Bentley, eats cornflakes for breakfast and has a tattoo that says "mother" on his left arm...but is that worthy of note? Whilst I personally wouldn't get too anal about removing it, I would be unlikely to add it.--ClubOranje^Talk 09:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no point invoking WP:ATHLETE - what passess notability for a standalone article is obviously wildly different than the content of an article. And a trial relates to a player's career, while your list of personal details do not. It seems to me that a sentence like "He signed for x after a successful trial period", or "After trials with w, x and y he eventually signed for z" are prefectly normal things to expect in a player's biography - they describe a stage in his career. If a player has been out of contract for some time, then what happens during this time should be mentioned. Obviously a trial doesn't deserve its own section heading, and doesn't go in the infobox, but still. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, a trial does not establish noteworthiness, but as soon as a player is noteworthy, trials may be included in the prose, if they are deemed important enough. Madcynic (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

UEFA Cup Winners' Cup/European Cup Winners' Cup

When did the European Cup Winners' Cup become the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup? User:Mr Hall of England seems to think that the change occurred in 1992, and has started moving all of the Cup Winners' Cup final articles from 1992 backwards from YYYY UEFA Cup Winners' Cup Final to YYYY European Cup Winners' Cup Final. Is this correct? – PeeJay 16:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, from just a quick glance at uefa.com, 61-62 page says "This was the first official Cup Winners’ Cup played under UEFA’s auspices and settled by a final – or rather, two – played in neutral venues.", and I didnt see anything around 91-93 that said anything about a name change, I might be wrong though as I only took a short look — CHANDLER^#10 — 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, it always was the "European Cup Winners' Cup". - fchd (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The history section: "The UEFA Cup Winners' Cup - initially known as the European Cup Winners' Cup" though It didn't say when it changed it's name to UEFA — CHANDLER^#10 — 17:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

the article UEFA Cup Winners' Cup says "from the 1994/95 season onwards, UEFA officially named the tournament the 'UEFA Cup Winners' Cup'". Unsourced, obviously... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

CL 2007 Final Match report includes this "Greece has proved a happy hunting ground for Milan in the two previous finals they have contested here. It was in Thessaloniki that the Rossoneri defeated another English side, Leeds United AFC, in the 1972/73 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup final, Luciano Chiarugi scoing the only goal after four minutes." Now I know FIFA seems to call every world cup "FIFA World Cup" (but perhaps in the past it was only known and called "1958 World Cup" or something like that), but UEFA from my experience have never called pre-93 European Cup "UEFA Champions League" (they even dividing the trophies on the team pages see Real Madrid, but still in some sense treating it like the same competition in result tables and history etc), I don't think they've referred to the Inter Cities Fairs cup as UEFA Cup, and I dont think they'll refer to the UEFA Cup (pre-EL seasons) as the UEFA Europa League. And to fchd, for me it's always been referred to as just The Cup Winners' Cup, no European or UEFA — CHANDLER^#10 — 17:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It would seem, then, that UEFA has back-named all Cup Winners' Cups as UEFA Cup Winners' Cups regardless of whether "UEFA" was originally part of the name or not. Therefore, I will try to revert Mr Hall's moves. – PeeJay 18:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, having seen the user's original reason for moving the pages ("Every ECWC Final was not UEFA CWC until 1995"), I might just leave it until we can come up with a consensus here. – PeeJay 18:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)A small research on FIFA.com AC Milan, 2 European Cup Winners' Cups: 1968, 1973. Ajax 1 European Cup Winners Cup (this was 86-87). Atletico 1 European Cup Winners' Cup: 1962. Bayern Munich 1 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup: 1967. Borussia Dortmund 1 European Cup Winners' Cup: 1966. Juventus 1 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup: 1984 . Man Utd 1 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup: 1991. So this leaves us with

European Cup Winners' Cup, 1962, 1966, 1968, 1973, 1987

UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, 1967, 1984, 1991

So the conclusion... inconsistency from FIFA, I guess... So it's hard to know when the name has changed. Two UEFA.com examples, UEFA Cup Winners' Cup 1963-64 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup 1967-68.. so even between UEFA and FIFA there are inconsistencies. It's hard to know what's correct. Unless someone finds some sort of statement from UEFA from 94 about them changing name. — CHANDLER^#10 — 18:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well in that case, I suggest that we stick with the most recent name (UEFA Cup Winners' Cup) all the way through. – PeeJay 19:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I've just emailed Bert Kassies to see if he knows, seeing as he pretty much knows more about UEFA than UEFA knows about itself. – PeeJay 19:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Bert emailed me back almost straight away, and he said that the competition changed its name in 1994, with the 1994-95 competition being the first to use the UEFA name. However, he then linked me back to the Wikipedia article about the competition, which isn't much bloody help at all :( – PeeJay 00:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw 1976 European Cup Winners' Cup Final pop up on my watchlist and I've got to admit that European Cup Winners' Cup is how I always knew the competition (I went to the 1976 European Cup Winners' Cup semifinal v. Eintracht Frankfurt at Upton Park btw, that was a good night). Isn't this a case where we should use the common name? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it depends, the most common name I would guess is just "Cup Winners' Cup", just as "Champions League" or "World Cup" and those use the more official, <conference> Competition. — CHANDLER^#10 — 00:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if UEFA retconned the name, we probably should go along with it, seeing as how it's difficult to find sources for the pre-1994-95 competition on the net, which sort of governs what the common name is, I think. Hard enough to do the common name thing now that the comp has been defunct for almost a decade. Madcynic (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Category deletion

I wonder if anyone was aware of this CfD. I am very dissapointed that such a large scale deletion was not listed at the relevant Wikiproject (here) and I would certainly have !voted to listify the information had I been aware of it. The categories were all deleted today despite the fact that two of the comments seemed to verge towards listify which is the same number that !voted outright delete. I think lists of Argentine and Brazilian born footballers to have played for other national teams are certainly worth a list. King of the North East 22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I just found out today - its a joke and needs to be stopped now.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Also check out this BS!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I added that in the project del list on the 20th, you had 7 days to vote. Don't know why you call it BS!, Govvy (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think procedural errors have been made, you can always request a deletion review. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Although, DRV or no DRV, the mass category removal from articles can't be undone. So it's particularly important that CfDs reach as wide an audience as possible. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I just found this; List of Brazilian footballers who have played for another national team. I really think the others should have been listified too, the info will be much harder to listify now the categories have gone. I'll put together a list for the Argentine players if I get time, I certainly don't have time to save the rest. King of the North East 22:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Although time-consuming to cross check each player's nationality, these contributions will at least catch all the players who were in the categories in question. Peanut4 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out above, it's quite easy to find the articles that were removed from a category prior to it's being deleted by a bot. Just go to userpage of the bot that did the depopulating/deleting and look at its "user contributions". All of those articles removed from a specific category will be grouped together after the previous category was deleted by the bot and just prior to the category being deleted by the bot. It's all there—nothing's lost forever in WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know this, it took me a good while to retreive the ones I'm interested in, and remove the unneccessary text. They are now stored on one of my userpages in reverse alphabetical order ready to be listified at a future date. The main complaint is that such a large scale deletion was not listed at the relevant Wikiproject in the first place (here) so that regular football contributors could have a say. Most of us are too busy to trawl trough every AfD anf XfD on a regular basis, but would certainly have commented if it had been listed. King of the North East 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You can add categories to watchlists just like articles, of course, which is probably the most efficient way of tracking proposed nominations to a category you care about without relying on the good will of others to notify WikiProjects, which is not mandatory. No deletion can ever happen if the category isn't tagged, so you'll find out about it if it's on your watchlist. Categories are edited rarely, so adding a bunch to your watchlist doesn't increase the number of recent changes you see by much. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not mandatory, but it would be sensible and considerate to notify the relevant project(s), especially when attempting to delete such a large number of categories. I am not going to rush off and put all the thousands of categories that fall under the scope of WP:FOOTY on my watchlist just incase someone attempts to have them deleted. Its not like I care about say Category:Greek football chairmen and investors but if someone attempted to have it deleted I would expect them to notify WP:FOOTY and WP:GREECE in order to get a more informed discussion with more than just 4 contributors. King of the North East 00:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's something that you'd expect, you're probably setting yourself up for disappointment, judging by the number of users who currently notify WikiProjects while nominating a category. From my judgment, it is exceedingly low, probably less than 1% of nominations. Just so you know ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note the contrast with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scottish football players playing abroad where participants in the deletion discussion take the logic that categories exist so why bother with the list. Ben MacDui 20:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A simliar category was now been nominated here, I have put forward my argument as to here it is a noteworthy category but your opinions are very welcome.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Images of the UEFA badge of honour and Title-holder logo

