Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

"Double" strange

Has anyone heard of a Belgian player called - 99,999999% sure his name is this - Kurt Gompel? Had a couple of top division seasons, being relatively important for KV Mechelen, then died at the age of 20, can't remember the cause right now.

Strange that: 1 - he does not have a WP article (not even in NL.WIKI); 2 - my internet browsing yields ZERO results. He was born in 1973, so it's relatively recent. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Kurt van Gompel?--Egghead06 (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• That's it Egg, thanks for the "completion". The rest, however, is still "on" (i did a search with the correct name years ago, just did not remember the "van" thing, it yielded nothing). --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • NL:wiki has nl:Kurt Vangompel Cattivi (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

RSSSF uses "Kurt van Gompel", but some sites use "Kurt Vangompel" including his obituary, so search for both. worldfootball shows him playing for Royal Antwerp FC, KV Mechelen and K.F.C. Lommel S.K.. Died in a car accident BTW.--ClubOranje^T 08:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Indonesian nuisance?

Please be on the lookout for this chap (contributions here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/111.68.125.18). Two things striked me the most: 1 - ZERO summaries; 2 - removal of runner-up honours (cups count) in all Real Madrid players (in the latter matter, received one warning and was reverted, did the same the following week - and has been reverted again!).

Now, judging from the list mentioned above, he also seems to "like" blanking sections/pages. Attentively, happy week all - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

List of football stadiums in Europe? Countries not working?

The links are down for a some countries. But the page is there if you search for it. This has happend in the past week or so. Please fix? Futbol vic (talk) 05:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

League table templates

Okay, a shot in the dark, but anyone prepared to create templates which reflect the current positions in our various football leagues? Even better, to then choose a section of it for display in our various season articles, perhaps based on a name parameter? Otherwise all the season articles which insist on having a league snapshot require a huge amount of maintenance... Just a thought... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

One already exists for the league I suspect you're most interested in. —WFC— 18:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The snapshot function would make it even better, admittedly. —WFC— 18:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for that. I don't have a problem with just transcluding the whole league table. I imagine it would take some intricate coding to get the "two/three above/below" section of the league based on a club name. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Good, I suggest all Championship clubs with "current season" articles use this. Hopefully we have a Prem/Lg 1/Lg 2 etc analogy which can be used throughout? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be boldly yet tentatively added to each one, but not forced upon any who decide to remove it. If some editors positively want to update manually in order to maintain a snapshot, hats off to them. And yes, those templates exist for the four important English divisions. Same title structure. —WFC— 21:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats fantastic! I had no clue this thing existed. Well done Glennb28.--EchetusXe 22:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think WFC is right, so I added the template to articles missing a league table or (more often) with an out-of-date league table. If there is no objection I will replace the rest (i.e. the up-to-date tables) with the new teemplate. Some of my edits may be undone, but I feel that the vast majority of people will be delighted with this new development.--EchetusXe 23:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure the whole current league table is particularly appropriate to a club's season article. If the template had a snapshot facility, as mentioned above, so it showed the relevant section (say, 2 above/2 below) and as-of the specific team's last game (and was sourced, which it isn't at the moment) I'd gladly use it. On the Birmingham pages, I've been standardising on that sort of section, as at e.g. 2009–10 Birmingham City F.C. season#League table (part), sourced to statto.com which gives league tables at the end of any selected matchday. Haven't caught up past 2009–10 yet, but that's another story... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's not as relevant as a snapshot, but at least using the template means that the information is always up to date. Hand-coding league snapshots is onerous and that's why most of the season articles are out of date with respect to this information...! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaargh. Wouldn't it be far better setting up a WikiNews football project for stuff like this? Recentism begets recentism. Encouraging tables like this inevitably means they'll end up in the main club articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, not if we're disciplined about it. Unless we get rid of the season articles, then this kind of thing will persist. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

These type of templates were added to Rugby main articles & look awful see here a section of the table would be acceptable but the whole table is ridiculous. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 10:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC))

If the appeareance is undesirable, one could seek the ability to collapse them, or even have them collapsed by default.... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Apart from being verboten, I would rather we didn't have this problem in the first place than had to find hacks to mitigate the problems after the fact. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I said, unless we get rid of season articles (at least, current season articles), there will exist a problem with the data therein being out of date. It is too onerous to hand-craft the league snapshot, and not worth it as, over a given weekend, it could change Friday night, Saturday lunchtime, Saturday afternoon, Saturday evening, Sunday afternoon, Monday evening, Tuesday evening.... At least this template is updated regularly, one fact one place.... And who reads the MOS anyway.... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by out of date. A snapshot of where a team stood in their division after their last matchday changes once per match. Updating that isn't any more onerous than all the other updating, of the appearances and goals and cards and (for those season pages that have such things) prose and references and as-of dates needed when the team plays a match, and it isn't any more or less subject to being out-of-date than any of those items. Though I'm not arguing against their use if people want them: perhaps the answer is to get rid of "current season" articles. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Ok, fair point, I hadn't considered that it was supposed to be the table as of the end of the previous match. What we still have is the issue of maintaining individual tables on individual season articles, rather than using the template. I understand the calls of "recentism", but to get rid of those claims, we'll need to get rid of all "current season" articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And I do think it's more onerous to recode the table snapshot than to simply add one to appearances, goals, cards etc.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Results involve copying the previous box/line and tweaking accordingly. Prose tends to come at the end of the season anyway. Stat updates do involve a similar level of work (less fiddly editing, more fiddly source-checking), but in the case of league tables why do twenty-four times what you can do once? But as I said above, I'm firmly supportive of people who would prefer to maintain a snapshot themselves: this template should not be forced on them. —WFC— 14:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind having a go at creating a snapshot template just showing the selected team and two either side of it, but i will need a few tips from those in the know on the intricacies of coding. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Something like Table|show7=y,show8=y,show9=y,show10=y,show11=y might work to show places 7 to 11, easy to adjust if you want to show more or less. Problem, when the team changes positions snapshot might show a complete miss. -Koppapa (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration, revisted

With the international break on its way, and the DYK disservice a distant memory, I was wondering if there's an appetite for one last team push on Glossary of association football terms? —WFC— 20:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you know you can rely on me... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you have in mind, getting it featured? I would be glad to help where I can. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What I have in mind is to track down whoever it is that schedules Today's Featured List, and try to persuade them to give it the feature it deserves. In any case, to get the thing over the line would be as good an advert for collaboration as I've seen anywhere on Wikipedia. —WFC— 21:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I know that guy.... Get those citation templates outa there, and we can talk... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Done, and the page loads a lot quicker now. The biggest thing left to do now is track down sources for phrases that people have previously struggled with. They're easy to spot, as they're all tagged with ^{[Citation needed]}. —WFC— 13:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

League in Philipines

While browsing Template:AFC leagues i stumbled upon the Filipino Premier League in the Philippines which is defunct since 2008. LBC United Football League seems to be a successor league but isn't gouverned by the Filipino FA it seems, should it be changed? Is the winner eligable for the AFC President's Cup? -Koppapa (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fenerbahçe S.K. (football team)‎

As I've previously mentioned [1] I'm having trouble with the Fenerbahçe S.K. (football team)‎ article. I keep removing POV, copyvios, OR, etc, explaining myself in the edit summaries every time. A few editors have been undoing this, some IPs, but one that causing real bother is User:Aciyokrocky. The editor has failed to engage in any communication, just blanket undoing edits with no edit summary. Any suggestions as to how to solve this? Cheers. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Judging by his talkpage (already one block) and his lack of communication, i think an indef block would be in order. What's OR? - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Original research. GiantSnowman 14:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, they've done it again and still will not discuss. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise to stop edit warring with them, and take the case to WP:AN3 instead. GiantSnowman 13:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Did that, and I've also been to WP:ANI but nothing's been done. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Should the club's league be included in player articles.

I've mostly seen it with player articles: "is a footballer who plays for Spanish La Liga club Real Madrid" or "currently playing for Vancouver Whitecaps FC in Major League Soccer". However An editor is suggesting, "the league can be gleaned from the club article, if the reader doesn't know". So is there a guideline or custom or something else? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

They're much of a muchness really; the only (teeny tiny) issue I have with including the league in a player's introduction is that I have noticed that if a club is promoted/relegated, then the new league is rarely updated to reflect this. GiantSnowman 19:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I include it but you do run the risk it wont be updated. Warburton1368 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is my issue too. There's a discussion in the archives, which is what I'm basing my actions on. - Dudesleeper talk 19:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Updates were my concern as well, however the reason the other editor indicates it's not necessary is that it can be gleaned from the club article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The reader shouldn't have to go off to another article to find out something as basic as what league a player is working in. It needn't appear in the lead, but if it doesn't, it should be explicitly mentioned somewhere appropriate in the prose. "He signed for Premier League club Sunderland in August 2010...", "He helped Norwich City to promotion to the Premier League in 2011", "Despite submitting a transfer request, he was unable to engineer a move away from Birmingham after their relegation to the Championship", etc. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Correct, we should certainly not require a reader to navigate to another article to find out such major details if they are unsure. It's almost akin to saying that we don't need to mention in the lead that the subject plays football, because the reader could always navigate to the article on the club to find out what sport they play.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Having said that, this edit summary was slightly uncalled for..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree they should be excluded from the lead, mostly as they often become outdated. Here's an example of a player whose division went unchanged for over a year. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• If a player is playing in his country, then i only write his playing position after club, in the introduction that is. However, if the chap's playing abroad, i tend to include league or country, just an opinion. But, as Struway puts it, as long as it's mentioned somewhere in the prose... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Now, a technicality if you please: if i have not changed computer nor have i changed anything in it, any ideas as to why my IP has changed, twice? LOL, all the more reason to ONLY edit logged in. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is Indonesia where you get a random IP everytime you log in. Most Western countries have a static IP, that only changes every year or so. It varies too based on your internet service provider. I used to work on anti-cheating for an online computer game. Israel and Australia were really bad places for people having dozens of IPs attached to them, making it really difficult to track down the individual involved. I think Portugal might have been moderately dynamic (opposite of static). So you may find a bit of variance there.--EchetusXe 22:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears I won't have to remind Mr Görlitz to update each affected article at the end of the season, if needs be, because he's implying he'll be doing it on his own. - Dudesleeper talk 00:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that in Portugal each time you connect you have a different IP, at least that is what happends to me while editing from Lisbon area. FkpCascais (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to go back to the original debate, I personally include the league for every single player. While your average will know about the major clubs and which leagues they play in, it's probably not be the case for all the leagues, let alone the more obscure ones. Even major leagues, your average fan will not know whether the teams in the lower half of the league might still be in the top flight or relegated. And technically, the player is playing in the league as well as playing for the club, so no reason not to include both. Just my two cents on the issue. TonyStarks (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

@Dudesleeper: It appears your reminder is a waste of time as I am asking a question not insisting on anything. So if there's a bridge off which you'd like to throw your reminder I'd request you do so at your earliest convenience. I will, however, make changes to any articles of players I watch. I don't think you can expect any for more from me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Calm down dear. I think we can conclude that its best only to remove the league from the lead section if it is actually outdated. More stubby and more lower league players are less likely to be updated, but I think player articles that are well maintained or high profile will be likely to be updated and there is no need to worry. But in the top four divisions of English football, for example, these changes happen only once a year, and even then 80% of teams remain exactly where they are.--EchetusXe 09:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Why delete it at all - update it. Players change clubs too; that quite happily gets added to the lede without complaint. --ClubOranje^T 10:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that is what I would do. But some people seem to want to delete it. Its the only compromise I can think of.--EchetusXe 12:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Anything we say that is time sensitive should have a guide of when the statement is accurate as of. WP:DATED goes into a little bit more detail. If the statement becomes outdated, it is at least internally consistent, much like out of date infobox stats which were correct on the date indicated.

Cutting to the chase, I'd venture a guess that the average player changes divisions less often than he changes clubs, so I see no reason why the division shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. —WFC— 13:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Can it be suggested that it be part of relegation/promotion changes that are made at the end of the season? If the club's article is changed, then verify the lede in player articles matches. And no, Dudesleeper, I'm not suggesting I would do it, it's another question to determine if it's feasible. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? I dare say that the first sentence of the average article is the one which is kept most up to date, so long as it is reasonably detailed. FWIW I agree wholeheartedly with including the league for context. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So is consensus keep league if it's kept up-to-date or don't include or case-by-case basis? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Include. -Koppapa (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Soccerway.com over EUFA.com for match stats

It appears that there was a vote at Talk:2011–12 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round#Match reports. It seems to imply that Soccerway.com is preferred to EUFA.com unless the numbers do not match. Why would we use a commercial site over an official site? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you have read the discussion, right? The main point was UEFA doesn't provide the attendence figure -Koppapa (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If an external source is of equal quality to a primary one, we should go with the external one every time. The only justification for using UEFA would be if they were clearly the best. —WFC— 10:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

EUFA.com is providing attendance figures and the point is that the editor was changing a valid source for one that was not better. Here is an example of two links for the same match: http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/ucl/2012/2007577_fr.pdf http://www.soccerway.com/matches/2011/09/14/europe/uefa-champions-league/manchester-city-football-club/ssc-napoli/1209460/ Both have flaws: EUFA is a PDF, Soccerway is FULL of advertisements. So why, if we have a good source should we allow it with the replacement of another source that is no better? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If we're talking about UEFA specifically, their historical incompetence means we will need to update every uefa.com citation on Wikipedia every 18 months or so. That's a bit of a snag. —WFC— 17:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What does that mean? Are you suggesting because they reorganize their site occasionally that we should drive people to a site with gambling ads (that lead back to their own site) just because they're too lazy to restructure? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether other sites do or don't restructure, because I don't know that to be true. What I do know to be true is that UEFA restructure regularly, and it regularly leads to problems for the end user. Carefully managed website restructuring should have a minimal effect for users, as would being "too lazy" to restructure. Using Soccerbase as an example, when specific links stopped doing precisely what they used to, the redirect would still bring you a click or so away from where you wanted to be. When UEFA jig what you're after around, you will invariably end up here. —WFC— 12:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

can we find a better source than Soccerway.com though? I'm not fond of pushing people to a gambling site. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In the middle of a debt crisis I'm not too fond of encouraging people to take out a high interest credit card loan or car finance that will quite possibly lead to reposession or similar legal repercussions. Same difference really. In answer to your question, RSSSF perhaps? —WFC— 13:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Football at the 2011 Pan American Games - Men's team squads

Football at the 2011 Pan American Games - Men's team squads -- It is my understanding all teams have submitted their squads. Is anyone working on this squad list? if so, perhaps we can collaborate --ChaChaFut (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD and make it, and in time people will help & improve. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 17:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this tournament for full teams, or is it age restricted like the Olympics. If the latter, I think I would be against the posting of squad templates, as participation is not a guarantee that players are even notable. Kevin McE (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the 2011 edition, but in 2007 the official tournament limit was set at under-20, while some nations (big South American teams) sent their under-17 teams. The US, ever the diplomat, sent their under-18 squad. GiantSnowman 20:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

On further inspection, 2011 is set at under-22. GiantSnowman 20:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

the enciclopedia del calcio site, the archive about historical Serie A players

old site, enciclopediadelcalcio.com, today is no more available, you must change it with enciclopediadelcalcio.it :).. 93.56.46.106 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Christian Nade

 Fixed

The info box in this wiki has Nade having scored 18 league goals for Heart of Midlothian. In fact, he scored eight, which is reflected (accurately) in the stat box in the same article. Also soccerbase: http://www.soccerbase.com/players/search.sd?search=christian+nade&type=player which takes its UK statistics from the Press Association and, additionally, the London Hearts site: http://www.londonhearts.com/scores/players/nadechristiansc.html and so on and so forth. Article protected. Error needs fixed. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jmorrison230582 - --82.41.20.82 (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Opinions on discussion over several lists

There's a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fenerbahce S.K. foreign players whether to keep or delete several lists of foreign players. Please have your say there if you want. Thanks, BaboneCar (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

FACEBOOK/TWITTER

I think last time i brought this discussion forth, the conclusion was that these links were not relevant in sportspeople (and why should they be?), and the official website - in case the athlete had one - was more than enough. Am i mistaken or oblivious?

