Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 75

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

→

Archive 80

2013 AFC Champions League

Some eyes may be needed at 2013 AFC Champions League. IPs are speculating on an impending AFC decision on slot allocations. It seems the rankings have been leaked but there is no official confirmation. Hack (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the speculation - let's wait until the official announcement tomorrow. GiantSnowman 12:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ukrainian Amateur Cup

Found a bunch of season articles on the Ukrainian Amateur Cup - as you will see from the redlink there is no parent article. I don't know if the competition is notable or not but I am pretty sure the season articles are not. You can see from the template Template:Ukrainian Amateur Cup Seasons which season articles exist. I am loathe to creating multiple AfDs (in this case for 10 pages) so if anyone wants to merge all the content to the aforementioned redlink page if you think the competition is notable, or start the deletion discussion themselves if you think otherwise, please go ahead. Thanks, Cloudz679 15:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you at least attempted to contact the original author User:Aleksandr_Grigoryev about his intent and gets some comments? The competition would be equivalent to FA Trophy, the Football Association's cup competition for teams at levels 5–8 of the English football league system and that has an entry. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not Ukrainian or British, but I can safely assume that the FA Trophy gets 50 times the coverage the Ukrainian Amateur Cup does, so season articles are definitely not notable. Having said that, the competition article for the latter needs creating. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 22:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It (FA Trophy) might get even more coverage in England where English is readily available. The season articles in Ukrainian are notable enough since there is a Ukrainian Wiki entry for the competition uk:Кубок України з футболу серед аматорів. Hence, really we need someone to volunteer and improve this area. Care to help? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can infer that it is notable solely because it has a page at Ukrainian Wikipedia. I briefly looked at the article there and there is one reference, which I would describe as an "external link" as the link itself it does not explicitly support anything on the page. Merge seems to be in order for now though, any volunteers? Cloudz679 22:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If the levels 5–8 in the English Football System are good enuff to have an entry then level 4 in the Ukrainian Football Pyramid are just as equivalent. How about using the Ukrainian version of Google search to find more than one reference rather than blindly merging??? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have made a start on the Ukrainian Amateur Cup article but we need to add sources and take out the unnecessary red links. Anyone speak Ukrainian? League Octopus (League Octopus 10:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC))

Well done! I will add references within the next couple of weeks when the main competitions go break and I have vacation. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

match report templates

not sure about this, but all the match report templates have been recently changed to (1) remove the |link= and (2) reduce the amount of information available when you hover your mouse over the image. Frietjes (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one either, but my first thought is that templates that are used in so many pages shouldn't be changed by such an unexperienced editor without given a valid reason in the edit summary. I guess reverting, and leaving a note on the user's talkpage that you've reverted would be the best thing to do, and maybe you'll get an explanation on why the edits were done. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Are the 2013 Confederations Cup draws known?

I don't think they are, but there have been several recent edits like this one that claim Spain and Italy will be B1 and A2 respectively. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Brazil is A1. Don't think any more positions are fixed right now. -Koppapa (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And apparently Spain is B1. -Koppapa (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggested additional question for WP:NCLUB.

Most of you will now be familiar with the user essay WP:NCLUB and WP:NTEST. In general NTEST has been performing well but has been found lacking in cases where a club has played only a few games at a low level in the national cup e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mem Martins Sport Clube and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perst Tabanan. I therefore propose to add an ancillary question to cover this shortfall:

Q1A. Is the coverage of the club in the national cup deemed "de minimis" (very minor) ?

Any views? League Octopus (League Octopus 09:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC))

Why does the shortcut have a 'N' at the front? That could give the false impression that it is a proper notability guideline/policy. It doesn't even have approval from WP:FOOTY, let alone the wider community as a whole. GiantSnowman 09:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Apart from GiantSnowman's concern (which I agree on), I think a question like that would be useful in cases of clubs with few participations in an obscure level of a cup (although showing some common sense Q1 would also suffice). Cheers. – Kosm1fent 09:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It may help to refer or contribute to the following discussion re GiantSnowman's concern. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC))

I have sympathy with the additional point made by Kosm1fent that common sense use of Q1 might suffice but as the essay has been prepared to assist the inexperienced as well as the experienced editor I think there are advantages in "spelling out" the need to consider the credibility of very minor participation in a national cup. In the light of future AfD decisions we may also get a better understanding and consensus of what is considered to be "de minimis". League Octopus (League Octopus 11:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC))

I think it's a good concept for a question but perhaps could be better worded "Has coverage been beyond "de minimis" (very minor) ?" - or the like, so that a positive answer would add to the positives elsewhere. Having said that, it seems to be like the "routine" idea which controls WP:GNG. Would still support though. Cloudz679 15:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the point that you are making about wording Cloudz. I suggest the following question:

Q1A. Does the participation of the club in the national cup exceed "de minimis" (very minor) coverage?

This would enable consistency with the other questions where we look for positive responses. League Octopus (League Octopus 19:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC))

How about incorporating it into Q1, has the club played in a national cup and received beyond de minimis coverage? I think we need to be careful not to over-complicate the guideline or we risk it not being useful. Cloudz679 14:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move: FIFA World Coach of the Year for Men's Football → FIFA Coach of the Year

Reference: FIFA.com.--Dipralb (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves go on the appropriate article's talk page, not here. – PeeJay 17:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

injuries

Marc Muniesa is out for six months. How should that be represented in the team's roster and the player's infobox? One editor has been removing the player's number and leaving the player in the roster (and doing so without discussion for the past few weeks). The club's official roster still shows him on the roster. A champion's league roster shows a B team player with that number, but that B team player has not been added to the roster and Muniesa is not on the roster there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I really doubt that a player is losing his squad-number when injured for six months. I know that some players lose the squad-number when on a season-long loan, but not when injured. But if he is injured for six months, the club wouldn't call him up for CL as they can adjust the squad after the group-stage, so that makes sense. I think we should leave Muniesa with his number in both the team roster and the infobox until we find out why that B-team player got his number in the CL; does UEFA require numbers from 1 to 35 e.g. ? Mentoz86 (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

An injury would not effect the team roster / player infobox / squad template or anything of that nature. GiantSnowman 11:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

1904–05 in Turkish football

Saw this stub on a list, has never improved, afd? Govvy (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Being a stub is no grounds for AfD. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Kangaroo. It should be redone to look better. Surely more information can be found for the very first season. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This link has info on the teams participating in the 1904-05 Constantinopole Football League. Eldumpo (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sponsors in kit images