I've tried to search flickr for good images of the two emblems to include under each section on European Champion Clubs' Cup, I think it would add to the article to actually show what they look like. If anyone have for example a Man Utd shirt from this season with the Champions League title holder emblem (or a shirt of Real, Milan, Ajax, Bayern or Liverpool with the badge of honour) and a camera I think it would make a good addition. But if there isn't any free alternative available what would be the possibility to use a drawn copy, some what like this one, I remember there were discussions about those self made copies of trophies, about where they were under copyright from UEFA/FIFA or not etc. I have found the emblems on a site that draws football kits (pretty good imo) switchimageproject.com, Real Madrids 2001-02 8 boh or 9, but a bit smaller and less detail, Man Utds 2008-09 title badge (don't know if the two white stars represent wins during the CL era or not), not I haven't been able to find anything about licenses on that site. But that might not matter if they're usable because they're owned by UEFA? — CHANDLER^#10 — 15:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See if you can get Chris Creamer to create a version of it for you. A lot of the stuff off his site is used on the American Football pages, so I don't see why his stuff can't be used on association football pages too. – PeeJay 20:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But would these images actually improve any article? In my view, they would just be decoration that would detract from the real content, not add to it. There's enough logos and pictures splattered over major articles at it is. - fchd (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Logos of this sort are clearly permitted. Please don't restart an old argument here. Wiggy! (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

From what the text says, I don't feel I get to know how the emblems look. — CHANDLER^#10 — 21:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a option. I tried as good as possible to recreate them in Inkscape as vectors with the use of File:UEFA Champions League logo 2.svg and while using the previously posted images as guides. here's a png sample of them both. I think they would bring something to the article. Unless some free alternative (or until) is found wouldn't they be able to be uploaded under {{Non-free logo}} with Fair use for European Champion Clubs' Cup or something similar. — CHANDLER^#10 — 22:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why a 0 is used at the badge. Normally, three consecutive win will get a badge, so I think a 3 should be used instead of 0, which no badge would be given. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 02:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I put 0 on both because it's neutral. — CHANDLER^#10 — 02:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't think so. Winning no trophy, once or twice would not get a badge. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 02:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, why using 00/00 as the season of the badge? If I were you, I would use a 04/05 instead of 00/00, where the badge is introduced. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 02:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom Cleverley

Tom Cleverley has just joined Leicester City on loan until the end of the season can an admin remove the redirect from his name to the Man Utd reserves page, obviously he has yet to make his debut so isn't yet notable but it makes establishing a page less likely as people will see the wikilink and not think to start it... Skitzo (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so people know, I've written an article about Cleverley and placed it in my userspace. I'll move it to the mainspace when he makes his debut (hopefully it'll be tomorrow!) – PeeJay 19:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

well it won't be tomorrow (or today at the time of my reply) as Leicester don't play until Monday when they are live on sky ... Skitzo (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Huddersfield Town current squad

Is this template really necessary? Sure, it cuts down on having to make two separate edits on both Huddersfield Town F.C. and the current season article whenever there's a change in the squad, but is it really worth having a separate template just for that? In my opinion, the template should be substed onto the appropriate articles and then deleted. Opinions? – PeeJay 22:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The current season article shouldn't be the same as the current squad article anyway - if a player leaves mid-season, he's should stay on the former (as he's still relevant to that season), but be removed from the latter. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The current season article shouldn't use the template because at the end of the season it will need replacing anyway otherwise the squad will be wrong in two years time, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I support the use of this template. It maintains consistency between the template that is used on player articles and the one that goes with the club article. Far too often, these are not the same, and the template solves that. It probably has some things to work out as I don't think it has been released for general use though. Jogurney (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't check this template carefully before posting above and assumed it was something else. I don't think this particular template accomplishes much. Jogurney (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Jogurney has retracted his support: I certainly couldn't go with a template that is more than a screenful to sit at the end of every current player article; that would be totally disproportionate. Kevin McE (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Jogurney jumped in to support the Fs2 template myself and a few other editors have been working on, before taking a closer look and realising this one completely different. I was hoping to iron out a few more glitches during this transfer window before announcing Fs2, but I suppose now is as good a time as any (being a tad drunk). {{Club Atlético Tigre squad}} . You can see the template in action here and here, it cuts down the number of neccessary edits to complete a player transfer by 40% (out navbox, out current squad, adjust player article, in navbox, in current squad ---> out Fs2, adjust player article, in Fs2) and also has the added benefits of preventing the current squad and navbox from displaying contradictory information (which has been a massive problem with the non-Anglo leagues with few commited contributors such as the Argentine Primera for a long time) and giving the reader/editor an indication of exactly how out of date the current squad and navbox actually are. If anyone who is good with templates cares to give me a hand fixing the glitches and would like to offer their help on my talkpage I would be excessively grateful (burp). Regards King of the North East 00:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Now it makes more sense. I like the principle: is the oddly positioned edit button on the team page a serious issue (not to me it's not, but some might not like it). Otherwise, the only drawback that strikes me immediately is presentation of players either in or out of a club on loan. Kevin McE (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think players out on loan can be covered in a seperate section below, the (edit) option might confuse the first time someone tries to edit using the subheading [edit], but I don't see it as a major problem compared to glitches I need help to fix. King of the North East 02:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Doug DeMartin

He is the one MLS draftee who got through the net - I'm not sure of the actual process, so can someone with a more experience than me please flag his article at AfD? He clearly fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE as a player who has not yet played in a professional game (as he was only drafted yesterday0. Muchos gracias. --JonBroxton (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

AfDed Kevin McE (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

2022 World Cup

Still too early to put anything meaningful up on the article, as it could only be speculative, but could the previously deleted page be re-enabled to act as a redirect to 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids please, as that process is, as of Thursday last, active. Kevin McE (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Premier League seasons infobox

The infoboxes on the individual Premier League seasons show the teams that were promoted at the start and those that were relegated at the end, so for example in FA Premier League 1994–95 two teams appear in both fields. Is this the correct approach to take, or should the promoted teams be those promoted at the end of the season in question? Personally I'd support the removal of promoted teams altogether, as it could give the impression that they were promoted from the Premier League...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would remove the promoted teams from the infobox, mark last season's promoted team's in the league table, and put a section about this season's promoted teams in the main article. This season's relegated teams should go in the infobox, with last seasons perhaps meriting a mention in the article. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal of promoted teams from the infobox within premier League seasons pages. Infobox info has to be clear and intuitive. The detail can go in the article itself. --Jameboy (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Sports__flags about Irish sporting flags which is related to this project can you please have a look Gnevin (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Philip Ashworth

Came across Philip Ashworth on my wiki travels, he could do with a lot more info/tidy up. One for the list. Govvy (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty like that. I don't think they need a mention here, however. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been tagging lots of player articles with {{Football|variants=yes}}. Once you've been through hundreds (like me), you realise that maybe articles like that are not that bad! DeMoN2009 20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Huddersfield_Town_F.C.#Full_and_u-21_internationals

surely this list should be cut to just those that won the caps whilst playing for the club because at the moment it's anyone that ever won an international/U21 cap that happened to play for the club which is ridiculous. Skitzo (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just delete the whole thing? – PeeJay 01:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I would not be against that, but you could argue that a list of people that have won international caps whilst at a club from below the premier league level is worth mentioning. Skitzo (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

MLS SuperDraft - A request for leniency

With the 2009 MLS SuperDraft taking place today, it is inevitable that some over-zealous and enthusiastic editors will begin creating articles and pages for the new draftees, despite the fact that, officially, pages for these players are not supposed to exist until after they 'cross the white line'. So, to avoid hours and hours of busy work and endless AfD arguments, I wonder how the members of this project would feel if we adopted a "tolerance" attitude for these players. Only 12 of the 56 players drafted in the 2008 MLS SuperDraft ended up not playing a single minute for their new clubs, and the vast majority of those 44 had played games within the first couple of months of the 2008 MLS season. My proposal (if you choose to accept it) is to allow new articles for any player drafted today, with the proviso that, if they have not made their MLS debut by, say, May, then they can go to AfD. I realize that this would temporarily contravene WP:CRYSTAL and the inherent notability guidelines we adhere to, but it would also cut down on the excessive admin work, help stop arguments, and not discourage potential new editors from contributing. WP:IGNOREALLRULES sometimes applies, and I believe this could be one of the cases where it would be a good idea. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would entirely work. If someone nominates any of the mistimed creations for PROD or AFD, they would strictly be deleted. Peanut4 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but can't we then direct them to this conversation? --JonBroxton (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

