Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Infoboxes: Relegation and promotion

I've just spotted something on an article on a Serbian football club (FK Obilić) that I thought was rather neat. Alongside with the writing Relegated and Promoted in the infobox when the club has been relegated or promoted, it used this: & . Have a look on TSV Rain am Lech, I've applied it there for a trial, without actually writing promoted. I always found writing promoted or relegated in the infobox rather cumbersome. What do people think, is just a simple green arrow good enough to tell that a club has been promoted? EA210269 (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think at least (link to promoted) or something like that, because, especially for non-football involved readers it will probably not be 100% clear chandler · 04:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder, could we make a template with the arrow, linking directly to an article titled Promotion and relegation in football (soccer) where we explain how it works in football compare to other, predominently North American sports, where no promotion/relegation exists and a franchise system is in place? Would people use it or stick to just writing promoted/relegated?EA210269 (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Promotion and relegation already exists. There is no need to append "...(soccer)" to the title as many (most) sports use promotion and relegation systems outside North America -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Its actually a lot simpler, just use it, for example, like this and it tells all it needs: & . EA210269 (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not keen: to me, including big blocky images in primary colours looks like dumbing down, and actually gives less information than the word promoted or relegated: it assumes that people will either look at the link, or guess what the arrows mean. Kevin McE (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen on cluttering up the infoboxes with more images either. Just use the word promoted or relegated, linked if you feel it's worth it (personally I don't), but in the case of English clubs you might want to link it to the English football league system article rather than a generic promotion/relegation article. - fchd (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. The arrows add nothing that the words relegated or promoted don't supply. If the reader doesn't understand promotion and relegation, they won't understand it any better with an apparently random picture of an arrow next to the word, and for all sorts of MoS/accessibility/common-sense reasons, the arrow couldn't be used without the word. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it's very unclear. A person who's not very "sports-savvy" could easily see an "up arrow" and simply think it means the team's performance has improved comapred to the previous season..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Struway has it spot-on; the accessibility issues with replacing text by images are considerable. The potential gain is next to zero, but we may lose readability for some users. Knepflerle (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, don't crucify me, it was only a suggestion! Oh well, now I know what Galilei felt like when he proposed the Earth spun around the sun! EA210269 (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What, you're under house arrest and becoming seriously worried that you may be burned at the stake? Wow! To be serious, though, I think you may have alighted on a good idea, but thought of a dubious place to use it. I suggest, before throwing it out with the bathwater, people consider whether the arrows might be used in places such as the end-of-campaign tables in the national season round-ups (eg 2006–07 in English football). I suggest they would be clearer than the current use of the letters 'C', 'P' and 'R', which expect the reader to be familiar with the operation and vocabulary of the leagues they are looking up – that is usually true, but it is perhaps unreasonable to assume it as a default. Wikipedia isn't only there for people who already know everything!

I would argue that the 'C' for 'champions' is next to fatuous anyway – the team at the top of a table doesn't really need a label to point out that it is top of the table. Also, there are times when table-topping teams are not promoted (eg from non-league), and the 'C' doesn't differentiate between promoted and non-promoted champions. After this, the advantage of arrows is that they don't require the reader to know that 'P' stands for 'promotion' and 'R' for 'relegation', which isn't quite as obvious as you might think. For example, sometimes over the decades the teams at the bottom of a table have been 'R' for 're-elected', and people unfamiliar with particular football leagues might think that going down is called 'demotion' or some other such word.

No doubt there are drawbacks that I have overlooked, but I think it's worth considering. Grubstreet (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOOTYN oops

Despite myriad conversations here, consistently (as I recall) settling on the notability threshold for players as participation in a fully professional league, the text at our published record of the policy says, and always (since started in Feb 08) has said, played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure (FPNL club): no wonder editors unfamiliar with this talk page's past keep making articles that we deem inappropriate. So, is that essay going to be changed, or are we going to resuscitate all those Conference players and players in top level leagues of smaller nations? Kevin McE (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and change it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Now changed to read "Have played in a fully professional league at national level (FPNL club). A list is available of leagues that are verified as being fully professional. Professionalism is considered to mean that the sport is the main income of all players in the league, not merely that payment is made to players." Kevin McE (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

... and User:King of the North East promptly changed it back again, claiming that the previous version had been "created through discussion and consensus". And reviewing the lengthy discussion in February '08 he has a point. Are we going to have to open this one all over again? Kevin McE (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE specifies the notability threshold for players as participation in a fully professional league. WP:FOOTY/N was never accepted by the world outside this project as taking precedence over WP:ATHLETE, possibly because it wasn't formally presented as a suggested change before people started using it to take Conference players to deletion review. If there's a problem with WP:FOOTY/N, which I suppose there might be, because people do mention it at AfD discussions, perhaps we need to make it clearer that it's still only a nice idea that we liked but no-one else did, and not actually a notability guideline. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the simple solution is for people to stop quoting it at AfD, as it was roundly rejected by the wider community..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I am more of the opinion that it should be revisited (as above) and re-presented to the wider community for acceptance as it specifically looks at footballing notability which - as has been noted at many an AfD - spawns a myriad of garbage about every kid that ever had a one week trial at Anfield regardless of the actual notability in the scheme of things, and these spawned articles from straight-from-school wannabe journalists are aggressively argued as proof of notability by the players' local fan clubs. On the whole, participants in this wikiproject are more knowledgeable about what is and is not notable in the football world which is the rationale for developing WP:FOOTYN in the first place.--ClubOranje^T 00:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I only just saw this discussion, I take issue with the idea that the guideline was roundly rejected, it was never officially presented before people from WP:BIO started undermining it. I believe it has far more superior to their WP:ATHLETE because it wasn't just invented it was built on discussion and consensus amongst experts in the subject area. King of the North East 00:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hertha BSC, Hertha BSC Berlin or Hertha Berlin once again...*grmbl*

A discussion over the name of the article is currently going on at its discussion page, triggered by several back-and-forth pagemoves between Kingjeff and Grant.Alpaugh. The delinquents preferred to use edit summaries as an argument instead of settling their differences via any talk pages. Since the discussion over the name of the club is not the first being led here, please eagerly participate ON THE ARTICLE DISCUSSION PAGE in order to reach a consensus. --Soccer-holic (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

After three days of discussion, a consensus has been found (see the article discussion page for details). A big "Thank you" to everybody who participated. In order to apply the result, can an admin please move the article from "Hertha Berlin" to "Hertha BSC"? --Soccer-holic (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Associate Membership

There are a number of teams listed as having OFC or CAF associate membership, e.g. Micronesia and Zanzibar. Does anyone know where I might find some proof of this? The OFC and CAF websites don't mention it. Thanks Stu.W UK (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from googling, I haven't got any clue - but here's those two

• Micronesia - http://www.oceaniafootball.com/ofcnewsdetails/ofc-ofc-celebrates-40th-anniversary-at-congress
• Zanzibar - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/africa/4330361.stm

HTH Nanonic (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that OFC link, had missed that. My problem with Zanzibar remains though. There is a bbc page here from later than the one above that says Zanzibar were thrown out of the CAF. I can't find anything to say this decision was ever reversed, but as far as I can tell their club teams are allowed to enter CAF competitions, eg the CAF Champions League (in this year's version it was Miembeni SC). Stu.W UK (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Josh Wicks

We seem to be arguing about everything do we? I don't see any reasons why an American flag should be next to Wicks name on the D.C. United roster and also on the MLS transfer list because he was born in Germany and hasn't played for any national teams yet, so I think a German flag should be next to his name on both the D.C. United roster and the transfer list. – Michael (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This reliable source lists his nationality as "U.S.A" - so unless you find one actually stating that his nationality is German, we should go with that. We souldn't assume anything, especially when evidence states otherwise - nationality is more than where someone is born. :) – Toon^(talk) 01:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If there's any potential controversy regarding the nationality there shouldn't be a flag. End of story. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Chris, in general, but there shouldn't be any controversy in this particular case. His MLS profile says he was born on a military base in Germany, which would imply to me that he's American, even if the link above hadn't said so explicitly. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I was at college with two sisters born under similar circumstances, and they were entitled to (and had taken out) both US and West German citizenship, so I'd be surprised if Wicks does not have the same entitlement. When Toon says "nationality is more than where someone is born", he is more correct than perhaps he intends, in a football sense. In terms of eligibility to represent footballing nations, we would also need to know Wicks' mother's and grandparents' nationalities. This guy could theoretically be eligible to play for seven or more countries. Players can even change their choice of nationality after playing in junior internationals (I think Ryan Giggs did this).

So just what purpose does 'flagging' uncapped players serve? It's really only a nationalistic claiming of players – the football equivalent of infant baptism. At the risk of getting all the gung-ho flag-wavers in a tizz, isn't the sensible answer to not flag players until they have been called up for a senior international? At that point, the flag means something definitive, not suppositional. Grubstreet (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but raise the further possibility of ditching these peripheral decorations with accessibility issues altogether. Knepflerle (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would look like poop to have only capped internationals with flags on rosters, though maybe this would be a compromise for the "bold internationally capped players in club rosters" people. For most players, there is simply no argument, and I'm sure for Wicks it is the same thing. Somebody probably went on his MLS profile, where they list birthplace and not nationality. This says "Landstuhl, Germany," so somebody probably didn't think about the fact that there are tens of thousands of American soldiers in Germany on U.S. military bases, which are for all intents and purposes U.S. soil (see: McCain, John). -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I met Wicks several times when he played for Los Angeles Galaxy. He is definitely American. He was born on the medical base in Landstuhl, but grew up and went to high school in San Bernardino, California. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Treble - Request for comment

I've made numerous modifications to the article and I am proposing that the rest of the "other treble/near treble" prose in the article is converted to a table format. Please see the talk page for my proposals. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why the European Treble is given its own section when it is exactly the same as a Continental Treble. DeMoN2009 21:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, if a team wins the UEFA Cup instead of the UEFA Champions League, it is still known as a treble or quadruple. DeMoN2009 21:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

yes a few years ago when Liverpool won the F.A. Cup, League Cup and UEFA Cup it was still called a treble Skitzo's Answer Machine 23:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead ([1]) to the consensus for the article; this has been that The/A Treble (proper noun) consists of the first four achievements while the/a treble (common noun) refers to achievements involving a combination of three other honours. This is acknowledged as such in the article but I think that this is entirely incorrect and have found a number of sources to show that only Manchester United's 1999 was referred to as "The Treble". Do others agree or disagree with this? Perhaps a move from The Treble to List of football teams with a treble win would be more appropriate given the breadth of subject matter? I'd really like more input on this – please respond to the proposal at the talk page. Thank you. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Template color

Which color should be used for the qualification and relegation in J. League 2009? I think the color currently use in J1 are not good. Green is too bright while the red is too dark. Raymond Giggs 08:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Haven't these been standardised yet? It currently uses the same colours as Premier League 2007–08 does (which is probably one of our busiest season articles), so I don't see anything wrong with the colours in question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Middlesbrough and Ironopolis F.C.

A club that formed, applied to join the Football League, failed, then folded, all without playing a match surely doesn't merit its own article, but which of its "parent" clubs should it ber merged and redirected to.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it was 50/50 Middlesbrough and Ironopolis, merge into both articles but redirect to Middlesbrough Ironopolis F.C., as they played League football first. GiantSnowman 13:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps merge the details into both articles, as well as History of Middlesbrough F.C. As for a redirect, I'm stumped into which one - it's easy to make a case for both.

• If you go to the trouble of typing in Middlesbrough and Ironopolis F.C. rather than just Middlesbrough F.C., I would suggest a redirect to Middlesbrough Ironopolis F.C.
• However, I would generally say given the wealth of history, a merge to Middlesbrough F.C. would be more effective. Peanut4 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill Shankly

Is there anyone out there who fancies trying to improve this article? It is very poorly referenced and, like many Liverpool F.C. related articles, is full of hyperbole. (It has been flagged for tone since December 2007.) It was rated "B" class, but I have downgraded it to "C" as it needs a lot of work. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cancelled national team callups

How should the case like for example Ledley King for England, Markus Rosenberg and Behrang Safari for Sweden and I guess some others for other teams, when they're withdrawn and (perhaps not yet in King's case) replaced by other players, how should this be handled on the national team articles, I presume they should be moved to Recent callups, but should they be listed as this cancelled callup as their latest or the previous before? chandler · 15:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it tracked anywhere officially? The whole idea of tracking callups when they can be arbitarily chopped and changed over the course of the preparation period sort of rankles me if no official body makes note of it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A brief mention in the article body of the player concerned is the very most record that future generations will need. It's marginalia. Knepflerle (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but all national team articles have current squads and recent callups displayed, which aren't there for ever, but they're meant to be up to date. chandler · 03:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that an extreme case of Recentism? How is something that changes every time a squad is announced encyclopaedic information? - fchd (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Coudn't you say something similar with club squads? Sure national teams are called up, what is it? 7-10~ times a year, compared to 2 clubs that can be "freely" modified during the summer and january. But most team rarely change more than a few players. Sure the recent callups sections might not be needed, but right now they're there. Now I'm all up for a discussion about removing the recent callups of all national teams (not current squad though), to create a consensus instead of having a very possible edit war over it. chandler · 06:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's probably the discussion we should be having, then. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

←(out dent) and transforming into that discussion then. I looked in the archives for some previous ones, the only one I found from some years ago. Personally I can see pros and cons with both removing and keeping. But I'm leaning for removal just because it's much easier to source, and make sure it's correct. Now sure it might cause some question marks when big players are out on injury or suspensions, but especially for smaller nations it will be much easier to keeping it well sourced if for example the national association announces the squad on their website before international dates. chandler · 11:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of removal of recentist information of little importance. Knepflerle (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. A player isn't capped until he's capped. Being invited to train with the squad is all well and good, but it's not a cap. If it's not important enough to note historical callings-up which didn't result in players being capped, then it's recentism to note recent ones. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Nigerian expatriate football players

I have made an attempt to improve this article, but to be honest for it to survive it needs people to maintain it, I don't really have an interest in football. If this wikiproject is willing to keep it up to date, then great, if not then I suggest nominating it for deletion. I've done all I can Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The page almost definitely needs deleting. GiantSnowman 23:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've PRODded the article. Regards, GiantSnowman 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has now gone to AfD. Regards, GiantSnowman 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Manager + Player Templates

Is there a general rule of whether manager history/squad templates should be included on a football team's article and not just the players or managers? Some team articles have them and some don't. Uksam88 (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Squads certainly not, the article should already have squad sections anyway. Managers probably not, there should be a "managers" section with prose that covers the major ones, the minor ones probably don't merit a mention on the main club article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, thanks. I guess that means a bit of a clean up in conference north! Thanks Uksam88 (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Anybody fancy writing a history article?

I have just come across these two articles about the role of footballers in WWI, and the Footballer's Batallion, and wondered if anybody fancies writing an article entitled Association football during World War I or similar...I would do it myself but my dissertation is a-calling :(. Regards, GiantSnowman 12:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably better starting with adding it to history of association football (which currently basically ends at 1930) and splitting if it gets long enough. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Perry

Can someone with a subscription to allfootballers.com check Ernest Perry (footballer) to see which Bradford he played for? My book on Bradford City doesn't have him listed, though he could have failed to reach the first team, while EchetusXe says his book on Port Vale lists his clubs as Bradford City rather than Bradford Park Avenue. Peanut4 (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't metion any Bradford! Only Port Vale (1919-1921) and Crewe (1921-1924). --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you for looking. Peanut4 (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Joyce has the same in his book, just Port Vale and Crewe. (Joyce, Michael (2004). Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. Nottingham: SoccerData (Tony Brown). p. 207. ISBN 978-1-899468-67-6.) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. I don't suppose either have any specific dates to see if there were some gap between his career with Vale and then Crewe? Peanut4 (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The book only gives seasons, which are contiguous. Doesn't mean there couldn't have been a gap, but I've usually found him accurate about putting names in even where the stay has been very brief. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again. I've removed mention of Bradford City or Park Avenue from the main page but listed all details on the talk page. Peanut4 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for both your help and adding the stats. I've just had a Eureka moment and found Perry on a Bradford City squad photo for 1921-22 so he clearly joined but never made the first team. Peanut4 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Croatian-Australian Socceroos‎

The article was deleted in March 2008 by AfD with the result Delete/Categorise; Category:Croatian-Australian Socceroos was then deleted in July 2008 with the result Delete/Listify (see discussion here) and the article was restored. Logically, these two results show that the information about Croatian-Australian Socceroos‎ should not be on Wikipedia in either article or category form, but when I tagged the article as WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of deleted material), it was denied by TerriersFan (talk · contribs), who recommended I take it to deletion review. However, before I do that I want to gauge people's feelings on the matter...regards, GiantSnowman 20:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Essentially it is List of Australian international players of Croatian descent. I feel to see how this is any different to the recent deletions of cats for British Italian footballers, etc. It's a pointless triple intersection -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If people don't want the information as an article, and don't want it as a category, then why is it still on Wikipedia? GiantSnowman 20:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm; a curious state of affairs, indeed! Those editors who specialise in football lists want it to be a category and those who specialise in categories want it to be a list! It is still on Wikipedia because it was restored pursuant to an XFD discussion. The way forward, as I recommended originally, is to go to DRV and seek to overturn the restoration. TerriersFan (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Curious indeed! I've put a request in at WP:EAR for some admin assistance on the matter, to see if we can avoid going to WP:DRV. GiantSnowman 21:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have also contacted the closers of both the AfD and the category discussion, and asked them to post on my talk page or here. GiantSnowman 21:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, since Croatian diaspora in Australia was an heavy historical issue... I'd keep it, at least for national team players. --necronudist (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Defaultsorts

Hi there, i'm slightly offside on this one...