Odense Boldklub#Jersey timeline looks like a blatant copyright infringement to me, using manufacturers' logos, sponsors and so on, I thought there was a consensus against using such marks in images - also the files happen to be on Wiki commons as "own work", extremely dodgy ground? Cloudz679 10:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd delete them. Also don't think a 3rd Keeper kit should be in the main club article. -Koppapa (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone here familiar with listing commons images for deletion as copyvios, who could help? Cloudz679 12:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

All now flagged as copyright violations. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Help

Is there a way to find with articles than are in Category:Football in Spain are not in the Category:Football in Spain task force articles (the Template:WikiProject Football don't have the parameter Spain). (Sorry about my english. I am trying to try this in greek wikipedeia). Xaris333 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yobot

Hey, can anyone explain what User:Yobot is doing with all the infoboxes? I keep seeing the bot's edits on my watchlist and it is just making me wonder what exactly is it doing. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it's going through and standardising them based on whatever presets AWB is following. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It's basically updating the infobox parameters. GiantSnowman 23:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, okay got it now. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Although the Yobot is doing a good job adding the newer parameters to infoxoxes. I now noticed it's making mistakes such as this one to George Best's article introducing a second birth place parameter instead of death place. Although the Yobot is supposed to have been fixed some of the mistakes haven't been corrected has anyone else noticed mistakes. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'd leave those edits from Yobot in my watchlist without checking them, but now I guess I have to go through all of them to check for any errors. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The user that runs the bot said when he fixed the bot he corrected the errors created but for some reason he missed deaths from 2000 onwards. He has since went back & made further corrections so should be ok now. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

New Wikidata task force

Just to let people know that I've made a start on a Football task force on Wikidata. It's basic for now but hopefully once Wikidata is fully up and running there can be progress made with regards to how the data hosted there can be used on Wikipedias. Anyone willing to help with the task force or make the page better please feel free! Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you able to give a quick overview of what impact/changes Wikidata will have on Wikipedia from a football perspective. The FAQs on that page didn't seem to cover basic issues. How come players and teams are being listed as examples. Is the idea that there is a central Wiki location for anything to do with stats? Will bots be heavily involved? How will data quality be ensured? Eldumpo (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

1. Yes.
2. It's unlikely that they will add data, just as they don't currently add data on Wikipedia (to my knowledge).
3. By providing a source for every piece of data.

—WFC— _{FL wishlist} 11:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. What happens if someone isn't using Wikidata but maintains stats on a number of articles? Their work won't be regarded as secondary to any stats at Wikidata will it? I just have images of people/bots going around adding data to loads of articles, and am trying to understand how the use of Wikidata might fit with existing en wiki editing patterns. Eldumpo (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not deliberately trying to fudge these answers, but your questions are quite difficult to give clear answers to at this moment in time.

What I can say with certainty is that both our policy on the way in which we utilise Wikidata, and the level of bot involvement, will be decided by the English Wikipedia community, and the English Wikipedia community alone. It's not for me to pre-empt sitewide policy – I honestly don't have a clue what the outcome of discussions about Wikidata will be.

On bots. While I cannot say for certain that bots will never be allowed to add data directly, a bot data run would surely require consensus from those who actually edit the affected articles (in the case of football articles, us). Bots have to go through the bot approval group to do even the most uncontroversial of tasks, and a request to do content-related edits would be subject to a very high level of scrutiny. In practise, anything they do needs to be nigh-on foolproof, and Wikidata-related edits would be no exception.

The precise answer to your question on whether existing stat work would be secondary to Wikidata is quite technical and legal in nature. Two things which work in Wikidata's favour are that its licence is more versatile (CC0, compared to CC-BY-SA used on Wikipedia), and Wikidata itself is more versatile (data there can be used on every language Wikipedia). But there is absolutely no question of poorly sourced data ever being given primacy over something which is reliably sourced. And that works both ways: if a certain piece of Wikipedia data is more reliable than Wikidata, we would keep what we have. If well-sourced Wikidata content replaced unsourced Wikipedia content, then that would probably be considered an improvement. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 09:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your further responses. It would be really useful if you/others involved in Wikidata could keep us up to date with any relevant issues arising. Eldumpo (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Template of New Zealand

If someone can create the template about All Whites. That's only the template which is missing. I made it on french Wikipedia ([1]). Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Template:New Zealand squad 1973 OFC Nations Cup - please add a reference somewhere - I couldn't find one. Cloudz679 13:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You can find the squad here [2]--FCNantes72 (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't all players appear on the template (2008 New Zealand Squad OFC Nations Cup)? There are 30 players and only 23 who appear.--FCNantes72 (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I would guess because the squads page is wrong (unattributed to any source) and the final squad size was 23 players, as is normal for major tournaments these days. Cloudz679 13:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the 1973 OFC Nations Cup page may be at the wrong title. Hack (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

So is the 1980 OFC Nations Cup - but were they 'OFC Oceania Cup' or just plain ol' 'Oceania Cup'? GiantSnowman 17:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it was just "Oceania Cup". Not 100% sure about the later tournaments - they seem to get a few different treatments - "Oceania Cup", "OFC Nations Cup", "Oceania Nations Cup" and "OFC Oceania Nations Cup". I have a programme from the 2004 Cup, I'll see if it sheds any light. Hack (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Johor FC

Could someone please restore this article to a clean version, it has had a vast amount of vandalism & deliberate factual errors & I can't find the last good version. I've been reverting edits for the last few hours but lost patience with this one, I'm about to log out for a few hours & don't feel comfortable leaving it. Thanks in advance ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've wielded my sword. GiantSnowman 14:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have flagged the two logos for deletion on WP Commons as copyright violations. They should have been uploaded onto en Wikipedia only with a fair-use rationale. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

David Howell (footballer)

in the infobox it has Barnet down twice for conf and league seperate, should it be like that? Or should it be combined? Govvy (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No they shouldn't be separate, unless he left the club for a short period & later rejoined which doesn't seem to be the case. You should combine. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

17th of Shahrivar league

Does anybody know if this is an edition of the Iran Pro League, or something quite different? According to Iranian Football League, this league was a local city league, although the 17th of Shahrivar league article looks like a description of a season and not of a league as a whole. Whatever the case, all of the information here at Wikipedia is unreferenced, making it very difficult to follow (and a possible candidate for deletion), so I think clarification of the articles in question should be a priority. Thanks, Cloudz679 18:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

According to http://pl.wiki.x.io/wiki/Liga_Herdah-Szahriwar_(1988) it was the regional league of Teheran. That looks true by the naming of teams. Doubt it's notable. -Koppapa (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Dorian Marin - national team boss - or not?