21% miss rate is not insignificant: I would be most surprised if 79% of Arsenal's U18 squad don't eventually reach the notability threshold. The problem is that we have no way of knowing who will comprise the 21% who, by last year's precedent, can be expected to fail. Is it too heavy-handed to have a note to editors at the top, or at least to blacklink the names, lest well intentioned eds think the redlinks indicate that an article should be created. Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Kevin McE is right. One in five is quite high. You can't simply quote WP:IAR for the draft but not for the likes of Arsenal, Manchester United, etc, where the youngsters are likely to play there or at least somewhere else. Peanut4 (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's started! I tried removing the redlinks, but it was reverted. Kevin McE (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See my note on the Superdrft talk page. If you can hold off for 2 hours, until the draft is over, I would be very grateful! --JonBroxton (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As I argued last year, with MLS draftees in the first round, they meet WP:N regardless of playing professional because of the coverage of the draft. Players are profiled, etc. So it's not a matter of leniency so much as following the main policy. matt91486 (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have since changed my POV on this, and I now agree that new MLS draftees should not have articles until they play a pro game, as per WP:FOOTY, WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry I don't buy that. Notability is not inherited, e.g. Rhodri Giggs does not gain notability because of his brother Ryan Giggs. So in the same way draftees don't gain notability because of the draft. Peanut4 (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a question, haven't most of these draftees played in college football teams? And there sure exist a lot articles for college American football players, and that has to count as the same level doesn't it? So if players from one (or more, basketball? icehockey? and other sports) sport are accepted at college level, why are footballers excluded? — CHANDLER^#10 — 00:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparing the Giggs to draftees is not a fair comparison. Draftees are notable because of the media coverage associated with the draft, not the actual act of being drafted. matt91486 (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Notability for a soccer player is based on when the player plays in a competitive professional game; college soccer is not professional. As soon as these players set foot on the field for the new MLS teams in either a MLS or US Open Cup game, that is when their notability occurs. Their exploits and successes or otherwise in amateur soccer are immaterial. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have to remember WP:N trumps WP:ATHLETE in some cases, and these would be some of them. matt91486 (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Article naming confusion

Rather than re-state it all here, could I direct people to Talk:Alf Bentley (1931–1996)#Page move.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think they both should be moved (back) to Alf Bentley (footballer born 1887) and Alf Bentley (footballer born 1931), I don't think I've seen footballers who arent disambiguated without (footballer born XXXX) unless there are 2 from the same year. — CHANDLER^#10 — 22:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen articles disambiguated this way before but it makes sense to me. I was going to propose it here but the user went ahead and moved them before I had the chance. Both Alf Bentleys are footballers, so "footballer" in the title doesn't disambiguate, though admittedly if Alf Bentley (some other profession) was created then this would change. Both have a known year of birth and year of death, so I think it should be included. I'm going to seek input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation as well. --Jameboy (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

An alternative could be Alf Bentley (forward) and Alf Bentley (goalkeeper)? --Jameboy (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that footballers are disambiguated by (footballer born XXXX) — CHANDLER^#10 — 16:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Welwyn Garden City F.C. players

I just created and added the few players I know of into the category. But I am not sure, am I suppose to put that cat inside a category of Category:Welwyn Garden City F.C. ? That's how the categories normally work. But in WGC's case, there wouldn't be anything else to stick in the cat because the club is small. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If the category is there, use it, if it's not then don't bother. However, if Welwyn Garden City F.C. has a few articles related to it, you might want to consider it. DeMoN2009 15:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bold former names

Should former names be in bold? I started to take some out of bold as I felt it detracted from more important stuff when the change was a long time ago. I was told not to so I haven't but I have since seen long term users do what I was doing. Which is correct? RPFC (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it's necessary to help those who follow redirects realise that they're at the right article, this is why you find "Woolwich Arsenal" and others bolded in Arsenal F.C.#History, "Ahmed Hossam Hussein Abdelhamid" bolded in Mido (footballer) and "Christie Patricia Pearce" in Christie Rampone. There are a number of teams and players who have competed under varying names in the past and you need to make it clear that they're the same entity to readers who've hit the article and are skimming over it going "what the hell is this? this isn't what I was after", that's what the bolding does. Nanonic (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm very much against this, it gives too much empahsis to the former names. I think only the article name in the lead, and section headings should be in bold. I've changed a number of former names etc. in articles to italics so they look a little different, but definitely not bold. - fchd (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Historically, editors have been doing it as MOS:BOLD allows synonyms and acronyms to be bolded as well. The guidelines for when to italicise are quite different. Nanonic (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Nanonic. Former names should be bolded as they are almost as important as the club's current name. – PeeJay 19:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C. squad numbers

Is this topic worthy of an article? Not sure if a precedent has been set, and as it stands it's not particularly informative (lots of mistakes and omissions) and it isn't referenced. Thoughts? Qwghlm (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There were similar articles for Manchester United and Liverpool a couple of years ago, but both were merged into other articles before being deleted altogether. – PeeJay 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally non-notable to me. Squad numbers and team numbers were introduced for all such teams in the same years. This should not be included in an encyclopedia. Peanut4 (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it should be binned just for using the horrendous term "the noughties" to describe the current decade -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

2007 AS Roma-Manchester United conflict

Is this event really that notable? Sure, it received a fair bit of coverage at the time, but violence happens at football matches all the time. This one's just been hyped up a lot because it was Man Utd who were involved. No one was killed in this incident, making it one of the more tame instances of football violence. Does anyone reckon this would survive an AfD? – PeeJay 02:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's hyped because Man Utd were involved (imagine if it had been Liverpool, in Italy). I remember there were a lot of writing about it, and I think it's notable enough to be mentioned on wikipedia. — CHANDLER^#10 — 05:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Linking the events in Rome and Manchester, albeit that these were two legs of the same tie, is a bit dangerous in my opinion. I agree with PeeJay, there shouldn't be an article for every instance of football violence, and although this one made the news I don't think it is notable for an encyclopedia. --Jameboy (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is valuable to the encyclopedia, but there cannot be articles for every clash between fans - DeMoN2009 15:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as the article is neutral I feel it's a good addition to wiki. Govvy (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, this was one of the highest profile incidents of its kind in recent years - it's not for us to decide if the hype was justified, we just report what was notably covered in reliable sources. If it's notable enough for the Italian Interior Minister and the British Sports Minister to need to comment publicly, it reaches our criteria for notability.Knepflerle (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Another Premier League season article query

I've been doing some work on FA Premier League 1992-93 and removed the note about Arsenal's qualification for the following season's Cup Winners Cup from the final table on the basis that a) it might make people think Arsenal qualified for the CWC by virtue of finishing 10th in the table, and b) as their qualfication was based on something outside their participation in that season's Premier League, it doesn't need to be noted in the article on that season's Premier League. other editors keep putting it back in though. What do people think - in or out? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In, woth a note how the qualification was obtained. Madcynic (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Keep it in, together with a footnote. --Soccer-holic (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

IP making mass changes to football infoboxes

Fyi. Has this been done with discussion/consensus? If not, it reminds me of someone... --Dweller (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dagoberto

There's a ridiculous edit war going on at Dagoberto between Paulozin (talk · contribs) and various IPs over his position - striker or second striker? Could someone with a bit of clout please sort it out? Cheers, GiantSnowman 17:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about the clout thing, but I have protected the page. Please see Talk:Dagoberto#Edit_warring. I should not have been the first person to open up a discussion on that page. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. True, you shouldn't have started a discussion – I have made Paulozin aware – but since you have I have given my opinion on the matter as an impartial bystander, as I have not actually taken part in any of the edit war. Regards, GiantSnowman 17:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't mean to implicate you in any way, just musing about the fact that either one of the participants really should have started that discussion, or stopped warring. Next time a quick note at WP:RFPP might get a quicker response. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And likewise, I didn't mean to imply that you were implying that I was implying etc. Goddamn semantics! And thanks for the heads up about WP:RFPP, I didn't know where to go and so WP:FOOTY was my shoulder to cry on, as it were...cheers for all the help, GiantSnowman 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about Category:Foo international footballers