For reasons that elude even the greatest mathematicians, Spanish, Portuguese and Brazilian players are known by the entire array: first name, last name, middle name, or nickname. This leads into my query:

When arranging the defaultsort at the bottom of the page, what patterns are required? I'll give one (i think it suffices) example: For example, Spanish goalkeeper Alberto López Fernández is known as Alberto, not López; should the defaultsort be ALBERTO LOPEZ FERNANDEZ or LOPEZ FERNANDEZ, ALBERTO? If one chooses the latter, the player will be placed under the letter "L", when he should be in "A". With nicknames it's even harder...

Attentively, Vasco Amaral - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If that player is known as Alberto, then have {{DEFAULTSORT:Alberto}}. However, if he had no nickname, and was known as Alberto Lopez, then you would put {{DEFAULTSORT:Lopez, Alberto}}. Hope this helps! Regards, GiantSnowman 22:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What is being sorted is the article title, within a category page. Thus, if the article is titled "Alberto", then {{DEFAULTSORT:Alberto}} is correct. If the article is titled "Alberto López Fernández", then {{DEFAULTSORT:Lopez Fernandez, Alberto}} is the correct sorting. For some reason, some people insist on titling some articles by one name and sorting them on the other; if the person is well and truly known to the world as "Alberto", as supported by reliable sources (and not some team's marketing broadsheets), then the article should be titled "Alberto" (with appropriate disambiguation terms if needed, e.g. "Alberto (footballer, born 1969)". Once the article is named "Alberto", it can then be sorted as "Alberto". See the Wikipedia guidelines on article naming, especially WP:NAME#Use the most easily recognized name, WP:NAME#People, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:NCP. And then see the Wikipedia guidelines on sorting, WP:Categorization#Display of category pages and WP:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category. In particular, they say:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. <...> Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

and

The sort key should mirror the article's title as closely as possible, while omitting disambiguating terms. Some exceptions are made, however, to force correct collation:

For example, "Pelé", has an article titled Pelé and that article has {{DEFAULTSORT:Pele}}, which is correct: all English-language reliable sources call him that, so that's the correct title for his article, and it's obvious that that is the correct sort for that article title. On the other hand, while Franz Beckenbauer was often called "der Kaiser", that nickname didn't become the dominant name which English-language reliable sources used to refer to him. Thus, his article is also correctly titled, and has {{DEFAULTSORT:Beckenbauer, Franz}}. Coming back to Alberto López Fernández, the best English-language reliable sources I can quickly find are espn.com and goal.com, both of which give his name as "Alberto". Therefore the article is mis-titled and should be moved to a new title; when that is done, {{DEFAULTSORT:Alberto}} will be the correct sort for the article title.Studerby (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Studerby, but I think you're completely wrong about the titling of articles. Say there are 5 players all known as "Alberto" - Alberto Smith, Alberto Jones, Alberto Studerby, Alberto Snowman and Alberto Amaral. All five were also born in 1950. How, pray, would you disambiguate the articles then? GiantSnowman 00:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT is different to article names though. You don't have to use disambiguations in defaultsort. Secondly, articles can be sorted to different codes though I've rarely seen that for people, and more for descriptive pages. Peanut4 (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dave Mooney

Hi, seeking some consensus on the naming of this article. I believe there is a strong case for moving to 'David Mooney'; the name by which he seems to be referred to in the English media (despite being known mainly as 'Dave' in Ireland), seeing as he is now most notable for his career in England. Please see the talk page discussion page for more background.--NCFCQ (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fabio Ferreira (Portuguese footballer)

I created the article today after he made his professional debut yesterday. But I wonder, should I move it to Fabio Ferreira, create the Fabio Ferreira as a disambig page, or redirect it (the red link) to Fábio Ferreira and add the template (as I have done)? I'm just unsure about how to go about it. –  LATICS  talk  01:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Since there is another Fabio Ferreira, create a disambig page. --Soccer-holic (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wicks family?

Matthew Wicks is the son of Steve Wicks; sources back that up. However, are they any relation to Stan Wicks? I think Stan is Steve's father, and therefore Matthew's grandfather, but can't find a source to prove it. My reasoning? Stan (born 1928) played at Reading, where both Steve (born 1956) and Matthew (born 1978) were born; Stan also played for Chelsea, the club where Steve started his pro career. It could be a coincidence, but methinks not...GiantSnowman 05:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Journeyman (football) article

Does this article have anything to commend it? A very imprecise definition, and a list with a total lack of inclusion criteria. PRODable? Kevin McE (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, nothing seems to make that article commendable. I wasted my time looking at that. Very PRODable. DeMoN2009 20:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's nothing like the definition of journeyman i've ever heard. I don't see how there could ever be a precise enough definition that would allow for clear inclusion criteria so it needs to go. Stu.W UK (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The prod was deleted: now at AfD Kevin McE (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nathan Eccleston

can an Admin please have a look I have listed it for speedy deletion on the basis it is a recreaation of deleted material, also suggest someone point out the criteria for inclusion to User:WereSpielChequers as he turned down a previous 1 because "he's a footballer who plays for Liverpool" Skitzo's Answer Machine 00:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, if an article asserts notability, it's not eligible for speedy deletion. So if an article says the subject is a footballer who plays for Liverpool, even if it isn't actually true, it shouldn't be speedied. Suggest you prod the offending article, if no-one has already. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted at 01:59 this morning (GMT) as a G4 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Think Eccleston was a recreation of previously deleted material, the refused one was somebody else. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Eccleston was initially tagged {{db-person}} and that was what was refused as, as you rightly point out, an assertion of notability had been made. It was then retagged {{db-repost}} and subsequently deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought this one was what Skitzo was on about... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick death date question

I've had to let my membership of allfootballers.com lapse because I'm skint, and I don't have any of my books here at work, so can anyone help me out with the date of death of the Tom Baxter who played for Gillingham in the 1920-21 season? Cheers!!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Joyce's book just says 1955, no day or month. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me, cheers! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Colours for Russia's World Cup/Euro templates

There's been a bit of editwarring over at {{Russia Squad 1994 World Cup}}, {{Russia Squad 1996 UEFA Euro}}, {{Russia Squad 2002 World Cup}}, {{Russia Squad 2004 UEFA Euro}}, {{Russia Squad 2008 UEFA Euro}} regarding Russia's colours. Now I agree with the side that it should be White and Blue, 94, 96, 02 and 04, the two primary colours were obviously white and blue, in 08, they played in that full white strip (and the Russian flag on the chest). The points given by User:Caio Brandão Costa here and that White and blue are the more historically associated colours with the team, and that's why those colours should be used.

Just as Brazil are associated with yellow and green (and therefore all their squad boxes are yellow and green), even if they used white and blue in 1950 and before 54. Same, all Portugals squad templates haven't been changed from the sort of burgundy and gold to red and green or white just because of last years strip. Same reason given at the Austrian squads. There are probably other examples. chandler · 13:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Squabbling over something as minor as this? It makes no difference to the reader whatsoever, it's decoration. Make them all black and white and be done with it. Knepflerle (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought that there was a consensus to use the primary colours of the team's contemporary home kit, regardless of what their kit looks like now. Therefore, as an example, Brazil templates should use white and blue before 1954, but yellow and green afterwards. I have no idea what the Russia kits were in the past, but I suggest that the above example be followed. – PeeJay 14:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted images/video of all Russian home kits used in all the competitions they've been in. chandler · 14:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Russian templates should be white background, blue text, red border. GiantSnowman 14:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good 'compromise' to me (perhaps not to those who want Red and white), but it would need modifying of {{National squad}} which currently does not allow custom border style of the title. chandler · 14:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

History, again...

I and chandler have different points of view about Sid Kimpton, an article I've just created. I think he is one and the same with a man called George Kimpton in most sources. Chandler disagree. As It is a complex question I would like to bring some opinions and sources as well. Cheers. --Latouffedisco (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No I did not disagree about them being the same person or not, the aricle was not created when you changed the link without explanation, so I checked FIFA.com and they listed him as George Kimpton. Plus the links on that (post revert) article reference someone called George Kimpton so even if Sid was his nickname, the common name is George and the article should be there. chandler · 08:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Daemonic Kangaroo is a Southampton fan and will have access to books which should confirm what he was known as in the UK, certainly..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Another main controversy is that the link say he won silver medal at 1934 FIFA World Cup... but Kimpton coached France in that competition... I would say they are the same person, if not for that big WC inconsistency. --necronudist (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Christies link says he had a 1934 World Cup silver medal, but doesn't specifically say he won it, maybe one of the Czechs lost it to him in a poker game :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure... the most likely thing in the World! --necronudist (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys - I'm at work now, but I'll take a look tonight and see if I can "arbitrate" and also fill in the details of his playing career. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The names seem weird to me. Other Southampton articles refer to him as Sid, so presumably that's what he was called as a Southampton player, and if his given name was Gabriel then Sid's as good a nickname as any, but if it is the same bloke, how did he become George, which he seems to have been throughout his foreign coaching career? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill Berry also appears to have metamorphosed into George when he went to France (although in this case it was at least his middle name)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at some sources. It said he coached in Coventry. An other clue... The Christies link also said he coached RC Paris and Le Havre. That's why I thought "they" are the same person. And, yes there is still this inconstency with the name. With the vast amount of English players and managers in France at that time, and their names transformations, It is hard to find who's who. I've also performed a research at allfootballers.com and no "Kimpton" appeared. Is this a rare name?--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Southampton only joined The Football League in 1920, so his appearances for them would not be listed at allfootballers.com, as he had already left the club by then...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This explains why. I've made an other web research at "GS Kimpton". And I 've found some interesting links. The first [2] is from a famous French encyclopedia, and states that Kimpton has been coaching France since May 1934. The second from a fan site [3], said he coached France in the 1930's, the third, from FC Metz official site shows that he also coached this team [4] at the beginning of 1938.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

These links to some English books are also interesting.[5] [6].--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody know if he had some links with the US? Like a team trained, a parent there, a competition he took part... A great researcher friend of mine found something interesting, but it's hard to say who's the right Kimpton, the 1934 French coach. Thanks to the French mania of changing names to foreign people...! --necronudist (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've now had time to look at my Saints reference books - his second name was "Sibley", but he was known as "Sid" - no mention of "George". After details of his playing career, which I'll add to the article later, the article goes on to say "In the thirties he was part of the Czechoslovakian coaching set-up and was given a medal when the national side reached the World Cup final against Italy in 1934. He was captured by the Germans in 1940 and spent the next five years as a P.O.W." The career summary section shows him coaching with the French national team in the 1920s (no specific dates) before coaching at Coventry City (1928), then with the Czech national team (1930s) and then "coaching in France" from 1936–1940. This seems to confirm athat "George" and "Sid" were the same person. I hope this helps. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the article on George Kimpton on French Wikipedia gives his date of birth as 12 August 1887, whereas my references give his DoB as "1888". Unfortunately, French Wiki cites no references so I don't know where this came from. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Great Daemonic Kangaroo! So it was Gabriel Sibley Kimpton, son of Alfred Kimpton, born in Leavesden on 1886. He married Florence Louisa Goodin on 28 December 1910. --necronudist (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked the author of French wikipedia article. Keep my YOB as by now. --necronudist (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work, Daemonic Kangaroo. What you've found match with the Christies link. Some French sources also says he was taken as a POW. And yes necronudist, we LOVE changing names of foreigners!Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I restarted the french WP article from zero. The work is somewhere "half-way". "George" is, for sure, the name use in France. I have 1930's newpapers interviews of the guy.

For Metz, I'm 99,99% (not to say 100...) sure that he never managed them. I don't know where the "official website" found that one... He was in charge of the RC Paris from 1935 to 1939. And they won the cup in 1939, and he was there with the RC Paris until the 1939 cup final (that's 100% sure).

For the player history, I have nothing for the moment. I never heard about Kimpton playing for Le Havre... but, why not... I will have to check.

I dont understand where the "Christies" world cup runners up medal come from... Same story in a Southampton book... Very strange... "George Kimpton" was, for sure, in the the French team staff (not head coach, only assistant) during the 1934 world cup and he came back to Paris after the game versus Austria (I have the L'Auto newspaper article of the arrival at the Gare de Lyon, with Kimpton, back from the world cup).

I checked France Football around the "Christies" death date, but I found nothing.

Excuse my very poor English... Clio64B (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

PS : I did contact fr:User:Xavoun on that one. He work on an History PhD about foreign footballers in France ; He will maybe have an answer. Clio64B (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Your English is surely better than mine...! Let us know if you find out something! --necronudist (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now expanded the section covering his playing career. The coaching/managerial career section still needs expanding - I'll leave Clio64B to re-write the article on French Wikipedia and then get it translated into English. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, Clio. I've removed the FC Metz manager stint, and put RC Paris from 1935 to 39. For the world cup medal, if I understand well, he used to be in the Czechoslovakia football team staff at one time, and they offer him a medal to thank him, I think.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont know nothing about Kimpton with the Czechoslovakia football team staff. It is posible, of course, even during his club tenures (same story with RC Paris and French national team ; He did it at the same time). But, not during the 1934 WC... That's why I dont understand the 1934 medal story. I will contact football historians in central Europe on that one, but the answer will be maybe slow to come back...

For the playing career, I have nothing. I have nothing before 1934... I dont find no "Kimpton" player or manager at Le Havre during the 20's, but sources on that period are very bad... I know that RSSSF put Kimpton manager of Le Havre from 1921 to 1926, but I cannot find a "solid" source for that. For exemple, the (bad) book on Normandy football (Jacques Simon, Un siècle de football normand, 1998, p. 198) begin its "Mister Kimpton" short biography in 1934. Le Havre is in Normandy...

For the date of death, I will put a dime on 1968, because Le Havre call its youth promotion "Kimpton promotion" that year, but I can't find no obtuaries. I keep searching.

I hope that Xavoun will have "fresh" stuff on Kimpton. Clio64B (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The ABC of the Saints says that his playing career ended when he joined Pogoń Lwów; it also confirms the date of death as 15 February 1968. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

When I built the Template:Czechoslovakia national football managers with information from the Czech football federation (I have basic knowledges in Slavic languages) I did not find any Kimpton or something close that could ring a bell, that's why I think he was just in the staff. Maybe he did great work and a friend offer him a medal (I have some imagination, that's a nice gift, however...).--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on the Polish wiki and contacted a fan site of Pogon Lwow. I hope we'll get answers. --Latouffedisco (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this is a note on Kimpton's career from the most relevant source Fuji Football Encyclopaedia (vol. Polonia Warszawa): George Stuart (!) Kimpton - born 12.08.1887, died after 1949. Scotland-born English player and coach. Dec. 1921 player-manager of DFC Prague, 1922 - Polonia Warszawa, 1923 - Cracovia, left in Autumn to HAC Havre.

Kimpton never coached Pogoń Lwów.

Vertigo12 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your quick answer: The issue is getting more and more complicated or not? Are they two Kimptons or have we just got some more details about his career? I don't know, however, he could be the same guy, as he left for Le Havre.--Latouffedisco (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Like you, I am now mightily confused - re-checking the ABC of the Saints, it says that Sid Kimpton was at "Prague (player-coach) in 1924", not Pogoń Lwów (I assumed that this was a Prague club), then he was coach with the French national team before coaching Coventry City in 1928. The Fuji article says that he was "Scottish-born" but my book has him born in Leavesden which is near Watford, England. Perhaps there were two different individuals after all!!! --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Fuji Football Encyclopaedia is not so reliable... They can be two different individuals, sure, however the "French" Kimpton was Gabriel Sibley and was born (100% sure) in Leavesden, but in 1886. --necronudist (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, there was only one Kimpton in Poland - coach of Polonia and Cracovia. He was quite popular and often quoted in press. Vertigo12 (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Follow this link to Polish Przegląd Sportowy (#11, March 1922): http://buwcd.buw.uw.edu.pl/e_zbiory/ckcp/p_sportowy/1922/numer011/imagepages/image16.htm Vertigo12 (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the drawing Vertigo, thanks. It can help if we find some photos (I will search) Hum, so he left for Prague, good (DFC Prague, that's OK). This coach went also in Poland, where he left for Le Havre. Note that George Stuart and Gabriel Sibley have the same letters G.S. Kimpton.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This George Kimpton is definitely Scottish then, going by the cartoon. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The discrepancy in place/date of birth and both first and middle names seems to suggest that we must be dealing with two separate men whose histories have been merged to varying degrees in different sources. Heaven knows how we go about picking it all apart, though..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure...Looking at some photos of RC Paris (ask me, I can send it by e-mail), Kimpton looks like the man in the Polish drawing.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

For info, the 1891 UK census lists George Kimptons aged 1, 2 and 7, and no Gabriel Kimptons whatsoever. The one aged 2 could be him if Daemonic Kangaroo's source is correct that he was born in 1888 and the census took place before his birthday in that year. That would mean his name wasn't Gabriel, though...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW I notice that the Polish cartoon depicts him in traditional Scottish attire but describes him as "Anglik" which I presume means "English"?!?!?!? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's right Chris. Have also a look at his photo at FC Rouen official website here. Same guys from the cartoon I think, and same guys from my RC Paris photos.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Literally it says: Professional "Englishman", master of technique. So, English refers to footballing tradition rather than to nationality. On the other hand, kilt on the drawing may appear to make Kimpton more exotic rather than to underline his Scottish origins. Vertigo12 (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ancestry.co.uk does list a Gabriel Sibley Kimpton, born in Watford, but in December 1886. Don't know why he wouldn't be listed on the 1891 census, though.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Necronudist said he was born in 1886. It happens that some people are not in the census, even today...--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So to summarise, we're fairly sure that his name was Gabriel Sibley Kimpton, born in Leavesden (even though overseas sources claim his name was George Stuart Kimpton and that he might have been Scottish) and that he played for Southampton. What details of his coaching career are we still trying to clarify.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Gabriel is on the 1891 census. Gabriel S Kimpton age 4, born about 1887, born Hertfordshire, residence Hertfordshire. Struway2 (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. So, to be precise Gabriel was born on December 1886 (about 1887, here we are), that's perfect. (What would be useful is to search "George Stuart Kimpton" in the census : I don't know if he would be in, as he is supposed to be Scottish?). Played for Southampton, left to coach DFC Prague, went to Poland where he coached Cracovia Kraków, then left for le Havre of France. His coaching dates before the establishment of professional football in France (1932) are hard to find. Then he coached France, RC Paris, Rouen, Le Havre again, and Cherbourg. Died in 1968. At least, I have tried...--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now uploaded a picture of Sid Kimpton in his Saint's playing days and added it to the article - to me, this is clearly a younger version of the FC Rouen manager on their website[7]. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Daemonic Kangaroo. His eyebrows are the same! So I think we have the same guy with different name. I will change the details of his career in Poland. --Latouffedisco (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiPRO

Let's have a game of PRO-EVOLUTION WIKI, shall we?