Dorian Marin was involved with Eritrea, but it looks like it was actually during the 2007 African U-17 Championship qualification [3] [4], so it would be for the youth team. However I cannot be sure if this national team doesn't have one man who takes care of everything, and the only other reference on the page is pay-walled. I had a look on HighBeam and there were only three results, all of which being false positives. All I am left with is this, which I am not sure qualifies as a reliable source. Does anyone have any ideas? Cloudz679 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There's enough freely viewable in this to confirm him as head coach of the senior side in September 2006, and this blog post, while not RS, confirms his last game as Eritrea coach in June 2007. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Plus, FIFA.com confirm him in charge of both kids and seniors in Dec 2006. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Great stuff, especially the fifa link. Thanks, Cloudz679 21:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Oud-Heverlee Leuven (women)

I'm not a football expert, but came across this stub while stub-sorting. Title doesn't look right, women's team isn't mentioned at Oud-Heverlee Leuven, I'm not sure how it ought to be sorted out but I'm sure some footy-geek will be ready to fix it! Over to you. PamD 12:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Title looks right. Could be mentioned at men's article. Though wonder, why the infobox mentions Beerschot AD, that's another club. -Koppapa (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Copy and paste and rewrite probably. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Little evidence of independent notability, merge with the main team? GiantSnowman 17:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Robbie Russell

Robbie Russell. Born in Ghana. No indication he moved to the US. Has been called-up practice with the Americans but has never been capped. Not clear if he does or does not have American citizenship. Club article's roster indicates he's Ghanaian. Another editor, SirEdimon, continues to change him to American on the 2012 MLS Cup Playoffs article. He is attempting to offer proof on the article's talk page. So how should this be addressed? Where are the guidelines for nationality for footballers? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on prior knowledge with dealing with this kind of issue with Aussie and Indian footballers this should be obviously based on FIFA nationality which seems to be Ghana still as he has not represented the USA in any kind of international tournament nor has he been in an 23-man squad for a match. The only other way to actually change his flag from Ghanian to American is if he does have American citizenship and Ghana does not allow duel nationality (thus meaning he would have to give up his Ghanian passport). I am not sure what the nationality rules in Ghana are however. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

He's an American citizen (his father is American and mother Ghanaian). "A Ghana-born U.S. citizen, Russell has spent the past seven years in Europe."[5] He may well also be a Ghanaian citizen as Ghanaian nationality law allows dual citizenship. Hack (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"this should be obviously based on FIFA nationality..." But the whole notion that there is any such thing as FIFA nationality for players who have not appeared internationally is a fallacy planted by our totally groundless squad template header. For approximately the 1,478th time, FIFA does not take it upon itself to determine a default nationality for anyone who meets the qualification threshold for more than one country. It accepts, and occasionally (I assume) rejects, people's description of themselves as being of a nationality sufficiently to wish to represent them.

The habit of simplifying complex multi-national identity issues to representation by a single flag is Wikipedia's bad habit, but FIFA's. Within the self-imposed restriction of that decision, our criteria default to using place of birth in the absence of other overwhelming and unambiguous evidence, so Ghanaian would seem to be the favoured gross simplification for Russell, but we have absolutely no basis for laying responsibility for such a crass designation at the feet of FIFA.

Meanwhile, there is no pressing reason to describe his nationality in the opening sentence, so removed. Kevin McE (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to clarify what your saying. So basically you do not like how on wikipedia (specially on squad templates) we only use one flag to represent a player despite some players having "2" nationalities and not having played an International match before. Is that right? --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There are two issues. The first is that our grounds for attributing a single nationality to an individual (such as our colleagues below) verges on OR, and does not necessarily reflect the reality of the life and self-identification of the person in question. Secondly, we claim in the header that his nationality is somehow affirmed or recognised by FIFA, which for the vast majority of players it is not. Kevin McE (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably lucky I'm not a notable footballer - I'd have three flags based on potential FIFA nationalities. On Russell, is there evidence that he holds Ghanaian citizenship? Remember that when he was born, Americans couldn't hold dual citizenship. Hack (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd have 5... GiantSnowman 13:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That brings up an interesting point - how do you deal with uncapped British players. Do you assume a player is tied to the British nation they were born/raised in? It would get even more interesting for a player from the north of Ireland... Hack (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

For British players born in the UK I believe they are only eligible for the nation of their birth (other than through parents/grandparents etc.) which is why you don't see Premiership players not quite good enough to play for England turning out for Wales etc. British players born abroad are truly eligible for all four home nations (just like Maik Taylor, just like Steve Lomas, just like me!) and I'm not sure how we'd deal with any uncapped players that there may be - I'm not even sure there are any. Same with players from the Channel Islands... GiantSnowman 14:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not a FIFA rule, that's an agreement between the Home Nations. Hack (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I knew that was the case with foreign players i.e. Carlo Cudicini, didn't know it also applied to home players. Regardless, you will see WP:RS describe someone as English/Scottish etc. as opposed to 'British' so that's what should be used. GiantSnowman 14:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The correct answer is "we do not use flags for uncapped British players". That is, unfortunately, not the answer that the plagued masses want to hear. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to Hack's question, only the Transfermarkt assigns nationality and they list American first, then Ghanian. It's not entirely clear whether the subject has dual citizenship or not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Help creating a new kit

I am currently trying to update the Mohun Bagan A.C. page and I wanted to also obviously update the kit but then I came across a problem. I checked all the paterns and I could not find the one I needed for the home or away kit. Here is what the 2012-13 Mohun Bagan Home kit looks like [6] and here is what the away kit looks like [7]. I am hoping someone with expirence with kits can help me out here because I can not create them as I don't know how. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You could try putting a request in with the excellent Bruno-ban. mgSH 00:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Somethings wrong here

OK, I don't know what's going on here or whether or not it's just me, but I just looked at a couple of player profiles and then the Football infobox template and the problem I'm getting here on the height is that it's saying Expression error: Division by zero. Is anybody else getting that? – Michael (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, seeing that too.. all articles with infobox height JMHamo (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Any idea what the heck is going on? Why it's happening? – Michael (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's not there anymore. – Michael (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Derry City F.C. FAR

I have nominated Derry City F.C. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