Could you please refresh my memory as to what relevance do these sources have, lest i once again am chided for wrongdoing? Attentively --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Social networking websites are certainly not reliable sources, and their use in sport articles has been, I dare to say, decorative. Nothing can be sourced by them, and the only possible place for them can be in the External links kind of sections. But even there I guess there is no place for them... or is there? Personally, I´ve been leaving undeleted Facebook pages for some minor clubs without an official website, so Facebook club pages have been on certain ocasions providing some copies of old club websites, or info of that type, but as they cannot be considered a source they are still useless. Beside social websites, I´ve been founding here and there a YouTube videos in players articles. I guess all WP principles guide us for removing them, right? FkpCascais (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's editorial discretion. If a particular Facebook page has content which is actually useful (say, descriptive content on a player not available elsewhere) then it may be worth including (so long as it's the player's official page). We needn't include Facebook pages for everyone who has them of course. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that I wouldn't like to see these things as a matter of course. If, however, a sportsperson's use of twitter has been covered in third party sources ie it is in and of itself relevant to the person's biography, then it could (should?) be included. For example, an article like Joey Barton could perhaps benefit from a link. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's easily found through the ref and google. And its not relevant to his bibliography. -Koppapa (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think it is pretty relevant in Barton's case due to the significant media coverage of his Twitter feed (not to mention the real-life impact it's had). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK adding Facebook and Twitter links to the external links section contradicts WP:ELNO #10, so I don't think that there is a place for them there. --Jaellee (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

From what I've just read of it, the official Twitter account of a footballer who is particularly well known for using Twitter would not violate WP:ELNO. That said, the only British players that strike me as unquestionably fitting into that category are Barton, Robbie Savage and Rio Ferdinand. Even if I have misread, an IAR case could probably be made for those three. —WFC— 17:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say a footballer's use of Twitter would have had to have been covered by reliable, third party sources to justify inclusion. Barton would count, as would Nathan Ecclestone. GiantSnowman 17:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The article itself should discuss the individual's use of Twitter, and have the sources you describe to justify such a prominent mention. I can verify in reliable sources (in four or five cases from the BBC) that most current and recent Watford players use Twitter, but that in itself doesn't mean we should be linking to them or even mentioning Twitter at all. —WFC— 17:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. --Jaellee (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELNO specifically says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject", so I don't see the problem in linking to any athlete's official FB or Twitter page. Powers ^T 17:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

But it specifically defines an official link as follows:

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

As I had expected before reading WP:ELNO, it's only considered appropriate to link to Twitter where the player's usage of it is considered notable, for instance with the players I have mentioned above. —WFC— 21:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What about if something can be sourced from Twitter. With Joe Ledley he talks about his daughter and wife on Twitter sometimes, if I could use his twitter page as a source then I could expand more on his personal life section as the only source I have found for that, so far, doesn't go into much detail. Adam4267 (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If that is the only source, then a) it doesn't appear to have notability and shouldn't be included in the article, and b) fails WP:V by failing WP:RS as a self published source. WP is an encyclopaedia not a gossip rag and generally speaking what Joe Ledley or anyone else says about their wife is not particularly encyclopaedic. --ClubOranje^T 07:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. This is a textbook example of how not to use primary sources (to extrapolate general themes from primary content). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

But what if the Tweet is from the emergency ward indicating that the medical condition is actually a broken bone or the like? Eventually a press release from player's club would be made and other sources would be available, but in the short-term, that may be the best source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

S/he's not going to tweet that he has died. Clubs are generally pretty sharp with non-fatal news. —WFC— 13:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I just meant his daughter's name. There is one source about his child being born and him having to pull out of the Wales squad, but it does not mention his daughter's name. He mentions his daughter's name on Twitter. So that's what I would've sourced. Adam4267 (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Offside

Seems a stupid rule to this ignorant American, that you have to wait for the other team to get in a defensive position to proceed. It's like waiting until the enemy general moves up his reserves and entrenches before you attack. The entry on this subject itself cannot be edited even in "Discussion." (Horrors! peasants criticizing the world's most popular game!!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.133.45 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You think "soccerball" is bad? In rugby, offside is where the ball is. —WFC— 21:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The IP makes such a convincing argument, so I think we should scrap it all together. 24/7 goal-hanging FTW. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You need rules for sports. If basketball didn't have so many rules then a team would simply score, win back the ball and then hold on to it for the rest of the match. If American football didn't have offside then you would just put Yao Ming one yard outside the touchdown line and throw the ball at him. Another words, strict rules are created so that a game becomes a spectator sport, something worth watching. Anyway, you need to find credible sources criticizing something before you add criticism sections.--EchetusXe 23:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, football would be impossible without the offside rule. We would risk to have two groups in front of each goal and the game would basically have no midfield playing at all. It reminds me of the first tactics, the 1-1-8 or 1-2-7 kind... FkpCascais (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ice Hockey has offside rules as well, but they don't involve the position of the defending players. And for the record, I believe they're basketball games not matches. However, let's remember talk pages are not forums. Is anon asking for an article to be unprotected? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article on Offside (association football) certainly isn't protected, so there's no reason why the IP should not be able to edit it or its talk page.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Problematic user

Hi all. I'm not a football expert, and can't easily judge the contributions by Bad good dragosh98 (talk · contribs). Complaints have reached me, however, but a couple of ANI threads (by User:Alexynho for instance) have gone nowhere. Many of dragosh's creations go to AfD immediately, but I can't judge notability in Liga II Romanian soccer well enough to judge if any of their new articles are speediable or not. Your eyes are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Romanian Liga II is fully proffesional which under current notability guidlines is what is required for players who have played in that league to have an article, obviously if the player has played in another league then they may be notable if that league meets the guidlines. From what I can see, this user is creating large numbers of poorly sourced, non-notable, infobox-only, stubs. Despite repeated warnings to stop he will not participate in discussion or cease his actions. In all likeliyhood he will keep creating these articles until someone makes him stop. He does not seem to have recieved a warning stating bluntly; STOP THIS OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED. Although it appears, from his user page, edits and lack of communication, as if he has limited or no English. So warning him in Romanian and English may be neccessary. Adam4267 (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

By now, I agree--but for a block there will need to be a consensus; I can't do this by myself since I'm a bit too involved now. If more editors weigh in here I can take that to ANI, maybe. So thanks for your response, and we'll let it ride here a little bit and see if others agree with you. (Please note I didn't notify any individual users who are involved since I don't wish to be accused of canvassing, but I will leave a note for Dragosh). Drmies (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• User:Zupfk (has also a sock called User:Schweinee) and User:Cyperuspapyrus - highly aggressive both, both blocked (as the sock), only Romanian users i have come across thus far. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Adam on this. It seems pretty obvious that his English is pretty limited. My suggestion would be to give him a final warning in both Romanian and English, and then block if the disruption persist. Of course, if Vasco's accusations of sock puppetry are true (I haven't look into this yet), there may be grounds to block him immediately. As for speedy deletion of articles, I'm not entirely sure where the bar for A7 is for football articles either, but the fact that previous speedy nomminations were declined suggests that his creations do have a reasonable claim to importance, even if they are not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Excuse me, Sputnik, i did not accuse the user mentioned first of sockpuppetry, i merely mentioned two other users which hailed from that nation, where one was a sock (ZUPFK - SCHWEINEE). The connection with DRAGOSH, if any, has to be with that account, as both write ZERO summaries, and their English skills are close to none. CYPERUS did write some summaries and his English was acceptable, but he was as belligerant as the other guy who got blocked (ZUPFK).

Sorry if i created a misunderstanding. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, Vasco. I have left a messeage at WT:WikiProject Romania to enlist the help of a Romanian speaking editor in this matter. Hopefully, this will allow us to finally get through to him. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sputnik, I've just reverted a bunch of their edits (removing AfD templates for that group AfD of yours) and have given them a final warning. Please keep an eye out, and do not hesitate to report at AIV. They also removed a whole bunch of PRODs, which is allowed, but gave no explanation. Perhaps those are eligible for that same AfD. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Drmies. Just FYI, I've started WP:ANI about this user. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about notability in Norwegian football.

Hi there.

I'm fairly new to wikipedia, so I haven't really got a hand on what is notable and what is not notable. My questions is related to Norwegian football, directly or indirectly, because that is what I mostly edit.

• Referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football. For referees, does this include international friendly matches, and Europa league qualification matches?
• I've read somewhere that clubs that have participated in the national cup are notable, but in the case of Norwegian football does that include qualification matches? (Top 3 tier clubs join First Round of the Norwegian Football Cup, while tier 4 club play qualification.) Have seen a lot of articles about English clubs that have never taken part of The FA Cup, allthough they have been eliminated in the qualification.
• My last question is what makes a league notable. And if a league is notable, should there be a season-article for every season played? There is an article about Norwegian Third Division (tier 4), but the large national newspapers does not include the league tables of these. Same goes for Norwegian First Division (women) (second tier for women). Are they even notable?

I want to improve articles about Norwegian football, but I don't want to waste my time editing none-notable articles that will be nominated for deleting, so I'll be waiting for some good answers. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In order:

1. "Senior international competition" includes both officially sanctioned international friendlies (most international friendlies are officially sanctioned) and Europa League qualifying matches ("qualifying rounds" are still part of the tournament; it's just a matter of labelling).
2. Again, yes. The qualifying rounds are still part of the tournament.
3. Significant non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. It doesn't really matter what the article is on so long as it has them; conversely, lack of them means we shouldn't assume that a subject is notable. We have no additional documentation to serve as a guideline to presumed notability for that topic, so it's back to relying on the GNG.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Billy Balmer

A bit of confusion over this chap's date of birth - englandfootballonline.com says 1875, while both englandstats.com and evertonfc.com confirm 1877. Any help? GiantSnowman 20:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

On their home page, www.englandfootball.com say "We are currently working on the biographies of the individual players and have found huge discrepancies. . . these will be posted in due course. . . So far we have found the correct following players:- Billy Balmer, . . . These are contrary to the popular media sites and publications. We are confident in our findings." so I guess it's a question of which source is the more reliable. Whichever, a note should be put on the Balmer's talk page about this difference. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would lean towards englandfootballonline, given that they have (a) acknowledged that other sources say something else, and (b) have stated why they have come to the conclusion they have, stating the sources they have used to come to that conclusion. But as you say, whichever date we settle on we should have a note. —WFC— 22:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Antiblog "law" in Italy

we are back right now, if you need something about football (or other) from it.wikipedia take it right now, in Italy we ignore what it can happen, the strike can also return.. 93.56.24.69 (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

East Timor football

Would someone take care East Timorese footballer? Seems all of them lack of source and some purely are hoax. For example, Raul Isac is a real internationals but no source for his "career". Matthew_hk tc 01:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

How about expanding Super Liga Timorense before the players? -Koppapa (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems it replaced by Taça Digicel, but the blog may be unreliable. Off-topic, User:Andy4190 seems create hoax international fixture with hoax club (Fast Sao Paulo). Matthew_hk tc 08:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

From the Taca DIgicel article it looks at that is the new top league, but Timorense_football_league_system seems to make no sense then. Strange that not even Fifa has national league section on Timor Leste. -Koppapa (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the league system as it was most definatively wrong. -Koppapa (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationality flag

Newcastle United player Mehdi Abeid is a former France youth international. However, he's agreed to switch allegiances and represent Algeria in international competition, starting with the U23's. He's been called up to the team for a training camp starting this week. My question is, when do I change his flag/FIFA nationality from France to Algeria? Now that he's agreed to make the switch? When he arrives in camp? When he makes his debut? Any help would be appreciated. TonyStarks (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Similar situation with Alex Bruce who has switch allegiances from the Republic of Irealnd to Northern Ireland (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 09:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC))

Thanks .. looks like it is the same exact situation for the two players. Does he have any caps for Northern Ireland? His flag on the Leeds United page is listed as Northern Ireland even though his infobox and N-F-T profile does not list any caps for Northern Ireland. TonyStarks (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't got a cap for Northern Ireland yet & he wasn't selected in Northern Ireland's squad for the upcoming qualifiers. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 10:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC))

We don't flag players until they've been capped. If a player has been capped for two countries he gets two caps flags (d'oh). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If I understood your message, his flag remains the same until he makes his official debut for the second country? Also, you said, "If a player has been capped for two countries he two caps" .. what does that mean exactly? TonyStarks (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

First question yes. Second sentence should read he gets two flags i believe. -Koppapa (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No you don't get two flags, just the flag of the most recent country represented. I'm talking about the Current Squad section of clubs. TonyStarks (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I was aware we had a consensus that players with dual national representations got two flags. It'd be daft to leave a Hungarian flag off of references to Ferenc Puskas, for instance, given that he's the most famous player in Hungarian history. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Current Squad section of a team, the parameter only allows one flag, I think some of you are misunderstanding what I'm talking about .. and anyways, cases like Puskas don't exist anymore. TonyStarks (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a limitation in the template, then. We should get that fixed. As for examples, I think this very conversation indicates that there are still contemporary players who might be associated with more than one national team. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is possible to change allegiances even after playing in a full international (eg Jermaine Jones). Hack (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@Chris: No it is not a limitation. A player can only be associated to one national association. For example, a number of Algerian internationals were former France youth internationals but they are now considered Algerian internationals. Previously, they would have been listed with the French flag, but once they made the switch they became represented with the Algerian flag. Using Hack's example of Jermaine Jones, he was German until he decided to switch allegiance and represent the United States, and then he became American. Remember, we are talking about their current FIFA nationality, which is different from their general citizenship/nationality. We had a similar discussion a couple of months ago with regards to this and a user, can't remember who, provided good guidelines on how to deal with it. Anyways, I think some of you are missing the point of this discussion and veering off into another topic. TonyStarks (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of players are not associated with any national association, and FIFA has no knowledge of their existence, yet alone interest in their nationalityand FIFA definitely do not have rules that uniquely define their national team. As has been shown by countless conversations here, the header, and oversimplification of nationality, it that template renders it unfit for purpose. Kevin McE (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, this is definitely on-topic. We use flags to indicate more than just what team a player is currently registered to. The most important thing in MOS:FLAG is "don't be misleading", and if a player has a notable association with more than one football association we absolutely should be showing more than one flag. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

A table format would allow us to show two nationalities... —WFC— 17:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry Chris, but I do agree with Tony here, specially because the player has represented (in past) France, but he currently represents Algeria, so in my view only Algerian flag makes sense to be displayed, and who ever wants to know which countries he represented in past, he can go and see in the article. The issue is that the squad sections represente the current situation of the players, not all historical data...

The point is that it is a fact that he has represented France, it is a reported ambition that he might represent Algeria. He has not, and possibly never will, represent Algeria. Established fact trumps ambition in an encyclopaedic sense every time. Whether we ought to try to be so cut and dried on a situation that is obviously more complicated than that is a different question... Kevin McE (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, of course, I apologise, my comment was donne in a sense that a player already played for Algeria... For this specific case, for time being a French flag should be used as that was the last NT he actually represented... If he come to make an appereance with Algeria, then I stand for a replacement of the French flag by an Algerian... With regard to the usage of 2 (or more) flags in club squad templates, I think it would complicate too much things. I beleave we had agreed what a football nationality means, and basically all football websites had menaged things without too much problems by listing one preferential flag for each player, and even if they use more flags they allways choose the one which comes first. I think this is not included in the flag related policies, but trouth is that football websites have adopted this practice a long time ago, and it has been working fine. In my view, we have no reason to do differently (NT preferable, if there is no NT then place of birth, passport, etc. but it does have allways a logic). I am affraid some editors would like to see in some near future the flags disapearing, maybe I am wrong, but I don´t think that would be usefull at all, despite knowing all the problems with regard of the related policies, but we can work things out, I hope. FkpCascais (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

At no point have we ever had consensus that the flag represents only the current team. For one, that opens a can of worms when a player retires from international football (of course that's its own sticking point): if we allow for "historical" use of dual flags for cases like Puskas, when do we switch players to use them? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

General practise is based on the what could charitably be described as the limitations of the most common template that uses them. But even then, there is no clear line as to when we stop using one flag and start using another. —WFC— 12:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. In that case, what needs to be done to implement dual flags here? I'm happy to actually do the template coding. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

While it is conceivable that a tweak of the current template where some players have one flag and some have two might look tolerable, if there is any chance of a third flag it would definitely look hideous. I would therefore seriously consider starting from scratch. —WFC— 12:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow the reasoning here. The flags are supposed to show a players FIFA nationality i.e. which country they would represent at international football. A player can/should only ever have one flag at a time, however this can change when their representative nationality changes. As far as I know a player can switch between youth associations as many times as they like. While they may only switch national association once as long as they meet relevant criteria. If a player has not represented any country then the flag should be their country of birth even if they could conceivably play for another country. With a few very rare exceptions, i.e. Tom Hateley. Also in response to WFC there are some players who would need 3 or more flags, like Ikechi Anya and Thiago Alcântara. What would be done with them? Adam4267 (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The "country of birth" flags are anomalous and are really breaching the basic flag guidelines. So far as I know, the consensus for the "representative" flags is that they demonstrate that a player has been capped for the country in question (or in some edge cases, otherwise indelibly registered to them, such as hitherto-uncapped players having a place in the squad during the World Cup). In cases where a player may have been capped for more than one country (the usual U-21s situation, or pathological ones like Puskas) consensus would seem to suggest that we use two (or even more) flags. To do otherwise would inevitably result in inconsistencies between articles and be misleading. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Like Adam, I don't follow your reasoning at all .. and long story short, I really don't see any problem with the current system. You'll get the odd player who is in between switching countries, like I the one I originally alluded to, but for 99% of players it's very straight forward. A non-issue for me really. TonyStarks (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes for the vast majority of players one flag correctly sums up their nationality. However, there are some where this is not the case. This does not matter though because the rule is to use their FIFA (representative nationality). There is a very minute number of players to whom in some way this rule does not work for. But in these cases I think a solution can be easily worked out by us and there is no reason to get rid of this rule because less than 0.1% of players in some way cannot be covered by it. Adam4267 (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, this fallacy that there is such a thing as a FIFA representative nationality for the vast majority of players. There is no such thing: FIFA does not define which of several potential nationalities is the default, and has no interest in the vast majority of players who have never come within a metaphorical mile of consideration for a national squad. Kevin McE (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I never actually said that, but anyway if a player has never represented a national team then their country of birth is used for the flag. Adam4267 (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see why the correct solution for the tiny minority of players this is the case for is not to accurately flag the player for both teams. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In the cases of historical players who have represented more than one team in competitive football that probably is the best thing to do. Adam4267 (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That 0.1% figure is the vaguest of estimates, and is a reprehensible under-estimate. The particular team that I follow has, among its 29 man squad, a London-born player who has represented Ghana, a Kentish born Welsh U-21, an Argentinian player who did not need a permit as he has a Spanish passport, and a player nominally eligible for England, Jamaica and Nigeria. So that is 13.8% of the squad for whom one flag is over-simplification of reality, without even raising the potential eligibility for Caribbean nations of at least three further members of the squad. And that is in the not very cosmopolitan fourth tier of the English pyramid. I would defy you to find any professional club in the UK that does not have 3 players for whom a single flag tells the whole story of their identity. 10% is, I would venture, far closer to a realistic estimate. Kevin McE (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you have again misunderstood what I am saying. For each of these players one flag can correctly sum up their FIFA nationality. 1. Ghana 2. Wales 3. Argentina 4. Wherever he was born. These players would come under the second category I stated the rule is to use their FIFA (representative nationality) The 0.1% of players I referred to is the likes of Puskas and di Stefano who played before this rule was in place and this rule cannot be retrospectively applied to them. One current example I can think of is Tom Hateley, born in Monaco, when I raised this a while ago the consensus was to use an English flag because that's what sources had him listed as. Again I will reiterate the current rule; The players flag should be their FIFA (representative nationality). If they do not have one then their country of birth should be used. While there are numerous possible scenarios whereby a player does not fall under either of these criteria, only a minute (0.1% as a guess) number of players actually do not fall under the criteria and they can be assessed on a case by case basis. Adam4267 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