I have this doubt: i have often seen that some articles are deleted, because players do not meet the standards (i.e. never played in a professional league). The query i bring forward is this: For example, ANDREAS MEPPEN (he does not have a wiki-article, just an example), a retired German defender who played for mainly SV Meppen, amassed more than 400 second division games, but never appeared in the top level (here is his link http://www.fussballdaten.de/spieler/helmerandreas/).

Thus, if someone wanted to create this or a similar article, would it be "illegal"? I think not, as most of Europe's 2.Division leagues are highly professional.

Cheers, Vasco Amaral - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The second tier in Germany is clearly a fully professional league, so that player could have an article without any problems -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Importantly... was a fully professional league "at the time Meppen played". --ClubOranje^T 09:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

James A. Farrell (soccer)

This article needs a soccer expert to come and take a look. It appears to be about two or three different persons (unclear whether any of them or all of them are notable), and has a somewhat complicated history, with people arguing over who was who on the article page. It is also completely unsourced. Fram (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'm completely confused. Is someone claiming that the MMA promoter had an earlier career as a footballer? Certainly nobody by the name of James Farrell has ever played professional football in England. If the MMA promoter was once upon a time a youth-level footballer but never played professionally then that might merit one sentence but certainly shouldn't be in the article title. No idea what the last paragraph denying that anyone of this name has ever played soccer in America is doing in there...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Further investigation reveals that the article was originally about a failed youth player with Charlton who allegedly then went to play in America, and the bit about being an MMA promoter was then tacked on later. The bit about playing in America seems to be false (see all-time MLS roster here), and being a failed youth player at Charlton obviously isn't notable, so all mention of football/soccer should be removed from the article (including its title). I have no opinion on whether or not being an MMA promoter for a redlinked organisation coneys notability (or is even true) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the article to James A. Farrell (MMA), as the MMA promoter clearly isn't in any way notable for his football career, even if it's true -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I'm glad I'm not the only one that was confused. I'll try to search for sources about this person to establish any notability. If I can't find any (or sufficient ones at least), I'll prod it. Fram (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've now proposed this article for deletion, since I can find very little to confirm the existence of the person, and nothing to establish any notability. I notice that the article creator User talk:Jaymillionaire has had most of his other articles already deleted as being about non notable subjects. Fram (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Jeny infobox formatting

Can someone please look at Rudolf Jeny; for some reason the 'dateofdeath' parameter does not display in the infobox, and I can't for the life of me work out why. Thanks in advance, GiantSnowman 19:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, the death parameters were duplicated, and only the last instance of a parameter gets read when the page is rendered. Fixed. – PeeJay 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, odd - I copy and pasted the template straight from the {{Infobox Football biography 2}} page...thanks for spotting it anyways! GiantSnowman 20:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Arrows

The left-pointing arrow in this and all the subsequent season infoboxes isn't displaying in the HTML article, yet it does when the article is converted to a .pdf. Anyone know the reason behind this? - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see the arrows using Firefox. What browser do you have? Peanut4 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Firefox. Here we go again... - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Both right and left arrows display for me, and I'm using IE. GiantSnowman 01:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I presume you mean the arrow in the "previous season" field? Because I can see them in all the Blackpool season articles. Very odd. Have you tried purging the pages? Otherwise I don't know what to suggest. Peanut4 (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

They do in Safari as well. I'd use it, but you can't do a word search in edit windows with that browser. - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And yes on both counts, Peanut. It's not a biggie; I remember a similar issue not too long ago. It's just annoying. - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see the arrows, but what do they add to the infobox anyway? Aren't they just pointless decoration that potentially mangles what a screen reader would parse? - fchd (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, do you see the arrows in the template version? If so, mind migrating that article across to use it? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The template uses the arrows, so I don't think this is the place for that discussion. Chris: I only see the right arrow, and I've just noticed I don't even see the left arrow in the raw text of the article I initially linked to. Something's obviously messed up, but it was also happening to me on another computer. - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I see both arrows in Windows-based Firefox, just not the Mac version. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Are both version of FF up-to-date? Also no problems with Google Chrome on XP. Uksam88 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Escaped characters using ← and → - does that help? I thought you were encouraged to do that because of compatibility reasons. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Afraid not. I noticed the larr and rarr code in another article and copied it over, but it didn't display either. I've just checked again after your edit, still to no avail. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha - figured it out. My default browser font (Times) on my Mac was the issue. Selecting another one displays the left arrow. Thanks for the input! - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Liam Watson (footballer)

I've been creating this article for the past few days now and have just moved it from my sandbox to its own page, he should be notable enough having made 9 football league appearances and scoring in three for PNE back in 1993. This is my first real attempt at a new wiki article so i would really appreciate any hints or advice anyone may have for me, also if you think anything needs changing + added. I've also requested it for assesment over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment where there is a bit of a backlog of requests. Thanks Uksam88 (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made a couple of minor changes. Any questions let me know. Peanut4 (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that much appreciated. Just a question about one change but doesn't really effect it. "(shouldn't put place of birth i brackets per Wp:DATE)", i couldn't find a specific example on that page which showed place of birth in the brackets so i'm guessing that is the reasoning for its removal. However i have come across a heck of a lot of articles (majority of them are ones of footballers) that still have place of birth in the brackets, should I from now on remove that from any articles i come across? Uksam88 (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

By all means remove them per WP:MOSDATE. Congrats on your first "real" article, impressive for a "virgin":-).--ClubOranje^T 09:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed WP:MOSDATE states that the brackets should be used for the date of birth and not place of birth. I tend to move the place of birth to somewhere else early in the text instead. Peanut4 (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Uksam88 - well done mate. First bash - it's a good go. I am sure you'll encounter a fair few mongs on the way (as I have) who get annoyed that you're not some wikipedia professor. Keep up the good work though! Dribblingscribe (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Southport F.C. managers

Just been going through the above cat to make sure those who are on wikipedia are mentioned in that category. Does anyone have an idea why Hugh Fisher (footballer) is showing up under S instead of F? Uksam88 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Now fixed - the default sort was incorrect. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there is a problem with Bryan Griffiths. I don't think he was a manager at the age of 20?Need to be fixed...--Latouffedisco (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah thanks for that.My mistake got it mixed up. Must have just looked at the fact he played for Southport when i wikilinked it. I knew the Bryan i meant went on to mossely and morecambe where he is in "red linked" Morecambe_F.C.#Managers. Thanks again. Uksam88 (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wartime football

Following on from an earlier discussion in which I suggested starting an article on football during the First World War - which, as you will see I have now done - I propose that we also create a category on Category:Footballers who fought in World War I (as, according to sources on the article, some 2,000 professional footballers signed up to fight in 1914), and also a a category on Category:Footballers who died in World War I, as 500 footballers died from the Football Battalion alone. I think then we should (read that as I should) also start an article on the Second World War, and introduce similar categories. Any objections/thoughts/opinions on the matter? GiantSnowman 21:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've created the WWII article. If no-one objects by tomorrow, then I'm going to be bold and have a go at creating the categories. GiantSnowman 22:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Mmkay, I got bored and so have created the categories. Provided there's no uproar in the morning when you all see this, I'll do the same for the WWII categories. Nighty night, GiantSnowman 02:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the two articles. Just a warning – there were two previously categories that were deleted following a CfD[8] - Category:Footballers who served in the British Army and Category:Footballers who served in the RAF on the grounds that these were "trivial intersections". --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As expected, the new categories have already been deleted. Good try! --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, I may take them to DRV at a later day! Regards, GiantSnowman 13:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, why was the suggestion to start these within the existing history article ignored? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article, would be interesting to add informations about Nazi footballers. In France, there was Alexandre Villaplane who worked closely with the Gestapo and was executed after the war. Unfortunately, he is not the only one who collaborated.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate your help Chris - you were the only person to give any advice about my first suggestion - once I got started on the articles I soon realised that they had the potential - as Latouffedisco points out – to become important, seperate articles very quickly. Regards, GiantSnowman 13:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Can someone write a book on the subject, please? To be serious, a summary of specific articles should be added into general articles. By the way, I've just found another collaborationist, Estonian Evald Mikson.--Latouffedisco (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Top goalscorer template

I have tried to create a template for top goalscorer boxes. Three examples can be found here. The first is from Danish Superliga 2008–09, the second from 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Group 1 and the last is from UEFA Champions League 2008–09.

Can it be used? Please come with critics. kalaha 13:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yuri Berchiche

hi, this lad, Yuri Berchiche, made his professional debut today for cheltenham, but I don't know what to do to get a page restored, any online now know the procedure? cheers Prem4eva (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly mail the last person to delete it? Try leaving a message at User_talk:NawlinWiki. Uksam88 (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Any admin can restore an article, and I have done so. It needs an update though, I'll leave it to you. Qwghlm (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Given it a small update to reflect he has signed for Cheltenham Town and made his debut. Uksam88 (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, everyone. Thanks for that Prem4eva (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hello there,

i discovered there are (at least) two Spanish footballers named CHEMA, and so, redirected pages to Chema (footballer born 1976) and Chema (footballer born 1980), as both players are known by nicknames.

1st, i hope i did well. In case i did, can anyone help me create - or tell me how to - a disambiguation page? I reckon it is needed, with the pages having been moved.

Regards, Vasco Amaral - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Done at Chema, but would it be more suited at Chema (disambiguation)? Uksam88 (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No; according to WP:DABNAME the title should only have "(disambiguation)" in the name if there is already a primary article. GiantSnowman 20:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Couple of things for future reference that people might not know.

When people move an article, they need to check for any double redirects, i.e. where there used to be a redirect to the page (as in this case Jose Maria Gimenez Perez without the accents redirecting to José María Giménez Pérez with the accents) when the accented version gets moved, the first redirect won't work, so needs to be changed to redirect to the new name.

And on disambiguation pages, the descriptions shouldn't have any wikilinks in them, and unless it's unavoidable, shouldn't contain anything changeable like team currently played for.

I've fixed the redirect and simplified the dab page on these, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

New template

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that there is now a template, {{WLD}}, that can be used within a table to automatically calculate Win%. At the moment it has a reletively small scope for use, but I believe it is still useful as is removes all human error from percentage calculations, and these are more common than you think. (e.g. the numbers of this FL before and after). Linked is the only article page I have added the template to so far. I wanted to show how it works but get community feedback from here as to whether other people will find it useful, before implementing it any other pages. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 13:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Very nice, though the main thing wrong with that table is that the numbers of matches drawn and lost are reversed (and always have been, it's not something you did), presumably because they were taken from Soccerbase which arranges its columns W...L...D as opposed to the standard British W...D...L. I'll change them round in a minute :-)

Can it print its percentage with trailing zeroes where necessary so that the column aligns on decimal point? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Should it have those extra zeros? If a the percentage is exactly 10, to me 10.00 would indicate to me that it was rounded down from 10.003 or something. If it is wanted I'm sure it can be done though, Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 15:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed my mind, I think proper alignment is much more important than trivial things like that. Trailing zeroes have been implemented. Additionally I've moved the template to {{WDL}} in light of that confusion above. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 15:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Addditionally, you can choose the required number of decimal places it rounds to (default is 2, but could be changed). Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 15:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good if all the numbers are the same length, looks messy if they're not, as below. As has always been the case with such tables. I've never managed to find a non-messy way of getting alignment on the decimal point.

Name	Played	Win	Draw	Lose	Win%[C]
Jimmy Hogan	3	3	0	0	100.00
Eric Houghton	3	0	1	2	000.00
Joe Mercer	10	1	9	0	010.00

From an accuracy point of view, I prefer the template idea to using #expr: xx/yy * 100 round 2. Cuts out having to copy xx and yy accurately from the table to the expression. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

After a lot of fiddling I managed to work out a way to have goals for and against columns too. So this change should greatly increase where this can be used.

Name	Played	Win	Draw	Lose	GF	GA	Win%
Jimmy Hogan	3	3	0	0	4	1	100.00

Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 16:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben Zinn

This chap is an interesting one - he played internationally for both Israel and the United States, but turned down a professional career in both soccer and American football in order to pursue his academic studies. If anyone has any details of his early footballing career - i.e. dates & numbers of caps for both national teams, his college career, any semi-pro or amateur teams he turned out for - I would be extremely grateful. Cheers, GiantSnowman 23:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is some info on http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-237362-p-7.html unfortunatly the links to sources there are now dead. I guess one of the problems is that his playing career was before 1960, which may be why the IFA and rsssf says "Who he?". Nanonic (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

He didn't play any official A international for Israel or USA. --necronudist (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that proves he hasn't? - sources on his article, plus the Big Soccer forum thread (which isn't WP:RS an therefore cannot be cited), say he has...GiantSnowman 10:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

citation states he was a "star on the Israeli national champion soccer team" - ie, Israeli league champions, not national side.--ClubOranje^T 10:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to say he played club football in Israel, not international football; but what about the US? GiantSnowman 10:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

also was a standout for the U.S. youth national teams, in the early 1980s, but fizzled out. USA lineups are pretty easy to find (they're even on National Soccer Hall of Fame website) and there's no Zinn... I think he stopped at youth level. Is he still at Georgia Tech? Somebody can try to contact him. --necronudist (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The 80s sounds WAY too late, he would have been in his late 30s by then. And yeah, I've e-mailed the chap for some more info. Will let you know what he says. Regards, GiantSnowman 10:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The fizzled out bit is about somebody else. Thing is, the source for Zinn playing for the US national team, an introductory speech at the opening of his lab where the info presumably came from the interview for GTAlumni magazine mentioned in the bigsoccer forum thread, webarchived here. Which means, without corroboration, it's effectively only Zinn's word for it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted this before I saw the email below... Struway2 (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• E-mail 1

I just checked my inbox, and received this e-mail from the man himself

From: Zinn, Ben T <e-mail removed>
Sent: Tue 24/03/2009 10:11
To: Philip Copley; <e-mail removed>
Subject: RE: A quick question about your soccer career

Hi Mr. Copley,
I will be happy to work with and would appreciate getting the following information:

1. What prompted you to create an article about me in Wikipedia?
2. Where did you get the information about me, which clearly needs updating?
   

I look forward to your response.
Ben

I have sent him an e-mail back, and will let you know what he says. GiantSnowman 11:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you GiantSnowman! It would be great if he can tell us what matches (at least decade and against who, if he don't remember every detail) did he play for US A-level team. --necronudist (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• E-mail 2

A new email from Ben Zinn:

From: Zinn, Ben T <e-mail removed>
Sent: Wed 25/03/2009 11:25
To: Philip Copley
Subject: RE: A quick question about your soccer career

Hi Philip,
I will respond shortly to your questions, hopefully before the end of the week when my schedule lightens up a bit. I also wonder if you have visited my Ga. Tech web site?
In the mean time, please tell me a bit more about youself.
With best wishes,
Ben

I have e-mailed him back again, and when I get some more info will post it here. GiantSnowman 11:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand why he's so vague... mmmh... --necronudist (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be too if some stranger emailed me and wanted information for no apparent reason ;-) chandler · 14:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• E-mail 3

An e-mail from Ben Zinn which confirms he played international football for the US:

From: Zinn, Ben T <e-mail removed>
Sent: Fri 27/03/2009 13:06
To: Philip Copley; 'Zinn, Ben T'
Subject: RE: A quick question about your soccer career

Hi Phil,

Below is edited version of what I found in Wikipedia and additional information, which may be of help to you.

Here are a few more details about my soccer career, which was relatively short because of the demands of my academic career.