Does a player belong in these categories if he/she is selected for the national team's final squad at a FIFA World Cup finals or a Confederation Championship such as the Copa América or Euro finals, who never once appears in a match. Leonel Rocco is one such player, and I've placed him in the category, but wasn't sure if that was proper. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I would say no. He hasn't played for his country, so he hasn't scored any caps, so he's not an international footballer. Many players get selected, but as long as they remain unused substitutes they are not international footballers imo. The fact that he was an unused substitute at a big tournament doesn't change anything. Aecis·(away) ^talk 01:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not many players who get selected for the World Cup or a Copa America... And I'd say have him there, will look strange when he's a Category:1991 Copa América players, but not a international?... I'd say if a player is called to a FIFA/Conference tournament with a set squad, even if they don't appear. They should be counted, because he'd have gotten a medal, see Andrés Palop for example — CHANDLER^#10 — 01:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruud Hesp is another example. He was the third goalie for the Netherlands at Euro 1996 and the 1998 World Cup, but he never won a cap in his career. He's listed in Category:1998 FIFA World Cup players and Category:UEFA Euro 1996 players, but not in Category:Netherlands international footballers, which is imo the right decision, because he's not an international for the Netherlands. Aecis·(away) ^talk 01:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And what about the tournaments that were held before substitutions were allowed? Many players have been selected for World Cups and Olympic Games without playing a match. Should they be categorized as internationals as well, if they haven't played a match throughout their careers? Aecis·(away) ^talk 01:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A description of Category:Netherlands international footballers is as follows:

A list of current and former players who have played for the senior Netherlands national football team (but not players who have only been capped at Olympic, Under-21 or other junior levels). Players in this category should also be left in category:Dutch footballers.

That would back up Aecis' suggestion that Hesp should not be included since he never played for the senior team, and so neither should the other two examples above be included in the respective category. Peanut4 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I agree that such a player doesn't belong in this category and have removed Rocco from the Uruguay international footbalers category. Jogurney (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

One player with two transfers in one window

I'm at a loss what to do with Maciej Wilusz in the List of Dutch football transfers winter 2008-09. He was loaned from Sparta Rotterdam to RBC Roosendaal a week ago, but he sustained a serious injury in his first training with RBC and he has returned to Sparta. Technically, he should be included in both the "In" and "Out" columns of both Sparta and RBC. This means four listings for one player in one transfer window: a loan deal from Sparta to RBC and a return from loan from RBC back to Sparta. That is bound to create chaos and confusion, and afaik refs and footnotes are not possible in {{Fs player}}. Any suggestions? Aecis·(away) ^talk 14:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does a loan return need to be listed as a transfer? – PeeJay 15:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Refs can be put in either the "other" field "{{fs player|name=bobbins|other=a note<ref>some reference</ref>}}" or outside the template "{{fs player|name=bobbins}}<ref>some other reference</ref>". Nanonic (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note - said player fails WP:ATHLETE, Voetbal International confirms he is yet to make an appearance. GiantSnowman 17:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but that is not the issue here. The issue is how to include him in the list. Aecis·(away) ^talk 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no issue. He should only be included in the list once, under the original loan. Returning from a loan is not a transfer and should not be included, regardless of what my issues of Calcio Italia tell me. – PeeJay 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay. A return from a loan is not a transfer. Peanut4 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I also say that I don't like the format of the Dutch transfers article. Any chance it could be changed to follow the English model? – PeeJay 19:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

DAGOBERTO - Adendum

I have noticed the report on edit warring regarding the player Dagoberto Pelentier (please check item 49 of this discussion page, where it was originally presented). Here are my views:

That edit war, between user PAULOZIN and an anonymous user is not new to me: It is not, because the anonymous user is none other than BRUNO P.DORI (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bruno_P._Dori), banned for disruptive editing, which consisted in enlarging infoboxes needlessly, he only works in that (i do mean only!, does not add one single line in story or links or references). He was duly warned (see here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Bruno_P._Dori) and finally indefinitely blocked.

I have recognized, before and after his ban, more than 30 (!!) anonymous IP with the same disruptive pattern. Here is a list (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bruno_P._Dori). For instance, the last four IP in Antonio Longás (another pattern, he solely operates in players connected past or present with FC Barcelona, please check BRUNO P.DORI, the original account, list of contributions) are also his, the one numbered 217.129.67.28 is my anonymous IP (forgot to sign in). Another pattern is that he engages in no talkpage discussions, does not respond to messages and, in over 1000 contributions (all IP added), has not written one single edit summary, none.

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Having discovered there is a space devoted to EDIT WARRING reports, i also filed one there (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Disruptive_editor.2FEdit_warring).

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Troy Archibald-Henville

Can an admin restore Troy Archibald-Henville as he has just made his pro debut. [9] Thanks. Govvy (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD on Liverpool player yet to play a single match

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani Pacheco (2nd nomination) --Dweller (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve Vale - notable?

Do the exploits in the second para qualify, because it doesn't sound like the first paragraph does. --Dweller (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No chance. Playing Southern League football doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ben Alnwick

I have a feeling he might be in for some short term vandalism. Govvy (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a watchlist just for this sort of thing. - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Football Club History Database reliability

In the GA review for A.F.C. Sudbury someone has asked

What makes "Football Club History Database" reliable?

Could anyone help me answer this question? Dancarney (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

For a start, here is a list of the site's sources. Secondly it's run by User:Richard Rundle so feel free to get more info from him. Peanut4 (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been repeatedly approved as reliable by User:Ealdgyth, who assesses the reliability of all sources in Featured Article Candidates. Last time it came up, my arguments, which she accepted, were as follows:

FCHD is regarded as the most definitive source for historical club-by-club/season-by-season data in English football. Please consider these football clubs' official sites: Cobham F.C., whose history page starts "For a full breakdown of Cobham's history in the league and FA competitions, check out the Football Club History Database." Abingdon Town F.C., which refers readers from their history page to the FCHD for major milestones and cup results. Biggleswade United F.C. says "For a breakdown of our history in senior football go to the Football Club History Database website". Langney Sports F.C. takes its historical data from FCHD. The South West Peninsula League website takes the entirety of its historical data straight from FCHD. There are many more.

If it's acceptable at FAC then it should definitely be good enough for GAN.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Is it OK to copy this verbatim? I'll note that this is your work, of course. Dancarney (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, not a problem at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you or anyone else could have a quick look at the GAN (here) I'd be grateful, as there's a couple of questions I'm struggling with. Dancarney (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What's he still after, exactly? It's a bit of a confusing mess of text, as far as I can see he wants more info on the club's "financial and business history" (hard to think what info would even be available on the business aspect of a small semi-pro club) and more in-depth details of the club's kit (completely baffled as to what more could be said there - does he want a description of what fabric the shirts are made out of?!??!?!)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see how either of these requests could be satisfied. Regardless of the availability of information I would imagine that unless a club has a particularly interesting financial history (maybe Luton Town) it is of no interest. I think that the reviewer is American and so is of a mindset along the lines of franchises, etc. But, Wikipedia has to be global, so maybe they have a point? I also don't understand the problem with the way the Honours, etc. are formatted. I nicked the style off the Aston Villa article, which is an FA, but they're pointing me towards the style used for a WWF wrestler! On a more practical point, I can't figure out how to use the {{ref}} and {{note}} in the table so that all of the footnotes have the same number/letter/symbol. Dancarney (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've sorted that bit out for you. On the financial side, are there any specific quotes floating around elaborating on what grounds the club felt unable to financially take promotion for so many years? That might help with the first point. I honestly have no idea what further info could be added to the kit section. It's not like the club has a history of having worn different colours in past decades, given its short history. Maybe you could add something (if you can source it) about the different firms whose names have appeared on the shirts? Just a thought..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Football player statistics 1

This template has great possibilites, but at the moment is a bit limited. Comments on its talk page seem to go unheeded and as it is protected it cannot be altered. I want to apply for unprotection (or down-grading to semi-protection) so that further work can be done to improve the template. In the mean time, I'd like to kick off the discussion about what extra parameter versions could be created to improve this. Based on talk comments and experience, I'd like to suggest:

• Add two extra parameters - a domestic 'other' and an intercontinental section (e.g. world club cup)
• A way of expressing countries with a league but no cup (as in many south american nations)

There are also various font issues which have been raised that people would like to improve. Any further suggestions? --Pretty Green (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we just use a simple wikitable? Why does everything have to be done with templates? Check out any current Man Utd player's page for an example of how effective a simple wikitable can be. – PeeJay 13:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Pile-on agreement :-) I thought templates were meant to make editing simpler, but with all those bonkers parameters, using this template actually looks like it would be harder than just constructing a bog-standard table..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that would get unprotected as it's used on so many pages. If you have consensus to make changes to that template, put {{editprotected}} on it's talk page and provide the new code. Nanonic (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that its difficult (impossible) to get consensus on a page which has little to no discussion on it. Therefore the page stays the same and no improvements are made. Nanonic's argument fits in nicely against the others - lots of pages do use this template, rightly or wrongly, and so we should change it to make it fit for purpose. Templates have the advantage of standardising practice, though if you want to use a table that's fine. I'm not arguing for the template over tables - I'm saying it exists, people use it, so lets make it work. --Pretty Green (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I use the same ones as PeeJay and find they look the best, and are the easiest to use. Neither do I see any reason for the templates. Peanut4 (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. - fchd (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC) - edit - Another bizarre use of templates - see Scottish Cup 2008-09, where due to the limitations of the template, either/or combinations can't be show properly so it's apparently Inverness Caledonian Thistle v TBC and TBC v St Mirren. Pretty meaningless. - fchd (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Who are TBC and how can they be playing two games on the same day?! :-P Anyway, see also FC Barcelona season 2008-09 for yet another silly over-use of templates. The worst thing is that the creator of these templates, User:ClaudioMB, a) hasn't been active since September 2008, and b) received a barnstar for his contribution to football templates! – PeeJay 20:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Leeds United season articles also use those templates. It takes so long for the pages to load. I can see such pages reaching the tranclusion limit as some point. Peanut4 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The most telling thing about the templates on that Barca season article is that (on my screen at least) the key underneath fills anything up to seven lines! Any template that needs that much "de-mystifying" is clearly a template too far..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. The template parameters are equally confusing, and it's not immediately obvious what each one does. – PeeJay 21:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that the "two flags if country of birth different from country player plays for" is used in different ways, i.e. birth first, int 2nd and vice versa. Oh, the humanity. Madcynic (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Afd "keep" results for Doug DeMartin and Milos Kocic

IMHO, this is setting a dangerous precedent which could open the floodgates for the creation of hundreds of articles on American college soccer players, as well as other amateur players, who can cite now these cases as precedents, despite the constant hard work of WP:FOOTY members to maintain rigorous standards for inclusion. Thoughts? --JonBroxton (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything to do. I've been told time and again that WP:N overrides WP:ATHLETE (and WP:FOOTYN) so if a college soccer player (or a ManU reserve) is the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, I don't think his/her article can be deleted. It doesn't bother me too much if the sourcing is good. I'd rather focus on clearing out unsourced articles about amateurs and improving the ones that can be sourced. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not enormously fussed as long as the occasional stirrings from people who think WP:ATHLETE should be ditched don't come to anything. If we ever reach a point where policy supports the keeping of articles on no-mark kids who've never played a pro match but have had some puff pieces written about them on the internet, while at the same time supporting the deletion of players who might have played in the World Cup final but had the misfortune to do so back in the 1930s, I think I'd call it a day, frankly..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no doubt they both fail WP:ATHLETE but I voted to keep DeMartin because I felt he had actually achieved something of note, and conversely I voted to delete Kocic because he hasn't yet. In my view these are classic examples of why every WP guideline needs to be considered when deciding which side fo the fence to sit, not just the guideline which suits us at the time. I notice the part of WP:N stating that multiple sources only provide a presumption of notability rather than a guarantee seems to be oft-ignored by those who seem adamant on keeping every footy article that comes to AfD. There is also one point about WP:ATHLETE which seems to have caused some confusion in the past (especially regarding those Tibetan players) and that's whether international appearances (both youth and full) are enough to make a player notable. Seeing as WP:FOOTYN is roundly poo-pooed by everyone outside this project, perhaps something about this should be added to WP:ATHLETE? Bettia (rawr!) 14:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Many seem to think that published mentions constitute notability, regardless of the triviality of the mention. Often, all it means is that the sub-notable activity is verifiable. Would a national paper printing a list of the top ten scorers in the conference make the player 8th on that list, with no league appearances, constitute grounds for an article? I think most of us would suggest not, no matter how often the player is referenced on his own club's site, local papers and Non League Weekly. That is, however, the logic being used for these US draft articles. The logical consequence of simply saying "mentions=notability" is that any notability policy of Wikipedia is undermined by the inclusion policies of the press, and the only inclusion policy relevant here would be which media sources we allow. Kevin McE (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

League infobox templates

So we've reached the point where {{infobox football league}} is deployed pretty much universally across top-level leagues. But it hasn't yet been adopted by more obscure articles (such as leagues lower in the English pyramid) - example. user:Richard Rundle, who has done a lot of work on these lower league articles, doesn't think conversion is productive, but I disagree. Thought it'd be best to bring the discussion over here.

For a bit of history, up until a year or so ago the freeform style (with the blue stripey layout) was pretty commonly used across our competition articles - including the bigger ones. {{infobox football tournament}} was written to bring a bit of contistency to these, along with ensuring that they were easy to update and maintain and followed our accessibility guidelines. The resulting set of templates have proved popular and are widely deploeyd. I think this should be universal.

Suggestions are welcome on how to move forward on this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, anything that uses a standard, easily amendable table over a template is a bonus. In addition, the very fact that {{infobox football tournament}} uses less than 100% text makes it a bad template to me. In short, I see no advantages of the template over the table in this case. - fchd (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But there's nothing "standard" about the freeform tables: they are by definition nonstandard, and dependent on the individual whim of whomever adds them to articles. They are less "easily amendable" because rather than consisting of English key-value pairs, they require editors to go wading through HTML or wikitable markup. As for the decision to use less than 100% text size, this was undertaken by the maintainers of {{infobox}} as a whole, and it applies to what looks like a majority of Wikipedia's infobox templates at this point. If that decision is to be changed, it can be changed in one place and cascade throughout the entire project's infoboxes, rather than having to have every single article manually updated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should try and make them all as similar as possible, so that people know where to find the info, and the template looks better displaying it. But that's just my opinion. DeMoN2009 16:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Country flags for players of dual nationality.

Which flag should a player with two nationalities have? In this case Steve Zakuani, born in DR Congo, moved to England and gained UK citizenship, later moved to the US. His brother Gabriel Zakuani is a (former?) DR Congo international. From what I understand he would be eligible to play for both DR Congo and England (perhaps the other home nations as well?). What's the policy for players like this? Does anyone know of perhaps another case with the same ingredients, born in country x, moved to country y and got citizenship but has yet to play any national football. — CHANDLER^#10 — 01:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult with people becoming citizens of the UK, as that makes them eligible for all four Home Nations. I am tempted to say that you should put the English flag for Steve, as he is now a British citizen and has spent most of his time in England. – PeeJay 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

According to MOS:ICON:

Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with. For example, if a sportsperson has represented a nation or has declared for a nation, then the national flag as determined by the sport governing body should be used (these can differ from countries' political national flags). If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used. If these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then the eligibility rule that is most apt should be applied; most often it is the place of birth.