But there was a time, when his call-up for Ghana was proposed but he had not yet appeared on the pitch, when the nationality on Wiki of Jo Kuffour would have been a matter of dispute (as for the Dutch/Turkish/Armenian below), likewise for Adam Birchall before he actually entered the field of play against Finland U21s. For neither these two, nor for Dennis Oli and Paulo Gazzaniga is it true to say that "one flag correctly sums up their nationality". You can say (as you did) that a "vast majority" can be adequately, honestly and uncontroversially represented by one flag, in as much as this number is way more than 50%, but those for whom it does a disservice and is a misrepresentation is by no means negligible: I hold by my rough estimate of 10%. Kevin McE (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, I'm sure I remember Araz Özbiliz being subjected to vandalism not long ago. He is listed as Armenian on the Ajax page and Armenian-Dutch on his page this, of course, is unreferenced so I have reverted. Adam4267 (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Araz was called up to Armenia's squad for the qualifiers this weekend. He actually just arrived in Armenia today for the two games, see link here [2]. Having never played for the Netherlands, I think it's safe to list him as Armenian. TonyStarks (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

He has not played representative football, so our policy (for what its worth), dictates place of birth: he's Turkish. Kevin McE (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's cases like this where a bit of common sense goes a long way (and Kevin this isn't an attack against you or anything, you're just applying our "policy"). While it's true that he has not played any international football, he has indicated that he wants to play for Armenia, he's been called up to the Armenian team and he's accepted the call-up and travelled there for the upcoming qualifiers. I think listing his flag as Armenia would be the most logical thing to do. Also, his Ajax profile says he's Dutch and Armenian, not sure he even has Turkish citizenship, so I don't think place of birth can be applied for everynoe. TonyStarks (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't read Russian, but the source on his article says that he is not fit for the two forthcoming matches. Will he be selected again? Will he take advantage of his freedom to accept an offer to play for Netherlands or Turkey? It is WP:CRYSTAL to assume that he will ever play for Armenia. According to the talk page, he stated in January in a TV interview "I am Turkish. I'm a fan of AFC Ajax and Galatasaray SK. I have not decided about national team issue. I can join to Dutch or Turkish national team."Kevin McE (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In order for a player to change their nationality they have to actually write to FIFA and request a nationality change. It is clear that in this case Ozbiliz has done so. Adam4267 (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That presumes that FIFA had any opinion as to what his nationality was before. FIFA has no position on whether he is Dutch, Turkish or Armenian at the moment. This seems to be a prime case of the assumption throughout this thread of some default "FIFA nationality" that just does not exist. Kevin McE (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So we're ruling out English then? —WFC— 20:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually read the FIFA's rules relating to this? I think you misunderstand how the process actually works. To become an Armenian player, he actually had to apply to FIFA for a nationality change, this means that the second this application was approved by FIFA he became eligible to play for Armenia. Adam4267 (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you got a link for the FIFA rules you refer to? Eldumpo (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

3. Any Player who has the right to change Associations in accordance with par. 1 and 2 above shall submit a written, substantiated request to the FIFA general secretariat. (page 68) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

But if FIFA do not have any record of you representing another team previously, there is no change. For the umpteenth time, FIFA do not have a default assumption of nationality for the vast majority of players who have never played internationally. Ozbiliz had not committed himself to any nation by playing for them, so he doesn't have to seek FIFA's permission to play for Armenia: there is no change involved. Kevin McE (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Kevin your right in saying Ozbiliz doesn't have to seek special dispensation from Fifa to play for Armenia as he hasn't committed himself to any nation. However what I think Adam was trying to say was Fifa still do have verify player's eligibility to play for country in which they were not born until said paperwork is returned the player is unable to play for country. Now can we address Alex Bruce's case he was born in England, but has represented the Republic of Ireland senior side on two occasions & under existing Fifa eligibility rules he can change his allegiance to Northern Ireland as the Matches he played in for the Republic were only friendlies. Northern Ireland have confirmed they have had permission approved by Fifa to play for them. However at as time Bruce is yet to play for Northern Ireland but is represented in Leeds United article with a Northern Ireland flag. Should the flag be changed back to a Republic of Ireland until he plays for the Northern Ireland? (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 13:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC))

As to the particular re Bruce, I would say that the RoI flag is more appropriate. It is our policy as it currently stands, and even if the IFA have clarified that the clearance has now come through in this case, in parallel situations it is rarely clear cut. FIFA do not, AFAIK, promulgate their decisions in such situations, and so we are left with a mixture of unauthorised leaks, hopes expressed as certainties, and the outcome of an application taken for granted in enthusiastic nationalistic publications. WP:CRYSTAL compels us to err on the side of caution: if Bruce has a sudden loss of form or injury, or a starlet with NI roots emerges, he might never get a NI cap. Kevin McE (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As to the general, while I don't doubt that FIFA confirm eligibility for those named for a national team, or at least have the right to demand proof of eligibility if it is questioned, they do not have any interest in the nationality of those players not of interest to the national selectors. Which means that the header on our squad lists is nonsense. Kevin McE (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Alex Bruce I think he should have a N.Irish flag because he is now eligible to play for N.Ireland and no other country AFAIK he can now not ever change his nationality again so will never be able to represent the Republic again. In the strictest interpretation of our rules he is now N.Irish, however if other editors feel that he should have the RoI flag until he makes an appearance then there is nothing wrong with that. Personally, though I feel a players flag should be changed once they have changed their nationality. Adam4267 (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Are we certain that he can play for no other country? Although he has permission to play for NI, has his right to play for RoI been irrevocably lost before he actually does appear for NI? The FIFA documentation is not specific on the matter. Kevin McE (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from the relevant regulation

"If a Player has more than one nationality, or if a Player acquires a new nationality, or if a Player is eligible to play for several representative teams due to nationality, he may, only once, request to change the Association for which he is eligible to play international matches to the Association of another country of which he holds nationality," The entire rules can be read here p11-12

Here is another excerpt from the same source (Daniel Kearns court case) which specifies how the change works

"8. On 11 August 2009, Mr Kearns filed an application before FIFA for a change of association team, from the IFA to the FAI. On 2 November 2009, he confirmed to FIFA his request, acknowledging the fact that such a change would be irreversible.

9. On 3 November 2009 and in compliance with the applicable FIFA regulations, the FAI submitted a formal request to FIFA for Mr Kearns’ change of association team. It fulfilled all the administrative requirements at the latest by 21 December 2009.

10. On 4 February 2010, the Single Judge of the FIFA Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Single Judge”) accepted the request made by the FAI and by Mr Kearns for the change of association team." Adam4267 (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but that does not seem totally explicit as to whether that means that Kearns could then play for RoI, (and thereafter no other team, no question about that), or whether he thereafter could only play for RoI, and no other team for which he had previously appeared (i.e. NI) Kevin McE (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(re Alex Bruce) Indeed, maybe you and/or Duckisjammy have a source more up to date than the 1 July BBC article cited on the player's page, but that only says that he has decided to change, that it was "subject to getting Fifa clearance". Perhaps if you have something confirming that the situation has moved on, you would post it to his article. Kevin McE (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about that one TBH. I think I remember reading somewhere that you change youth associations as many times as you like. But I know that you can only change senior association once. So Alex Bruce definitely cannot change again. It is possible that Kearns could but I am not certain on that one. Either way the flag should be kept up to date with players (without senior caps) who chage associations and the change should be made when the player is eligible to play for that country, not when he has played for them. However in the case of players with senior caps I'm not sure when the change should be made. Once they are eligible for the new country they can no longer change again. However, they are still an international for their previous country so a case could be made for either changing the flag when they are eligible or when they have appeared. I am personally in favour of the first option. Adam4267 (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Arghh: we've been here several times in this conversation already; "players (without senior caps) who chage associations" is a meaningless statement. There is no change if there is no previous representative history. And as I have said, we do not seem to have clarity about whether Bruce could, if he were to change his mind back, resume playing for RoI and ignore the permission he has (apparently, but uncited) been given to appear for NI. And this still casts no light on the c10% for whom one flag is not a fair description. Kevin McE (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is no change then why do they have to write to FIFA and request a change. Why does it even matter if we have clarity on that. Once it is announced that he is eligible to play for N.I. then he is, if it has not been announced yet then he is still a RoI player and possibly could rescind his application. I'm still not sure on who comes under this supposed 10% of people. The only people I can think of who cannot be represented by this flag are; people born on non-FIFA territories and who don't have another nationality or who can represent several different nationalities but have not chosen which one, or people who have, historically, competitively represented two different nations. These are very rare exceptions to the rule. Adam4267 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this clears up the Alex Bruce case Once the Player has filed his request, he is not eligible to play for any representative team until his request has been processed. So he cannot currently represent anyone (so an RoI flag should remain as that was his previous association). Once his request has been processed he will be an N.I. player and then the flag change can take place. Adam4267 (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"If there is no change then why do they have to write to FIFA and request a change" I don't want to accuse you of not following the discussion, but you are the only one suggesting that they (players who have not played for an international team already) do have to write to FIFA. There is no evidence at all that they should. The 10% are those for whom there is not one single nation that they would be eligible to represent, and FIFA has no default position on which of those is to be considered the player's nationality. Kevin McE (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Late section break

There's been some good posts made here, including quotes and refs. Perhaps it would be useful to create a Association football nationality article where some of the details should go? I agree with Kevin that the intro that goes before the current squad sections needs amending. Anyone want to start a separate thread to discuss that? Eldumpo (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I had a look at the note again Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality. Maybe changing the phrase national team to nationality coould be useful. I think that may have been what Kevin was getting at? Adam4267 (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That goes a tiny proportion of the way to making it meaningful, I'm afraid. FIFA does not define people's nationality in any way that identifies only one country. There is no such thing as a "non-FIFA nationality" I have been party to at least 4 discussions at changing the header, no-one has ever tried to defend the current phrasing, but no alternative header has been formulated, and conversation fizzles out unresol... Kevin McE (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is perfectly fine, with the possible change of "national team" to "nationality". Although I'm not certain on that. There is such a thing as a "non-FIFA nationality" (any country that is not a member of FIFA) but this could be changed to '"player may hold citezinship to more than one country" or something like that. I agree that the second sentece is technically wrong although most people can work out the meaning of it. However, I think the first sentence is fine. I do not understand this, though FIFA does not define people's nationality in any way that identifies only one country. Adam4267 (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What about something like "Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality. In other cases flags indicate nationality" Yes, there is a lot of people being eligible for more national teams, but until they play for any of them, we should "flag" them after nationality. Mentoz86 (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to what you do not understand in FIFA does not define people's nationality in any way that identifies only one country. Take Dennis Oli, as he has been mentioned already. He has never been near an international squad, and never will be. He was born in England, his father in Nigeria, and his mother in Jamaica. He was/is eligible to be called up for any one of those three. FIFA has no opinion as to which of the three ought to be his first choice, or which one they will allow him to represent without any need to prove qualification. He does not need to write to FIFA to get the right to be selected by any of them. We might have a convention as to which of those flags we show, but that convention is in no way describable as having anything to do with FIFA's eligibility rules. I'd love to meet the half Northern Cypriot, half Western Saharan players that Mentoz envisages, but I am absolutely confident that that was not the intention of the phrase as composed. Kevin McE (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am really sad I was not present this last couple of days to participate in this discussion where I have plenty of interess. Going a bit back, I think no one mentioned that we have 2 different situations for the use of flags:

• 1-Current squad template
• 2-Historical lists (of type Former players and such)

So, the case of Puskas really is not a case of current squad, and I obviously agree in using all flags a player represented internationally, when listing them on the "Former players" lists, although there could be the option of listing them under the flag the player represented while playing in that specific club, but anyway, because of consistency, we can use all.

Now, seems to me that the question and divergences are basically for the Current squad teamplate. I agree with the users who prefer to keep things simple and try to follow some rule of:

• 1-NT´s player has played for.
• 2-Place of birth, having obviously in mind the cases of players born somewhere "accidentaly" but have no strong links with their place of birth.

Even with the NT situation, I agree we don´t change the flag until the player doesn´t make an actual appereance, but including the change of flag for cases a player has not made an appearence but has been part of the NT squad in some major tournament. Does this make sence? What else beside the wording for the squad template are we still in need of discussing?

PS: I changed the proposed article naming from Football nationality to Association football nationality in Eldumpo´s first post in this section. OK? FkpCascais (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

List of association football clubs with multiple consecutive promotions or relegations

I've started this list out of curiosity, it is located here. Not sure if it will ever get of the ground but if anybody knows of a club that falls within the criteria (3 or more consecutive promotions or relegations), please feel free to add! Thanks, Calistemon (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I have added a couple of Scottish examples off the top of my head. The colloquial term for this kind of team is "yo-yo club". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Gretna doesn't quite qualify for the third category. It's for true yo-yo teams like Aris Limassol, who went down one season, up the next, down again and so on until this was repeated 10 times! I will create a different section for the second Gretna example. Calistemon (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this a notable article or a bit of original research/trivia/? 'To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented'. Why not improve the frankly crap Yo-yo club article with prose, and then add (say) a top five as part of that article? --Pretty Green (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Does not seem notable to me. There might be thousands of clubs qualifying. Where money is, there are promotions. -Koppapa (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as its sourced i think its a good idea. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well not in its current form. A team amking the list by achieving 3 promotions from tier 10 to 7 or so? A village club with 500 people near made achieved that years ago. "Third consecutive football promotion" ("dritter aufstieg in folge" fußball) gives 10,000 google hits in Germany allone. If that's gonna be an article it either needs more promotions to make the list or should be changed to last promotion is at least to the second level league. -Koppapa (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understad your point here. The size of the village that the club is in doesn't relate even remotely to this. As far as I know German football is structured the same way as English football. So I don't see why it shouldn't be included if they go from tier 10 to 7. I think this article is a good idea and I'm sure AFC Wimbledon have achieved this. Adam4267 (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Because it is nothing special. -Koppapa (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is 3 consecutive promotions not special? Adam4267 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Because hundreds of teams have done that. The list would be crowded by no-names. -Koppapa (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the article isn't exactly crowded with examples, but then again there aren't any sources for the statement in the lead that doing it is rare. If you really do't like the page then nominate it for deletion, otherwise just ignore it. Adam4267 (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well i just think it is pointless to list three in a row. Some minutes googleing and i added examples for 5, 6 and 7 promotions in a row. Commented out in the code. And yes, the article now claims its a rare feat, which it isnt. -Koppapa (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, your taking it to serious! This is not an article, yet, and its not in the main space. Its a project that I started out of curiousity. If the inclusion criteria of 3 is to low it can easily raised. However, I have not been able to find to many clubs that have done so and can be reliably verified. As to the examples of Koppapa, FSV Frankfurt has not earned six promotions in a row and has never played in the A-Klasse. The club has never played lower then fifth tier, the source is completly wrong. As to the FSV Mainz 05 II example of seven promotions in a row, the source does not say so. If there truely are so many clubs that have won three promotions in a row, please name them and prove it with sources. That is the very point of the project, to find out! At this stage, its just a bit of fun, which is what Wikipedia should be about. If we can get it to article stage, great, if not, well, I enjoyed trying. Calistemon (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As to the example of the google search, yes, dritter aufstieg folge gives lots of results. The first one is the volleyball department of TuS Weiershagen-Forst, followed by golf clubs, eisstock schiessen and junior tennis clubs! Calistemon (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"At this stage, its just a bit of fun, which is what Wikipedia should be about" - I know I sound like a bit of kill-joy when I say this, but that's not what Wikipedia is about at all. Wikipedia is about creating an online encyclopaedia; to that end, it's about ensuring that there is a barrier to what is included so that people can rely on Wikipedia to provide concise and relevant info. I repeat - a much better use of your time would be to improve the yo-yo club article, removing the anecdotal nature of its current format, and include (say) the top ten most 'yo-yoey' examples that you can find as illustrations for this subject. Pretty Green (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to contradict you. If I don't enjoy editing, which sometimes happen, I don't edit. The started the list because I wanted to know what the verifiable records are in regards to the subjects of the list. I started it in my userspace because I knew it would always be borderline original research unless some real good references could be found. If it doesn't get of its feet, which is quite possible, I will just copy it to an excel spread sheet and keep it there and request deletion. But, maybe, enough editors are interessted to make it into something and it can be kept. I remeber the List of goalscoring goalkeepers, it started in a similar way. Its all about having fun when editing, at least to me! Calistemon (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of point in the page, but if it is going to exist you may as well add this lot. —WFC— 15:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Gondomar S.C.

User:Ruizinho18, now as anon, as done it again, after i warned him in his talkpage: he has again written a storyline entirely in Portuguese, also ripe with POV/WEASEL (charmers like "Mas tem também os melhores seguidores, tem um lote de associados verdadeiramente fascinante." or "Vamos todos contribuir para um Gondomar S.C. ainda mais moderno, maior e cada vez mais forte.", which in his - mine also - language is something like "But it also has the best followers, a truly dazzling group of associates" and "Let's all make a more modern, bigger and stronger Gondomar"). I think that no storyline (for teams and/or players) is preferable to this.