In 1957, just before coming to the states, I played for Hapoel Tel Aviv that won the Israeli first division championship that year. The same year I visited the US with an Israeli All Star team (sort of a national team) and also played in Britain (Arsenal), Scotland (Celtics) and France (Racing Club of Paris). While in the US, I played about five times for the US national team including a 1959 game against England. The English team included: Bobby Wright, Charleston, Hopkins and other well known players (I still have the game’s program, if you are interested). While at NYU and Stanford, I played for the NY and California All Stars teams. Thanks for your interest and best wishes.

Ben

He has also give me some more info re:his non-football career, and I'll edit the article accordingly. GiantSnowman 13:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

He means "Wright, Charlton and Hopkinson", I suppose. However, here's the US lineup (28/05/1959, Los Angeles, USA-England 1-8): Victor Ottoboni, Doug Farquhar, Ben Cinowitz, Adolf Bachmeier, Bert Evans, John Traina, Fred Cameron, Ed Murphy, William Carson, Bill Looby, Al Zerhusen. I can't see any Zinn... Maybe he means he was called up for those games... --necronudist (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben Cinowitz? Many immigrants to the US changed their name to something pronounceable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but only Ben knows... :-) --necronudist (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'll e-mail him again to clarify. He could have gone from Cinowitz to Zinn; it could even have been Zinnowitz, misspelt as Cinowitz, then later Anglicised to Zinn. GiantSnowman 13:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

However that Cinowitz played only ONCE for US at A-level. And obviously he isn't an Israeli international since that was an Israeli All-Star team, like he says, and not the national team (that's why he isn't in Israeli archives... they were non-A matches). --necronudist (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Zinn, if he is Cinowitz, meant he played once and was called-up a further four times. And don't forget - Zinn still has the match programme from the England game, which will no doubt have a photo of him in. GiantSnowman 13:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sincerely, I don't trust him so much. He's too vague, and has too many erroneous infos... about himself! He ISN'T an Israeli international, probably he ISN'T even an US international... if he played as "Cinowitz" or another name, he'd have pointed out this on one of the three e-mails... it's all too strange. --necronudist (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Zinn has freely admitted that he wasn't an Israeli international, and in fairness he never claimed he was - I did, when I misinterpreted info about his career in Israel. GiantSnowman 14:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• E-mails 4 & 5

Zinn has e-mailed me to confirm that he was indeed Ben Cinowitz, and has sent me a copy of the match programme from the match against England. The picture in the match programme and pictures of Zinn now can be seen to be the same person, despite the 50 year difference, and the programme also confirms that Cinowitz came from Israel, studies at New York University, and played for the Israel national side (which Zinn says is an error - he only ever played for an Israeli "All Star" team; see his article's talk page for full e-mail). The ages don't match up - Cinowitz is 25 and Zinn was 22 when the match took place, but Zinn says they made a mistake on that too. Can we get consensus now that Cinowitz and Zinn are one and the same, or will I have to forward the e-mail attatchment to people? Regards, GiantSnowman 13:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to receive it just for its historical value. Personally, I'm not fully convinced, since total caps with US A-team and age at the time of the match... don't match. But it's just my thought! --necronudist (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, how should I sent it to you? GiantSnowman 13:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing the photo... it's him, indeed! Same eyes, same mouth... I must admit I was wrong about him! Now... what about Ben Cinowitz? Speedy deletion? Redirect? --necronudist (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have redirected the Cinowitz article to Zinn. Also, necronudist, if possible could you add a reference to Zinn's article from whatever source you have been using, to confirm his appearance in the England line up? Cheers, GiantSnowman 14:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Done... please check it 'cause I don't know how to cite properly... --necronudist (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's cited properly! :) GiantSnowman 14:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• E-mail 6

Zinn has e-mailed (the e-mail is quite lengthy, and can be found on his article's talk page) me to confirm, again, his reasons for name changes, and his other US national team appearances. Most of them are unofficial appearances (against club sides) which is why they don't feature on official lists - but he does mention one game against the Bermudan national team...does anyone know if this was an official game? Regards, GiantSnowman 12:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Major Indoor Soccer League / National Soccer League stats

Anyone know a good source for Major Indoor Soccer League stats; Laurie Abrahams played for the New York Cosmos in the 1984–85 MISL season, and I can't find stats for him anywhere. He also played in the Australian National Soccer League in 1986 for the Melbourne Knights; his stats are also missing for that season. Any help would be appreciated! Regards, GiantSnowman 22:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.sover.net/~spectrum/year/1983.html#MISL cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

ignore me, sorry, got the wrong year, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at that site for both the 84 and 85 seasons, and he's not one of the top-scorers, so doesn't appear...GiantSnowman 22:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• According to OZ Football he started 8 games for the Knights, with 1 substitute appearance and 5 goals. Camw (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers man, much appreciated! GiantSnowman 12:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Tommy Dunne

Hi guys. I've created Tommy Dunne (Scottish footballer), as there's an Irish hurler at Tommy Dunne and an Irish footballer at Tommy Dunne (footballer). I'd guess that there needs to be a bit of moving here, at least for the Irish footballer to (Irish footballer): what would be best here? Heightwatcher (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Move the hurler to Tommy Dunne (hurler) and the Irish footballer to Tommy Dunne (Irish footballer); make Tommy Dunne into a disambig and redirect Tommy Dunne (footballer) to said disambig page. Regards, GiantSnowman 12:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a primary Tommy Dunne in the hurler; he should stay there. I've renamed the three (!) footballers to Tommy Dunne (footballer born 1927), Tommy Dunne (footballer born 1932) and Tommy Dunne (footballer born 1946). Thomas Dunne will do for disambiguation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

US Youth Soccer stats

Does anyone know of a good archive which lists the playing stats of the U-23, U-20 and U-18 USA men's team's through the years? The ussoccer.com website has a paltry archive which goes back to 2005, but it is a little incomplete... I'm looking for something which goes back to the late 1980s perhaps, or even just provides a list of names with caps and goals. Can anyone help? --JonBroxton (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Pierre Cotant

Does Pierre Cotant meet your Project notability standards? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No; he doesn't look to have made an appearance in a fully-professional league, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Regards, GiantSnowman 01:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've prodded it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've seconded it! Regards, GiantSnowman 01:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The PROD was removed; I've taken it to AfD. Regards, GiantSnowman 02:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Continute on the Football box start discussion

To restart, if I am not incorrect our little football project is the only(?) part of Wikipedia that still isn't using {{Navbox}} based navigational templates, we use the {{fb start}} on "width:47em" instead of full width. Even though It (probably) would be a really big pain in the ass to reformat the whole system to go into Navboxes I think in the long run it's worth it. Personally I find it much easier to edit and customize the Navbox template, and it gives more freedom (in if nothing else width).

I remember a message a while back from User:Thumperward about the season templates we have for competitions on certain OS' can get wrongly aligned because of default fonts which are too large etc. Now problems like these would be fixed by using Navboxes.

I have here played around with a few current templates and re-formated them into working with Navboxes. And have already implemented a try in two templates ({{UEFA Champions League}} and {{UEFA Cup}}) which works with using the {{fb start}} template system, and look pretty much the same. And I'm guessing it would be possible to easily convert the current templates to at least work inside Navboxes so nothing breaks during a transition period.

tl;dr, How about converting our navigational templates into the Navbox standard? chandler · 07:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We should be moving the standardisation wherever possible. A good start would be adopting the styling and page width from {{navbox}}. It's already used piecemeal on footy articles for things like squad lists - we should use it from {{football box start}} as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we should make them the standard size. DeMoN2009 11:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been experimenting with a halfway-house for this - have a look at Rangers F.C.#External links for an implementation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, after further experimentation it seems the best way forward is to take all the current sub-templates and convert them to use the format used in template:2008–09 in European Football (UEFA). Once that's done, {{fb start}} can be trivially changed just to read:
{| class="navbox"
See Scottish Premier League#External links for the proposed end result. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

One problem I see at Rangers is the v d e not being white right now. Using the {| class="navbox" cellspacing="0" (cellspacing 0 to just tighten it up) would work. But that goes into the question, should we continue with everything into one border like it is now and in my sandbox or each navbox separate, I think its easier to transition into one box and change the fb start into {| class="navbox" cellspacing="0"</nowiki>.

So then comes the next question, the state of, collapsed, uncollapsed, auto close if its more than one or not possible to collapse etc. Should a mix be usable? Let's say on a club, the club navbox is always uncollapsed but all other are automatic collapsed, so the primary navbox is uncollapsed. This would be easily done by adding |state = {{{state|collapsed}} to all templates and just put in state = plain or uncollapsed when the template is primary. Thoughts? chandler · 00:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to override the default collapse settings IMO. As for having everything within one border, I'd rather we moved to separate navbox templates everywhere, but that's a decision which can made easily once the sub-templates are all transitioned to use the {{navbox|child}} formatting - at that point the templates could trivially be converted to full navbox instances by a bot. I performed this on several of the high-profile UEFA / Scotland / Rangers templates yesterday, but it's been reverted. Waiting to hear what the specific objections were. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess, though I'd prefer the club templates expanded. But, what about colour scheme. Keep the "football blue" or go over to the "navbox blue" (I rather like the football club my self, just so one can disambiguate them also) chandler · 08:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer we went for the navbox blue, although it should be noted that the shade used for navbox|child is slightly lighters and thus distinguishes well enough itself. I see little reason to continue using an arbitrarily different shade if we're moving to standardisation in general. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to object to all the edits being made to change the templates, not just because I think they were better as they were but also because there seems to be no consensus for changing them, it just seems to be two or three people agreeing to change them. I would suggest that Template:2008-09 in Scottish football looked far better and was far more user-friendly before it was changed, As I have said already the average user would most likely have no idea what to do with an array of collapsed templates at the bottom of a page. I can't see much problem with the templates at the moment, why not go and do something worthwhile rather than just trying to confuse users. Darryl.matheson (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that {{2008-09 in Scottish football}} was better before, but I thought we were discussing the width of these templates being changed to 100%? That's what I thought we were supporting, not to ruin that template by changing it from columns to rows. DeMoN2009 16:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually think that the new version of the template is nicer, but this (i.e. full width templates) looks absolutely awful. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the revision system doesn't paint the whole story there, as it transcludes the current version of the templates and not the ones at the time. At the time when the change was made to full-width, all of the sub-templates auto-collapsed, which looked far better. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "user-friendly" in this context. This version of the template is considerably less user-friendly to readers who rely on screen readers due to being column-based rather than row-based. There are a good number of reasons to move to a navbox-based system - it's far easier to maintain the templates when they don't (ab)use WikiTable syntax instead of simple key-value pairings, we pick up on any improvements made to the {{navbox}} master template automatically, and it means our navigation templates are much more familiar to readers used to the navigation templates used everywhere else on the project. As for the width, I'm prepared to accept that we're probably not ready for a general migration to full-width navboxes at this time, but moving to a navbox-based solution with the current width will make that transition much easier if it ever does happen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the new version of Scottish football is more user friendly, but secondly this discussion isn't about designs, more about using Navboxes overall. All current designs are possible to make though the Navbox template so don't disapprove just because of certain design changes you don't agree with. chandler · 05:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I'd rather we used the simplest code possible, but most of the ones I've converted thus far have been low-hanging fruit - templates which have basically the same output with a straight conversion. {{2008-09 in Scottish football}} was an exception because columns without table headers are bad accessibility-wise, and the data translated readily to a row format. I'd prefer if {{Football in the United Kingdom}} used this layout rather than this one, but that's a harder call. I think Chandler's done an absolutely stellar job with {{International football}} and the like, which I thought were going to be the hardest to do. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I didnt notice that you'd already transformed football in the uk, and I would agree that the style you choose it better (for me it makes it smaller, and at 100% width it would probably be much smaller, especially at wide resolutions). Thanks on the International templates, one thing I thought about them is if/when we go to a wider width, to perhaps include the "second tier" competitions like the Europa League/Copa Sudamericana etc for clubs and all these regional tournaments there are in Asia and Africa for national teams. chandler · 09:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

While there is being converting right now, what about a small meet in the middle, Yes I think 100% width is the way to go in the longrun but might look strange with those not converted, so what about chaing the fb start to {| class="navbox" style="width:70em;", giving more width, removing the margin (so it "melts" together with the other navboxes) and remove the fontsize because it causes a bit of problem with {{navbox}}. chandler · 11:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparing how my proposed EC/CL template would look. The top is fb start, the second {| class="navbox" style="width:70em;" the third is the "final step" chandler · 11:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy with taking this gradually, yeah. I'd give it a while yet before making that change though; only a small percentage of footy boxes have been converted to use the new system yet, and many still need work to look good when widened. Let's see how that work goes first. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I dont know if widening from 42 to 70em would make any templates look bad? It's not that big a change. chandler · 13:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So what exactly is the plan, guys? I'm seeing templates getting changed all over, but there doesn't seem to be a clearly defined consensus plan. If we're changing to the WP standard Navbox then that's probably a good thing, but why go half way? Shouldn't we just standardize like the rest of WP? If we go half way then we're just going to have to have another drive to standardize in a few months. If we're going to update everything then we need to clearly define the FOOTY consensus and should update the standardization instructions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Templates#If the navbox is not standardized. Also, all FOOTY templates should have {{Football |class=Template}} added to the talk page so that all FOOTY navboxes can be easily accessed and updated. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather that templates were gradually moved over to use the {{navbox|child}} syntax first - this means that the templates can be updated in-place without losing the football box styling. At a later point, when that's mature, we can discuss again whether to abolish the football box format and move to standard navbox templates. This will mean changing the project guideline and getting a bot to update all the articles, but it's trivial if all the templates already use {{navbox|child}} as all that needs to be done to convert them into full {{navbox}}es is to remove the "child" parameter and a little boilerplate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim Rooney

Can an admin please undo some ridiculous page moves? Basically, Blackjanedavey (talk · contribs) moved Jim Rooney (soccer player) to Jim Rooney (australian footballer), and then to Jim Rooney (american footballer) – both titles are factually incorrect, spelt incorrectly (need capitals), and most importantly both moves were NOT discussed. I think you need to be an admin to undo these page moves...thanks in advance, GiantSnowman 01:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Chris, much obliged! GiantSnowman 13:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Help to confirm/deny a possible hoax at Nariman Teymourian‎‎

Hi: I now suspect this article to be a hoax. It claims, among other things, that Teymourian was an alternate on the US Olympic team in 1984. I took a look at the official site, and he's not listed, but I don't know if alternates would be. Could somebody take a look at this? Thanks, Ray^Talk 15:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, looks to be a hoax to me. GiantSnowman 15:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the guy does exist: http://www.galetechnologies.com/company/management-team.html#Nariman. No mention of a soccer career, though. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've taken it to AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nariman Teymourian). The soccer thing was the leg holding up the bio's notability, and if that isn't met, well, we'll see. Ray^Talk 21:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll on date autoformatting and linking

People may be interested to know that the Poll on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Template suggestion

I've been learning to use navboxes and have come up with a possible replacement for the Non-FIFA teams template. I've put it it my Sandbox and would appreciate any advice. Is there a better way to organise the teams? Am I ok to use the navbox template or should I be using the football one? Is making each region individually collapsible too fiddly? Is there any point in the template in the first place other than as an easy way to locate potential AfD nominations? Thanks in advance Stu.W UK (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that looks amazing, much better than the existing template! My only suggestion would be to perhaps replace the '*' and '†' used as footnotes with numbers, as used in the existing template. But, ignoring this minor quibble, a good effort! GiantSnowman 03:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with using {{navbox subgroup}}s for Europe instead of collapsing everything. This also allows for the template to use the football box format rather than having to edit all the transclusions. I've added an implementation to template:Non-FIFA teams/sandbox - the initial revision shows the box at full-width as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've done that Stu's way too: compare this revision (Stu's) to this one (the other way). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Of your new suggestions Chris, I think the full width one looks the best. GiantSnowman 14:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the full-width one too, but if it makes changing football boxes easier then this revision looks best to me Stu.W UK (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cheers folks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The FA website

In their infinite wisdom, the FA seem to have redesigned their website and changed all the urls so that anything referencing it is landing on a Page not found. Some pages still exist with new urls, others appear to have got lost in the redesign process. Hopefully it's an April Fool and all will be back where it was by tomorrow, but I'm not holding my breath... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's here to stay, but at present I am unable to open many of the pages and keep getting time-out errors. Maybe it's still a work in progress. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ta for the heads up. Some of the pages like this one are still available at the internet archives (archive.org), but some aren't even there. Let's hope the FA fixes the links. – Toon^(talk) 18:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Proposed deletion as of 1 April 2009

I notice that a whole bunch of South Korean and other footballers have been put up for deletion. Interested editors may like to check them out. TerriersFan (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had a quick look; most of them are definitely notable (international players). The PROD is for being unreferenced, but it's hard to find English-language references for them...GiantSnowman 17:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a couple of Korean references to two of the pages so far (I believe this is okay where English sources of the same quality aren't available per Non-English Sources) but it's slow going making sure things line up properly as I don't speak Korean! Camw (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems this is part of a test regarding this discussion. I understand the need for sourcing, but it's annoying to have had a large number of articles under this project included and it now feels like I'm just helping to prove a point by spending a large amount of time on these. Camw (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there some way of getting a list of articles that are in both Category:Unreferenced BLPs and Category:Footballers? Its fine for people to say that unreferenced BLPs need deleting if they aren't fixed, but its rather hard for us to fix them if we don't know about them. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Use CatScan -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You can also use Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Cleanup listing#Unreferenced BLPs that is updated every time there is a new database dump. Last time it was updated was 6 march. Rettetast (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking to get involved