Based solely on that DR Congo would seem to be most appropriate. There is also the option to leave it blank if consensus can't be reached as to which eligibility rule is most apt. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, but here's the issue. Steve Zakuani is not a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Neither is Gabriel Zakuani. 99% of the time people are citizens of the country they are born in, unless they emigrate, in which case they renounce their original citizenship and become citizens of the new country. Both Steve and Gabriel are BRITISH CITIZENS. They have lived in England since they were little children, went to school there, played soccer there. Hell, if you watched the SuperDraft on ESPN yesterday you'd hear that Steve has a South London accent. They no longer have citizenship of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. So, the only issue confusing matters is the fact that Gabriel accepted an international call-up from the country of his birth and so, in sporting terms, then became a Congolese player. However, Steve did NOT - he has not been approached by DR Congo, and not played for any of that country's youth teams, so his nationality remains English. He is NOT Congolese, and neither is his brother - Gabriel just happens to play for them internationally. Putting a Congolese flag next to Steve would be like Freddy Adu having a Ghanaian flag next to his name before his USMNT national call-up. I really don't understand what this argument is about. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Just because you move to another country does not mean you renounce your citizenship. And Gabriel Zakuani dont "just happens to play for them internationally", he wouldn't be allowed to play for DR Congo if he wasn't still a citizen. And your comparison with Zidane is bad and WRONG, you would just have had to look at Zidanes article to learn that he was born in France. You can hold dual citizenship, many refugees from for example Yugoslavia in the 90's do. The policies lean towards a DR Congo flag until he's made a international debut for another country. — CHANDLER^#10 — 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You know what, I'm sick of discussing this. If you want to have incorrect information on Wikipedia, go right ahead. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And your new example isn't much better, because according to Freddy Adu's article he became a US citizen AFTER he was called up to the U17 US national football team. And had he had an article than, he would have had a flag of Ghana before 2002. And it's not about wrong information. He's born in DR Congo and under FIFA rules he's both elidgble to play for DR Congo and any of the home nations, and the wiki policy in this case "...most often it is the place of birth." — CHANDLER^#10 — 21:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I missed all the fun again... I've done a bit of hunting to confirm the factoid but haven't found anything so far (which generally means I'm not looking in the right places), but according to Zakuani's article, he has a passport for the UK and DR Congo. Unless a person is a refugee of some sort, most countries will not issue a passport unless you are a citizen of that country. That would seem to indicate that Zakuani's is a dual citizen. It should also be pointed out that MOS:ICON is a guideline, not a policy. So even if the guideline says "most often it is the place of birth" that does not mean the article has to follow that. Personally, I could be persuaded to put the DR Congo flag on Zakuani, or one of the home nation flags. The main reason I lean more towards DR Congo is that he was born there and it isn't clear which home nation's flag he should be given. Just because he happened to live in England more doesn't necessarily mean that's the flag he should be associated with. But then, aside from being a citizen of DR Congo, he hasn't lived there since he was a young boy and he doesn't seem to be an affinity for the country, so I could also be convinced to put one of the home nation flags in association with him. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The example on which this discussion is based, is a player who as yet has no professional appearances: is one neutral source enough to preserve the article from AfD? Kevin McE (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

He's the first draft for Seattle Sounders FC and in the 2009 MLS SuperDraft, so he's gotten some decent coverage in the Seattle press, not to mention general soccer news coverage of the SuperDraft.[10][11] The article is currently a stub, but Zakuani does seem to be notable regardless of having not played a game in a top level team. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The alternative is not to include the flag at all. We have a primary duty to reliability over prettiness, and when it comes down to it this flag is primarily decoration. When the decoration oversimplifies a complicated nationality situation, and thus becomes misleading - bin it. Ultimately it's not necessary, and shouldn't be a substitute for accurate prose. Knepflerle (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

MLS considers Zakuani to have British nationality, which makes him English: http://web.mlsnet.com/pdf/mls/2009/superdraft/CombinePlayerBios.pdf --JonBroxton (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It does not, especially as other players are listed under England (and he is under United Kingdom). No none is denying he's a British citizen, it is not clear which sporting nationality he's got. Because he's eligible for 5 national teams — CHANDLER^#10 — 06:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's entirely clear which sporting nationality he has. He is not a Congolese citizen, as there is no note of dual citizenship. He is a citizen of the UK, which has no national team. Therefore, as he has lived most of his life in England, and is not a Congolese citizen, and has not been called up to ANY national team yet, he should default to English as his sporting nationality. He has never lived in Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland, and has no ties to those countries (other than the tenuous one of them all being part of the UK), so why would he ever choose to play for them? --JonBroxton (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

He was born in DR Congo (Zaire at the time), just because he moved doesn't mean he loses his eligibility for the national team. — CHANDLER^#10 — 07:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but his PRIMARY eligibility is the country of which he is a citizen. Which is Britain/England. I'm not disputing the fact that his secondary eligibility would be DR Congo. But as he has not been called up to any national team, his default sporting nationality should be the country of which he is a citizen. The Seattle Sounders website [12], his university [13], ESPN [14], an independent newspaper from the UK [15] and an independent newspaper from the USA [16] ALL consider him English. How many more sources will it take to finally convince you? --JonBroxton (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think in this case all the media are calling him English so use the England flag icon but make mention in the article opening line that he is a DR Congolese born English footballer. Skitzo (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I came to this discussion late, but here goes. Just follow MOS:ICON. Gabriel Zakuani has played for DR Congo so there's no argument about his sporting nationality, which is DR Congo. As to Steve Zakuani: MOS:ICON says "If [governing body] rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then the eligibility rule that is most apt should be applied; most often it is the place of birth."

MOS:ICON says "most often it is the place of birth" because most often, multiple eligibility arises from a person born and raised in one country but qualifying for another by a parent's or grandparent's nationality. In those cases, the player's closest association, and so the most apt eligibility, is clearly to the country of their birth. In the case of Steve Zakuani, his closest association is with England, the country where he has lived since he was 3 or 4, where he was brought up and the (part of the) country of which he has chosen to become a citizen. So by MOS:ICON, it is most apt that his sporting nationality is English. Though if in the future he declares for DR Congo, or for another national team within the UK, then his flag should be changed forthwith.

But if it's going to cause a problem, then leave it out, as Knepflerle says above. Per MOS:ICON, "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion, which by its title would appear to refer to a general principle, has focussed on one particular case. While I think that in this particular case the proposal of an English flag probably makes most sense in the light of press coverage of the individual involved. However, although there will often be a case to argue for exceptions (if Cruz Beckham ever attains notability, I doubt a Spanish flag will be the most appropriate), the basic principle that sporting nationality is assumed to be best represented by place of birth unless he/she has represented another country internationally, and that the national level to be shown is that which normally takes part in international competition. Kevin McE (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As regards the particular case here, it should be borne in mind that, as a non-UK born holder of a UK passport, he is equally eligible for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Residency is irrelevant, although it might influence the player's, unverifiable, preference. Thus the English flag in this instance is based more on press reports than actual sporting eligibility. Kevin McE (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

category:countryx international footballers inclusions

What is the general consensus regarding inclusion of a player in category:countryx international footballers type categories? Must it be full intternational appearance, or does U-17 / U-20 / U23 appearance qualify them for category inclusion? Case in point John Niyonsaba included in Category:New Zealand international footballers (although this particular player I have prodded for deletion as a not quite there yet footballer).--ClubOranje^Talk 10:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Full international only for Fooian international footballers. We also have Category:Fooian under-21 international footballers, but no categories for youth levels, presumably so players don't end up with categories for about 5 different levels from u-17 to full. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The preamble at the top of the relevant category says "This category is for male footballers who have appeared for the senior New Zealand national football team (but not players who have only been capped at Under-21 or other junior levels). Players in this category should also be left in category:New Zealand soccer players." so he clearly should not be in the international cat (or, indeed, on Wikipedia given his lack of a pro appearance) Kevin McE (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

DoH! should have spotted that myself I guess. Thanks for quick response though.--ClubOranje^Talk 11:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Sarumio

Looks like he's back! – PeeJay 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Um... Is it just me, or do his edits seem perfectly valid...? Mattythewhite (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Um. What edits? Peanut4 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Um.. he's started removing the "F.C." from clubs' infoboxes. – PeeJay 22:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Where? Peanut4 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Various Premier League clubs. He may have been reverted by now though. – PeeJay 23:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide any links? Sorry my internet is being awful and I can't see anything without links. Peanut4 (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Sarumio. – PeeJay 23:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To me it looks like he's been busy generally and this isn't a return at all. Did we ever come up with any consensus, because if not then he's done nothing wrong. Peanut4 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember there was no consensus, I pleaded for people who feel the need to remove the "F.C." or add it back in again, to make at least one constructive edit to the article as they are doing it, fix a spelling mistake, add a fact, update the squad, whatever. This would create a gradual improvement in the article rather than an slow infobox oscillation. Perhaps we could say that all edits that do nothing but add or remove an "F.C." are pointy and disruptive? King of the North East 00:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What annoys me about this guy, is that he (or she?) does make some very useful edits and contributions, but has a bee in his bonnet about removing F.C. from the header to club infoboxes. I challenged his edit to the Southampton infobox, on the grounds that the article is about the club, not the city. His response was

"Look at the football club articles for Lewes, Bury, Darlington, Rochdale, Barrow, Millwall, Walsall, Altrincham, Wrexham, Droylsden, Southport, Workington, Bromley, Eastleigh, Farnborough, Thurrock, Bashley, Horsham, Ransgate, Margate, Wealdstone etc. This is the standard format!"