I have also messaged the anon address, suggesting politely that he take his work on this club to Portuguese WP, if he has not done it yet (don't known what's the policy on sourced content and POV/WEASEL, but since i don't edit there...). Help please - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have occasionally founded myself in similar situations in Serbian minor club articles, where sometimes IP´s come and add a bunch of weasel sentences of that type which are often found in clubs official site themselfs. You have 2 choises:

• 1- Delete all.
• 2- See if anything from the text may be usefull, translate those parts and remove the rest.

Often the 1st choice has made edit-warring, with the IP´s often insisting in reinserting th text. If I revert them, they sometimes wait a coupple of days and do it again... and again, and again.

The second choice however has prooven to be the more peacefull one, where the IP despite not having his entire article there, feels like he has donne something to improve the article (despite being actually us who did all the work of translating are removing all weasel and POV sentences) and may see how articles should look like and maybe learn a bit, as you give them the exemple. Sometimes can be worth, sometimes, not, you decide. Cheers! FkpCascais (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Phil, happy weekend "meu"! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Curiosity

Can someone enlighten me like i'm a six-year old? Reading this source as i arranged Meho Kodro's article (please see here http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/double-caps.html), i see that some of the players had the following: they played for both Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, with the appearances being intertwined...how on earth is that possible? And who can forget this guy, sky was truly the limit back then...

Thanks folks, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In short, for a period after the Republic of Ireland became independent from the United Kingdom, the (Belfast) Irish Football Association continued to claim jurisdiction over football in the whole of Ireland, rather than just Northern Ireland. Meanwhile, the Football Association of Ireland had been set up in Dublin, and they also claimed jurisdiction. As the IFA were outside FIFA, there was nothing FIFA could do to stop players representing both Ireland and Republic of Ireland. The situation was only cleared up circa 1950, soon after the Home Nations rejoined FIFA. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting never knew that. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Jesús María Pereda

Have spent the last hours improving this person's article (RIP), and now the doubt. After reading what is described in INTERNATIONAL CAREER's last line, does he qualify as a de facto Spanish national team manager?

Thank you in advance, attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• We'll leave it as it is then...--Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Joe Dixon (footballer born 1989)

Just come across this player, his page is in need of a tidy-up. It's a bit awkward as he's played mostly in Romania and on the continent. Can anyone find any reliable sources stating that he actually signed for Fenerbahçe (or any other teams)? I've had a quick scan through, but haven't found much. Thanks guys, --Jimbo^[online] 18:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to suggest he's a hoax. If you put the second ext link into google translate, the comments at the bottom suggest it's a made-up story and he never played for Gloria Buzau. RomanianSoccer.ro, a highly reliable source, has no Dixon in their lists of foreign players playing in Liga I in either 2007/08 or 2008/09. Gloria Buzau weren't in Liga I in 2009/10. There's no Dixon listed among their players for either 2007/08 or 2008/09. If he does exist, then someone's been exaggerating his achievements, because if RomanianSoccer.ro says he never played in Liga I in recent years, then he didn't, and is therefore not notable. The only Dixon listed on the Turkish FF site is the Liberia international Jimmy Dixon. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Also the main contributor Ricardinho10 (talk · contribs) has only ever edited on that page. Adam4267 (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is a hoax, should it not be put up for deletion? Having been created in May 2009, the article has been here long enough. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Just seen this article, which suggests he's in talks with Grays Athletic. It might not be as blatant as you think. --Jimbo^[online] 09:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It might not, but... This page on the Turkish FF site lists all Fenerbahce's contracted players, professional and amateur. There's no Dixon. The Turkish FF site publishes a details page for every player registered for clubs several tiers down their pyramid, and he hasn't got one. Search the Fener website and the only Dixon is the Liberian that plays for Manisaspor. If he had played in the Romanian Liga I, he'd have been the only Englishman playing in that league in recent years (if not ever). I'd be surprised if the English media hadn't picked up on the novelty value of that. If he isn't a hoax/hoaxer/exaggerator of history, the sources certainly make him look like one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair play. I have a feeling that story has come from someone within the club who's been sold a story and the reporter's taken an unsourced Wiki entry as gospel. It is a bit odd, this youngster supposedly attracting attention from a top European club pulls up nothing on Google. --Jimbo^[online] 10:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This page has been recreated three times now ive nominated as a hoax again. However i suspect there may be sock puppetry involved user User:Foartefrumoasa created article then user User:Ricardinho10 recreated and then another new account User:Romanianportal12 edited it. was going to place a sockpuppet investigation but wasn't sure how to do it or if i am correct. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No edinburgh wanderer i was simply adding more infomation to the page from the internet to find more up to date articles regarding the player,that is why i was recreating the article, i can confirm the player does exsist as i follow a lot of foreign players in turkey being a turk who lives in london,Edinburgh wanderer i suggest you look at links from gloria buzau's squad for the 2008 2009 season http://www.fotbalonline.net/club_gloriabuzau.html and also an online evidence that the player was involved in some capacity at fenerbahce, there is also a more recent article about the play i would suggest you let me create an accurate account of this players career or you could do so yourself. I would appreciate that you let me write an accurate account using online sources and my little knowledge of the player himself

Ok first of all article was nominated twice today for deletion twice today as a hoax. I then nominated for the same reason as is a recreation of deleted material that is the only reason i nominated it. If we all assume good faith and agree its not a hoax then article is still not notable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia see Wikipedia:Notability. Your sources also do not confirm he actually made a professional appearance for any of these clubs which would mean he fails NFOOTBALL. You should read both these articles statements. Second thing please do not change other peoples comments in a discussion and sign your comments. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Just ran one of the sources that was just added through google translate player does exist so not a hoax [3] however it was in romanian second division i think it also indicates he was in Fenerbahces second team. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've PRODded it, as he has never played at fully-pro level and there's no mainstream media coverage to suggest he passess the general notability guideline. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Edinburgh wanderer your facts are wrong again as in 2008-2009 his team gloria buzau were in the romanian premier division.they are now in the second division, however this source http://www.fotbalonline.net/club_gloriabuzau.html confirms the player was part of gloria buzau's 31 man squad to take part in romania's premier division in 2008-2009, he also played that year in cup i can confirm. I dont know how much more evidence is needed to retain that this player is a full time professional, even if the player was unregistered at fenerbahce due to injury surely the fact he was involved at a club of that size and his inclusion in a romanian premier division squad is strong enough evidence for him to have a small article, also the fact that there are many many players such as this guy http://en..org/wiki/Joao_Carlos_(footballer) or this player http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Karamoko_K%C3%A9%C3%AFta for example who has never played in a professional league or been involved in any type of professional club but has an article and you are questioning the validity of a player who blatantly has been involved at professional level,especially considering i follow turkish football and i would have no reason to suggest otherwise and it just seems this particular article has been victimised.also one of the sources do suggest he played 5 in liga 1. thanks guys and sorry for any inconvenience caused(ricardinho10)

Please stop interfering with other editors' contributions to this thread.

I see you've removed the proposed deletion notice from the article. That's fine. What I'm going to do now is list it at WP:Articles for deletion, because as far as I can tell, there are no reliable published sources to show the player has played (not just been registered with a club in) a fully professional league. As to the subjects of the articles you mention above: the first has played, albeit only once, in the fully-pro English League Two, and the second is a full Mali international. Thus they both pass the WP:NFOOTY guideline. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok struway but i have seen various articles of no-league players and players who dont have as prestigious history,also the sources online and the fact that he has been mentioned on various occasions would suggest he is a professional player,you have to remember a player in a squad list is surely registered? also players can be signed by clubs without having registration in exceptional circumstances such as injury? at the very least the player would have been on trial shouldn't affiliation with the club warrant an article alone such as youth team players articles http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Berk_Elitez i have seen who also have no evidence of professional appearances, sorry to be a nuisance however i have seen this player play as i say i follow turkish football.thanks guys.

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup Group pages

An anon has changed the positions of many players. Their positions were not referenced and they're not now. Anyone care to review? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean the contributions of 124.244.223.49. They look to me, on brief examination, to be in good faith, and arise from the problem of us trying to provide a level of detail and information that is not really verifiable. I know there were FIFA pdf files, but that providess no more than a football bureaucrat's interpretation of the 11 names that the manager hands over. A player's role can be flexible, and we shouldn't commit ourselves to a form of presenting the data that is so often only a generalisation of his position for part of the game. If we think we can distinguish whether someone is a wing back or a full back, or which of two central midfielders is more likely to be slightly the left of the other, we cannot be surprised if the interpretation of others is different. Kevin McE (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

AM, SS? I can't figure those out, lol. I'd go with only Keeper, Defense, Midfielder and Forward. But i don't care about those things. -Koppapa (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Attacking midfielder, second striker ;) - but I agree, we should keep it as basic as possible - GK, DF, MF, FW. GiantSnowman 11:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

But even these are not necessarily cut and dried: is the first 1 in a 4-4-1-1 system a midfielder or a forward? Who are we to determine whether a flexible line-up is 4-5-1 or 4-3-3, or 5-3-2 or 3-5-2. It changes throughout a match (if the manager is alert), and therefore so do the players' positions even if we keep it as simple as the 4 categories that Snowman suggests. And that is without considering the situation of substitutions whereby players already on the pitch get moved around. Kevin McE (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Snowman and Koopapa i agree with both of you (GK, DF, MF, FW), but Kevin offers an interesting approach, lots of variables out there... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

After i saw what you REALLY meant (the anon's contributions), i think that an interesting point was being made - i thought it was squad sheets, now i see it's MATCH sheets. Definitely good-faith edits, maybe worth keeping for "tactical" purposes (how the given team played that day, at least in what kick-off is concerned). --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Funny? Almost...

This request was accepted but it should have not been so, although it's only fair to say think that the admin that carried out the action is not familiar with the football world (please see here http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects&diff=next&oldid=446005047). In Spanish, "Pito" is slang for this part of the human anatomy, and it was part of the insult addressed by you know who to FC Barcelona's assistant manager Tito Vilanova in the post-match press conference of the 2011 Supercopa de España: "I don't know who PITO Vilanova is".

The anon "user" who requested the action also engaged in serious vandalism in Vilanova's article (see diff here http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Francesc_Vilanova&diff=next&oldid=446003176). I have contacted the admin that made the action. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, my bad User:Baseball Watcher is not an admin... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

RfDed Kevin McE (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Many thanks Kevin! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox assistance

Someone asked my help in adding a "vice-captain" parameter to {{Infobox national football team}}. Before seeking my specific help, the original request was made at Template talk:Infobox national football team#Suggestion but I figured this page may get more traffic. I have little experience with complicated templates and, like the original poster, I wouldn't want to mess it up. Also, as I'm not familiar with vice-captains, I don't know whether the consensus would be that the position is important enough to include in the Infobox. Thanks for looking into this. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

While it may be a notable position sometimes, most teams do not have an official vice-captain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam4267 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with Adam, that many/most national teams don't have a formal vice-captain. I'm actually surprised there's a captain field in that infobox: there isn't in football club infoboxes. The current captain is a fairly recentist piece of information relative to a national team that may have existed for many decades. I'd suggest a vice-captain, even where it can be explicitly sourced to a formal appointment by the federation or coach, isn't anywhere near the sort of basic information that belongs in an infobox. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, just wanted to say that I'm the editor who posted the original suggestion and that I only did so because I was forced to revert this edit, and after doing so I promised the editor who made it that I would look into getting the template adjusted. My personal opinion is that having a vice-captain parameter could be appropriate as some of the most notable national teams either currently have a designated vice-captain (e.g. Spain) or have done in the recent past (e.g. England). Not going to get bent out of shape over it though, appreciate the help of you guys on this project. basalisk (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I bet he couldn't source Emelio Caligdong being Filipino Vice captain. -Koppapa (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Touché…still could be useful in other instances though? Playing devil's advocate I know. basalisk (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Even in cases where the vice-captain were well-sourced it would be trivial. We should endeavour to keep infoboxes as trivia-free as possible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Essam El-Hadary's goal for Al-Ahly

Essam El-Hadary's infobox says that he scored a goal for the team and the fact is backed up by two sources, a video of the goal and an interview in which he talks about it among other things. It's only mentioned in the text once ("...over 500 appearances for the club in which he scored 1 goal.").

Watching the video, I can say that it's clearly not a goal by El-Hadary who took the shot as it came off the post, hit the defending team's keeper and then went in. Without the other shot stopper there wouldn't have a been a goal in the first place. Secondly, even if the goal was awarded to El-Hadary, according to my understanding it happened in African Super Cup against Kaizer Chiefs, so it shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox. [4] [5]

I couldn't find any other videos or articles, but perhaps he did score in the league and it isn't widely known. Could someone who's more knowledged in Egyptian football take a look at it. Cheers.--Lipik (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That was probably his only goal. You are right, it shouldn't be in the infobox. 500 games by the way are also overestimated and includes friendlies and co. 12 years times ~30 games should probably be under 400 league games. It's a nice story that guy has, article could neeed like 50 more references though. Whole biography is full of POV and weasel words. -Koppapa (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the goal was legit. There was nothing the goalkeeper could do, as the ball bounced on him while he was so close to the goal line. In that case, the credit usually goes to the attacker. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 16:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it does - it almost always goes down as an own goal by the keeper, such as Barnsley's first goal in this match which I attended and was directly in line with the goal. Hignett's shot hit the bar, came down and bounced in off Wright's back... Number 57 14:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that, barring perhaps a horrendously sliced pass, the only time a goal is usually considered an o.g. by the keeper is if he has been the only person to touch an indirect free kick before it goes in. There are numerous shots that, if they did not deflect off a defender, would not have gone in, but they are not normally considered own goals. Kevin McE (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This guy scored an own goal when (apparently) trying to throw a pass to a teammate. The video is hilarious. Jogurney (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Help confirming someone played for Leyton Orient in 1980

I was working on Mete Adanır and came across a few references that indicate he signed with Leyton Orient's youth team and then the senior team in 1980 - making four appearances in the third division for the club. I checked Neil Brown's website but couldn't verify that he did play in the third division. Does anyone have books or other resources that could verify this information? Also, if Adanır only played for Leyton Orient's youth team, is it appropriate to add the Leyton Orient F.C. players category to the article? Thank you in advance. Jogurney (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The 81/82 Rothmans annual does not have him listed in the Orient squad pages, and they don't show him playing a League, League Cup or FA Cup match for them in 1980/81. However, Rothmans does not list the player stats for the group stages of the Anglo-Scottish Cup (generally regarded as a notable competition), so not sure if he played in that.

Out of interest, Orient had some well-known names in their squad at that time - John Chiedozie, Mervyn Day, Ralph Coates, Stan Bowles, Peter Taylor.Eldumpo (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Macedonia national football team

I need help. Please. I am trying to organise the squad list at the article, but some users are having difficulties in understanding that WP prefers strict inclusion criteriums, and insist in wording like "notable", or self-imposed 5 players per position rule (without any inclusion criterium but ones own preference). There are some occasional users, however, the one I explained things to him and still insists in doing things his way is User:Maklion19. Just to clear things, he is a dedicated user, and has been doing an excellent job in keeping in order and updated the Macedonian international players articles. However, he is not familiarised with our guidelines, and conrinues doing things in his way despite me explaining him the reasons why. Please see the last thread at Talk:Macedonia_national_football_team and see the recent edits at article history. Could someone PLEASE help me explaining that user that the "Other players section" needs to have a strict inclusion criterium, and that he can´t decide to have 5 (not sure why 5?) players he likes most... FkpCascais (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

List of association football players with 50 or more international goals

How much to trust this list and RSSSF as its source, if Mokhtar Dahari doesn't make the top spot at least? -Koppapa (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Think what it says to me is that the source is careful about what it's counting. RSSSF's list of Malaysia "international" results has many, many games in tournaments where other participants include under-age national teams, B teams, below-strength XIs, and club sides. If Mr Dahari's international appearances include such matches, then any goals scored in them quite correctly wouldn't count as goals scored in "official international football matches". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So is there a way to see how many games and goals Fifa credits to them. -Koppapa (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If there's much truth in the answer to the last question on this ask-the-ESPNStar-pundit page, I'd guess not... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't see anyone rushing to produce the List of Malaysia international footballers!! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

African Football Revisited

As per this discussion, I'm looking to get started on this ASAP. However, I don't want to go through the whole trouble of creating a Task Force (unless of course someone wants to take the lead and do that), I think it can be done quite easily through a talk page with a list of things to do. Anyways, I'll be contacting the users that expressed interest earlier in doing this and hopefully a few more will join as well. My main objective is to at least fix all the articles on the major competitions (Africa Cup of Nations, the 3 continental club competions and the youth championships) so that they adhere to our manual of style. If anyone else is interested please reply. Any input how to proceed would also be appreciated. Thanks. TonyStarks (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to help, but I don't have any special knowledge or resources on African football. Jogurney (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't really need to be an expert on the topic. Most of the pages are missing even the most basic information. For example, for more recent Africa Cup of Nations, there's no details for the qualifiers except for scores (ie. no goal scorers, stadium names, attendance figures, top scorers, etc.). All that information is available on RSSSF.com. Someone just needs to take the time to add it into the article. I'm working on it slowly (doing mostly Algeria's games since its the topic I'm most familiar with) but there's tons of details missing and as you can imagine it would take a long time all by myself. The main thing I'd like to get done is for every edition of the African Cup: to have a main competition page with the proper lay out (Venues, Squads, Qualification subsection with a link to a separate qualifiers page, finals with a link to a separate page for the finals, etc.) and also to have proper categorization for each article/edition. For example, a category for the 2002 ACN that includes the main competition page, the squad page, the qualifiers, the final. TonyStarks (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been populating some of the articles on earlier editions of the tournament with information from RSSSF (and other sources when available). I'm also creating articles for some of the significant players at these tournaments as well. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find comprehensive sources for these editions. Jogurney (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Importance scale football