I have never joined a wikiproject before and was wondering what I have to do to get involved. I have a real passion for football as well as countless books on hand as references. Would like to get involved on anything to do with the World Cup's particularly but anything will do! --Thelostlibertine (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelostlibertine (talk • contribs) 01:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To join the project all you have to do is add your details to the list of participants here. And then just edit away on whatever takes your fancy. Oh, and don't forget to sign your comments on discussion pages such as this one by typing ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

RBNY/NYRB

On player articles, how should players who play for Red Bull New York/New York Red Bulls be listed? Should the articles say they play for Red Bull New York (the organization which owns the team) or New York Red Bulls (the name of the team itself). A quick clafirication on the manual of style would be appreciated. Thanks! --JonBroxton (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be New York Red Bulls, which as the team name probably is more common and the name shown in tables and be cause of stuff like [9][10] chandler · 02:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd definitely go with NYRB. –  LATICS  talk  04:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above, NYRB. Camw (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

NYRB Morry32 (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot guys. NYRB it is... --JonBroxton (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Defunct_national_football_teams

Hi this template contains a list of teams with an unclear inclusion and exclusion criteria, those listed as recognised by FIFA are not all recognised by FIFA, and the other section is partially supported by a flag manufacturer (whom I am not convinced are a reliable source) [11], but it also contains teams not included on their list, as well as excluding teams on their site. User:Chandler is adding teams, but is unwilling to WP:PROVEIT, this has been raised before on Template_talk:UEFA_teams, is this non-encyclopedic WP:OR in encylopedic space, failing WP:VERIFY? Fasach Nua (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Unwilling to prove it? I have given you one source but you disregarded it. And that you need proving too that countries such as the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia have ceased to exist... well I just find that laughable. You can create a own POVfork template or category Template:National football teams User:Fasach Nua think are still active if you want. Right now we have articles which clearly cover former teams. "Czech national football team is the national football team of the Czech Republic", "Czechoslovakia national football team was the national football team of Czechoslovakia", just like the articles for the countries. "Czechoslovakia was a sovereign state in Central Europe ", "Czech Republic is a landlocked country in Central Europe." one covers a former country, one a current, I don't see you putting any disputing templates or nominating for deletion on Category:Former countries by continent for example. chandler · 11:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I along with the wp community would invite you to prove your claims Fasach Nua (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

See you've even creating very dubious redirects, even though you clearly think the USSR/CIS/TCH/YUG are active nations with national teams... And I'm pretty sure I see a clear consensus in the "wp community" which you don't agree with: "[Soviet Union]/[Yugoslavia]/[Czechoslovakia] is a former country.", so I don't think I have to prove that to you, if you want to change this to "The Soviet Union is a country" it would be called upon you to prove your conspiracy theory claims. chandler · 12:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I along with the wp community would invite you to comply with policy and prove your claims Fasach Nua (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Since when did you become the spokeperson of the masses? From looking atWikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Defunct_national_football_teams the masses don't seem like they want anyone to prove anything. Also creating redirects just to prove a point is, well, pointless. Uksam88 (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The masses speak through policy per WP:Consensus, and the policy that chandler should prove his claims is clear Fasach Nua (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not up to me to prove that the Soviet Union is a former country, its up to you to prove its a current one. chandler · 13:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy clearly states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.", you added the material, you WP:PROVEIT Fasach Nua (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

So why are you only at this template, why haven't I seen you nominate Soviet Union or Category:Former countries by continent for deletion or merge, it clearly not a former country in your mind, I have only restored old versions that you've vandalised, with faulty or home made templates, and you also think that templates have references which they dont, as the articles themself are very clear about their subject. The template is a collection of former national teams, and the articles in there are the articles we have on former teams, but ofc you haven't put them up for deletion or changed them to fit your world view of still being active. And you can hardly use prove it to justify vandalism, that would be trying to game the system. chandler · 13:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are so confident you are correct, simply provide an external relaible source which supports you opinion, so that the template meets the requirements of WP:VERIFY Fasach Nua (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You see, as you doubt the fact that Yugoslavia is a former state, it wasn't a big surprise that when given a rs to not only show that Yugoslavia etc. are former countries, also explicitly states that the national teams are former... Well ofc in your mind they're not reliable, because if a source disagrees with you, they can not be trusted!!11111 chandler · 13:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Your crufty website doesnt even support your own changes :

BOHEMIA Suported as defunt by crw excluded from defunct by Chandler

FDR Suported as defunt by crw excluded from defunct by Chandler

DUTCH EAST INDIES Suported as defunt by crw excluded from defunct by Chandler

PEO. DEM. REP. OF YEMEN (SOUTH YEMEN) Suported as defunt by crw excluded from defunct by Chandler

REPRESENTATION OF CZECHS AND SLOVAKS Suported as defunt by crw excluded from defunct by Chandler

UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC Suported as defunt by crw excluded from defunct by Chandler

North Vietnam Not Suported as defunt by crw included in defunct by Chandler

Ireland Not Suported as defunt by crw included in defunct by Chandler

Manchuria Not Suported as defunt by crw included in defunct by Chandler

Panama Canal Zone Not Suported as defunt by crw included in defunct by Chandler

Shanghai Not Suported as defunt by crw included in defunct by Chandler

Sikkim Not Suported as defunt by crw included in defunct by Chandler

It would appear that I am not the only wikipedian who has issues with the reliability of this site Fasach Nua (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are asking a bit much of a template. A template isn't there to prove it as you demand but link to pages which do. The pages it links to needs the sources and proven of defunct. If they are actually defunct and no body has taken the time to add it to the article you dont just delete them from the template but tag the article(s) in question and bring it up on the talk page. Though you have now both been warned for 3RR. I'd suggest you both leave it as it is and let neutrals decide before it gets more heated. Uksam88 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to take that to somewhere like the village pump and get the policy changed, as things stand the onus in on User:Chandler to demonstrate the validity of his changes Fasach Nua (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

To get what policy changed? Adding references to templates or the fact you have clearly violated 3rr? Uksam88 (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that comment, Wikipedia:Template_namespace#Usage, "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace", and this template is pushing POV into a dozen articles via the back door, without any kind of verifiability or exclusion/inclusion criteria. Fasach Nua (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you not get this? Its a template with the former teams we have articles on everyone seems to understand this except you chandler · 18:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You show how little you know, the Bohemia national football team currently doesnt have a article, it redirects to Czech republic?, West Germany has been discussed to death, the page is merged with Germany, WP doesnt treat them as two separate teams, doesnt have a own article. Dutch East Indies and Indonesia are merged, no separate article as you yourself can see.. South Yemen as I can see is INCLUDED on the template, so are you high? Rep of CZE/SVK does not have a own article as you can see it is covered by WP in Czechoslovakia nft. UAR doesnt have a article to include as you can see, All the other HAVE articles where they are clearly treated as former teams. So go cry somewhere else. chandler · 14:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

<---- unindent

I take it from that you are unwilling to substantiate your claims? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Poke your noses in at Template_talk:Defunct_national_football_teams. Stay on topic, no backbiting. Wiggy! (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, please keep calm and be civil - this spat is not doing either of your reputations any good. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Amid all this shouting about The Rules, do be careful not to break the Prime Directive. BEVE (talk)  19:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Giuseppe Rossi - American?

Some anons have been removing the "American soccer players" and American expatriate soccer players" categories from Giuseppe Rossi's article, despite the player having been born in the United States. The article clearly states that he is an Italian-American, and I think that he should, therefore, be categorised as both Italian and American. After all, he could have chosen to play for the USA but chose to play for Italy instead. Can I get some advice on this? – PeeJay 22:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

looking for precedents in like Freddy Adu or Owen Hargreaves (first two that came to my mind), and perhaps many other athletes from the commonwealth who play for England in football or cricket etc. I'm not sure if they should be there or not though. chandler · 22:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to make a section about this, so I'm glad you went ahead. It's bugging me. As Rossi was American-born, he is (or at least was) a citizen of the US at some point and I really think those categories should stay... but that's just my opinion. –  LATICS  talk  01:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Rossi was born in the US to Italian parents, and he currently is a dual citizen of both USA and Italy. So, well, I would not oppose about categorizing him with both nationalities, I think it's fair to define him that way. --Angelo (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

He's obviously dual nationality, and should be listed as such. I dislike this tendency to take someone's national team and use it in the adjective form in the lede (take the recent example of "Kris Commons is a Scottish footballer") precisely because it is misleading in this way. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree - if he has dual nationality, we should list both and explain that he has represented Italy. However, do we actually have a source that confirms either nationality? Assuming that he is (currently) an American citizen because he was born there would be OR, as would assuming that he is Italian because his parents are Italian. --hippo43 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, assuming he's Italian can be done because he's representing Italy, so he must fit FIFA's regulation for a 'Italian'. chandler · 12:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In sporting terms, yes, we can say his nationality is Italian, but we can't assume that his legal nationality is Italian - this only becomes an issue if we include American as a legal nationality. --hippo43 (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well sporting nationality is the thing that matters isnt it? (regarding MOS for sports people) chandler · 13:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure on MOS for sports people - MOSBIO, though, prefers legal nationality. Obviously his American birth makes listing just 'Italian' misleading. --hippo43 (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG#Use of flags for sportspeople what I'm referring to (yes its about flags but still) chandler · 14:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

His Villareal profile confirms his primary nationality is Italian, but he is dual nationality. GiantSnowman 13:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

When you say he "he is dual nationality", do you know of a source for this? --hippo43 (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, maybe the source I gave? It says, in Spanish, "nacido en Estados Unidos pero nacionalizado italiano." GiantSnowman 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't say he has dual nationality - it says "born in the USA but Italian citizen", no? That's what we already knew. --hippo43 (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it? Sorry, but my Spanish is atrocious. Either way though, the fact that he was born in the US gives him automatic American citizenship - see Birthright citizenship in the United States of America or United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirm that GiantSnowman 14:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

He has dual nationality. USA by being born there. Italian because of Jus sanguinis (see the Italy section in this article) and see Italian nationality law which confirms it, therefore he can play as an European in UEFA and he can play for Italy's national team. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this is pedantic, but it would be OR (or maybe SYNTH) to assume that he is an American citizen in the absence of a source, expecially as we now have a source specifically saying he is an Italian citizen. --hippo43 (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, he is an American citizen - was born there and lived there until he was 13. He is also an Italian citizen, and represents that nation at international level. GiantSnowman 14:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Errr, reference two on the current article specifically says that Rossi has dual citizenship. (Not that it isn't banally obvious anyway that someone born and raised in a country is a citizen of it. There is such a thing as demanding too much evidence.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And PlayerHistory.com also confirms dual nationality. GiantSnowman 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realise we had a solid source already - from Latics' comment above I assumed we didn't - my mistake. And no, it isn't always obvious that someone born and raised in a country is a citizen of it - it isn't automatic in many countries, particularly if the parents are foreign, as in this case. It also isn't verified if there isn't a source - in this case, I wasn't aware that there was one in the article already, but I knew we did have reference for his Italian nationality which didn't mention American citizenship. --hippo43 (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronaldinho has Spanish citizenship, but he is not a Spanish footballer. 142.161.163.92 (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

First, we're not talking about Ronaldinho. Second, there's a big difference between citizenship and nationality. – PeeJay 23:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nationalist sockpuppetry

Just to track these, here's the list of IP hops which have been edit warring over this recently. They're all registered to Telstra Italia:

• 87.16.234.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 80.117.16.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 80.181.221.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.20.94.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.55.210.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.21.231.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.7.237.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.3.185.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.3.185.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.57.165.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.11.222.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And one user:

• Tesaux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The page itself has now been semiprotected. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Luke Wilkshire Infobox Photo

I'm looking to get a few opinions on which photo is better for his profile photo - old photo or new photo. I'm obviously not impartial here but the reason I replaced the old one was due to (my opinion) the low quality and unappealing lack of sharpness. The new image was replaced by an IP editor saying that the new version makes him "look like a rapist". I'm not going to take anything decided personally, I want the best image included in the article regardless of which it is. Camw (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the second one is better as it's not fuzzy. The IP's "rapist" comment was a bit out of order, too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to expand and mention that I didn't think the comment was really appropriate but I wanted to keep the discussion to making a decision on the photo used. If people think the second photo could do with a bit more warm lighting that can be fixed easily enough. Camw (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually prefer the first photo. Although it is a little blurred, that shouldn't make any difference when it is scaled down. Also, the fact that he's looking right into the camera in the second photo is a little disconcerting. Rather creepy, actually. – PeeJay 17:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To me the first looks blurry even scaled down. His eyes are a bit like that in the first photo as well (and real life!) but the closeness and that he is looking at the camera in the second does accentuate it I agree. Camw (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely the second. It's far higher-quality and uses a more up-to-date strip. There's no prohibition on subjects looking at the camera. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There may be no rule against it, but the fact that he's looking into the lens makes him look like an ass. – PeeJay 12:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Player notability question

Would one appearance in the Texaco Cup in 1975, playing for Birmingham City F.C. against Ayr United F.C., make a player notable? That was the only first-team game he played for Birmingham, and AFAIK he never played for any other club in a fully-pro league. ("No" would be a good answer, as it'd be one more off the list without having to actually write the stub...) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If in doubt, fall back on whether said player received non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The answer is "probably not". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

True :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ayr might not have even been fully professional then. It was uncommon for teams outside the top division in Scotland to be "full-time" professional until the late 1980s. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

They're not fully professional now. In 1975 they were a mid-table First/Premier Division side. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say "no" without other coverage, the Texaco Cup was a friendly tournament. What was his name? I'll check my copy of PFA records to see if he played for any other club. Qwghlm (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

His name is Gary Allen. AFAIK he went to Wimbledon after Birmingham, but that was in the Southern League days & I'm fairly sure he'd left for other non-league clubs before Wimbledon got into the Football League. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, he didn't make a Football League appearance. Sorry, wish I'd been of more help. Qwghlm (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, but I was pretty sure he hadn't played elsewhere. Apparently as a kid he used to score for fun, but shortly after turning pro with Blues he got badly injured, fought his way back to get this one game in the Texaco Cup, and then disappeared down the levels. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Andy Best

Just added a reference and infobox to this page after I saw he'd been PRODed but tbh it could do with a better one and some more info if possible. Then again, he played one season for Torquay in the mid-eighties followed by about 16 years for Teignmouth AFC so I can't imagine there'll be a massive queue. Any takers? Stu.W UK (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Try User:WikiGull, if he's still active - he's a Torquay fan and may have access to more info..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly WikiGull's been deleted. Thanks for additional editing Stu.W UK (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

AS Adema – SO l'Emyrne 149:0

Spotted this one while looking through the new pages backlog, about a bizarre match in November 2002 when SO l'Emyrne deliberately conceded 149 own goals and subsequently set a world record scoreline. I found some references and added them. Any thoughts? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The title certainly needs changing, a colon is not used in scores in English language sources -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The match is already mentioned on each club's article, and I don't see the need for a separate article about the match. Could we request a merge back into the club articles? Jogurney (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Mustafa Ozcan

This looks like a total fabrication - I've removed parts that stated he played for Leyton Orient (this person has never turned out for Orient). Not sure what the procedure is so I decided to bring it up here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've PROdded the article. Cheers, GiantSnowman 18:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Gary/Garry O'Connor

Two footballers called Gary/Garry O'Connor; one located at Gary O'Connor (footballer) and one at Garry O'Connor. Why does Gary O'Connor (one R) redirect to Garry O'Connor (two Rs) and not Gary O'Connor (footballer) (one R)...shouldn't the page at Gary O'Connor (footballer) be moved to Gary O'Connor, with hatnotes at each Gary/Garry saying 'not to be confused with' or 'for the former [club name] [position], see...'? GiantSnowman 21:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

People are far more likely to be looking for Garry than Gary. It would be a very common mis-spell to only use one r when intending to reach the player with two rs. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is true, but if people are looking for Gary O'Connor (footballer) and get redirected to Garry O'Connor when they type in "Gary O'Connor", then they're going to get a bit confused. I agree with GiantSnowman's suggestion that Gary O'Connor (footballer) be moved to Gary O'Connor, and that hatnotes be used to disambiguate the two. – PeeJay 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

PeeJay's right - hatnotes are good enough disambiguation here. Would happily support such a move. Qwghlm (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well, move + hatnotes on both- chandler · 23:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote added to Garry, Gary redirect speedied. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Michael Byrne (football manager)

While editing Michael Byrne (footballer) I came across this article suggesting this guy was Everton caretaker at some point. Can anyone find anything to support this - Everton managers article and links don't mention him Stu.W UK (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dragan Dronov

Can anyone find anything about this player? I've PRODed him because I can't find any evidence he's played anywhere. Google search turns up this and nothing else which suggests the article dob must be wrong. The only proof he's ever been in the squad for FK Bežanija is this. That link also shows it isn't a misspelling or missing off diacritics that's causing the lack of info. No stats show his name and he isn't on the Serbian league website. Stu.W UK (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Foreign name of living people