I.M.H.O. only a few of these clubs can be considered "major" clubs. I invited him to look at the articles for Premiership clubs, such as Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton or Manchester United, which at that time had F.C. as part of the club name in the infobox. He has now amended the Premiership articles to remove the F.C. from the infobox headers and, if this is left unchallenged, will no doubt claim this as a precedent to carry on with "lesser" clubs. If the consensus agrees with him, then fine, but I can't see from previous discussions that there was a consensus either way. In the absence of a consensus, his changes are invalid and should be resisted. His tactics are not far short of bullying, in that he keeps on with his one-man "crusade" until everyone else gets fed up reverting him and he achieves his objective. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought we'd come to a mutual understanding that F.C. would not be added to, or taken away from, any more club infoboxes, and that to do so either way would be considered vandalism. I strongly argued for F.C. to be included, but have respected that compromise ever since (apart from once when I made a mistake when trying to re-build an infobox from an old version). If he/she is stating it's the standard format, it's only because he/she has edited most of those infoboxes to make that the current format. - fchd (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The agreement was to not add or remove the prefixes or suffixes without the undertaking a substantial edit at the same time, and also to individually discuss the change on the clubs' talk pages. He's clearly following that to a T. I don't think it's in the realms of bullying - just incredibly amusing. This will likely become an issue again at a later point with another editor wondering why the prefixes/suffixes are omitted. Since "all parameters are optional", according to {{Infobox football club}}, I've omitted the clubname from St. Johnstone's article, since the name is visible enough from the crest, immediately above the fullname. This could be applied to other articles. Dudesleeper / Talk 08:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

On the plus side, at least he's finally figured out that when a club resigns mid-season from its league, the correct procedure is to strike them through on the list of teams in the league, not remove them entirely. I've lost count of the number of times Mr Rundle and I had to clean up after that sort of edit..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

He'll probably say that's my fault. It's all part of our healthy relationship. - Dudesleeper / Talk 08:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame that the RfC The Rambling Man and I ran on Sarumio had zero participation, despite requests here. --Dweller (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it really matter if it's F.C. or not in the infobox? And if we're really being picky, shouldn't it be the full title (e.g. "Arsenal Football Club")? I took sides in this argument the last time round but now I've realised I'm not really fussed either way - it's clear either way and it has no impact on the quality of the article. Qwghlm (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Though I think we ought to come up with some clear consensus and then simply stick with it. Not sure where the debate and consensus reached; either the infobox page or club style guide, I suppose. Peanut4 (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we go with F.C., as if you just leave it as Livingston instead of Livingston F.C., people might get confused. As for the full title, that goes into the template. DeMoN2009 19:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree. Its not just football fans who will read these articles, so something along the principle of least surprise needs to be considered. Wiggy! (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds very sensible. Though, my guess is that it has been suggested before. Secondly, it does say X F.C. in the main text to the left and pagename. Peanut4 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have commented on the rfc if I had been around, but at least s/he has replied to my question on his/her talk page this time. RPFC (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please help find the error

There is an error somewhere in Eredivisie 2008–09#Top goalscorers, and I've tried in vain to find it. When I add up GF and GA in the league table, both columns show that 510 goals were scored so far. This is confirmed by all sources that I could possibly find. But when I add up the individual goalscorers in #Top goalscorers, I get 511 goals. One player has one goal too many in the list, but I can't find him. Can anyone help? Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it really encyclopedic to list every scorer? I'm not sure many other, if any other, such articles have these kinds of lists. Peanut4 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Afaik, Norway and Serbia are also listing each and every scorer, but that's about it. A couple of other related articles (France and Spain may be among them, but I'm not sure) list only the number of players who have scored x goals. Anyway, I would also support to only display the best ten scorers, plus (to a certain degree) those who are equal on goals with the 10th-best scorer. --Soccer-holic (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the error, Perez should have four not three, one of the players on two should only have one. I'm not sure about the other - I presume it's an extra own goal from my maths, but don't know where the own goals come from. Peanut4 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected Perez, thanks for spotting that. That makes it two goals. I'm busy going through the stats at VI.nl, club by club. AZ, Ajax, Twente, Heerenveen, PSV and NAC are correct. Only 12 clubs to go ;)Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've found the error. Joey Godee was listed twice, with 3 goals and with 2. I've corrected it. Aecis·(away) ^talk 12:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

2009 South American Youth Championship squads

What a random selection of squad templates: 2009 South American Youth Championship squads. I think it should be done out with the one used for Argentina and Ecuador. The Brazil and Peru ones are awful. King of the North East 00:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Argentina and Ecuador certainly followed the accepted and precedented format of other tournaments. Peanut4 (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, except the DOB should use {{Birth date and age2}} template using the start date of tournament parameter, otherwise some time in the future it looks like really old youth players took part. I have done Argentina and Ecuador--ClubOranje^Talk 10:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate to have a caps and goals column? Most of the info is unavailable, and "caps" is more often used to refer to full international appearances, not U20s run-outs. Is there a template similar to the Argentina and Ecuador layouts without those columns? Kevin McE (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

For same template without "goals" column, instead of "nat fs g player" use "nat fs player". Don't know if there is one without "caps"--ClubOranje^Talk 05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

....remember to delete the extra parameter in each line--ClubOranje^Talk 06:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Serie B 2006-07 table

Could someone please fix the table at Serie_B_2006-07#Final_classification? I made some edits by adding a few head-to-head boxes, but I'm not to sure on how to bring them all to the appropriate column. Thanks, Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 18:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Soccer-holic (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 18:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Primera División A fully-pro?

There are a few articles currently at AfD that cover footballers who play (or played) in the Mexican Primera División A. While there are certainly fully pro clubs in this league, it is the second level of Mexican football and contains many "B" or reserve sides for clubs that are in the Primera División de Mexico. That said, some of the "B" or reserve sides have players who are professionals so I'm not sure about this league's status. Can anyone help? Thank you. Jogurney (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jogurney,

yes indeed. The Primera A has many teams that are affiliated with the first division teams (ex. Dorados de Sinaloa is an affiliate of Necaxa) but at the same time, these teams are certified to be promoted to the first division, thus dissolving the partnership of affiliation. If all teams in the Primera A were "B" teams, then there would no need to have separate articles about them. Also there are many professional football players who are out of a job right now that once played in the first division (ex. Hector Altamirano. so is the league professional? i think we should ask the same for the Football League Championship. It is the exact equivalent to the Primera A. Thanks. Nore100 (talk) Nore100 (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply, it certainly helps a bit - if all the clubs are separate and fully professional then all their players would be notable. I have to say though that the comparison with the Championship isn't really the same as all the clubs are 'independant' (i.e. none of them are affiliated with any other clubs, at least not in the Premiership). Bettia (rawr!) 19:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that the subject has been raised, could I beg a reminder for the article that is a list of fully pro leagues: I tried all sorts of search permutations, but with no joy. Kevin McE (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a link on the main project page. Here it is. Peanut4 (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Impressive efficiency: you are a gent. Kevin McE (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I can find plenty of references to show that the Primera División de México is professional and paid well enough that very few Mexicans feel the need to move abroad, but yet to find a reliable independent source that claims Primera División A is. Common sense says if Div 1 pays so well, Div 2 is likely pro also, but doesn't pay so well, but common sense needs back-up here. this article claims "Professional teams in the Mexican second division will be allowed to use these centres" which implies but doesn't prove there are non-professional teams in that division. It would be nice if we could get some evidence and consensus on this as there are still outstanding AfDs hanging on this outcome - although I must say it vaguely annoys me that these barely-worth-a-mention players consume valuable Wiki time while there are plenty of notable Mexican footballers from 1950, 1954,1958,1962,1966 and 1970 without a page yet.--ClubOranje^Talk 09:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've found this news story which says "Leading off the new events, the Copa Alianza champion in each city will host a professional Mexican Primera Division A team (reserve club) in front of their hometown fans.". Hardly definitive, but it confirms that there are some pro clubs in this division (albeit reserves) - hey, it's a start! Bettia (rawr!) 10:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• This, on the other hand, is clearer about the division's fully-pro status - trouble is it's just a blog so it probably won't count as a reliable source. Bettia (rawr!) 10:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• And this story (which appeared in the LA DAily News) also says it's fully pro, and also clarifies that the Segunda Division is semi-pro. Would this be enough to draw a line under this one now? Bettia (rawr!) 10:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the LA Daily News article does it. There are certainly pro teams in the Primera A, I just wasn't sure if 100% were pro. Jogurney (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I'll make the changes to the list of fully-pro leagues. Bettia (rawr!) 14:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Arjen Robben under GA review