CCCF article

Should the article Confederacion Centroamericana y del Caribe de Futbol be moved back to CCCF ? In March 2011 a French user moved it so that the CCCF article would link to a French "fake hacker organization". TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Our coverage of that particular branch of the Chaos Computer Club certainly needs tidied up, but that needn't hold up any move here. There are really only two notable expansions of the initialism: the confederation and the Cold Creek Correctional Facility. I'd move the article back and add a hatnote to point to the other definition(s). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest a RM. GiantSnowman 09:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I've done this right, please have a look: Talk:Confederacion_Centroamericana_y_del_Caribe_de_Futbol TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. GiantSnowman 13:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Doubts on an article : Oliver Konteh

That's not the first time that I find an article about a football player that has his biography altered to make it more impressive, and I think I might have found one more. Since I m not really used to english wikipedia procedures, I prefer to let you handle the case. I might be wrong but I have doubts on that. Information about beeing a profesional player in France during 2 seasons but no information found on the web pages of those clubs, nor in "news", linked to information about wrong championship (strangely the information of championship are right if the player played the year when the article was written => makes me believe the writer didn't check much the facts)... That makes me believe there is something odd about that player. Loreleil (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this version is a more correct version, but it still claims that he played in the Ligue 2. If the fact that he played in Ligue 2 can't be verified, then the article should be deleted, as there are no other claim for notability. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

AfD'ed it here. – Kosm1fent 10:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Indef semi Ballon d'Or (1956–2009)

Please. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 10:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not enough recent disruption to justify. I've added to my watchlist and will monitor. GiantSnowman 10:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

People are still accessing that page to find info on the more recent FIFA Ballon d'Or (see feedback). Would it not make sense to convert the redirect currently at Ballon d'Or to a disambiguation page? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

In tribute to a certain Mr. Godwin, I should probably disclose publicly that I'm anti-appeasement (in this case of editors who have chosen not to read several unmissable signs that this list should finish in 2009).

The question is whether reliable sources refer to the current award as simply "Ballon d'Or". If they do, then literate readers are likely to be searching for the current award, and I agree that your suggestion is the ideal solution. If they don't, then the status quo is probably right – literate editors are more likely to be searching for the historical award. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 11:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I would now support semi-protection but seeing as I am 3RR with a stubborn IP and therefore INVOLVED, protecting the page would not be a good move. Any other admin want to step up? GiantSnowman 15:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

FIFA Balon d'Or is not a new award. (francefootball.fr).

Definitely need semi protection on the page. IP is edit warring. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I've reported to AIV. GiantSnowman 16:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

They've been blocked. And looks like they may have the same fate on German Wikipedia [8] Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User:NapHit has requested that I look again at my decision to revert his removal of the bottom row of the table, concerning 2010 onwards. I'm extremely reluctant to do so, unless either there is a clear consensus to remove, or the page is indefinitely semi-protected. It's one thing to silence trolls without further discussion, quite another to subject good-faith editors who might have missed the hatnote to the same treatment. The ideal solution is of course that we semi-protect the page, and engage with users who are confused on the talk page, but failing that? —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 08:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't actually see anything wrong with a simple final row which just says "merged with FIFA Ballon d'Or". That avoids disclaimerish text while still providing enough clue for the majority of our editors. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"Current squad" sections

Is it absolutely necessary to have these as site-wide they must surely be a nightmare to maintain, given troll interventions? I support Blackpool and I'm always alerted when I see a squad edit appear on my watchlist. Okay, as it happens, any problems by the seaside are swiftly resolved but what about other clubs? Is it a problem or are the inland footy folks managing without hairdryers? --Old Lanky (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't really come across vandalism with these templates, the main issue is reporting moves before they happen. However, for some articles not so well monitored the entries can become dated. I'd like a move away from the generic text under the title in order that you can properly indicate the source of the squad, and when it was last accessed. Eldumpo (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I very rarely see any vandalism. If the squad is unreferenced, then go ahead and remove it as such - however if there is a valid source then they should remain. GiantSnowman 10:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As with everything else on the project, the efficiency with which vandalism is spotted and fixed on a given article is directly proportional to how much traffic it gets. For most Football League clubs, we have at least one good soldier somewhere in the world willing to take on the task of monitoring the club article for this. The downside to stopping anon editors from editing them is that studies suggest that the vast majority of anon edits are actually productive, and that in some cases the only reason our articles are up to date is thanks to casual passers-by. As for removing squad sections entirely, that rather seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Brazil state leagues

I knew the league of Rio and Sao Paulo may be a professional league due to low cost of living thus low wage demand (and relatively richer in these states). But for Brazilian Serie C (or even Serie B) level it is already very difficult to dig out news article and stats. Is they really notable in WP:GNG for the player only in state level? If they are good enough, they should already moved to Serie D or Serie C in 1 or few seasons. On article approach, already lots of lots of Brazilian article without regular update, no content except POB, occupation (footballer) and infobox with stats NOT backed by external source. Matthew_hk tc 17:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I recall that the rules for the top division of the RJ and SP championships indicate that the competition is fully-pro. Carioca and Paulista matches are nationally televised in the US (GolTV for me), and certainly they are televised in Brazil as well. I don't think there is really any doubt about the fully-pro status of those leagues (it's less clear for the lower divisions of the RJ and SP championships and other states leagues). The proliferation of low-quality and infrequently updated stubs on players in these leagues is also present for many types of players that pass NSPORTS. That's a discussion that probably belongs at WP:FPL or WP:NSPORTS. Jogurney (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source???

According to the National Football Team Bima Sakti represented Helsingborgs IF between 1995-96, i can however not find any other source, aside from a number of Indonesian sites, that supports any such claim, closest i can find is a 3 match trial with the club. I have noticed earlier that the site have provided false information regarding Tomas Žvirgždauskas, now corrected, claiming he represented a Israelian club Hapoel Be'er Sheva F.C., while he had just been on trial with the club. So can National Football Team be considered to be a reliable source? Halmstad (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't regard it as that reliable, except maybe for really well known players. Often, appearance information for country or club is incomplete but the site doesn't say when that's the case. I'm not sure what the source is for their data. Eldumpo (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was run by the guys at Playerhistory? GiantSnowman 21:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No, just some contributors who can or could edit both sites. They were asked to put the playerhistory.com logo on their site after they had copied some information from playerhistory.com (information that is very hard to get) Cattivi (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Igor Denisov

Hey everyone, I've been updating the Igor Denisov page for quite some time, changing it from a stub to a quite substantial article. I was hoping someone could help me and review it as a Good Article nominee. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Peguero Jean Philippe

Please can an admin move the article Peguero Jean Philippe to Jean-Philippe Peguero? Peguero is the player's name. For some reason, we occasionally have this problem with Francophone players when they give their surname first such as Ndaye Mulamba and Mbemba Sylla TheBigJagielka (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I had a long debate with another editor several years ago about Peguero Jean Philippe. Strange as it seems, apparently he self-identifies as Peguero Jean Philippe (and WP:RS support this). I think the debate was on the talk page, but it might be in my user talk archives. I'll check. Jogurney (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Improvement at Evangelos Marinakis

Please help improve Evangelos Marinakis as it needs some good work to bring it to acceptably meeting WP:N and WP:V (not to mention WP:BLP). There are several suggested references posted on the talk page which may help in improving it. Any help is appreciated as I know nothing about the topic myself. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Macedonia - FPL?