Hi there. As I've said earlier I'm fairly new to wikipedia and trying to improve articles about Norwegian Football. In Norway, footballers are generally "low-importance" and a few are"mid-importance". But I wonder what it takes to climb the latter on the importance scale: "Players or managers that have participated at international level or in a top-level league." are rated as mid-importance. I guess top-level leagues is easy to sort out (top 4 or 5), but what is considered "international level" ? Is it really just the same criteria as for referees to be notable; having played 1 game in the qualification for Europa League, or does "international level" mean national football teams. Kim André Madsen for instance, have played all his career in a mid-level league (Norwegian Premier League, and got 1 cap for Norway against Czech Republic. Does that make his importance on the importance-scale "mid", since he have participated at international level ? Mentoz86 (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes Madson would be Mid level importance. Adam4267 (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying#Goalscorers

Do people think it's reasonable to list all goalscorers from the qualifying stages. Would it perhaps be better to just the list the Top 10 or 20 (plus ties)? Eldumpo (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As the article's talk page is quite active, I have posted the above query at [6]. If you have any comments to make please post there. Eldumpo (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the problem of listing all the goalscorers .. but that's just me. TonyStarks (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad Lamin Conteh Al-Hidayah

Could an admin please move this article over the redirect Lamin Conteh? The reasoning is fairly self explanatory, and the article was moved to its current name by a user who was seemingly blocked for strange page moves such as this. J Mo 101 (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

2011–12 Leamington F.C. season Problem

I proposed this page for deletion as it does not meet the criteria for a season article, but someone has removed the notice and gave a reason on the talk page. Please could someone help me with this, should it stay or go? Cheers, LiamTaylor 16:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes he is right, there was no consensus for some reason. I said stop at Conference level but others said it was an arbitrary limit.--EchetusXe 17:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What does that mean, I can make a season article for Hyde F.C. with it being safe from deletion.LiamTaylor 18:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Season articles ought be treated like any other article, i.e. notability depends on there being "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" to pass the general notability guideline. I think that's probably where the unwritten bar at Conference level comes from, in that Conference clubs are regularly covered outside their local area, but clubs playing below that level get decent writeups in their local paper but nothing else unless they have a Cup run. There's nothing in that Leamington season page to indicate general notability. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sent to AfD. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that any club that is notable should be able to have a season article but it should be sourced. The sources are all from the clubs own website the only other sources i could find were on soccer-way or on the league website.[7]. So nut much wide coverage. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be connected to the league. Are there historic fist level clubs now playing level 10 football or so? They wouldn't deserve a season's article. -Koppapa (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it an own-goal if a keeper touches a long throw that was on target? Hack (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. You cannot score direct from a throw in, so if a keeper touches the ball they are the one that changed it from not being a goal to being a goal, whether it was on target or not. In the 200x U-17 women's world cup final in New Zealand the North Korean keeper did exactly that and was credited here, and I also saw a video recently of a (Aston Villa?) keeper carelessly let a throw from his own player slip beneath his boot, taking a touch--ClubOranje^T 13:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying seeding

A troublesome editor has been adding some material to UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying and I don't know that it's correct. I have requested that the editor discuss but not only does the editor refuse but the editor also refuses to include any communications in edit summaries. As far as I can see, the additions are pure nonsense:

The seeded teams are Croatia, Portugal, Turkey, and Czech Republic.

The unseeded teams are Republic of Ireland, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Estonia.

We need a content expert. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have calculated the current coefficient from the last UEFA-published coefficient (up to 7 September 2011) and added the last two qualifying matches (up to 11 October 2011) by using the calculation method as explained by UEFA and found the following result:

1. Croatia 33.478 → 32.723
2. Portugal 31.910 → 31.202
3. Republic of Ireland 27.268 → 28.203
4. Czech Republic 28.148 → 27.981
5. Turkey 27.836 → 27.601
6. Bosnia and Herzegovina 27.118 → 27.198

I did not bother to calculate the coefficients for Montenegro and Estonia as they couldn't overtake the top four anyway. Based on the results, I can confirm that the coefficients from world-results.net are correct, but the source still violates WP:OR. The top four teams, Croatia, Portugal, Republic of Ireland and Czech Republic, will be seeded for the playoffs, but UEFA have not announce the seedings. I think there is no harm in leaving the source from world-results.net for awhile until UEFA officially announce the coefficient, which should be before the draw tomorrow. — MT (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to wikipedia discussion, just wondering since all unseeded teams will be the host for the play-off first leg, why Montenegro will be host for the 2nd leg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.254.51 (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The away/home order is no longer given to seeded teams by right, it is drawn when the draw is made. BBC mentions it here. Seeding only guarantees the so called better teams (based on UEFA coefficient) do not meet each other.--ClubOranje^T 13:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup qualification#Goalscorers

Hi I did start and "finish" the list of top goalscorers in 2010 WC qualification counting every confederation, can somebody check it?--Feroang (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That section should have a source. It's very tough to verify. Did at least the top 2 got mentioned in the media? -Koppapa (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

here.--EchetusXe 11:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I did copy-paste the goalscorers tables in each confederation qualification 2010, hope those are right--Feroang (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Lionel Messi - "All in the family"

Anyone fancy a go a this? User:Raulseixas kindly sent this info to me, but his English skills are not enough for him to insert it himself in the article. I would, but i'm afraid i see something in Messi's article i don't like and spend four hours arranging it :) In five years, i have edited there ONCE, and never in Cristiano Ronaldo, Ryan Giggs, etc, to give you an idea.

Story's like this: seems like the Flea and Bojan Krkić are somewhat related, please see this link (here http://www.marca.com/2011/10/12/futbol/equipos/barcelona/1318438343.html), titled "Bojan y Messi son primos de cuarta generación", "Bojan and Messi are fourth cousins" in English. It would look good in a "PERSONAL" section don't you folks agree?

Attentively, thank you very much in advance for your help - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that fourth cousins are pretty distant relations. Bush and Obama are tenth cousins. We are all cousins. Hell, Vasco you might be third cousins with Messi and you'd never find out. Fourth cousins means that one of Messi's 32 great-great-great-grandparents is also one of Bojan's 32 great-great-great-grandparents. I suppose you could add somewhere that your man "Diari Segre discovered that Messi has Catalan roots and is fact distantly related to Barcelona teammate Bojan".--EchetusXe 19:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• I knew my dazzling dribbling skills (always use a napkin!) had not appeared out of the blue, Messi's my cousin! :) --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with EchetusXe - mention it with the reference, but don't make a big deal out of it. I mean, I'm related to this chap, but I don't go bragging about it! GiantSnowman 20:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Kolins and nationality categories

Despite a number of attempts from both Vasco and I, Kolins (talk · contribs) continues to remove valid nationality categories from articles - he holds the belief that Spanish-born players, some of who played for Spain at youth level, but who have represented Equitorial Guinea at full international level, do not deserve to remain in the appropriate 'Spanish footballer' (and related) categories. Thoughts welcome on the matter. GiantSnowman 18:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Spanish footballers could do with some text being added to it explaining the rationale of the category and what the criteria are for inclusion, although I appreciate this point applies to various categories. It would be good to have some clarity though, regarding who is eligible for the category. Eldumpo (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As I understand national categories, if the subject was born and raised in Spain, then the Spanish footballer category is completely appropriate. National categories aren't restricted to the country the player currently represents at international football. If the player appeared for Spain at youth level, then it becomes even more appropriate, if that were possible, but it doesn't matter whether he did or not. Spanish footballer just means footballer born in, a citizen of, or otherwise closely associated with Spain, the same as Spanish any-other-profession. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Bonafide examples: Marcos Senna and Liédson were "only" Brazilian footballers until respectively 30 and 32, shall the BRAZILIAN FOOTBALLERS category go? Kolins thinks it should...The most glaring violation on his part: Julio Álvarez, born in Venezuela to SPANISH parents, has nearly 30 youth caps for Spain (including the U21s), has been considered for senior debut with Venezuela but has not played still, Kolins say "No SPANISH FOOTBALLERS cat", only "VENEZUELAN FOOTBALLERS"! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Kolins has some "allies": for User:Digirami, Fernando Amorebieta is not a Spanish footballer, he who was born of Spanish parents and played for Spain's U19, also being summoned once to the full squad... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• NEWSFLASH: Álvarez played yesterday for Venezuela yes siree, but that means he's both (SPA-VEN) not only VEN, and he's certainly not a "EXPATRIATE FOOTBALLER IN SPAIN", he was "solely" a SPANISH FOOTBALLER from ages 15-30! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I dislike the double-barrel nationality in the lead. It does not actually tell the reader what nationality the player is. Is he Venzualan or is he Spanish, you have to read on to find out. The nationality in the lead should be what country they represent, later on (in personal life section) it can be expanded upon where they were born/why they move away/why they changed allegiances but these are footballers and their nationality should be represented in solely footballing terms. Adam4267 (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• But the lead does tell you the correct information Adam, Julio Álvarez and Fernando Amorebieta are Spanish-Venezuelan, so it's 100% correct. I understand your point though. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when we mention the nationality of a player in prose, we are talking exclusively the nationality for the country they play for at the international level. For Amorebieta, that means he is a Venezuelan footballer, not a Spanish-Venezuelan footballer. Think of it the same way we have it for Guillermo Franco, who was born in Argentina (no doubt to Argentine parents), but is a Mexican footballer because he played for Mexico at the senior international level. For those, who have not played at the international level, then take the primary legal nationality when made clear (99 times out of 100, this works; I know there may be odd cases, but that's a good general rule of thumb).

However, to the initial point at hand, the categories seem to be talking about legal nationality, not just what country they represented at the international level. In that case, you can put someone like Amorebieta in the Spanish and Venezuelan categories, so long as he is just in the Venezuelan Internationals category. Digirami (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If nationality cannot be simply and uncontroversially dealt with in one word (two if he is from New Zealand or similar), then simply don't mention it in the first sentence. What is with this obsession about feeling we nend to put it right at the beginning. There are many other details of far more direct relevance to somebody's football than their nationality. If it is not a simple issue, don't try to over simplify it. Kevin McE (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Mention only the nation the player plays for internationally: The FIFA-recognized nationality. If that can't be done without creating controversy (see Mesut Özil‎ for instance) then don't include it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What Adam and Kevin said. There's no such thing as "Spanish-Venezuelan". Vasco's using it to mean having played for Spain and Venezuela at various levels of international football, but that meaning won't be obvious to the reader, and we shouldn't be asking the reader to guess what we mean. If he's a Venezuela international footballer, then say that clearly in the lead – it isn't essential to use the construct "Fooian footballer", we can say "Fooland international footballer" – and talk about his parents and his early representative career in sourced prose later on.

Thought this thread was supposed to be about categories..... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, i did stray a bit from the original topic. So in intro it's the current nation they play for, but the categories stay no? Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In reference to the topic at hand, I would say yes. The categories such as "X-nationality footballer" would be represent any legal nationality a player held at anyone time (so long as there is proof and is significant). I emphasize the legal aspect because there is another set of categories that are titled "X-nation international footballer" would be for the country (or countries for some players in the past) that any player may have played for; representative nationality. For example, Norberto Araujo, who was was born in Argentina and played with his Argentine nationality for a number of years, but never represented Argentina. After a few years of playing in Ecuador, he changed his legal nationality to Ecuadorian. He has since represented Ecuador in international competition. He has three categories in his article: "Argentine footballer", "Ecuadorian footballer", and "Ecuador international footballer". And yes, he is described as an Ecuadorian footballer. Hope this helps. Digirami (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you've got it spot on Digirami - you can have two (or more!) footballing nationality categories, but only an 'international' category for the nation you have represented. Confusing if you're Ricky Shakes... GiantSnowman 20:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

To be quite honest we're well past the point where these categories should be taken to CfD. There's simply too much ambiguity between nationality and "footballing nationality" (which may not exist, may change during a person's lifetime, and is all-too-frequently simply speculation) for them to be a net positive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Historical kits gallery

Does anyone else think that such example of kits gallery as this is redundant? I mean, I appreciate the passion of producing a lot of kits templates (as long as they are transparent though), but listing 10 yellow/blue kits in a row that only differ slightly in pattern? C'mon. There are more examples: [8]. (Actually there were even more examples, but a lot of them are fixed by now. I'm just interested in your opinion).-NineInchRuiner (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Bit OTT. I can understand having examples from specific eras where significant kit colour changes took place (such as in the section about the kit directly above this), but not each time a new kit was issued. That's a job for websites such as HistoricalKits.co.uk. At the very least the section should have a hide feature put in. Koncorde (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know Colombia only adopted yellow as their home kit in the 1990s. You learn something every day... ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In general these kind of sections are awful. They're only of any use for major changes, like when Leeds Utd changed to all-white. Do we need the precise details of the history of Aldershot Town's kits? I'm sure that these sections must contravene some wikipedia rule, but I don't know which. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think only significant changes in colour or kit design should be shown. Otherwise it is just an eyesore. Adam4267 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Its very over the top. They are actual photos of the kit not templates. I could be wrong but would they not be subject to copyright. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Bradford City kits may be relevant. GiantSnowman 17:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

They should only be in articles like this. But with international teams I can't think of a place where they can be suitably placed.--EchetusXe 17:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There are entire articles dedicated to club kits, for example: Manchester City F.C. strip. Not sure if this is more acceptable or no different. Maybe there should be an article for the Columbia kit section as it's taking up a lot of space. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

is a kit notable by itself? Koncorde (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It may be, depending on how it's sourced. Without a hard rule on the subject it's entirely a case of whether it has sufficient reliable secondary sources. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Club career sub-sections

Even though i have started to understand the purpose of sub-sections in the players' club career storylines (having begun to insert them when needed also - but i feel it's not needed for players with ONE club, as i have seen sometimes), i am totally partial to inserting those in what LOANS are concerned.

imagine the scenario: a player is loaned by FC Barcelona six times, what shall we put in storyline, "BARCELONA", then "X TEAM", then "BARCELONA RETURN", then "Y TEAM SPELL", then "BARCELONA AGAIN", then "Z TEAM LOAN", then "BARCELONA 4TH STINT", etc, etc. Makes no sense methinks, we should only put the sub-section BARCELONA with loans included, as the player was under contract with the club when on loan to other sides.

Inputs please, highly appreciate it - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is enough meaningful content to merit seperate sections for each of the loan clubs (using your example), then they should be used. However, if you have six sections, each of which just contain one line "He spent the 2009-10 season on loan at Vasco FC", "He moved to Vasco FC on loan in January 2011" etc., then there is no need. Just use common sense here. GiantSnowman 20:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, also if a player knocked about with loads of non-league clubs during his early career, then spent ten years at Spartak Moscow, then ended his career with a bunch of semi-professional clubs, hopping around for that final pay-cheque, you can simply have three sub-sections (Early career / Spartak Moscow / Later career).--EchetusXe 20:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to have an iron-clad rule on how to structure articles. It's editorial discretion and will naturally depend upon the length and importance of each particular point in the career. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Loans and squad templates

I've been pondering - why is it that why hide players out on loan in squad templates? Will a person navigating through a team's players not want to look at players who've been loaned out? I can appreciate how the masses of youngsters at big clubs who are farmed out might clog up the template - but then a solution should be to set out parameters of inclusion. But say if you're looking at Wolves players, isn't it odd that you can't get to Michael Kightly, an established member of their team who's presently on loan at Watford gaining fitness. I don't really see it being such a problem loan players having two templates on their articles. And if you want to distinguish between available and loaned out players, wouldn't it just be easier to create "on loan" sections in templates (admittedly we'd have to remove them during the off-season, but edits would need to be done to "un-hide" players anyway). Thoughts? HornetMike (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the adding an 'on loan section' to the template isn't a terrible idea. But I do oppose clogging up the manager templates with stuff like Ted (1975-2011), Dougal & Jack (2011)c, Jack (2011)c, Jack (2011-) (reflecting a situation where Ted has been manager for 36 years, then two caretakers take the reigns, one of them leaves, and the other caretaker is later installed as manager on a full-time basis). So giving a big emphasis to a few minor players out on loan at local non-league sides isn't ideal. Making if the loan players were present on the parent club template but were listed as Michael Kightly or something, rather than hiding them entirely.--EchetusXe 17:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think having a section within the club template for loaned-out players could be useful. Perhaps someone could have a go at creating one for a club that has a lot of players out on loan, so we can see what it looks like. I agree with Echetus that minor caretaker roles should not be included in the manager templates, and I often remove these. Eldumpo (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As there are most often just 2 or 3 players loaned. Why not list them just as the other with a "(loaned) behind them? -Koppapa (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen articles with "out on loan" sections before. There's one on Rangers F.C. right now for instance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

He means this.--EchetusXe 09:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think its a good idea in principle but would like to see what it would look like. As it could end up being messy. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Squad templates are designed to list all the current first-team players of that particular squad - and loan players are not a current first-team player of that squad. Ergo, they should be <!-- -->ed out IMO. GiantSnowman 21:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Why have they been designed that way though? I think the average person browsing a team's players articles is fairly likely to want to look at loan players as well as players in the squad. And if you could separate them out, what's the harm? Even if with, say Manchester United, you included players who made single league appearances the template wouldn't be particularly large. HornetMike (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Size isn't the issue; accuracy is. GiantSnowman 07:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm also for removing loaned out players from the squad templates. I think that listing a player in the Wolves squad who is currently playing for Watford like in the example above only creates confusion for the average browser, even if we mark them with "(loaned)" (I would then expect such a player to be loaned from some other club to the Wolves). Such information belongs into the club articles. --Jaellee (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