Hello there, the above article, which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Football player statistics

Is it just me or is the {{Football player statistics 1}} template double Dutch? I'm totally baffled by half of those commands. Do we even need that template rather than simple wikitables? Peanut4 (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussed above. Consensus seems to be that it's more trouble than it's worth. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A little bit interesting at AfD

Two players, almost identical careers, both having played for Socio Águila in the Mexican Primera A, different results. Vazquez and Corral --ClubOranje^Talk 04:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oh bugger, I missed that Corral one (bloody rubbish work, distracting me from more important things). Seeing as he actually passes WP:ATHLETE (having figured out that his division is fully pro), is it worth taking this to DRV? Bettia (rawr!) 09:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Bettia (rawr!) 12:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Arsenal1193

Just thought I'd bring a potential disruptive editor to people's attention. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So far he doesn't appear to have made a single constructive edit, and seems to be on his last warning. Let me know if he keeps up his antics, and I'll block him. What articles is he accusing you of deleting, by the way.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing he's referring to any articles I've put up for AfD in the past. Which strikes me as strange for a user who has been registered for a number of hours to know... Mattythewhite (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If an apparently new user has an existing knowledge of your contributions, then he very well could be a sockpuppet. GiantSnowman 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the personal attack on against Matty on the userpage has to go. King of the North East 21:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. Peanut4 (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Arsenal and Chelsea football rivalry

Is this an encyclopedic article? I'd understand one for significant football rivalries (Arsenal/Spurs, Celtic/Rangers, Milan/Inter) but is there a genuine encyclopedically notable "rivalry" here? Even the current version nods to the fact that Arsenal fans regard Chelsea as their third most important rivals... --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think these two teams were rivals myself. IIRC, a similar article about the "rivalry" between Chelsea and Liverpool was deleted not so long ago too. – PeeJay 16:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsenal and Chelsea football rivalry it is, then. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Manchester United F.C. number 7s

Just out of interest, what do people think of the prospects of the above article? I've seen NFL articles about various teams' starting quarterbacks, so I thought that an article about the various players who have worn the #7 shirt for Man Utd would be similarly interesting. So what do you think; yea or nay? – PeeJay 16:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Celtic have also had their fair share of famous number sevens. Would you include all the Man United players to have worn the #7 shirt? Titch Tucker (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would try to include as many as possible. I'm thinking about writing a bit of prose about the players who made the most appearances at #7 (Meredith, Best, Coppell, Robson, Cantona, Beckham, Ronaldo, to name but a few) and then a list that shows how many appearances each player made for the club in total and then how many they played in the #7 shirt. Obviously the numbers of appearances would be the same for Ronaldo as he's never worn any other number for United, but the likes of Meredith and Best wore different numbers depending on the position they were playing in that day, and Cantona wore numbers other than 7 in European matches and in the 1992-93 Premier League season. – PeeJay 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction: Meredith never wore a number on his back as numbers weren't introduced in England until 1928, so he's out... – PeeJay 16:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it but I'm not going to stop you. Be bold. DeMoN2009 16:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not copy the existing Arsenal F.C. squad numbers and create a Manchester United F.C. squad numbers, as other squad numbers have been iconic for Man Utd - I remember comparisons being made between Law & Rooney when the latter was given the #10, for example. Regards, GiantSnowman 16:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the #10 jersey isn't also a famous one for Man Utd, but it's not quite got the same aura about it as the #7 has. I can certainly think of more Man Utd #7s off the top of my head than #10s. – PeeJay 16:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you should go for it. Some people might think why just #7, why not #8, but I'm sure you could explain in the article the special significance of the number. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Russell Beardsmore... bad idea IMHO, seems like a trivial thing to have a whole article about, particularly given that further up the page no-one thought an Arsenal squad numbers article was a good idea. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is why I'm hesitant about doing an article about the entire history of Man Utd's squad numbers. I mean, I could do an article like that with no problems, considering that squad numbers were only actually brought in in 1993. But the number 7 shirt is truly iconic for Man Utd, simply because of the greats who have worn it. – PeeJay 16:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that the United number 7 shirt has a lot of history and prestige to it, and you should have no trouble sourcing the info if your books have team lists for every match. I think you'd have to impose a criterion of x appearances in the shirt, as in the days before squad numbering, anyone could end up wearing any number shirt if the first choice player was unavailable. The problems I see are that starting quarterback is a definite position, whereas 7 is just a number that isn't necessarily tied to a position - there's nothing stopping United giving the number to a goalkeeper next season as far as I'm aware. Secondly, we should probably establish why that list is notable (if it is) and List of Darlington F.C. number 4s isn't (or maybe it is!) --Jameboy (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it's notable for the same reason it is for the Celtic #7. It was always considered a privelage to wear it considering the great players who had worn it before. In fact, when Jimmy Johnstone died it was suggested the number should be retired, which never happened. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You're right, there isn't anything to stop United giving the number 7 shirt to a keeper next season, no matter how improbable that is. Nevertheless, I just bought a book called "Magnificent Sevens" by Frank Worrall, which biographs Best, Robson, Cantona, Beckham and Ronaldo. The fact that a book has been written about players who wore this shirt seems to indicate that it's fairly notable. – PeeJay 16:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That there's a book about it should strengthen your case, but the fact that the book picks out just those "magnificent" players and not every number 7 suggests it is more about those particular players than the concept of the number 7 shirt(?) --Jameboy (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is the concept of the #7 shirt. The #7 shirt was [as far as I'm aware) given to the most talented player/playmaker in the squad. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Eep. I'm struggling to see how enough could be written on the subject that wouldn't be sensibly dealt with in a section on squad number (association football). It's not like the number has magical powers of its own or anything. Why not start there, and split it if it gets too large? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be right there. Equally, I may be wrong, but wasn't there an article about Newcastle United number 9s until recently? – PeeJay 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall an article, but there was a category which was deleted back in 2006...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I was sure there was something a little more recent, but I'm probably just misremembering. – PeeJay 09:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Manager stats

This change was made to Mike Newell (footballer) earlier today. On the face of it, it looks a very reasonable change. However, many other football manager bios have the stats section in the order W-L-D rather than football's favoured W-D-L format. Is there any reason why? And is there are reason why all such stats section shouldn't also be similarly changed? Peanut4 (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally favour the W-D-L format simply because it is what is typically used for teams, and familiarity is clarity. I don't really see the logic in W-L-D --ClubOranje^Talk 08:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

W-L-D is the American format, I don't know how it's seeped into articles on UK football...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't help that Soccerbase uses the W-L-D format. Which threw me entirely when I was doing a managers list, kept getting them in the wrong order and wondering why my figures didn't match those from another source... If we have a consensus for using the W-D-L "English" format at least for articles on managers in English football, perhaps we should start changing back to that format where necessary? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Use American systems in articles about America, use British systems in articles about Britain. If it's about a British manager and it has W-L-D, change it. DeMoN2009 12:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you've picked up a very good point Stuway that the sections have used the W-L-D format because of Soccerbase. I guess they should be changed to the English W-D-L format when appropriate. Peanut4 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles N'Zogbia

Just letting you guys know that the Charles N'Zogbia article is getting a lot of IP edits (both constructive and unconstructive), so it's probably worth to put it on your watchlists. D.M.N. (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone with some tools to revert mass edits

Special:Contributions/219.205.220.38 has gone through a lot of edits over the last days adding "Jan." or "January" to 2009– in players infoboxes... and there seem to be alot of them. Sorry to leave this to someone else, but if someone has some sort of tools to revert the bad edits and leave the good ones and it's 3am I have to sleep — CHANDLER^#10 — 02:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)