Is the First Macedonian Football League a legitimate WP:FPL? The reference given [9] says that seven of the 12 clubs in the league in 2007 do not have a single professionally contracted player, which leads me to believe this league should be struck from the list unless the situation has changed or a reliable source can be found. Thoughts? Cloudz679 17:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The relevant section is reproduced below - you needed to quote more than you did. Eldumpo (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Seven out of the 12 clubs did not have a single player registered as a professional player although all players in the Macedonian First League are playing professionally."

Yes, I did read that too, the quote "If we sum up we'll see that there are not even 100 professional players in the 12 football clubs of the league", sourced from the article upon which the FPL citation is based (see [10]) - made me question the validity of the "fully professional status". So what do you think, Eldumpo and others? Cloudz679 22:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading the whole article the context is very much about players not being fully registered and I wonder if the "100" reference is supposed to be referring to players who are properly registered as pro, although I agree this point is not made clear, and it can be interpreted that there are conflicting statements within the reference. Eldumpo (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else have any views on this? I think it would be prudent to strike this league from the list after seven days of discussion unless a reliable source which establishes the professional status of the league can be discovered (if indeed any such source exists). Cloudz679 14:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd say remove it now and only re-add when a reference can be found. GiantSnowman 16:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there is 'a reference' referring to Fully Pro. However, given the conflicting statements I'd have no objection to it being removed, as long as a hidden entry remains with a reference to the source and perhaps this discussion. Eldumpo (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing help

I need sourcing help for Celtic's 2–1 victory over Barcelona on 7 November 2012. The attendance was not reported in Celtic's (which is normal) nor Barcelona's match report & UEFA which I used for the other European attendances in the season page didn't report the attendance see here. I had to go with the BBC who said the attendance was 55,283. I've since had to revert a number of changes (as no source was provided or they were not reliable) by IPs who made it a capacity attendance. I also feel it was a capacity attendance, 5,000 short seems wrong as there was over 59,000 at the Spartak match, but I haven't found a reliable source that emphatically sates the attendance was 60,832 or something close. Anyone help. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Soccerway and Goal.com give a figure of 58,841, while the Daily Mail quotes 60,000 but I think that's a rounded figure. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

See Robin Buchanan (Celtic stadium manager) on Twitter, who gave it as a 58,841 sell-out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I had seen that figure by Goal but didn't realise it was also stated by Robin Buchanan & Soccerway. I'll update the relevant articles, helpful as ever. Thanks ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hugh Hill (footballer)

Hello all. I'm looking for some help on determining the notability of one Hugh Hill, who played for various clubs, including Falkirk, mainly in the 1980s. I've found a newspaper clipping here which notes his appearance in a game against Motherwell in the 1987–88 Scottish Premier Division, and a blog which notes his appearances for "Falkirk, Albion, Arbroath and Brechin". Any more sources etc would be helpful, and some guidance on whether Mr Hill should be notable enough for an article here would be very useful. Thanks all. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Was the SPL fully professional at that point? Hack (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's part of my question. He's listed in the Brechin City article as having made over 100 appearances for the club as well, and according to this he made nearly 500 appearances in Scottish football between 1976 and 1992. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

East Fife and Brechin were also top flight for some of the time he spent with them, not just Falkirk. I'd have no problem with his notability. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Ignore that, it's rubbish... Too cold for my brain this morning. I'd still say that one season in the topflight and a long career is enough for notability, though. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

He's also notable for a penalty miss against Rangers in the Skol Cup (which I think was the "league" cup of Scotland?) here. I seem to recall an appearance in the English League Cup confers sufficient notability for an article? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The English League is "fully professional", so its Cup competition is considered fully pro by extension. The Scottish League isn't.

Either way, I doubt very much if media coverage of the SPD as recently as 1988 would have differed depending on whether a few of its players had second jobs or not. And local consensus extends fully-pro status to the Scottish First even when it isn't, on that very basis. Why are you needing to know about the presumed notability of some apparently random Scottish footballer? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As to sources, this piece might be worth following up. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity really. There's a guy who works in one our sister sites in Scotland who says he's the same guy....! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

West Bromwich Albion F.C.#European record

I am not in favour of tabulating results of individual matches on the main page of a club as I think this is too much detail for a high-level article. A European record section has been added several times to West Bromwich Albion and I don't want to continue to revert unless there is clear consensus that this is sensible. I am also mindful of WP:3RR. Sadly, the person(s) adding this contribution has not joined in the discussion I started at Talk:West Bromwich Albion F.C.#West Brom in Europe. I would welcome any input from the project. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

FPL

Hm, what about Soviet Union? Does Soviet Top League is in the Wikipedia:FPL list? --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Soviet First League and Soviet Second League, too, please. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 13:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