GiantSnowman: How would having a separate section for loan players be inaccurate? I don't have a strong opinion (can't believe I've said that twice in a day), but I think Mike makes some good points. —WFC— 23:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's because the template is titled current squad, while loaned out means a player is not currently on the squad, therefore the template is inaccurate. I don't have a strong opinion on this but I think it would be confusing if there is two current squad templates on the bottom of Michael Kightly article. — MT (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Is Jesús Castro (footballer) notable? The FIFA link provided indicates that he didn't actually play at the 1930 World Cup, he was just in the squad. Common sense tells you that, now, if you make a World Cup squad you have performed well at a lower, but probably also notable level, but can we make the same assumption about the 1930s? Are there reliable records of other games from that era? With his common name, it is hard to sort him out from the others. The-Pope (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As we are all aware, per WP:NFOOTBALL, being a squad member is not enough - you have to actually play (or meet the GNG). However, the question here (and in many other articles no doubt) is this one - is being a World Cup / other major tournament squad member enough for notability? And if so, what is the cut off? Consensus will dictate this, not policy. GiantSnowman 07:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well one would assume that someone with books and/or knowledge of Mexican football in the first half of the 20th century would be worth consulting. Prodding the article for speedy deletion isn't really helpful, at all.--EchetusXe 14:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the user who tried to speedy an article which does claim notability (fail) also tried to BLPPROF an already-referenced article (double fail). GiantSnowman 15:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Categorisation of English football clubs by county

I see that some time back Tim! (talk · contribs) started moving English football club articles from Category:English football clubs to county-based cats such as Category:Suffolk football clubs but appears to have got bored and given up, leaving some clubs only in the national cat and others only in the regional cat. So do we revert all the changes or finish the job.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I would rather see clubs in both (I have restored some clubs to the national category) as otherwise there is no place where you can see all articles on extant English clubs in one place (I occasionally trawl Category:English football clubs to weed out non-notable ones (e.g. five-a-side teams). Number 57 09:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As a contributor to WikiProject Hertfordshire, I would find it handy to have Category:Hertfordshire football clubs. Number 57: would the above job be more difficult if all clubs were only in their counties? I'm not too fussed either way, but I'd have thought that a non-notable club would be more likely to be tagged as an English football club than a county-specific one, making it easier to weed the majority of them out. —WFC— 19:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I would just prefer to see all English clubs in the top level category - for both ease of spotting bad eggs, and so that somewhere we have a definitive collection of all the articles. Trawling through subcategories can be very tiresome. Number 57 20:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with them being in both? GiantSnowman 20:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you misunderstood - I want them in both, I am objecting to them being removed from the top-level category. Number 57 20:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for one or the other per se, I'm just mindful of the fact that having clubs in one place rather than two is less complicated. You guys do more maintenance than me though, and if you feel there's a benefit to having clubs in county and country cats then I'm all for it. —WFC— 20:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Help with sorting

Since the most recent wiki update, table Appearances and goals at 2010–11 and 2011–12 HNK Hajduk Split season stopped functioning properly. I tried fixing it but to no avail. Could someone take a look? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Done, but my solution includes rearranging the Apps and Goals cells above the Total, 1. HNL, Europa League, and Croatian Cup cells. I hope that's okay since I don't think colspan could not work with previous arrangement. I also get rid of all the extra |-class="sortbottom" that prevent sorting in every entry. — MT (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I knew that it was possible like that, but I was hoping to avoid it because it worked well before. But for now it can stay like this, I'll experiment with it later. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity: I can't figure out what 9+1 means. Is that 9 in first half of season an 1 in second half? -Koppapa (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's 9 appearances as starters and 1 appearance as a substitute. — MT (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, first number is appearance in starting eleven and the second one is as a substitute. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this should be explained somewhere in the article. — MT (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I made some more changes, you don't need {{nts|}} in the Number, Total Apps and Total Goals since the columns only contains numbers. Template:nts is useful in a sortable table in which a column contains both numbers and text, especially when the numbers are followed by some text, such as in each Apps and Goals columns where + sign is considered as text. — MT (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot for your help. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

non-FIFA national teams

What does everyone think with about non-FIFA NT, such as Greenland or Nothern Cyprus, with regards to notability? Does playing for one of these teams make a footballer notable or not? Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If that was their only call for notability I would say no. Adam4267 (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No, definitely not. Because they are not FIFA-affiliated, they do not count as full, official internationals, failing NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean I could organize an unofficial Mercian versus Robinson Crusoeneon match and declare myself notable.--EchetusXe 23:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

They don't have any implied notability through NFOOTY, but if they pass the GNG then there's no problem with them having articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. Curiously, most of my Serbian compatriots would gladly see deleted the Kosovo NT article as non-FIFA, but I must be objective and say that I beleave those non-FIFA NT articles are a plus as footy information. Also, many football websites do include them as well (National-Football-Teams.com, Playerhistory.com, etc.). However, they should contain strictly sourced info like, association data, matches played, possible history, and squad (if existing). I recently asked here about how should we deal with "Current squad" sections for those cases (it was Kosovo specifically). FkpCascais (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Fkp, I think you've missed the point slightly - nobody's questioning the notability of the 'national teams' themselves, but the players who represent them. GiantSnowman 21:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see... :) Well, the question is if a non-notable player gains notability by playing a non-FIFA NT match, right? I would say no... FkpCascais (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationalism in country of birth (again)

After having discussed this in the past with this same user the historical accuracy that is the consensus for this cases, I find this edit where the user reverts consensus and even calls Vandalism (!!!) the correction... Abuse worth reporting? I already discussed and explained this to the user a long time ago, would anyone else please indicate the way to go to them? FkpCascais (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for information, the user did the same to over 20 footy biographies, calling them all "reverting vandalism"... See his contributions: Special:Contributions/Sander_Säde. Oh, and I just noteced he tried to missinform purpously User:Oleola in his talk page by saying that the consensus was to use in infobox instead of country (administrative unit), a geographical territory, basically to explain his reverting of (Estonian SSR, Soviet Union) by Estonia. FkpCascais (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is consensus for the {{{birth_place}}} parameter to be filled according to the political situation at the time of someone's birth, then I say an AIV report is fitting. But I don't know if that's indeed the consensus. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 07:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It has been long established here at WP:FOOTY that the historical names - of both country of birth and clubs played for - should be used in the infobox/article. GiantSnowman 07:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Was there any discussion about that thing here? Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 07:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

In the archives, most definitely - unfortunately I don't have the time right now to have a proper look through. Either way, we can have a fresh discussion here, just in case the direction the wind is blowing has changed. GiantSnowman 08:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Nationality may be relevant, but again, no time, sorry! GiantSnowman 08:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't mind. However, that link you posted only writes about the use of flags and defines footballing nationality in cases of players with two or more nationalities... I see no relevant discussion about the use of subnational entities of the past. This discussion had no consensus about that matter either. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 08:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As part of that long and frustrating discussion (thankfully I believe the editor who was filibustering on the subject has since been banned), I can only re-iterate my opinion that it is clear to me at least that you have to use the name of the country the player was born in at the time. Number 57 09:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly Number57, the consensus about the country of birth in biography infoboxes is to use the name of the country at time of birth, not the current one. It is about historical acuracy. FkpCascais (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Similar consensus exists for Counties, US States etc so this is an issue with clear cross-subject precedence. Koncorde (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly not vandalism and the user should be warned not to misuse Twinkle. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a nationalistic offensive in order to replace the historically acurate states by modern ones. By that I mean that this is no good faith edit or missknolledge of consensus, but an intention POV pushing. The thing is not over, we have IP´s now (possible sockpoppetry) using this kind of excuses now (just today): edit "(Undid revision 455644745 by FkpCascais (talk) All other sorts of people are born in Estonia, why should footballers be an exception?)" FkpCascais (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

As I see, looking at the List of Irish writers or List of Scottish writers, that they still have just Ireland or Scotland in their infoboxes instead of United Kingdom. So unless you are prepared to fix them all as well, I don't think you are very sincere about this question. Right now I just see you as holding the imperialist POV (if you choose to consider me nationalist). Thank you, 77.233.72.74 (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - just because something exists on Wikipedia does not mean it is right. GiantSnowman 17:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I don´t care less which country is the "correct" one, I defend historical accuracy. It doesn´t matter what I personally think about any country, but you (IP) seem to do. The fact is that all people born within the Soviet Union during the period of its existence should have Soviet Union, weather we like it, or not. The country of birth is the one that existed at time of birth, and it is wrong to use any other one but that. FkpCascais (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly another Estonian editor has chosen to airbrush history and remove Soviet Union from the countryofbirth of the players in question. It seems to be a major problem that some people can't deal with their country's pasts, so it may be time for another centralised discussion on the issue where we can get some input from people whose views aren't blinded by their nationalism. Number 57 19:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That discussion would be usefull if we end up creating a principle to be applied for this cases. Otherwise it will be just another long discussion with people "vomiting" endless arguments... However, I am willing to "swim in vomit" if that will end this once and for all. FkpCascais (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: We have extreme edit warring over this (another user joined in reverting all articles): Special:Contributions/H2ppyme. They must think Estonia is an exception... FkpCascais (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that it should always be the name of the country at that moment in history. This goes across the board in other fields. For (a very American) example outside of football: George Washington's place of birth is not listed as Virginia, but Virginia Colony. Digirami (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• I reported one of the users for 3RR at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:H2ppyme_reported_by_User:FkpCascais_.28Result:_.29. FkpCascais (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland caps

Can anyone point me in the direction of a reliable source for Northern Ireland internationals? In particular I'm interested in Lee Hodson. According to his article (and an article on Watford's official website written after the Italy game) he has five caps. According to Northern Ireland national football team he has six, and I'm certain that the latter is correct (his debut was in a friendly against Morocco, he played all three games in the 2011 Nations Cup, and two UEFA qualifiers this week), but I can't find a source for it. Thanks in advance, —WFC— 23:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the Irish Football Association don't do live updates, but Hodsons page shows he had 4 caps as of 29 September 2011 (3 starts and a sub-on), so between that and the 2 qualifiers this week your numbers stack up. No doubt if you wait another week it will be updated.--ClubOranje^T 23:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Also his Soccerbase page lists all 6 internationals. Unfortunately you need to view season by season...but you can expand each game to see further info (like when subbed etc)--ClubOranje^T 23:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. It's because the reliable source that I have is up-to-date and wrong that I felt a need for a second opinion. —WFC— 23:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

NIFG is excellent. GiantSnowman 10:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Problematic user: Second call for attention

I caught User:Thuglife99 further more removing referenced info. This time he decided to remove stats at Rudolf Bester article (see his edit). I am becoming seriously fed up of restoring info. Who knows in how many more African footy biographies he has done that. He has been called for his attention for this. Please help. FkpCascais (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

He did remove stats that were wrong it seems, or not verifyable. -Koppapa (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I have previously caught him removing referenced stats from articles. GiantSnowman 10:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Kopapa, the stats from Cukaricki are sourced and verifiable (Serbian SuperLiga stats are there from NFT source, and can be easily confirmed by numerous other sources). The only ones that were rightfully removed are the Eleven Arrows ones, but they are just part of the edit. Sorry, but there was no reason at all to remove all others. I can´t follow your logic in this one: so if I find in future one infobox with unreferenced stats for one club, I have the right to blank all the rest of them even if all others are sourced? No... FkpCascais (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Just saying that that particular edit didn't seem that bad. He removed the unreferenced one, updated another one. You are right though. -Koppapa (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

He removed sourced one (Cukaricki). The last time (Batabaire case) we were talking about lower league stats avaliable only at NFT. But here we are talking about the removal of top league stats from a couple of years ago. The user questioned NFT stats in the lower league case, but removing from now on all sourced Serbian club stats just because, it is wrong. The stats are sourced (NFT was there all the time, and it s easily avaliable on other sources as well). There is no reason to remove them, but he did, and seems the user does that often. FkpCascais (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked the user to aks for help in this cases. I hope he does that, because I am fed up of users from one country deleting and removing info that is from another country (we had more cases in the past). When I pick some player to edit, I digg into the sources for stats in different leagues, I don´t simply erase all info about other leagues and leave the one from my country just because I want to... That is my point. FkpCascais (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of Daniel Leadbitter

Hi. My article Daniel Leadbitter was rightly deleted a few months ago as he had not made a first team appearance for Torquay United at that time. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but could someone now restore the deleted article as Leadbitter played in a League 2 match against Bradford last week and therefore is now considered notable. (http://www.torquayunited.com/page/ProfilesDetail/0,,10445~56259,00.html), (http://www.torquayunited.com/page/MatchReport/0,,10445~57617,00.html) Thanks,

Drawley (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Number 57 20:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'll update the article now. Drawley (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Moreno Mannini

Does anybody know if this player's info regarding Nottingham Forest F.C. is true? I remember him quite well from my youth (the U.C. Sampdoria teams with Gianluca Pagliuca, Roberto Mancini, Gianluca Vialli, etc) and have no recollection of this, and his NFT.com entry also mentions nothing. SOCCERBASE.com does have that entry, but they could be wrong, no such thing as a "full proof" website.

All your Brian Clough disciples please step up if you will, thank you very much in advance - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems like he played there: 1, 2 --Koppapa (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, David Platt brought in a few aging Italians when he was Forest manager. Salvatore Matrecano and Gianluca Petrachi were others. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Soccerbase does of course contain some errors but I would've thought it pretty unlikely they would list so many games if he had not played for them. Eldumpo (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much all teammates. Have "stolen" Koopapa's second ref and used it in article. Cheers! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessment help with non-league task force

I'm trying to create an assessment table for the English non-league task force but I've become stuck after creating the necessary categories. I'm not sure how to make sure that the tag, for example {{WikiProject football|non-league=mid}}, can put the article into Category:Mid-importance English non-league football articles. Any help on how to do this would be much appreciated. I think it needs an assessment category added to the WikiProject Football template but the page is edit-blocked. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a request at the WikiProject football template talk page for the code to be changed by an admin. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders

Hi team. I've put up a second request to have "Seattle Sounders" default to the current MLS club, with a disambiguation message similar to the one at Winnipeg Jets. Whether you agree or disagree with the proposal, I'd encourage you to leave your feedback there. The previous request ended with only two users besides the proposer. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Javier Artero - Classy edit

This guy suffers from an incurable disease, and gets this edit (see here http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Javier_Artero&diff=447732398&oldid=434153384)??? Maybe one of his four goals for Dundee was against this team, what a crime...

Please tell me again why WP is the encyclopedia where EVERYBODY can edit. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• This player here does not have any illness, he's only DEAD, and his article continues to be beastly vandalized SEVEN years later (please see here http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Mikl%C3%B3s_Feh%C3%A9r&diff=next&oldid=453234029), almost brought a tear to my eye, and i'm not: 1 - even a Benfica fan; 2 - being sarcastic when i said i almost cried. What are these "human beings" trying to achieve? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Kinda annoyed that a chairman became a teaboy here for a month.--EchetusXe 21:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

At least that chap is not terminally ill/dead, but a nuisance nonetheless. Also, gotta admire this "person"'s courage (here http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.128.253.158&diff=next&oldid=445118224). --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

These are the joys that Wikipedia allows by giving any person who is alone and unloved the ability to vandalize behind an IP and so many unwatched articles to choose from. Revert and ignore. Sad stuff about Artero by the way, I remember him. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Topscorer of 2011 Mauritian League

Hi, i'm a french, and I write mauritian seasons on french wikipedia, but I have seen that : the season 2011 is finished but I don't know who's the topscorer. If someone can help me, answer me in english on my franch page (fr:Discussion utilisateur:FCNantes72). I have found the league table but to complte the article, I want to have the topscorer. I hope a quick answer to develop article about Mauritius.Thank you so much!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.195.215.93 (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this great timing? Well, I happen to work on that subject, Mauritian Football, a lot. I checked the page and I think it might be Ben Abdallah with 16 goals. Hope I helped, Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 00:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

CONMEBOL Women's club championship

The 2011 Copa Libertadores de Fútbol Femenino has announced its regulations, making sure Santos as title-holdes aren't absent after not qualifying through the old system. LINK. Allthough, after the UEFA Women's Champions League, is the second largest tourney for clubs, i feel pretty alone working on it. :) Are any Spanish speaking editors able to add something to the format? I mean especially tie-breakers in group stage and if match against 4th counts towards best runners-up, who meets who in semi-final matches. Google translate does not like that pdf and i can't copy from it. Thanks. -Koppapa (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox place of birth

Could I ask please all users that have previously participated in these discussions to just express their view on the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Country_of_birth.2C_for_historic_.28and_current.29_bios.2C_part_II. The main problem until now was that this was often discussed in many places where not all involved editors had the chance to know about the discussion. So this is a chance, so could we please participate, even if saying shortly what each one supports, historical accuracy or current states. It would be great if we could agree on this once and for all. FkpCascais (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

UEFA Euro qualification

Now that the Euro 2012 qualifying process is about to conclude, I'd like to ask you for your opinions about this table. I noticed that the main article linked from {{Qualification for championships (UEFA)}} was just a redirect to a section header, and I considered that a separate article summarising the UEFA Euro qualifying would do just fine, there already being a FIFA World Cup qualification summary article. I believe that this table or a modification thereof, plus the routine footnotes regarding former teams (USSR, Czechoslovakia, etc), plus some verification about the accuracy of the notes for non-participating teams, plus maybe another table presenting the overall team records in UEFA Euro qualifying matches, plus some text and sources, could be enough to develop an article to exist on its own. Of course, on 15 November, when the play-off round finishes, the table shall be updated accordingly. I'm already aware of some drawbacks of the table, but let me first hear your thoughts. --Theurgist (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Karim Kazeem

After thinking Phil Babb was a new low (obscure player who gets tons of vandalism, just for kicks), i stand corrected. Can someone help me in this article (help WP that is, not me!), a countryman of mine (could also be the player himself, as the Nigerian now plays there) has engaged in no-summary edits for years now, which include name/height alterations, and PT.WIKI change as well.