Some users keep on adding unsourced foreign name to biography of living people, such as Hakan Yakin, Murat Yakin, Armend Dallku and Mehmet Dragusha, does it notable that all people related to Turkey need İ to I, and for those Kosovar Albanian, need a unsourced Serbo-Croats Latin form for the Albanian name?? The name conversion of the article has been discussed in Archive 20, but not yet for inside the article. Matthew_hk tc 15:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I may be able to help here as I am largely to account for these edits. I notice that the examples on Archive 20 are primarily based on Turkish name forms despite players born in other countries, with the exception of Serdar Tasci and the Yakin brothers. It is clear that there is no strict guideline here. Now my aim is not to get too involved, I have no problem with the Yakins and Tasci being displayed in their Swiss/German forms, but perhaps a footnote at the beginning of the article (***not to add the Turkish***), but with reference to the Turkish source elsewhere on the page, may be a solution. For the Yakins, this only implies the surname. Please see the new examples which I am sure will appear more acceptable. Unfortunately, Turkish writing causes confusion where İ/I are concerned. They are two different letters in contrast to what many think, and the miniscule of /İ/ is /i/, and for /I/, it is /ı/. Sometimes it will work out well, other times not. As for the Slavic names (eg. Serbo-Croat/Macedonian/Bulgarian) for non-Slavic players (ie. Dragusha & Dallku), I believe that sources on the name forms are easy to find, but maybe what is being requested is a source to clarify the linguistic laws of the states in question at the time of the subject's birth. This would be totally off-topic for most subjects and to be honest, I've never really encountered a great deal of protest where these are concerned. Obviously, there is a catalogue of individuals whose names are presented in their ethnic form with additional translations for the local national language. In Croatia (for example), it is not a problem, as its writing conventions are liberal in that they allow names of foreign persons to be used in everyday situations despite breeching Croatia's phonetical system, for instance, ethnic Hungarians born in Croatia may have the surname (Nagy), compare this to footballer Albert Nađ born in Serbia; here, the Hungarian's name goes one stage further than Dallku/Dragusha in that he is presented only by his Serbian translation. Dallku & Dragusha, both from Pristina, will not have been Albanian citizens, and therefore not originally elligible to play for Albania; and had they made the Serbia/Serbia & Montenegro representations, you'd only have known them by the Serbian/Serbo-Croat. Be that as it may, I am happy enough for them to be prestened in their Albanian nameforms, as long as the Serbo-Croat can remain in place so as not to mislead people that /Dragusha/ is how one is addressed in Serbia, which it isn't. Evlekis (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In a quick Google search I found the Serbo-Croatian forms of their names mentioned in B92 articles in Serbo-Croatian, but nothing in English (some mentions of Dalku looked like simple typoes). In these cases, mentioning the alternative names in the first sentence doesn't appear to be of much value to our readership (relevance being the basic criterion of our Lead section guideline).

But I see no problem in including the alternatives names & short explanations somewhere else, either in the article's body or, probably better, as an unobtrusive footnote (as Evlekis proposes above). Something along the lines of:

Mehmet Dragusha¹ (born 9 October 1977 in Pristina) is an...

Footnotes:

1. In Serbo-Croatian, the official language of Yugoslavia, his name is rendered Mehmet Draguša. (cf. link to B92)

What do you think ? - Best, Ev (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. We can try that but we'd still need to keep an eye on it. Anonymous users have a tendency to remove these forms wherever and whenever. But if I could quickly draw your attention to one more thing: there are countless examples of alternative nameforms across Wikipedia and all sit comfortably by the title, seldom challenged. Here are a few in the former Yugoslavia itself: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. Then you have the occasional persons who, like the Yakins, are given in national language form as opposed to ethnic: 17 and 18, needless to mention millions of examples outside the Balkans. They seem to be all right here, and a change in policy with football should also result in similar changes elsewhere. Comments? Evlekis (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would move the alternative names to footnotes in all those cases. I think that a simpler first paragraph with a clear footnote would improve readability, providing a friendlier lead section to our readership.

I already did some similar "cleaning" of lead sections: diff., diff., diff. & diff..

The clear fact that our editors tend to add alternative names to lead sections everywhere, without considering relevance (and, lets face it, sometimes as a form of "claiming" an article's subject), does not mean that we have to follow their example.

But that is just my opinion, of course. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Players who play for teams which change their name

Another MOS issue for you: in infoboxes, how would people recommend we format the entries for players who play for teams which change their names while they are there?

An example: Carlos Mendes has played in MLS for the MetroStars since 2005; the team changed its name to New York Red Bulls in 2006, meaning he is one of twenty or so players who was active with the team when the name change took place. Should we list both team names separated by a slash in the same entry (like it is now), break it over two lines with a 'BR' (which I actually like as it makes the infobox neater), or some other way? What do you think? --JonBroxton (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Treat them as two entirely separate teams; different lines, different dates. Makes for much easier at-a-glance comparison. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made this change. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - they should not be treated as two different teams - it is the same club - not sure anything is needed for the infobox - at most a footnote. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree. Apart from anything else, it could be very hard to break the appearance total down for a player who played for, say, South Shields and Gateshead in the 1930s - in that case which team would you put the apps against....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest something, for example: MetroStars/New York Red Bulls on the same line.--Latouffedisco (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the edit I just made to Carlos Mendes. What do you think of that layout? --JonBroxton (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

TBH, it looks awful - like the NYRB isn't on the right line. I really don't think the old name should be in the infobox. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 57; just use the new name. GiantSnowman 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, single line should suffice. A simple name change is not something that leads to a split in player appearances. - fchd (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the input, guys. I've changed Mendes's infobox to reflect the consensus, and will use this layout for any future occurrences. Thanks again! --JonBroxton (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think using a reference to indicate the old team name and date of change, as in the Mendes article, is a really good idea. GiantSnowman 17:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Vanishing kits

I'm currently experiencing a problem whereby, whenever I view a club's article, the kits in the infobox appear briefly but then vanish, leaving white space. Is anyone else getting this....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• It happens with all clubs for you? I just tried a couple of random ones and didn't have the problem with Firefox 3.08, IE 7, Opera 9.51 or Chrome. Camw (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, having dug a bit further, no it doesn't seem to happen with all clubs. But it certainly happens with Clapham Rovers and AFC Wulfrunians, so presumably it must be to do with the fact that only one kit is shown...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Just tried those clubs and they load and display okay for me on the above browsers. Camw (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
      • And they do for me no, too. Bizarre.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Gone again. Very odd indeed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Still look okay here. I just connected to a remote PC as well and they look okay. What browser are you using? Any plugins or ad blocking software that might be doing something odd? Camw (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm using IE7 but, as I'm at my work computer, I have no idea what "extras" the systems department might have put on it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I have started an AfD that might be of interest to this project here thanks. BigDunc^Talk 14:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've listed it on the WP:FOOTBALL project main page. Regards, GiantSnowman 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have copied the post I made at the above AfD regarding the notability of clubs am I right in my thinking re Levels if so could someone explain it here or on the AfD thanks I recall that wiki uses some kind of level for club notability I don't know how it works maybe someone from Wiki Football could explain, the first team listed above play at Level 10

John Berry (English footballer)

This guy looks notable but I can't source him - can anyone help, please? TerriersFan (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a source and removed the PROD. Cheers, GiantSnowman 18:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thornton Hibs F.C.

What do you guys want me to do with football articles tagged for speedy deletion? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy delete notice. The club meets notability requirements and the article needs improving, not deleting. Regards, GiantSnowman 19:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Endashes in season article titles

Not sure if anyone noticed, but a couple of days ago I went around the club season articles, replacing all of the hyphens in their titles with endashes. I've started to do the same on competitions, but there's just so bloody many of them. Is there any chance that someone could write a bot that could do this? – PeeJay 10:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests, maybe someone will be able to help there? It would be useful along with removing capitalisation of season from some articles as well. Uksam88 (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I usually go to Wikipedia:Bot requests, but the process there is so slow that I thought I might get a faster response here. – PeeJay 10:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Any progress on this front? I've done this manually before, and it's a real pain in the bum. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Francisco Sandaza picture

The newly uploaded image on Francisco Sandaza is of very good quality and looks suspiciously lifted from a news/newspaper website. What's the process for deleting/warning? Heightwatcher (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we don't have firm evidence that it's copyvio, I'd report it at WP:PUI for consideration -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The image is from here. Camw (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we found it at the same time. OnHoliday 10:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty long-term problem. Anyone fancy trying to engage this user before he gets himself blocked for long-term policy vio? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Image deleted. I have left a note for the user and asked him to not upload images he does not own. Rettetast (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ritchie Hanlon - 15 goals in 13 games?

Has soccerbase only reported the games that Ritchie Hanlon scored in for the 1997–98 season he played for Welling, or are they the exact stats? --Jimbo^[online] 12:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just the scoring ones. If you click on the games, none of them have the full team list, so they've clearly only counted any names that happened to be on the scoresheet... Well spotted, I wonder if I've fallen for that with any non-league players... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Connor Wickham

Be ready for some-one to jump the gun and create an article on Ipswich Town player Connor Wickham; the BBC has just reported that he may make his debut this weekend at the age of just 16 years 11 days...GiantSnowman 12:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

William Roberts (footballer born 1859)

According to "The Complete Wales FC 1876-2008" by Bill Samuel, three players named William Roberts have played for Wales. It's fairly easy to disambiguate one of them, as he was born in a different year to the other two, but the remaining two were both born in 1959 (one on 18 March and the other on an unknown date). Obviously I can't disambiguate by nationality, and they both seem to have played as wing forwards on both sides, both inside and outside. I could create one article at William Roberts (footballer born March 1959) and another at William Roberts (footballer born 1959), but I'm not sure that's an ideal solution. What do people suggest? – PeeJay 12:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The only other possibility I can think of would be the club(s) they played for - is this info recorded.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The William Roberts born in March 1959 appears to have played for Wrexham Olympic throughout his entire Wales career. The other William Roberts played for Llangollen in 1879 and Berwyn Rangers in 1881. – PeeJay 12:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Any of them known by nicknames? - Bill, Billy, Will, Willy etc.? GiantSnowman 12:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No nicknames recorded for either William Roberts. In the stats section at the back of the book, they are known simply as "William Roberts (I)", "William Roberts (II)" and "William Roberts (III)". Not very helpful when trying to compile an encyclopaedia, eh? – PeeJay 12:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case month of birth would be my preferred disambigautor; what if they played for the same clubs at one point? GiantSnowman 12:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

He's already pointed out, though, that the birth month is not known for one of them........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Full name then? It's used in the case of Ian Paul Smith and Paul Antony Smith, who both play as 'Paul Smith' but were both born in January 1976...GiantSnowman 12:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know their full names. Like I said, they're both down in the book simply as "William Roberts". – PeeJay 13:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the original suggestions of date of birth (March 1959 and just 1959) are the only viable options. GiantSnowman 14:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe William Roberts (footballer born March 1859) and William Roberts (footballer not born in March 1859 (unless it turns out he was))..... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Are their international careers different? if so, you could dab them by (Wales 1874–1877) or whatever it is. There's already a William Roberts (footballer), so you'll need a hatnote on that to point to a dab page such as William Roberts (Welsh footballer), and you can go into detail of who each one played for etc at the (Welsh footballer) dab page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The existing English player who played for Cardiff will need moving to William Roberts (footballer born 1907). Regards, GiantSnowman 15:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends whether he's an obvious primary meaning or not. Though as he probably isn't, the others all being international players, you're probably right that he'd need moving. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Football biography 2

What's happened to Template:Infobox Football biography 2? All youth and senior infobox stats are not appearing, only international stats. Heightwatcher (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this too, was going to ask the same question. --JonBroxton (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, there was a problem with a recent edit to the template. I've reverted the edit until the coding for the modification to the template can be fixed. – PeeJay 08:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ta. Heightwatcher (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, my bad. See the template talk. Should be fixed in the sandbox, if anyone wants to give the improvements a test before deployment. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As the subject of Fb2 has come up again, I was wondering whether the idea of changing pcupdate and ntupdate to something more user friendly for the newbies is going to be enacted? (club-update =, nationalteam-update =, manager-update =) King of the North East 21:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just added support for club-update and nationalteam-update. Thanks for the reminder. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Syd Gore

Bit of an odd one - he made eight appearances for Gillingham in 1920, then another 32 in 1929/30, but nothing at all in between!! None of my books on the Gills indicate that he left the club and rejoined, and they all indicate that it's definitely the same guy in both instances - does anyone have any other sources to suggest otherwise, or did he really content himself with playing in the reserves for the best part of nine years.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems as if your books are missing his spell at Millwall from 1923 to 1926, where he made 113 appearances and scored 12 goals in the league. That's from Michael Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 - 1939. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah, that's a fairly significant omission :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and that's on page 103 if you want to incorporate it into the article. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Specifically (dates are seasons, Joyce doesn't give dates for non-FL clubs): Joyce, Michael (2004). Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. Nottingham: SoccerData (Tony Brown). p. 103. ISBN 978-1-899468-67-6.

1920/1 Gillingham 8/0

Sittingbourne

1923/4-1926/7 Millwall Athletic 113/12

Chatham Town

1929/30 Gillingham 32/0

Ashford Town

(I was just looking him up when Matty got in first)... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Cheers guys, I'll update his article accordingly. I thought the nine-year spell on the sidelines seemed unlikely, but you can never rule out anything in football ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's actually not THAT uncommon; Harry Gilberg signed for Spurs as a kid but didn't make his debut until he was 24, and then spent the next four years on the sidelines before signing for QPR. GiantSnowman 21:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Andy McBride

Another player who has a similar career blank - Andy McBride. Neil Brown has him at Crystal Palace for the 1973–74 season, and his next appearance isn't until 1978, when he joins the NASL in the States. Does anyone know if he stayed at Palace between 74 and 78?

On another note, the first Google hit for Andy McBride is a piece from the website of the BNP...I do hope it's a different McBride! GiantSnowman 02:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't help on the appearances, but messageboard posts seem to think he was born in Kenya, although brought up in England. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK cheers Struway. GiantSnowman 11:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Club Notability

Is there a policy, formal or otherwise, on the notability of foreign clubs? I've just found about 20 Korean clubs none of which are in the 3 leagues written about on wikipedia. Is there a level they they need to compete at in order to be kept? Stu.W UK (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fully professional league is the normal cut-off, no? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

For players yes, but not for clubs. I'd hate to see the carnage that would ensue if someone tried to delete, say, AFC Wimbledon on the grounds that they don't play in a fully pro league..... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As with everything, if there is enough coverage in reliable sources, they're notable. Madcynic (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I might have a quick search and AfD the lot of them if nothing turns up. Time to learn basic Korean... Stu.W UK (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Before I go through that particularly exciting task, is there any consensus about English clubs that I could extrapolate from? Stu.W UK (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Brian Hill DOB

No, not this one. He played for Sheffield Wednesday (1956-1966) and FC Bruges of Belgium, before killing himself in December 1968. Anyone have a date of birth for the fellow? GiantSnowman 03:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Should be in one of my books, but I won't have access to them till this evening. If nobody's found it elsewhere by then, I will take a look...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

6 October 1937. See Sheffield Wednesday archive. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I've created the article at Brian Hill (footballer born 1937) and moved the other one to Brian Hill (footballer born 1942). GiantSnowman 18:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Template change

Template:Cardiff City F.C. was recently changed from this to the current revision. I assumed it was just a change in policy on the style of club infobox but after searching through a number of teams in the Premier League and the Football League it seems like it is the only one that has been changed to this style. Should it have been changed or are all of the club infoboxes set to be changed? Thanks. Kosack (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The change is indeed part of the conversion from the fb boxes to the standard Wiki navboxes. For details see the very first entry above (if the bot has not moved it to the archive yet, of course). Why none of the English club templates have been converted yet is another question, though. Probably some time and willingness issues. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Kosack (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. By the way, how far has the conversion been brought forward so far? As for German templates (including everything minor league), I would estimate that about two thirds of those have been done so far, but how about the masses of other temps? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hard to tell; I do them as I come across them, though not in any particularly coordinated manner. Out of interest, is there any real need for the clashtastic new colour scheme on the Cardiff template? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Questionable edits by a new user

شايب محمد مهدي (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have made a few edits of questionable value to various Middle Eastern footy bios in the last month. Anyone fancy checking these? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

They look like good-faith edits, nothing suspicious in his deleted contribs, but his English isn't top notch and he doesn't cite his sources. He could be getting the details from a foreign-language (presumably Arabic) Wiki, if I had to guess. That username has a talk page at ar:wikipedia. – Toon^(talk) 17:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

List of association football rivalries

Looks like we have a lot of work cut out here... Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

With all those rivalries, this "USA" must be major players on the world football stage... – Toon^(talk) 18:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What's more, it's not an accurate list of our rivalries. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This is another potentially infinite list, if left without cut-off criterions. If we suppose to have 1,000 professional teams in the World, each with at least 3 rivalries, then this list would be populated by no less than 1,000*3/2=1,500 entries. And, believe me, this is very optimistic... --Angelo (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The content is already covered by Category:Football (soccer) rivalries; I'll PROD the article. GiantSnowman 18:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This is completely redundant to Major football rivalries anyway. Nanonic (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Should we have a hatnote linking to [category:Football (soccer) rivalries] on the Major rivalries page? Or is that kind of thing not normally done? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hatnotes are for articles. There's no need to add one there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with non-communicative editor

I'm wondering if someone can help me. User:Bruninho is continually reverting my edits on the page for Albert Celades. My edits are fairly trivial - it's basically about the link piping of FC Barcelona, and omitting the "FC" part of the name from the link pipe, as per the agreed standard which omits "FC"/"AC"/"SC" or whatever from the pipe. What bothers me is that I have tried, on many, many occasions, to get him to talk; I'm explaining the reason for my edit, saying that it's in line with WP:FOOTY style policy and WP:COMMONNAME, but he won't have it. I've left him messages in edit summaries, on his personal talk page, and on the talk pages of the anonymous IPs he uses, but no matter what I do he refuses to communicate. He just comes in, reverts (with no edit summary), and leaves.