What do WP:RS say? GiantSnowman 13:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess it may be unlikely to find sources referring to 'fully-pro' Soviet League players due to the nature of the economic system there. One of the weaknesses of FPL is that it doesn't really deal with years, so the Ekstraklasa is shown as fully pro, but was that really the case in the communist era? Eldumpo (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If you go far enough back then no league is fully professional. That's one more reason not to get too hung up on players' contracts when it comes to notability. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There's probably a decent article waiting to be written about the "shamateurism" that occurred in the Eastern Bloc in the communist era. As for creating player articles for Soviet players, my advice would be that if you've got enough sources to write something longer than a stub, you'll be able to justify notability. But if you plan to write substubs based solely on statistical sources, I'd advise against doing so. Personally, before starting an article I like to have enough material for it to be eligible for WP:DYK (though I only nominate them if there's a particularly interesting fact about them). Oldelpaso (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If that was comment for me, then - no, i'm not writing about them. I just started to scan Latvian football players to find what to delete. For example, these ones: Leonards Andžāns, Dainis Andersons, and Harijs Balcers.--Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Edgars has used this discussion as "evidence" that these Latvian footballers are not notable in a whole lot of AfD's he's started. My impression, and it is also written in WP:FOOTYN, is that amateur footballers from the pre-professional era who played in a later fully-pro leagues are presumed notable. E.g. the English Football League has not been fully professional since 1900, but footballers who played in the league back then and Norwegian footballers who played in the top league before it was allowed to be proffessional are still presumed notable. The problem in this case is that there obviously are no fully pro Soviet League today. But when Wikipedia says that the national team of Russia has inherited the history of the Soviet-team, wouldn't it be common sense to say that the same applies to the Soviet Top League, and that footballers who played in the Soviet Tope League during the amateur era are presumed notable just like amateur footballers in any other European League 30 years ago? Mentoz86 (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The system in the Soviet Union under which men were recruited into the Army or the MVD or certain factories where their only tasks involved football-related fitness, training and playing, makes the Soviet Top League about as fully professional as it gets.

And in general, I'd expect players having played in the top level of the national league of any major footballing nation in the pre-professional era to be considered notable. Where articles on such players exist that cite proper secondary sources, I can't see any reason for deleting on WP:NFOOTBALL grounds just because the Soviet Top League isn't included in the fairly random list that is WP:FPL. As Chris says above, we shouldn't get too hung up on players' contracts. We don't delete Football League players of the past, despite the Football League not becoming fully professional even at the top end until the 1950s–1960s. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Weymouth F.C.

Heads up over a WP:OWN situation at Weymouth F.C. Tribe 2 (talk · contribs) seems to be under the illusion he has a right to add whatever content he wishes to this page, as he's a supporter of this team. He insists on removing wikilinks, using incorrect flags, removing references etc, and when I have the audacity to revert him he starts ranting about how I ought to leave the page alone as I have no connection with the club. See this recent example. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I added the page to my watchlist & reverted their most recent edit. I also left a message informing him/her of a number of policies, not sure what good it will do given their attitude. I can't see why anyone would want to remove wikilinks of players who play for a club they supposedly support. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Imagine it's the latest incarnation of MaloneyW.F.C. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

He's still reverting, further claims of ownership, misleading edit summaries & removing maintenance templates without resolving the issue. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Struway, I've re-opened the SPI. GiantSnowman 09:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Could I get some experienced members of this Wikiproject to comment on Talk:Weymouth F.C.? For the past several months there has been an edit war, I believe about two things: first, should the reserve team members be listed on the page, and second, should the players be listed in numerical order or in order by position. Now, these sound like the sorts of things that are probably standardized across all club articles, so I figured someone here could probably provide the best input. I've just fully protected the article for a week so that discussion can commence, but if anyone can point to an established discussion that already standardized these, I can unprotect early so that the article reflects that prior consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a case of WP:OWN going on over there by one editor. Weymouth don't have squad numbers, so the players cannot be listed numerically – listing by position / alphabetical order is the way to go, I'd have thought. I'm not sure about listing the reserve players, but I'd be willing to bet no. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Minimal info season articles

Is this or this really better than a redlink? Only info is, who won the championship. And the only source in article specifically mentions "those titles are unofficial"? -Koppapa (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the articles linked from that Lebanese championship template are pretty useless in that they only have a sentence saying who won the title, although I guess in theory they can be expanded, but they don't meet GNG at present. The difficulty with the two specific 'unofficial' articles is that there is scope for them to be 'recreated' by people seeing a gap in the list of seasons. Eldumpo (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Jordan White (footballer)‎

I recently cleaned up Jordan White's article didn't get around to the text but did the statistics table & infobox here is the earlier version as you can see it had flags, excessive columns & infobox was a mess. Since I introduced the standardised template the other day, which was agreed at the start of October, Single-purpose accounts both an IP 82.40.8.149 (talk · contribs) & Biwoopar (talk · contribs) changed it, same person. They added Stirlingshire Cup stats a regional tournament to the statistics table, what next the Renfrewshire Cup, Forfarshire Cup? They also have been moving the loan parameter to the season column rather then the club column for some reason etc. I tried speaking to the user but they reverted straight-away, Possible WP:OWNERSHIP. I don't want it to spiral like Weymouth F.C. could someone help. Thanks ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sir Duck McGee, I have added the page in topic to my list of watched pages (also known as my watchlist). I shall keep check on it through-out the night and when ever I get chance. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gunners any help, is appreciated. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Godfrey Chitalu vandalism

Could an admin protect Godfrey Chitalu - it's getting a ridiculous amount of vandalism at the moment. Hack (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• The vandalism appears to be childish reactions to the revelation that he is the record goal-scorer, not Messi. Sad that most of the article which appears to be based on offline sources had to be purged. Jogurney (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• As the purger, I stand by my removal (apart from the image, that was a mistake, whoops) - it was full of POV, exaggeration and was entirely, 100% unsourced. GiantSnowman 17:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't mean to challenge your decision. I don't have the offline book source, so I don't know how much it supports the old content (which I agree was often not written in an encyclopedic manner). Jogurney (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• I also agree entirely that the tone needs more than a bit of work, and the writing style hints at copyvio. But I was wondering whether you've been able to check the offline sources listed as general references, to verify your assertion that the removed content was "entirely, 100% unsourced"? Struway2 (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The AS article ought to be removed as a reference, as they appear to have used Wikipedia as a source - watch the video and you'll see a printout of a familiar-looking page... Oldelpaso (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that (never clicked the video - or looked at the still with the WP printout). I can see that the AS article contains information that didn't appear in the earlier version of the Wikipedia article, but if the reporter was primarily relying on Wikipedia, do we remove it as a source? Jogurney (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be worth keeping an eye on this - a few relatively inexperienced editors seem to be having some sort of dispute over sources. Hack (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Corinthians

I'm here to dispute the importance of the Corinthians article as dictated by WikiProject Football. The importance is currently rated as Mid, on par with: teams in Lower German Leagues, Women's tournaments in Asia, & Beach Soccer Competitions.

Yet, Corinthians...