He acts as anon but has also the following account, User:Kazome2002. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think changing the spelling and order of the player's name to how ZeroZero spells it is vandalism? Maybe it should be spelt like that. Have you tried asking them why they're making the change, either at their talk page or, preferably, at the article's talk page? Struway2 (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Did not mean to imply it was vandalism as in Babb, so maybe my example was poor. But i thought 20 edit summaries without ONE WORD was a nuisance, and i guarantee you Kareem is the first name, not Kazeem. We, in Portugal have this idiotic sporting habit of writing several names of foreign players in reverse, i could provide dozens of examples if you like, and changing the height this much is also suspicious (see here http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Karim_Kazeem&diff=393232929&oldid=390203623). Boy, at least i didn't get racist insults as i did in Quique Flores, only silence getting better now...

I'll leave a message in KAZOME's page, to see where it leads us... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

After seeing FORADEJOGO.net, i changed the article's name (WP:BOLD) to stop all warring, but he has to stop screwing up PT.WIKI, if he changes the name in that bit, the article DISAPPEARS! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You could/should call the attention at pt.wiki about this... FkpCascais (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Japanese club season's articles

Wow, look at these category: Category:Japanese_football_club_seasons. Haven't looked though all the sub-categories, but it seems all of them have no info beside the squad, and the rest is empty looking tables. And there are no refs at all, just a link to the league homepage. Guess one could prod most of them, right? Surely the older ones won't get completed ever. -Koppapa (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

They are mostly created by the same editor. I came across these before. They were being created then he or she was going back later and adding info and stats to them. But a lot appear to have been totally left. They are in a bad way and i cant see them ever being completed just too many of them. Someone may like to have a go but not me. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, the creator still edits a bunch of them all day: contributions. Good luck completing those masses, lol. Looking through his created articles he has created 1000s of league season articles too. Most of them just a 1:1 copy of RSSSF though. -Koppapa (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what part of articles like this pass the general notability guideline. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they do. I think the league ones are ok but the club seasons source although mostly in Japanese dont really appear to include the info on the club season. To be honest I think they should be prodded or sent to AFD. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Elite Player Performance Plan

Is it time to establish a page for Elite Player Performance Plan? It was accepted by the Premier League in June and the Football League is expected to vote for it today. TheBigJagielka (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends if it garners enough attention, which it probably will considering it's akin to turkeys voting for Christmas. The sooner the Premier League dies the better. I'm actually agreeing with Barry Fry, not sure I like that. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It passed so yes. An article such as 'Youth development in English football' would be good to explain why John Rudge and Dario Gradi's management style no longer works, and why million pound players can end their careers without passing notability guidelines at WP:Football.--EchetusXe 16:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Eugenio Bustingorri

I created this article, could not find any references - besides the link, which IS a reference in itself no? - because he's an old player. However, i think 342 La Liga games constitutes notability, no?

I have sent this message to the user that keeps AfD'ing it. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's another link [9], although note that you should really be citing the sources, rather then just putting an External link at the end. Eldumpo (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a decent number of articles covering him in El Mundo Deportivo's archive. If I get the time, I could translate a few and add some to the article. Jogurney (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As a follow-up, of course this player is notable. That had to be one of the most ill-advised deletion nominations I've seen in a long while - good thing it was withdrawn. Jogurney (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

U-21 squad templates

There are several international under-21 squad templates that currently up on TfD in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 20#Template:Italy Squad 2002 Euro U-21. Any comments would be useful in determining a new consensus about whether these templates should exist or not. Thanks. — MT (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Football League Play-Offs

Do football league play-off games count as league matches? Yes you probably heard this question before, but the only reason I ask is because NationalFootballTeams.com don't seem to think so. I was in the process of added Career stats tables (club & international) to Kieren Westwood when I hit a problem. For the 2007-2008 season Soccerbase claim Westwood played 48 league games see here whereas NationalFootballTeams.com claim it was 46 see here however they haven't counted the 2 play-off games against Leeds. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 13:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC))

I don' think they should count in the infobox, but in a separate section of statistics. Remember, ALL teams play the regular season (in the Football League Championship case, 46 games), but only SOME appear in the playoffs. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well currently there is 133 in his infobox for league games for Carlisle which I didn’t change. This includes the play-off games. Should this be changed to 131 & the play-off games included in others. Which coincidently would make it the same amount he made for Coventry. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 13:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC))

No they don't count as league games and should not be in the infobox. For the purposes of a stats table they should be listed under 'Other', or just added in with the totals column with a note explaining the situation. Here is an example.--EchetusXe 15:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers guys for the clarification, I’ve altered his stats appropriately. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 09:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

2014 FIFA World Cup schedule by fifa.com and duration

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/01/52/99/91/2014_fifa_world_cup_matchschedule.pdf Schedule. 2014 edition is 32 days long, 1 day longer that the 2010 editionfrom June 12 to July 13; group stage 15 days, 1 rest day, round of 16 in 2 days, 2 rest days, quarter Finals 2 days, 2 rest days, semifinal 2 days, 2 rest days and 3rh place and final 2 days; G: Game days, R: Rest day, 15G + 1R + 2G + 2R + 2G + 2R + 2G + 2R + 2G = 32 days. Rugby World Cup is 42 days long, we should paste the duration in some place--Feroang (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/64/42/24/2010fwc_matchschedule_postevent_e.pdf 2010 scherule from fifa.com from June 11 to July 11 (June is a 30 days long month)--Feroang (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

We can already start a 2014 FIFA World Cup schedule or List of 2014 FIFA World Cup matches, base on List of 2010 FIFA World Cup matches--Feroang (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

While I suppose we could, the matter of whether we should is a different one. What is the point of a table that will remain empty until whenever the draw takes place, more than two years from now? Kevin McE (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. And besides there are not even times and there's a subject to change notice anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Statistical tables

Have tables like this ever been acceptable? I undid a number of them yesterday in German BLPs, which can been seen in my list of contributions, and no doubt I have been reverted now. The main issue I have is the size – a table that small looks ridiculous and must surely go against MOS guidelines. The table on Großkreutz's article was fine and it was correct, the layout was changed by an IP and an error was introduced. I undid it and was then reverted by someone else, reintroducing the error and the tiny font. Good stuff... Argyle 4 Life^talk 09:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

font-size:80% is barely readable and should not be used in any table. I don't mind smaller fontsize but in my opinion anything under font-size:90% is too small. — MT (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, anything less than 90% seriously affects readability. I'm not really a fan of smaller fonts being used for tables, but I have seen 95% used fairly often. The table on Großkreutz's article was changed again and the error was still not corrected. Ah, Wikipedia. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Most successful Spanish club"

I noticed that both articles for Real Madrid CF and FC Barcelona claimed that they were the most successful Spanish club. As both clubs have won the same number of major trophies (74) I have amended this for both to say that they are "one of the two..." though editors didn't seem to like this. Neither did adding the word "joint" appeal to editors of either article. Does the project have any ideas as for a suitable compromise? I forsee a problem at the end of this season in which Barca will have more trophies, but less European Cup and La Liga titles than Real Madrid, but editing ans of both sides will want their team proclaimed as the best. I think that it would not be POV to say that these two clubs are the most successful Spanish teams, but identifying one as the most successful is not currently helpful. I note that Real Madrid "won" the FIFA Club of the 20th Century award, but this was a readers' poll from their magazine. RMCF seem to say on their website that they were voted the most successful team of the 20th Century, which I don't believe is correct with respect to this FIFA award. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Nothing but POV as you very well put it, both are equally successful, Real dominated in the past for sure, but the 90's/2000's are Barcelona's. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The article on Hitler (sorry for reductio ad Hitlerum) does not say "Hitler was a very bad man". It says instead "Under Hitler's direction, German forces and their European allies at one point occupied most of Europe and North Africa. These gains were reversed in 1945 when the Allied armies defeated the German army. Hitler's racially motivated policies resulted in the deaths of as many as 17 million people, including an estimated six million Jews targeted in the Holocaust and between 500,000 and 1,500,000 Roma." It's more informative, and it doesn't guide the reader. So, stick to the facts in these articles too: (from Real Madrid C.F.): "It is one of Spanish football's two most successful clubs in terms of international and overall trophies,[3] having has won a record 31 La Liga titles, 18 Spanish "Copa del Rey" Cups, 8 Spanish Super Cups, 1 Copa Eva Duarte and 1 Copa de la Liga, a record 9 UEFA Champions Leagues, 2 UEFA Cups, 1 UEFA Super Cup and 3 Intercontinental Cups." Pretty Green (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Since it's POV, please stop edit warring over it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Suitcivil133 is now making the claim that Barcelona is the most successful club: [10] [11] [12] and it appears editor is walking into an edit war. Additional editorial oversight, such as what has recently happened at Real Madrid C.F. would be appreciated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please look at both articles to avoid the suggestions that they are the most successful club? User:Suitcivil133 continues to modify the articles to push this POV. Doesn't seem to want to discuss options. I have pointed editor here on several occasions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask you why you are removing information that is correct? What is there exactly to discuss regarding the trophies? There was a consensus before until you decided to interfere. This has been discussed for weeks until we found a primary source (in a Spanish newspaper) and afterwards came into a agreement. This agreement (that both FC Barcelona and Real Madrid have 74 official overall trophies) is backed up by both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia pages about both clubs. Also UEFA/FIFA and the Spanish Royal football federation.

What is there to discuss? It is like discussing how many La Liga titles each club has won or Champions League titles which would be pointless.

When it says "most successful club (or joint which is more correct) in Spanish football in terms of domestic and overall trophies" it only refers to Spanish football. Are you confused by that or what is the problem exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"Most successful" is very much POV in this case. It's like the English example of Manchester Utd and Liverpool. Man U have won the most League titles, Liverpool have won the most European Cups (of any English club). Which is the "most successful"? Well, that's probably down to an individual's opinion. The correct thing to say in that case is MUFC have won a record 19 English titles and LFC have won 5 European Cups, a record for English clubs. Factual, and unbiased. The same should go for Barca and Real Madrid. Even if one club has won more trophies overall, different people may have different opinions on the overall merits of the different competitions, so to remain impartial we must just list the number of titles, and also when this is a record for that competition. Some of the trophies both teams have won are for competitions that don't even exist any more. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Way better than just deleting what I (and many other editors had written) without any explaining. I agree to a certain extent but at the same time how can it be biased when all the correct titles are listed just below the honours section as well in the introduction page. How people rate the individual trophies is a personal matter since there is not a official qualification of some short apart from CL/Europa League and the League and Cup titles. But if the number of overall trophies should not be included at all then I also see no porpuse for the "trophy lists" which are displayed in the Italian, English and Spanish football record sections. Personally I do not see a problem with it but that as well could be deemed unbiased if listing the number of overall trophies (officially recognized trophies) is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It was explained to you . Many times over. You just don't understand. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The overall number of trophies that a club has won should be included as this is not POV. Calling Barca or Real Madrid "most successful" should not be included as this is POV. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Suitcivil133, actually from me. here, here, and here. If you have followed the link to WP:POV you would have seen what we're talking about now. You either didn't follow it, you didn't read it, you didn't understand it, or you didn't know how it applied to you. In any case, you didn't ask about POV until later and at that point I simply pointed you here.

Oh, and one thing further, sign your blasted comments. It doesn't take much effort. There's probably even a button your toolbar that will do it for you. If there isn't add four tildes. As a Spanish football fan you should be quite familiar with the tilde, it looks like this: ~. On an American keyboard, it's usually to the left of the number 1 on the number row and above the tab key. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is all very simple. "Success" is a subjective measure. Therefore claiming one team to be "more successful" than another is subjective, based on some criteria that you have chosen to use e.g. number of cups from certain competitions. It is not objective, and therefore claiming to one thing or another be "the most successful" is based on a point of view, i.e. is not neutral i.e. should not be used in Wikipedia articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-league football task force scope

Just wondering where the English non-league task force scope ends. Does it cover all teams and players that have ever played in English non-league (e.g. Wigan Athletic F.C., Chris Smalling) or only clubs and players that are currently playing non-league football? I'm assuming the former, but just need some clarification here. Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The former - expanding the details about a club's/player's non-league spell (however brief) should definitely be in your remit. GiantSnowman 17:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What about clubs that were in the Southern League pre-1920, during the time that it was effectively a rival to the Football League? Granted, just about anyone would conclude it was an inferior rival, but there was no hierarchy until that point. It therefore seems inappropriate to tag such clubs as "non-league". —WFC— 16:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Who cares, most of those articles won't get edited big anymore anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That's the difficult thing with clubs that blur the line before the hierarchy was set in place. Guess if they played in the southern League before it was placed below the Football League the idea of "non-league" didn't exist back then. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Red Link Recovery Live

Howdy. For a while now, the Red Link Recovery Project has been using a tool (named Red Link Recovery Live) to find and correct unnecessarily red links in Wikipedia articles. For example, for the red link John McLaughin (footballer born 1954) on the article 1971–72 Colchester United F.C. season it might suggest that the link be changed to John McLaughlin (footballer born 1954).

The tool currently has around 2600 suggestions for corrections to red links on articles relevant to this project. Each time you visit this link, you'll be shown two or three of these suggested fixes. I'll be delighted if anyone with a few minutes to spare would care to do so and help improve the quality of this project's articles. - TB (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is very cool.--EchetusXe 13:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way of telling the tool when its suggestion is definitely wrong? as two of the three suggested fixes were when I visited the link yesterday? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you need to be a wee bit careful with this, the first link I came across was encouraging me to redirect John Henry (footballer) (I created a stub article for that after seeing this) to John Hendry (footballer). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If you click 'check this page' then it does the whole list of suggestions for that page. Thats how I managed to do about 20 for List of foreign Bundesliga players.--EchetusXe 10:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

2012/13 UEFA Club Competitions

The access list for the 2012/13 UEFA Club Competitions is available here : [13], [14], [15] So, articles about 2012/13 UEFA Club Competitions (more precisely 2012–13 UEFA Europa League) are outdated. Moreover, European qualifications have to be updated in all 2011–12 league season articles.--Traleni (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not official though. I read it has to be voted through in early 2012. -Koppapa (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I moved the Euroleague spots around. -Koppapa (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I updated European qualification in all 53 European Cup Competition. If I have the time, I'll do the 52 league competitions as well. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Elie Rous nationality

English or French? GiantSnowman 19:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a better source for his birth place? I say this because it occasionally happends that websites put the place of birth equal to the first club related to a player, so can we confirm somehow he was born in Sète? Another possiblity is to put them both. Elie Rous was a English/French football... Note that I only put first English because of the alphabetical order. FkpCascais (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's my website you've linked to on Elie Rous and I can confirm he is FRENCH. Not English. My error. I know this for a fact because I have been speaking to his Great-Nephew recently, who confirmed he is 100% French. Les Rosbifs.net86.29.220.242 (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There are no births record for an E Rous in England in 1909 or around that year on findmypast. Brad78 (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Could he have been born in France but raised in England? GiantSnowman 17:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, abominations like "is an English/French footballer" should be removed on sight even if strictly accurate. Dual nationality is almost never of any concern in this domain, especially in the modern age when top players regularly flit between European countries as their contracts are bought out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Football business

I just speedy deleted Football business: it was a no-name company that easily qualified for A7 speedy. However, I'm curious — is there an article about the business side of running a football club? I'd like to suggest that the title be recreated as a redirect to such a page. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

if there is a article about, I guess there should be a article, here http://www.sportbusiness.com/ is some source--Feroang (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It's like runnign a regular buisness. No need for an article i'd say. -Koppapa (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Managers blackmailing footballers, European clubs buying teenage players across the world, club finances used for whitewashing drugs and arms monney, match fixing, illegal betting... now that would be interesting, the dark side of football bussiness. Otherwise, I agree with Koppapa, as it is a bussines as any else. FkpCascais (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationality .. flag .. again

Yes yes, unfortunately this topic again .. sorry to bring it back up but just had another specific case I wanted to discuss (this is not a discussion about the wording or nationality in general, just one specific case!). The note in the Current Squad section of club articles states: "Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality." Now, taking the case of Sofiane Feghouli, a former French youth international who switched his allegiance to Algeria. The Algerian FA announced today that FIFA had accepted his request and he is now eligible to represent Algeria (remember, these decisions are irreversible, once the application goes through and is accepted, a player can't switch back to his original country). If we are using the above definition, "as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules, surely his flag should be changed to Algeria from France since FIFA itself has ratified the change? I made the change in the Valencia squad earlier but a user switched it back to France. I did not want to get into an edit war so figured I'd ask for other editions opinion before proceeding. Any feedback would be appreciated .. and please stay on topic, that is, this specific case. TonyStarks (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As he is now eligible for Algeria he should have an Algerian flag. Adam4267 (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused by the situation that Tony describes. If he had only appeared in youth internationals, then no special permission is needed, as I understand the rules. Although FIFA might have confirmed that his grounds for playing for Algeria are valid, a declaration of intent to play for one particular country is only irreversible when either A) a competitive full A international match is played, or B) after playing in non-competitive A internationals, he is granted permission to switch. As to Adam's response, he has always been eligible for Algeria, he has also always been eligible for France, and by my reading, as above, he still is. For as long as our header makes a declaration that cannot be true for a large percentage of players, and the vast majority of players of dual nationality, it is scarcely the grounds for determining anything. The editor who reverted you is only applying the tacit policy that we have had for many years, most recently represented country, or place of birth if none. Kevin McE (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC) D'oh, sorry: misremembered, and too tired last night to refresh my memory. Kevin McE (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, if he played at the youth level for one country (in official competition .. not just friendlies), he definitely needs FIFA authorization to switch allegiances and play for another country. I think you have misunderstood how the rule works. In this particular case, Feghouli played for France's U21 team in Euro qualifiers, meaning he's officially been capped by France. So, in fact you're wrong in saying he's always been eligible to represent Algeria. He's always had the opportunity to ask for FIFA to make the switch but he would not have been eligible for Algeria without receiving FIFA authorization. You are also wrong in saying that he's still eligible in France. He put in a request to make the change and FIFA accepted, there is no going back now that his application has been processed. For the record, I'm very familiar with how the system works since Algeria has been the main benefactor of this new rule with plenty of players making the switch from France to Algeria. In fact the president of the Algerian FA was the one that proposed it to FIFA in 2009. TonyStarks (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This article confirms he had to get FIFA's permission: as it is before the event, it doesn't confirm that he can't now go back to play for France though. However, MOS:FLAG states "For example, if a sportsperson has represented a nation or has declared for a nation, then the national flag as determined by the sport governing body should be used (these can differ from countries' political national flags)." With this in mind, the Algerian flag is probably appropriate. Harrias ^talk 07:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