Now, I appreciate that I have gone against 3RR a couple of times over this (for which I apologize), but I can't seem to get through to the guy no matter how many times I ask him to talk. Anyone have any ideas what I can do? --JonBroxton (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Vasco's left him a few messages; he's not a native English speaker, by the looks of things, and he's long been skating on this ice regarding edit warring. In the end, if he's not willing or able to engage in English discussion on en-wp, he's going to end up unable to do so.. I'd ping Vasco to ensure that Bruninho is aware of the depth of the situation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Medio Tiempo

Template:Medio Tiempo doesn't work like it used to, Medio Tiempo changed there website so it makes the template work differently. What should i do? Delete the template or something else? Any suggestions? Thanks. Black'nRed 02:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The template still works. The problem is that Medio Tiempo decided to change the id #s for all of their players. Ugh. I'll start changing them to the new ones as time allows. Jogurney (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've updated Atlas' current squad. It's going to take a while to fix the current squads, and the former players. Jogurney (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will start changing any other players you don't get to. Black'nRed 03:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Atlante current squad is finished now. I won't be able work on any others until tomorrow. Jogurney (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Subnational representative teams

A few countries seem to have state selections that compete against each other, e.g. Jammu and Kashmir and Nagaland in India or Chuuk and Pohnpei in Micronesia. I think a similar thing happens in Russia, but only defunct teams have turned up here, e.g. Bashkortostan. All the Spanish regions have them too, but they seem to compete against international teams as well as each other. The Indian state teams seem to be notable, but I have no idea about the others. What should these teams be classed as- representative teams, national teams, something else? Should they appear at all? They currently seem to be using the national team infobox which seems wrong to me- 'first international' etc is meaningless here. Any thoughts? Stu.W UK (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think they should have their own articles, but the normal national team infobox should be avoided. Salt (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Manager (football)

Currently manager (football) redirects to Coach (sport), but that article, in addition to being 100% US-centric, contains essentially no content about the role of a football manager. So what would be the best option? Add content about football management to the existing article (even though in football parlance the "coach" is generally a separate individual to the manager, with different responsibilities) or create a new article solely about football management and then try to figure out which links need changing to point to it.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The latter. It's annoyed me for ages, though obviously never enough to actually do something about it, that with all the coverage of football and articles about the most obscure of players, that there's no article at all about something as basic to football as the manager. (I don't mind helping with the link-changing so long as someone else writes the article :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I copied the entry from the Encyclopaedia of football here a while back that can be hacked to pieces for use if you fancy it. Nanonic (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a must for us to have a separate article for manager (football), because it is one of the most fundamental notion in football and it is quite different to a "coach" in other sports. Indeed, the concept of "manager" is also quite diversified within football circle, when managers in the British Isle have quite a large power, there is no correcponding positions in the Continent, as the Sport Director and the Head Coach are two separate persons. I think this distinction should also be made clear in the new article. Salt (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

George Mihaljević

A Croatian who was active mainly in the States - hence his Anglicised name. He spent four seasons playing in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. However, I don't know any teams or dates; can anyone help? His Croatian name was spelt Đuro or Đjuro. Cheers in advance, GiantSnowman 00:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No record of him at fussballdaten.de. Do you know which seasons he played there? Jogurney (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources say he played there between the ages of 18 and 22, which would be roughly 1954-1958. GiantSnowman 11:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with David Wheater

81.107.52.140 (talk · contribs) has been editing the David Wheater article. At first it seemed like removal of referenced content so I reverted to an earlier version and left the user a notice. However, the same user then "updated" the information claiming to be a personal friend and therefore correct. Should the page be reverted again to before this user started to edit? --DFS454 (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Personal friend" counts for nothing - verifiability, not truth. BEVE (talk)  10:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering wether it was worth a blanket revert to restore all the referenced content that had been removed--DFS454 (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems possibly a bit extreme; it might be a bit more work to re-add them manually, but hopefully that would encourage the editor to use refs, rather than discourage them from editing at all by undoing all their hard work. Who knows, they might even add some more? BEVE (talk)  11:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Lately I have been rooting through and referencing Category:All unreferenced BLPs and I've noticed the extrodinary amount of football/soccer biographies there. I'm posting here to ask all those who routinely create biographies on these players to always reference them. Unreferenced BLPs are a big deal and due care must be taken when creating profiles of living people. Also, if there's some people here familiar with reliable sources in the field, you're welcome to head over there and cite some of the literally thousands of unreferenced football/soccer bios. ThemFromSpace 20:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been using Catscan to identify footballer articles in that category, and yes there are thousands of them. I've probably cleared more than 100 the past few days, but it will take a concerted effort to reduce the backlog. I don't think many of these articles are actually created by WP:FOOTY members, but we should try to do a better job of educating newbies on the BLP policy. The problem is that there are a few users who won't listen to our advice and they can create hundreds of articles in no time. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if we as a Project begin with the earliest taggings – the dated list can be found at Category:Unreferenced BLPs – and work our way through, both adding references AND converting the infobox to 'biography 2', it shouldn't be a MAJOR issue, and can be solved as soon as possible...GiantSnowman 22:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You can also use Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Cleanup listing#Unreferenced BLPs that is updated every time there is a new database dump. Last time it was updated was 6 march. This list is sorted by the time of tagging. Note that a lot of BLPs was tagged with {{unreferenced}} and is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Cleanup listing#Articles lacking sources. Rettetast (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Simon nelson

Some users have had trouble with Simon nelson (talk · contribs) in the past over his ignorance of some aspects of the MoS and never replying to people on his talk page. He's been doing a lot of removing youth clubs from infoboxes lately and I have left him several messages, but to no avail. I left him a message just a few moments ago and just three minutes later, he removed another youth club. Anyone have any ideas what to do? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Report him at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism? GiantSnowman 20:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Defunct team manager templates

Yay or nay? I just created the {{Atlanta Chiefs managers}} before realising it may not be acceptable...GiantSnowman 00:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's OK, if the team was notable enough...(played professionaly first league football...etc).--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Good - that's what I thought. What to do about NASL teams that changed their names/colours though...? GiantSnowman 11:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion you should use the last name and colours.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to use the team name that the article is located at, and whatever team colours are in the infobox. GiantSnowman 21:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if some franchises have two pages because both teams were distinct, then I'll create two templates, as in the case of the St. Louis Stars and the California Surf. GiantSnowman 18:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Image of Alan Ball

This image of Alan Ball is up for deletion because it (paraphrasing) "can be easily replaced by a free alternative". Is this true, given that he is no longer with us? If anyone took a photo of him during his managerial days, please speak up now! - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a already a free image of him in the article, I'm really not sure that a Fair Use image is required as well, given that it illustrates nothing in particular other than that he once had really bad 1970s hair...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

EchetusXe has just created Willie Aitken but there is already Billy Aitken. Which one should be the redirect? Informations are a bit different, too. I can provide some details about his carreer in France, but I don't know where he was before. Any ideas?--Latouffedisco (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect the new article to the already established one. GiantSnowman 16:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Was he more commonly knowns as Willie or Billy? Though i would have thought William Aitken (footballer) would be more appropriate anyway. Uksam88 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not? It would help us, if we cannot find which nickname was the most used.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge done!--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Scottish lower league winners

I created this article and this one, and just wondered what people thought of them and also whether they have the right titles, I considered something like List of winners of the Second tier of Scottish football but could not decide which would be best. Darryl.matheson (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles look really good - well done! - and as for the naming, the one you've gone for is better than the 'tier' one. Also, don't forget to tag the article's talkpage with the project tag - {{Football}}. Regards, GiantSnowman 14:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Apertura/Clausura leagues.

I know this may not be in issue in the majority of the world since every league as one tournament a year. But significant portion of leagues in Latin America have the Apertura/Clausura system. In terms of the articles on this site, the way things have seem to be done is that there is one article per tournament (one for an Apertura, one for a Clausura), equating to two articles per season. The question I pose is: is that the way it should be done? Or should there be one article covering the entire season, despite the fact there are two tournaments?

On a side note, is there any specific manual of style for the "XXXX in country football" articles? Digirami (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Do u mean the season article of the corresponding league? After a quick look, I found most of the season articles are written according to season but not tournament (i.e. 1 article per season, not 2), even for those countries that have two separate tournament in one season (e.g. Argentina, Costa Rica, Chile, etc). But there are also exceptions like Honduras, which has two article per season. Generallly speaking, I think one article per season is more reasonable, as there are some interconnections between the Apertura and Clausura, like the same teams would compete in the Apertura and Clausura in one season, aggregate table in one season is used to determine promotion and relegation (like Chile), agrregate table is used to determine the qualification to Copa Libertadoras (e.g., 3 spots are given in this way in Argentina). 1 article for 1 season can better reflect the interconnection and the entire situation of the two tournaments. Plus, as most season article concerning leagues operateing under Apertura and Clausura system are also written under this style, so I think, for unity, it is also better to have 1 article per 1 season (i.e. 1 article for 2 tournaments). Salt (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, for the most part the leagues in CONMEBOL have different ways of doing things:

• • Argentina: there is an article that covers the whole season in football, and one that covers a season of the top leagues. But one might as well be a duplicate of the others (ex: Primera División Argentina 2008–09, 2008–09 in Argentine football)
  • Bolivia: no one is really creating articles for the leagues in that country
  • Brazil: they have a European system, so it is taken care of. Although I think they should use more templates (ex: Campeonato Brasileiro Série A 2009)
  • Chile: they have an article for the country's season, and one for each tournaments... and the same information is displayed (ex: Torneo de Apertura de Chile 2009)
  • Colombia: there is one article per tournament (ex: 2009-I Copa Mustang, and there will be a 2009-II Copa Mustang article)
  • Ecuador: (I watch this one) one article per season of the league, and one article covers the year in football in a simple way (ex: Campeonato Ecuatoriano de Fútbol Serie A 2009, 2009 in Ecuadorian football)
  • Paraguay: there an article that covers the season in football, one article per tournament, no articles per season (ex: 2009 in Paraguayan football, Torneo Apertura 2009 (Paraguay))
  • Peru: one article per season, but have created articles per stage of the season (ex: Primera División Peruana 2008)
  • Uruguay: one article covering the season in football... that's it (ex: 2008–2009 in Uruguayan football)
  • Venezuela: same as Uruguay (ex: 2008-09 in Venezuelan football)

So it's all over the place when it comes to CONMEBOL leagues, especially for those leagues that have the Apertura/Clausura system (Mexico is no different BTW). The the articles on the top division leagues and the ones that covers the season in football need to meet some format of standardization, especially for such an important confederation in football. Digirami (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, so after all I think we should have a unified standard for all the Apertura/Clausura league. That means, for the Colombia and Ecuador league, we should merge the two tournament articles into one season article. Otherwise, like the current situation, the overall standing of Copa Mustang of 2008, which determines the relegation team, is currently included in 2008-II Copa Mustang, which is a little bit odd. And it seems better if there is one season article to include both tournament of that season.

For the Chile and Paraguay league, I think their tournament article should also be included in their season article, so as to be consistent with other leagues. What do you think? Salt (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think so, too. One article per league season, not one per tourament. Also creating league articles for those who don't have them, and keeping the year articles as a simple overview. The difficulty might be in getting the users that edit the leagues in Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, and Paraguay to see it that way; they might be resistant to change. The Argentine league is already been taken care thanks to the main contributor of the league (Bocafan76) and myself making the changes. Ecuador doesn't use the Apertura/Clausura system, per se, but it's ok with a league season article and a simple year article. The contributors of the Peruvian league should be told not to create an article per stage of the tournament. Digirami (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked the history of the concerning article, and found that in fact most of the tournament article of Chile, Colombia and Paraguay have just one or two main contributors. So I think it maybe a good idea to leave a message on their talk pages as well as the talk pages of the article, to notify them the discussion here, and try to reach a consensus. I think most of them will agree the need for a unified format for the article. BTW, maybe we should also take care of those Central American leagues which also use Apertura/Clausura system. Salt (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I'm going one-by-one and I'm only one user. Digirami (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(reindent) I believe that there should only be two types articles in total per country, one article for each league season Primera División Argentina 2008-09 (including details of both apertura and clausura) and one overview article for the country as a whole (like 2008-09 in English football). One of the main problems (in Argentina) is that much of the content of 2008-09 in Argentine football is duplicated in the 2008-09 Primera article. This happened when Nameless User created all of the Primera articles from 1931 onwards. I think the content of the overview article should be changed to more closely match the layout of 2008-09 in English football in order to cut out some of the duplication. So in summary, I believe the standard should be one overview article for each country and one article (covering the events of both A&C) for each league. King of the North East 22:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Canadian soccer people

Surely the subdivision of "soccer people" (???) by province is trivial? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh God yes. Those all need collapsed into one (sensibly-named) category. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; being in Category:Canadian soccer players is more than enough. GiantSnowman 20:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection of Kris Boyd

We've got an uncooperative anon or three constantly re-adding very recent history to Kris Boyd, along with changing his infobox goal count at Rangers to reflect his total apps/goals rather than just his league ones. Anyone fancy sticking semiprotection on for a while? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for two weeks. Let me know if it continues after that. – Toon^(talk) 19:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:United States Current Squad

Isn't this going to get massively out of date and impossible to manage incredibly quickly? --JonBroxton (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha. I see PeeJay2K3 beat me to it! --JonBroxton (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's times like this when I'm glad I have nearly 1,500 pages on my watchlist! – PeeJay 00:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Steve Murray (footballer)

I recently created Steve Murray (footballer) as there was a redirect article at Steve Murray pointing to the Brookside character. Having thought about it, and seeing that most articles which point to Steve Murray are actually about the footballer, is it worth removing the redirect and simply moving Steve Murray (footballer) to Steve Murray? The redirect points to a list of Brookside characters, of which Steve Murray has no page. Heightwatcher (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There's already a disamb page at Stephen Murray, which includes articles on Stephen, Steven and Stevie Murrays. I'd be tempted to move the existing redirect at Steve Murray to Steve Murray (Brookside), and then make Steve Murray redirect to the Stephen Murray dab page, as Steven Murray already does. Then I'd leave Steve Murray (footballer) where he is; other Steve Murrays linked include a professional boxer and a motorcyclist, so the footballer isn't the obvious primary meaning. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Talking of disambiguation

there are currently 2 Fred Joneses: Fred Jones (English footballer) and Fred Jones (Welsh footballer). There are two more on their way, coincidentally one English and one Welsh. Should I name/rename all four to plain Fred Jones (footballer born xxxx), or dab them in pairs as Fred Jones (English footballer born xxxx) and Fred Jones (Welsh footballer born xxxx)? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for footballer born xxxx - double disambiguation is probably only needed if two are born in the same year (unless they're both of the same nationality, in which case...). пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

yea, agree. I think the footballer born xxx would be the best disam chandler ··· 13:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

done that then, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Giuseppe Rossi again - block / protection

Resolved

 – Heh. Perfect timing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The previous edit warring from Giuseppe Rossi has continued. Tesaux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued with the edits which got him blocked, as have a whole bunch of different Telecom Italia IPs. The admin who originally blocked doesn't appear to be active right now, so could someone else have a look? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I generally just leave a note at WP:RPP, they're usually pretty quick about it. –  LATICS  talk  22:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

New St. Mirren Park / St. Mirren Park

The new stadium appears to have dropped the "new" and is just being described by the media as St. Mirren Park, which was the name of the old stadium. I think we should move the article to St. Mirren Park, and move the "old" stadium to St. Mirren Park (1894) per the precedent of Wembley Stadium (1923) and Wembley Stadium. Any other thoughts? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're going by Chick Young's rather energetic protestations on the radio last night, then I'd hold off for now. It's definitely more commonly known as New St Mirren Park right now; we'll see what the media (sans Chick) and fans decide upon as the season settles down. I don't see a pressing need to move just yet. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't St. Mirren Park be at Love Street, anyway? That was its common name. Dancarney (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, based on WP:COMMONNAME, the old ground should probably be at Love Street, Paisley or something similar. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've put in a move request. Dancarney (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

North Queensland Fury FC

Could someone please lend a hand with North Queensland Fury FC? Some anon editors seem insistent that Daniel McBreen and Scott Wilson are members of the current squad, which they are not until the end of the season. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it as well. Not sure why I didn't already have this on my watchlist. Camw (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Playerhistory.com for Neil Caldwell

Can anybody with a subscription to playerhistory.com check Neil Caldwell's entry here and add any further information to his Wikipedia article? I can't find anything else on Google as his brief professional appearances were in the mid-1990s. Thanks. Heightwatcher (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Germán Cabrera

I just found this article - Germán Cabrera. Judging by the username of the creator there is a conflict of interests. I was just wondering whether there is any evidence that he has played for any of the teams mentioned and whether those teams are fully professional. If not I'll slap a prod on it. King of the North East 14:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The website for the club is down at the moment, I could go and check/confirm with people about his existence - but the NSW Super League is a third tier league and definitely not fully professional so it probably isn't worth pursuing as he will fail notability standards even if he is real. Camw (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Austrian Football Bundesliga season

I just noticed that currently, all season articles for the Austrian Football Bundesliga are named Austrian Football Bundesliga xxxx-xx, starting from the first edition Austrian Football Bundesliga 1911–12. The Austrian Bundesliga was not established until 1974, before that, the league was, to my knowledge, named Wiener Liga, then Gauliga Ostmark and, finally, Staatsliga A. Should the season article names be changed to what the league was actually called or stay as Austrian Football Bundesliga xxxx-xx? EA210269 (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hum, you're right. To me it should be changed.--Latouffedisco (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I also think it should be changed - other country's leagues have name changes accounted for where they've been spotted. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Another change supporter here. The league seasons template should also been altered to something like this once the moves have been made. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, definitely changed, it is giving false info as it stands. A similar issue arose with (I think it was) the Faroe Islands League as while back, where all the season articles, right back to the league's creation, had titles which included the current sponsored name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about using the layout of the Norwegian template though - I think something like {{Israeli top flight seasons}} is nicer, rather than splitting it up so much. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Israel spilt - I thought since the highest level was a newly created league at its respective time, it was only fair to display the respective highest classes with their own groups in order to give the reader some extra information.