• Has a Fan Base of Over 35 Million, The most supported club in Brazil

• Is amongst the most valued clubs in the world (Valued in December 2011 at (€404m/$496m))

• Has a had multitude of well respected players, including 5 of World Soccer's The Greatest Players of the 20th Century (13th Ronaldo, 20th Garrincha, 38th Rivelino, 61st Sócrates, 64th Roberto Carlos)

• Honors:

26x Paulista League Champions (Competition includes: São Paulo, Santos, & Palmeiras)

5x Rio de Janiero & Sao Paulo Combined League Champions (Competition includes: Flamengo, Fluminense, & Vasco da Gama)

4x Brazilian Cup Champions

5x Brazilian League Champions (Competition includes: Atlético Mineiro, Cruzeiro, & Internacional)

2012 Libertadores Champions (Beat Boca Juniors in the Final)

2x FIFA Club World Cup Champions (Only other team to win twice: Barcelona)

Surely we are at least as important to the game of football as WikiProject Football's High-importance articles of Peñarol a Uruguayan Club, Pachuca a Mexican Club, & Canberra United FC a Club that competes in Australia's Women's League

1dayFloripa (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Please rise for the honorable Judge Sir Gunner. Going by the case in front of me, if you look here you will see that you sir, 1dayFloripa, have a very good case. The evidence is provided by the page I have linked here and by the game I just saw this morning at 4:30. I hereby adjudge the article, Sport Club Corinthians Paulista as GUILTY for being of High-Importance. Case dismissed! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

FIFA Club World Cup

Other edititor and me noticed the long sections about previous tournaments. Started a discussion here :Talk:FIFA_Club_World_Cup#Recent_flood_info_about_previous_FCWC_tournaments. What's your opinion, do they belong there, what about the length of sections (that matches some of their own article length)? I wrote editior to join the discussion too. -Koppapa (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1962–63 Football League First Division

Resolved

Under the table of top goal-scrorers you have Ernie Hunt of Liverpool as equal 4th highest scorer. I suspect it should be Roger Hunt, as I don't believe Ernie Hunt ever played for Liverpool; and was not playing in the 1st division that season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.177.135 (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely should be Roger Hunt. Good spot, I'll change it now. BigDom (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Referees

A lot of articles about referees (for example: Craig Thomson (referee)) are basically a long list of all the mistakes someone had made in their carreer. Surely emphasising just the mistakes is to be avoided.188.62.245.20 (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

True, biographies should conform to the appropriate policy. I have identified one user who added defamatory material to the page in question, and any similar pages/occurrences should be reported. Thank you for the heads-up. Cloudz679 20:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sports officials don't usually get a lot of coverage for making the right decision. Hack (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

They do for being identified by their peers as one of the world's elite refs, and for officiating at important events (especially in finals). Thomson has done all of that. That the article is presently simply a series of grudges held by hacked-off football fans reflects poorly on us. I'm considering considerably paring it down in the near future in the interest of due weight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; a blow-by-blow of 'controversial' incidents (i.e. that somebody, somewhere didn't like) is not encyclopedic. GiantSnowman 15:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Teleco

Hey everyone, I just created a page for Corinthians legend Teleco. If anyone has any information with credible sources and would like to help me expand his page that would be great! Cheers! Rupert1904 (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic work. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Marching orders

Hey guys, any ideas on how to use the {{sent off}} template if someone has received a red card after the final whistle (apart from leaving the time specification blank)? Jared Preston (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe  post game' -Koppapa (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, only there's that apostrophe at the end. I was thinking of  After full-time' but either way, it is, for the moment, only something I'm working on in my userspace. Just thought it might be useful to ask because I can think of one or two instances where players have received a red card after the game has finished – I just can't name any names. Jared Preston (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Leandro Cufré was sent off after the final whistle in this match. Its currently formatted as  120' under a heading titled "Other disciplinary actions" since Cufré was on the bench for the duration of the match, which for the time being is adequate if you ask me, but it can never hurt to make things more precise. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe  post gam' then ;) Or {{sent off}} <small>after game</small> .-Koppapa (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Use whatever reliable sources say. If reliable sources say nothing, or are contradictory, leave it out of the caption and save it for the article prose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Stadiums in Ireland

There is List of stadiums in Ireland by capacity not sure shouldn't we just rename it to List of stadiums in Ireland. Then change the redirect around or simply delete the old name? We don't have that on List of football stadiums in England. It's just listed by capacity as a default. Govvy (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

More pertinently, why is there even an article for this? Ireland isn't a country. Shouldn't it be split into stadiums in ROI and stadiums in NI? Number 57 13:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I did think about that and I thought as you did, there should be two seperate articles, although I didn't think there would be that many stadiums in N. Ireland. Govvy (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is already List of association football stadiums in Northern Ireland. Number 57 13:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at the name of the lists in "see also" at the bottom of the article you just provided. attaching "by capacity". By naming convention, is that really needed? Shouldn't it be removed on those others also? Govvy (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably because most team sports (eg1 GAA, eg2 rugby, eg3 cricket) are organised on an all-Ireland basis. It's only really football that is separated. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And even then not properly i.e Derry City. GiantSnowman 16:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind, folks, that "Ireland" is in fact the official name of the country represented by "Republic of Ireland" in football. Using "Republic of Ireland" to refer to anything other than the football team is contentious. I'd recommend removing the Northern Ireland entries from List of stadiums in Ireland, ensuring that the lead clarifies that the article covers Ireland-the-country and not Ireland-the-landmass, and then redirecting List of stadiums in Ireland by capacity to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chippie Polar Cup

Please can a Dutch speaker review the sources provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chippie Polar Cup to see whether or not they are significant enough for notability. GiantSnowman 09:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Same with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Caribbean Stars - help appreciated. GiantSnowman 08:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I half expected the original article to be about something involving fried potato and newspaper. Hack (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha certainly does have a funny name, Snowy you could ask WP:FOOTY member Jacoplane directly or alternative ask football editor Luctor on the Dutch Wikipedia he speaks English. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Jacoplane but he's not been active for a few weeks; I'm sure there are a few Dutch speakers knocking about though. GiantSnowman 10:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

How about asking Cattivi? If anyone knows and has sources, he will. BigDom (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping this general request would have sufficed, rather than individuall targeting every known Dutch-speaking editor. I think Angelo also speaks Dutch? GiantSnowman 11:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