So there seems to be a new consensus that the former top priority (country most recently represented) is trumped, for a small number of players, and usually only for a short time, by a new category of "FIFA has approved a new nationality, but he hasn't yet played for them." We need some way of enshrining, and having easily available for reference, a summary of the new hierarchy, which seems to be:

• Replacement nation after FIFA confirmation of change of nationality
• National team represented, at any level
• Family nationality where place of birth is determined by temporary relocation of parents (the Tom Hateley clause)
• Place of birth

The first and third will be rare, and will require a high level of verification. The third and fourth (which has by far the greatest number of players) categories are not described by the current header. It is highly possible that describing a player by just one flag according to place of birth is to greatly simplify the truth of a player's national identity. This does not account for the situation where national boundaries may have changed, so is still less than comprehensive. Another unaccounted situation is that when a player gains citizenship of a country that then becomes the key to their eligibility to play in a given territory, but that country is not their place of birth (eg players from former French colonies in West Africa taking French passports, and thereby meeting requirements for employment in other EU countries) Kevin McE (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely it is the sources that should be determining what 'nationality' we give to people. However, if there are four different categories of 'nationality' that you identify, then doesn't that confirm that flag use is not appropriate, because a simple icon would not be able to determine which of these 'nationalities' was being referred to? Eldumpo (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to record consensus, rather than my own opinion, here. I am on record several times as expressing a preference for removing flags from these squad lists, as an oversimplification that does not represent the truth about an individual, but this has never had widespread support. My contributions history also reveals many removals of flags from these squads where they are unsourced and based purely on assumption. As to the reader knowing which of the 4 nationalities is indicated, that is something that the header, if better phrased, should address. Kevin McE (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I would go with the flag of Algeria as that is now his sporting nationality. Mo ainm~Talk 13:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Lorenzo Fernández

An anonymous user has changed the Lorenzo Fernández article changing a few dates and clubs. Could someone with some knowledge of South American football have a look to confirm this is correct? Hack (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Belgian/Dutch footballers (and sometimes Swiss? - Steve von Bergen)

How do you teammates sort these one out, i'm making a mess of my pretty little head...Is it - example - "Van Tiggelen, Adri", or "Tiggelen, Adri van"? I have seen it both ways. From my understanding, "van" is not really a surname is it? So i think the second option seems the most logical. However, when we address the subject in an article, we write "...van Basten scored...", not "...Basten scored...". I'm confused :(

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oops, forgot German chaps as well (this guy)... In a related matter, why do some write the "van" in mid-sentence with a capital letter? I thought it was the complete opposite. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I beleave its Van allways first, like in Spanish De Paula or Italian Di Franco, although I am not 100% for the cases you exposed, so the best would be to hear a thought from some user familirised with Dutch costumes. Another way is to see how Dutch yellow pages deal with it... :) FkpCascais (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Dutch method is explained pretty clearly at Van (Dutch)#Collation and capitalisation. You sort them as Tiggelen, Adri van. If just using the surname, you capitalise the van, so "The last goal was scored by Van Tiggelen". If using the full name, you write the van with a small v, as "Adri van Tiggelen was born in Holland".

Belgians always capitalise, I think, and it's sorted as Van Belgianname, Firstname.

The German von is only capitalised at the start of a sentence. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel like in Dutch categories (like Dutch footballers) they should be sorted as Nistelrooy, Ruud van, but with categories relating to other countries - e.g. Real Madrid players - the user is more likely to look for them under V, so Van Nistelrooy, Ruud. We use a similar distinction for Icelandic footballers. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

For sorting purposes, ignore the "van". For capitalization purposes, the "van" is capitalized when representing the family name only for Dutch names. It's not often used in German at all (it's Beethoven not van Beethoven). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest, is this laid out anywhere in the Manual of Style? It'd be good to have a normative description somewhere outside of articlespace to refer to. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

For sorting, the best I can find is at the editing guideline Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category, where it says "People with multiple-word last names are usually sorted by the first capitalized element, though this is a complex field and there are exceptions and inconsistencies"..... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User boxes appearing in club infoboxes

One Salient Oversight (talk · contribs) has been going through replacing the bare text in the "league" parameter of many club infoboxes with colourful userboxes. In my opinion these look terrible - apart from anything else, on my screen at least, the UBX doesn't fit into the template and half of it is cut off, meaning that you can't actually read the name of the league the team competes in. An example is Dover Athletic. Thoughts.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted all his edits. I can't believe he throught it was a good idea :s Number 57 07:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys, this really shouldn't be the first port of call when concerned with a specific user's actions. It should always be raised with the user first. I agree that this was a seriously questionable move, and I've taken the userboxes to MfD, but it's common courtesy to at least drop the editor in question a line. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Premiership or Premier League?

In the 1993-94 FA Premier League article, User:Omrodders have changed almost all "Premiership" words to "Premier League". You can see the changes here: [16]. I'm not native speaking english, so even though it feels like these edits are wrong, I'm not going to undo then. I'll rather let you other people decide what is right: Premiership or Premier League :) Mentoz86 (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Omrodders is correct. I believe Premiership was part of the sponsored name in the past, whereas Premier League has always been the official name. Number 57 10:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Indeed. The effect is that while "Premiership" is acceptable for some seasons, "Premier League" is always acceptable. While we don't have a restriction against using names associated with specific sponsors, using the "generic" names does help to ensure articles don't go out of date or become harder to understand when sponsors change. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Ok. My impression was that you call it "Premier League", but use "Premiership" in sentances like "Manchester United won the Premiership", or "Norwich was promoted to the Premiership" or "Alan Shearer holds the record for Premiership-goals in a calendar year". But thanks for enlightening me :) Mentoz86 (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it the case that the early Premier seasons were officially called Premier Lge, as at the 93/94 article the only reference to Premier says 'Premiership'. Eldumpo (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The company formed by the teams in the initial League in 1992 is known as the "Premier League", per the source on the requisite article. I'd be extraordinarily surprised if the name had never been used officially prior to Carling branding it the Carling Premiership in 1993. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's about common name though, not what the official website calls it in retrospect. If you click on the PL's 93/94 season review they refer to Premiership in the text. Having said that, I do note that Statto refer to 93/94 as 'English Premier League'. Eldumpo (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Record of our consensuses (consensi?)

I am also active on a (much less busy) sporting Wikiproject, WikiProject Cycling, in which we have established a sub-page (WP:CYC-CD) as a sort of FAQ page in which to lodge our recurrent issues, for quick reference. Here at WT:FOOTY we have several recurrent issues, and many things happening frequently at our many pages that we would like to be able to have a quick reference to, but discussions are buried in our vast archive. Would it be possible to set up a WP:FOOTY-CD, a consensus decisions page for this project, to record the outcome of our sometimes epic policy discussions. It would not alter the principle that consensus can change, but would save much reinvention of the wheel and trawling through archives. Kevin McE (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea. We would need to be careful that only appropriate discussions are placed there, and it may be appropriate sometimes to edit the discussions to keep them concise? Eldumpo (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear: the Consensus decisions page would simply record the outcome of discussions, not carry the entire debate. The debate would be linked, as would the wider principles and policies in Wikipedia that are at stake. Kevin McE (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't envy whoever takes on the task of deciding what is a consensus. So may discussions here just peter out with only a handful of contributors. How many people are required before a consensus can be determined to have been agreed? If you look at the Archive index, many discussions have 5 or fewer contributions. FWIW, I don't consider myself bound by a "consensus" reached in a discussion by only a handful of people. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I perfectly understand Kevin´s idea and I fully support it. We have here so much discussions that is really hard and painfull to digg some more important discussion from the past. For instance I was trying to archive consensus just days ago over birth place in infoboxes for footy bios, and we seem to have one, just not a place where it is written. Anyway, as Kevin pointed out, users will also be able to continue the discussions over the consensuses that were already archived, in case they don´t agree with them. The page will be usefull as a guide on this frequent issues. We would definitely spare many repetitive discussions that take place here over and over again just because the previous discussions are no longer easily avaliable so people could see what was agreed back then. A great idea in my view, however Daemonic Kangaroo also pointed there are some weak points, but we may try to see weather we actually can archive consensus at some issues and start by them. FkpCascais (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the sort of things that are "reached in a discussion by only a handful of people" are the sort of thing being discussed here. However, many of the threads you're alluding to are presumably settled quickly simply because one of the project regulars is able to point out the existing precedent. Codifying that would be good. I've tried to do it where I can in the layout guides we have, but obviously that can't cover everything. If anyone wants to be bold and have a go at this I'm sure it'll be very well received. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of the issues that might be listed are:

• Determination of nationality for table in club article.
• Avoidance of contestable nationality claims in opening sentence of player articles
• No flags in infoboxes
• Rationalised tables for World Cup/Confederation championships
• Status of competitions for which squad templates are suitable
• Place of birth to be per national borders at time of birth
• Change of club not to be recorded in infobox until formally confirmed

Other suggestions welcome. Kevin McE (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be vehemently opposed to a "consensus decisions" page, as it would effectively amount to "this is the way things are, and they are damn well staying that way". This would run contrary to common sense, the notion that editors old and new are all equal, and one of Wikipedia's best known policies.

Far more appropriate would be to simply link to the discussions themselves, and let individual editors draw conclusions as to whether there is an angle that hasn't previously been considered, or whether circumstances might have changed. —WFC— 22:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary I think it would be very useful, as at the moment it's a right pain in the arse to trawl through the archives to find past discussions. There is nothing wrong with a "consensus decisions" page - after all we have plenty of things like WP:MOS, WP:ATHLETE and of course WP:CCC etc that have developed through consensus - should they be scrapped? There is always room for things to be discussed again, and there are frequent changes to many of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies despite them being written down. Number 57 22:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go hunting through archives to find a past consensus. I think this is a good idea. Consensus as i am fully aware can change there is no harm in that and so can the consensus decisions page.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps WFC missed the last sentence of my original posting. This would not remove the possibility of further discussion, but would allow concensus as already achieved to be made easily accessible. WP:CCC does not cancel the authority of consensus as already reached, otherwise we would have no policies, no norms, no MoS, no criteria... Kevin McE (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, maybe we could also have a list of editors who support/oppose each consensus as well. Adam4267 (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Kev: my issue is not with links to perennial discussions being collated in one place, but with the idea that such discussions are judged and then presented as "consensus decisions". One of the examples that Number 57 has used is the classic example of why it would be a misapplication. There is not consensus on the continuation of ATHLETE: there is broad consensus that it is inadequate, even from several editors who previously swore by it, but none on how we overhaul it. To label our current method of determining notability as in any way being a "consensus decision" would be a categoric lie, but on the other hand this is precisely the sort of issue where a page along the lines of what you are proposing would be invaluable.

It should be left to the reader to separate perennial issues which tend to default to the status quo without explicit consensus to do so, from frequently raised issues on which there is widespread agreement to do what is currently done. At most, the compilation page should state what the de-facto situation is for a given issue, and link to relevant discussions which will shed light on why this is so. There should be no "decision making" involved. Indeed the page shouldn't claim to carry any clout; it should simply be a resource for the project's convenience. —WFC— 02:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, WFC, that practically nothing on Wikipedia is formally codified: almost every rule, guideline, policy et cetera is simply a document of the prevailing consensus. Very little is normative. This would be nothing more than a "cheat sheet" for quick lookup of how things looked on a given issue the last time it was discussed: if necessary, we could make clear in a header that everything on it was up for debate and that it simply attempted to document the way things were presently done rather than trying to be a rule for future work. All in all I think WP:FOOTY is far better at this sort of thing than most WikiProjects: it's precisely because we do often have long and detailed arguments over things that it'd be good to know where things left off in a given discussion without having to trawl our archives (which I believe are the deepest on the entire encyclopedia outside of the admin boards). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My comments are designed to ensure that what we end up with is a non-judgemental "cheat sheet", which would very clearly be a good thing. The initial proposal looked set to go further and determine what consensus was for each given issue. In many cases there is none, and the historical solution is retained purely in the interests of stability. Far better to simply catalogue each issue, such as in EchetusXe's example below. —WFC— 02:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

How about then just a table of links to past discussions, save the bother of searching time and again, but not codifying decisions. e.g.

No flags in infoboxes

Discussion 1 (date); Discussion 2 (date); Discussion 3 (date)

EchetusXe 21:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I had in mind. —WFC— 02:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

But in some cases there's a very clear consensus (e.g. no flags in infoboxes, etc.), so why bother making people read the whole discussion themselves just to get the same conclusion. I mean, there's nothing to stop us having a link to the discussion as well as the consensus decision, all in the same table. For those discussions that didn't end in a clear decision, we could simply write "No clear consensus" and by default there would be links to any discussions. BigDom 07:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It was by no means my suggestion that we try to preserve every subject of discussion, just a few recurrent issues where we have a clear current practice. If there is not a clear consensus, it does not go on the list. There are still many editors who are either resistant to, or ignorant of, the issues that keep on re-appearing at these pages: it would be handy to have some way of referring them to the result of our discussions, where those discussions have lead to something that is tantamount to a current editorial policy within the project, without them having to plough through every twist and turn of the discussion that got there. There will be a link to the archive, should they wish to condemn themselves to wading through all that, and also to relevant wider wiki consensus policies. If there is no clear consensus, it doesn't go on the consensus decisions page: just because it is on the CD page, that does not mean that the concensus cannot be discussed again here (but hopefully, it won't be so often). Kevin McE (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it would still be useful to record some discussions where no clear consensus was reached. On many occasions there will still have been useful arguments on either side, and could provide good background reading rather than someone asking the question anew. I appreciate that would need some rewording from 'Consensus Decisions'. Something like 'Football policy and guideline discussions'? Eldumpo (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Our archive runs to 60 volumes: a record of every discussion exists, but is not helpful as a FAQ. Kevin McE (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just talking about those key discussions where policy, guidelines etc are discussed. We don't need to worry about minor threads asking for sourcing help, or the anti-vandalsim posts. Whilst the archive has a role as an overall record of all discussions, it's not very practical for easy access. As has been mentioned above, I guess we're after this page providing quick links to some of the more important questions that keep arising - notability, nationality/flags, templates, reliable sources etc. Eldumpo (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I do understand Dom's point, but if we have a practise of writing "no clear consensus" for anything which isn't clearly accepted, I believe we would be creating more problems than we initially solve. Take Eldumpo's list. There is certainly no clear consensus on player notability (there's consensus to change, but also consensus that we should keep what we have until something is in place). Even with the relatively stable club notability, the UK/France anomaly regularly comes up, as do questions on whether our rules for clubs are proportionate to our rules for players. Nationality/flags issues regularly come up: while there are some widely accepted practises in specific contexts, there are still fundamental grey areas, as well as areas where this project is at odds with Wikipedia as a whole (whether the latter are right is another matter). A lot of regulars have a lot of negative things to say about the use of a lot of widely used templates, and we already have a page which in theory should be listing reliable sources.

To attempt to label any of these issues as in any way settled would be at best misleading, and comments made by users such as Number 57 (tackled in my previous post) and Kev (such as "clear current practise") have re-affirmed my belief that this is precisely what could happen.

If we take Kev's suggested implementation (as of his post at 7:47 UTC), none of these matters would be listed, except for flags in some limited contexts. If we take Dom's suggested implementation, all of these issues would have "no clear consensus" next to them. It's for that reason that I say keep it simple and go along the lines of EchetusXe's blueprint.

I want to make clear that Kev has come up with the meat and bones of a fantastic idea. If implemented correctly, this will be the one of the most valuable wikispace pages the project has ever created, and there is unanimaty that we need an archive-busting resource for specific issues. I simply want to get it right. —WFC— 22:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mkhan-95's articles

User:Mkhan-95 has created tons of football clubs. Four clubs per hour. I guess he had one or more old books. It looks like historic stories, but readers will thinking it plays in our current millenium. What should happens? --Diwas (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If you check www.rsssf.com, you can see that the information appears to be valid. I'll update when I have time. Jogurney (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a template to tell the readers that this article is out of date for decades? This would be an interim solution. Informations like the league and the position in the infoboxes should be removed immediately. --Diwas (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by out of decades? Club doesn't exist anymore? Then just add a sentence in the lead and delete the current squad. I'd delete any unchanged squad that wasn't updated like since 08 or 09. It's messy to name those current squads, when noone updates them. Better would be 2008 squad or something. -Koppapa (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the clubs, but they are not listed in the current seasons of Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Honduras and some of the players are 70 years old. Look at the pages created by User:Mkhan-95. You can't update more than 40 pages in a short time, but the disinformations should be removed or outdated informations should be declared as outdated, with a hint of a time context, like this our third millenium or last second millenium. C.D. Atlético Español, one page of more than 40 (I did't read them), is now upgraded to a stub. Best regards and thanks for your work. --Diwas (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

World Cup All-Start team review

There are some serious issues at FIFA World Cup awards. First, there is no official source. The early awards were media nominations. There should be a reference for each year so that entry changes can be verified. I discovered one source, http://football.sporting99.com/fifa-world-cup-all-star-team.html , but it seems to be an earlier version of the article and has the occasional error, not the least of which is listing midfielders as forwards for a few competitions. Does anyone have a more reliable source? Can we add a reference to the year for any that do have an official or reliable source? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if there is no reference covering all awards, each year should have a source cited for easy confirmation. -Koppapa (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)