As for Austria, the split should be applied because the Wienerliga was just a league from clubs around Vienna; the Gauliga Ostmark was introducted after the "Anschluß" and thus was part of the German football league system; the Staatsliga A was run by the Austrian Football Association, if I'm correct and the current Bundesliga is run from an independent league association similar to those in England, France or Germany. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not too often I disagree with #57 but I like the Norwegian split better given the lifecycle Austria has - although a slightly reduced font as per the Israeli one is nice.--ClubOranje^T 11:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The naming history of the league seems to include far more variants than originally thought. According to the corresponding German article, the league was called "Erste Klasse" from 1910–11 until 1922–23, then "I. Liga" due to the introduction of professionalism from 1923–24 on. It was then renamed "Nationalliga" prior to the 1936–37 season. After the years as "Gauliga Ostmark" between the 1938–39 and 1944–45 seasons, the league was re-introduced as "Liga (A)" or short "A-Liga" for the 1945–46 season. The next name change came for the 1965–66 season when the league was dubbed "Nationalliga" and lasted until the 1973–74 season. After two years as "Bundesliga" in 1974–75 and 1975–76 yet another change was made, this time to "1. Division". The (up to now) last change finally came for the 1993–94 season, when the current Bundesliga name was adopted. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a look through a booklet on Austrian football I own and came up with the following naming history. My source finishes in 1991-92:

• 1911-24: 1. Klasse
• 1924-37: I. Liga
• 1937-38: Nationalliga
• 1938-41: Gauliga Ostmark
• 1941-45: Gauliga Donau-Alpenland
• 1945-46: 1. Klasse
• 1946-49: Liga
• 1949-59: Staatsliga A (there was also a Staatsliga B until 1959)
• 1959-65: Staatsliga
• 1965-74: Nationalliga
• 1974-76: Bundesliga
• 1976-??: Bundesliga - 1. Division (due to the introduction of the Bundesliga - 2. Division in 1976)

Very confusing! EA210269 (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That's even more complicated. We definitely should check the names against multiple sources before renaming anything. I will try to find online sources, plus look for help at the respective German portal. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Given how many names it has gone under, I think splitting the template up into different rows for each name could make it look rather awful, and even a footnote might be too large. Perhaps a footnote explaining that the league was part of the German system from 38-45 might be worthwhile though. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at how the problem was handled on the German and Dutch Wikipedia, naming it Austrian football championship xxxx-xx, seems a simple way to circumnavigate the problem, at least for the time up until 1974. Regarding the template, it may have to split into eras (1911-38, 1938-45, 1945-74, 1974-current) instead of league names to keep it simple. EA210269 (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is probably the best way to go, true. I also like the idea of eras on the template. So let's do this, then.

Given the wealth of history of Austrian football, it is too bad that we currently have no real Austrian contributors. The Austrian articles in general could definitely need some overhaul. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to propose a move for every article in Wikipedia:Requested moves or can we just go ahead? I will copy this discussion to the Talk:Austrian Football Bundesliga page to give people that are interessted in the subject but don't watch this page a say. EA210269 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we can go ahead. The names just need to be add to the general article about the Austrian 1st league. And yes, we NEED to hire an Austrian contributor...--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd think just move ahead, too. You've had a fair number of folks knowledgable with the general topic area weigh in, so you should be good to go. Wiggy! (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the history section of the article to include information on the various league names, according to my source. And yes, an Austrian contributor for the Austrian football articles would be great! With the proposed page moves, are we happy to agree on the following article names?

• Austrian football championship 1911–12 and so on until 1938
• Gauliga Ostmark 1938–39 until 1941 as there was no independent country of Austria and we can't therefore speak of an Austrian championship
• Gauliga Donau-Alpenland 1941–45 until 1945, dito
• Austrian football championship 1945–46 and so on until 1974
• Everything after 1974 to remain where it is now

Any objections or better suggestions to this plan? EA210269 (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

To me as well. I will then take care of the template once all moves are done. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Its done, they are all moved, my head is buzzing! EA210269 (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The template has been updated as well. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Two questions about article policies (Infoboxes in season articles, transfer sections in club articles)

Question 1: How should the application of infoboxes like in Fußball-Bundesliga 1973–74 to season articles in general and current season articles in particular be handled? In other words: To put or not to put, and if to put, when to put (at any time or rather after the conclusion of a season)? Sorry for the Shakespearian language... ;-)

Question 2: How should transfer sections in club articles be treated: Delete upon sight with a note to collect all transfers of a country in a separate list à la those existing for the Premier League or the Bundesliga, or is another treatment to be preferred? I think there has been a consensus on this, but I can't remember... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding question 2, I recall it being "delete on sight". For question 1 I'm less fussed; I don't see why they shouldn't be in there though. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lauri Dalla Valle

This article has been recreated today – having previously gone through an AfD and numerous speedies for recreation – following a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 11, where the community concluded that the player meets general notability guidelines having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Just a heads up not to waste any valuable time re-nominating him for deletion – even if he fails WP:ATHLETE, he passes WP:N! Cheers, GiantSnowman 17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Tip and Tap

Hello, guys. I'm Jambornik and I've added articles on almost all the mascots of FIFA World Cups here. Anyway I have a question about Tip and Tap. I could ask it at the Reference Desk but figured this way would be quicker.

My question: Is it known which of the two boys is Tip and which Tap or is the name undividable? You can answer it here, I'll be checking this page regularly. Thanks, Regards Jambornik (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We thank you for your enquiry.

The little boy (with football and black hairs) is Tip.

We trust that this will be of use to you.

Yours sincerely,

FIFA Communications Division

Hope that helps Stu.W UK (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know this for a fact, but my guess would be that the one on the left is tip and the one on the right is tap. BUC (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton Academical F.C. vandalism

Please can an admin protect Hamilton Academical F.C.; IP users keep on changing the squad flag of Simon Mensing from English (his nationality) to German (his birthplace). Cheers, GiantSnowman 18:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Done by User:PeterSymonds, semi-protected for two weeks. –  LATICS  talk  19:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged! GiantSnowman 21:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In all the editwarring, no evidence was offered to support the contention that he is English. Kevin McE (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Season Category

For Soccer and other winter Northern Hemisphere sports (and Summer Southern Hemisphere sports), a category per season rather than year is useful eg Category:2003-04 in Scottish football. The usual navbox to link to categories for several past and future seasons cannot be used though, but it is possible (as here) by editing to include a “clickon” link to the category for the immediate previous and future seasons either side.

Note that the Category:2003-04 in Scottish football links to the year categories “2003 in Scotland” and “2004 in Scotland”. And in 1999 there was a roughly 50-50 split whether to say “1999-00 in Fooian Football” or “1999-2000 in Fooian Football” (which I prefer). Hugo999 (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for national teams of defunct nations

Following a somewhat overlong discussion here there seems to be a need for a consensus on what to do with teams of nations that have competed under various different names and with different borders. Two examples of what has happened are the German and Russian teams.

After WW2 Germany split into East Germany, West Germany and Saarland. Saarland reunited with West Germany in the 50s and Germany reunited entirely after the fall of the Berlin Wall. As far as FIFA are concerned, Germany is the successor only of West Germany. This means that 'West Germany national football team' is a redirect to 'Germany national football team', while the East and Saarland have their own articles.

Contrast this with Russia. FIFA recognises Russia as the successor to USSR and CIS yet they each get their own page. Which is right? Serbia seems to have gone for a mixture of the two - 'FR Yugoslavia' and 'Serbia and Montenegro' both redirect there, but the larger SFR Yugoslavia has it's own page despite Serbia being the successor of all three.

I would suggest that the German position is followed- if FIFA recognises a successor for the team then the article should be a redirect to the modern team, with the predecessor's name bolded in the lead. Defunct predecessors (like East Germany) should be hatnoted if thought neccessary, and they should get a mention within the history section. If this makes the article too big then separate articles can be made, but I don't think it should be necessary. Any thoughts? Stu.W UK (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree to follow the German model. The successor to defunct teams should receive the redirect, and it should be noted in the introduction. The rationale nad justification makes sense. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

UE Sant Julià squad 2007/08

What do you guys and gals think about this article (rightfully) proposed for deletion? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a prod is appropriate; that could easily serve as a seed for a proper team season article. It obviously needs to be expanded to include results, fixtures et cetera, but we shouldn't expect articles to spring fully-formed from their creators. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but on the other hand, the team is an amateur team and hails from Andorra. If this article would have been named (for example) "Hull City squad 2007–08", I would have proposed a merger to an existing season article or an expansion if the season article did not exist. And, to be honest, it would be pretty new to me that amateur-only teams deserve their own season articles. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this team/squad did qualify for the UEFA Cup. That probably garners them more notability than a large number of professional teams, I'm sure there must be Andorran reliable sources out there somewhere. - fchd (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And furthermore, I wasn't aware that we restricted the number of sub-articles based on the popularity of a given team. If someone wants to write season-by-season articles for the entire history of Buckie Thistle I don't imagine anyone would stop them. Do we have precedent in deleting articles of this type where it's established that the team itself is notable enough for an article? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Still, I don't believe that the article was intended to be a proper team season article at all. Its creator, User:Retepretep, was a regular contributor to all kind of European football clubs until he suddenly stopped his work last summer. As you can see, his main target were roster edits. So if he intended to create a full season article for this particular team, he surely would have done that, especially for such a club. Instead, he just dropped the squad of that season to an separate article like to some kind of notepad and continued with updating the actual club article without ever going back to his notes. Again, I wouldn't have prodded it if there had been at least traces of match listings or other events. But the article as of now is just a list without any context whatsoever which would explain why this particular squad is notable at all. And if it would be notable, then someone would surely added facts and figures in the nine months since its creation. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh. If I genuinely thought it was a diamond in the rough I'd have de-prodded it. You did ask for opinions, though, so I thought I'd play devil's advocate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of material at the RSSSF to make this into a proper season page if that proves to be the desired outcome. - fchd (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• "If someone wants to write season-by-season articles for the entire history of Buckie Thistle I don't imagine anyone would stop them" - actually, in the past I've seen XX F.C. season 19xx-yy articles deleted at AfD on the grounds that the team doesn't play at a high-enough level, and when I specifically asked on this page whether or not creating a season article for Dover Athletic would be OK, most people who answered said that teams that don't play at a nationwide level don't merit such articles..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Though if this club qualified for this year's UEFA Cup as well as several past UEFA & Intertoto Cups this decade then it is notable enough for a season article. Perhaps, though, the name of the article should be changed to reflect that it ought to become a proper season article. Maybe we need a WP:FOOTYN rule concerning season articles... JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Superettan

Aka the Swedish first division. Is it fully pro? Poor Morten Nielsen's notability rests on it! Stu.W UK (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(second division), fully pro I very much doubt it. Certainly not all teams, I know alot of guys in Brommapojkarna (who were in Superettan last year) still either are in School or work part time jobs (for example) Richard Henriksson (sv wiki) work as a sort of sport journalist on national radio and as a pundit on Premier League, Serie A etc... well got side tracked... Though on fully pro... I'm not sure, Landskrona might be a fully pro team (they've been in Allsvenskan 4 seasons on the 2000s)... But what are somethings that make it a fully pro league? They have a TV deal and get money from that I guess. Any criteria I can look for? chandler ··· 02:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"But what are somethings that make it a fully pro league?" - it's very simple really. If all the players in the league are full-time professional footballers (i.e. not part-timers who also have a "Monday to Friday" job) then it's a fully pro league, if not then it isn't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not every player in League Two during 2007–08 was fully-professional. Dave Rainford who played for Dagenham & Redbridge was part-time, as he worked at a college. Does that mean League Two during that season were only semi-pro? --Jimbo^[online] 23:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well there might always be people who have side jobs, in my example BP, they're a small club, they're what youcould call a feeder club that has managed to get to the top, they're the best youth club in the land so many players are still in school age. I don't know about all other clubs in Superettan, but my guess is its a mix. chandler ··· 11:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And another league...

As well as the Swedish one above, any info on whether the Swiss Challenge League is fully pro (see criteria from ChrisTheDude above)? It's come up on a couple of AfDs. Stu.W UK (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

From a fanguide page from the last Euro:

Auch die Challenge League, vom Verband als Ausbildungsliga konzipiert, ist zu weiten Teilen eine Profiliga. Viele Fußballer arbeiten allerdings nebenbei als Voll- oder Teilzeitkraft.

which roughly translates to

The Challenge League, designed by the association as a development league, is a professional league in wide parts as well. However, many footballers are also working full- or part-time.

So it seems to be some kind of hybrid. o.O --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Like the Conference National, then, which I believe has 19 full-time and 5 part-time teams and is therefore not considered a fully-pro league for our purposes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys- relevant AfDs are here and here if you're interested Stu.W UK (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I need help on Polish Football

I'm going to start editing the Polish football pages as they are not of the best quality. May i ask if i have the help of you guys? I'm starting with the Ekstraklasa page, and i just need to find sources on the history of the Ekstraklasa.

I think much help would be needed to 'upgrade' the pages.

thelastone36 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If you read Polish (I don't), the online football magazine 90 Minut may be a good source (www.90minut.pl). Jogurney (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

My polish isn't the best, (3rd language) but i am able to translate, so it would be no problem to me. Now i just need to find the time to do it. thelastone36 (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am open to help on polish football topics. I am polish native.--Verwolff (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood United F.C.

I could've sworn this article went through an AfD a while back, but I can't find any record of it...any help? GiantSnowman 22:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You may be getting confused with Robbie Williams' Los Angeles Vale F.C. (maybe). Nanonic (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe your memory is better than mine! Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 14#Hollywood_United_F.C., it was discussed briefly then but there are no deletion discussions in "What links here". Nanonic (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but never mind - I think it passes notability anyways as it competed in the professional 2008 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. Cheers, GiantSnowman 23:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But then that means that tournament is not fully-professional as it had eight amateur teams in it. --Jimbo^[online] 23:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's like saying the F.A. Cup is not fully-professional because Blyth Spartans played in it this year. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not. Hence why players who play for Blyth in the FA Cup are still not notable. --Jimbo^[online] 00:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There is going to be an announcement in a few days about a Hollywood United team entering the USL Premier Development League.--JonBroxton (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But the PDL isn't fully-pro either...GiantSnowman 11:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but the teams in non-fully pro leagues can still be notable. Especially when the team gets sporadic media coverage like Hollywood United FC, I fail to see how it will not meet notability. matt91486 (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Tables templates

I am going to convert all templates used in football articles which can be found here [12] to new better and more comprehensive table template Fb r. Sample of my work can be found here. Any suggestion or help would be appreciate. --Verwolff (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Goalscorer section @ Serbian Superliga 2008-09

Could you please assist in keeping an eye on the Goalscorer section of Serbian Superliga 2008–09? I have removed the whole list because a) it cited absolutely no sources, thus violating WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR and b) was incorrect as the difference between table (which was triple-checked upon its correctness) and given scorers was three goals. Because of the policy violations, I have replaced the section with a simple list based on soccerway.com data, yet one or two anon editors (which were edit warring over details earlier this week) might wish to keep the whole clutter in the article.

By the way, there are also such extensive lists at the Dutch, Belgian, Danish and Norwegian Premier League 2009|Norwegian]] articles, but in contrast to the removed Serbian version, they all cite at least one source and are correct. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article alerts

This page is a really handy source for seeing which football articles are up for deletion which is auto-updated by a bot - but it hasn't been updated for a couple of days, what can we do? GiantSnowman 16:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reported it as a bug. From what I can tell some other projects have had trouble in the past but this has been because they have awkward characters in their project titles. hopefully it'll get sorted Stu.W UK (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The bot has been down for some days. No projects alerts has been updated. Rettetast (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI. The alerts is no updated again. Rettetast (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)