British Home Championship

Someone has moved the tournament articles to reflect the calendar years in which the tournaments took place. For example 1920 British Home Championship now redirects to 1919-20 British Home Championship. Unfortunately, I believe that before the First World War all the tournaments took place in one year. So for example all the games in 1913-14 British Home Championship took place in 1914. Also, I just clicked on 1972-73 British Home Championship, and all the matches actually took place in one week in May 1973. Would it be best to revert most of these page moves?--EchetusXe 10:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Such mass page moves should have been discussed first, especially as they've been moved to titles with an 'incorrect' dash. I've notified the editor in question, let's see what he has to say. GiantSnowman 10:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Football is organised on a season basis, not a calendar-year basis. There was a British Championship every season. Just because, in some years, all the matches were played in one calendar year doesn't mean that the Championship did not relate to that season. Mooretwin (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, the 1994 UEFA Super Cup was played in 1995, but it wouldn't make sense to change the article title. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Mooretwin - what reliable sources are you using to justify that? RSSSF uses both date formats because both types of Championship (i.e. season and calendar year) were used; so should we. Your comment that "Football is organised on a season basis, not a calendar-year basis" is also factually incorrect - USA, Sweden etc. etc.? GiantSnowman 15:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll provide RSs later. Re your second point, obviously I was referring to football in the British Isles, to which the championship in question relates. Mooretwin (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As well as the incorrect dashes used in the new titles, the editor in question also hasn't bothered updating {{British Home Championship}}. However, I think the moves are merited as many of the Home Championships were indeed played out during a regular football season rather than a calendar year. Number 57 15:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say we go with the source identified by the big snowman. With 1919-20 up to 1967-68 being moved to 1919–20 and 1967–68 (also 1983-84), and the rest being reverted back to their original form. The British Isle point is irrelevant I feel, as these are international tournaments, and as such 1966 FIFA World Cup et al would be a better comparison.--EchetusXe 16:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd disagree: the matches were arranged by the Football Associations of the "Home Nations" each football season. Matchdates were arranged as convenient within that season, whether that was in just one of the two years included in the season or in both. And we follow reliable sources for facts, not for house style: the style used on that RSSSF page shouldn't necessarily determine ours. Further, that which the RSSSF calls 1976 is named in the official England itinerary booklet "Home International Championship Season 1975–76", as shown in this auction listing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

England football online site also shows it as an autumn/spring season. Eldumpo (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Right - further evidence we need RS to determine it, not one editor's personal crusade. Have the dashes/template been fixed yet? GiantSnowman 21:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure anyone's on a personal crusade: being bold is a perfectly acceptable way of progressing Wikipedia. But you're right that neither RSSSF's nor Englandfootballonline's house style need determine ours. In contemporary official sources, another auction lists Peter Storey's England cap awarded for the Home International championship season 1972–73 and embroidered with those dates. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A. H. Fabian and Geoffrey Green (eds.) (1960) Association Football Volume Four (London: Caxton) - chapter 7 lists the "winners of the [British International] Championship since the full series of games was inaugurated". Each winner is listed per season, starting with season 1883-84 (pp. 282-283). Mooretwin (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to fix the dashes or the template? Number 57 09:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Clint Dempsey

I just had a quick look at the article, then did a double take on the cats at the bottom. Sees like a lot, does there need to be all those inclusions in Expatriate cats? Govvy (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed two categories, as more specific sub-categories were already present. GiantSnowman 17:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

• (Discuss) – Ahmad Radhi → Ahmed Radhi – Ahmed is his correct first name (fifa, IFFHS, footballdatabase). Regards. Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Rules when it comes to crimes.

Currently I am dealing with a situation where three players are reported to be part of a rape situation. One of the players I believe is still missing. That player is Baldeep Singh. Now I knew about this for around a month (it was reported in late-October) and I did not type anything in the articles of the accused players as I wanted to wait til the official verdict, however today a user typed in Baldeep's article about his involvement and now I am wondering about how other users handle these situations. When do you type down that a player committed this crime and all that. I always thought it was after the verdict is taken. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME. GiantSnowman 22:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Perfect, exactly what I was looking for. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Not the same Baldeep Singh playing for Air India? Is it a duplicate or have the details of the two footballers been confused? Hack (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Air India Baldeep Singh is completely different from the Prayag United Baldeep Singh. The Prayag United one is the one who is accused of rape. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Both born on the same day if you believe the articles. Hack (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont have time right now but if you go here, [11] and go to the Air India page you will find Baldeeps profile and age. The Air India one should be older. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Already fixed it. The Air India footballer was born in 1982. Hack (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the I-League he was born in November [12]. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And August according to JCT.[13] Hack (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Josh Payne

Unfortunately for this lad he has just been sent down for 12 months for assault. I have added to most basic facts to his article. However someone under multiple IPs removes this without comment. I have probably already gone beyond 3RR and cannot cite one IP (as there are many) for the reverts. Anyone know what the correct action here is?--Egghead06 (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked an IP for 3RR and warned a new editor for unexplained content removal; I've added to my watchlist and will protect the article if required. GiantSnowman 10:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Egghead - you've also broken 3RR as well, however it could be argued that it was to revert vandalism. Regardless, I would not recommend doing so again in future, instead ask for help here or at AIV. GiantSnowman 10:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes sorry got carried away! If there had been one user it might have been easier to engage in some discussions - as you can see he pops up in many guises!--Egghead06 (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I've requested protection of the article at RFPP, and asked for the latest editor (I suspect it's the IP) to be blocked at AIV as I am now INVOLVED. GiantSnowman 10:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I've also requested further eyes from BLPN. GiantSnowman 10:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP and editor appear to be his uncle "I know, I`m his uncle", the closes of names Moff206 and JohnMoffat25, and their edit style and history would indicate a sock also. Murry1975 (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As User:Moff206 is determined to sanitise the article and has now reverted three times in under 20 minutes, it seems that a block is called for. As they say on Dragon's Den, "I'm out". -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect Johnmoffat25 (talk · contribs) and 86.162.246.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are the same, while Moff206 (talk · contribs) is a 2nd editor - probably another relative and certainly a meatpuppet. GiantSnowman 12:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A reminder, folks, that new editors should ideally have things explained to them rather than just template-spammed and shopped to WT:FOOTY. Things are obviously going to get heated in situations like this, but where the users are not acting maliciously (merely not according to our guidelines) we're better trying to communicate if possible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Islam Feruz

I am looking at Chelsea's Islam Feruz entry and wondering if it meets WP:NFOOTBALL ... what do you think? Should it be nominated for deletion? JMHamo (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't, but it does meet WP:GNG and he is therefore notable. GiantSnowman 14:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMHamo (talk • contribs) 14:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin Fadi

I have a minor question. It was announced today that Benjamin Fadi from Ghana has agreed to a transfer to Malmö FF. The transfer window opens on 1 January 2013 so that's when all other transfers agreed on before new years will take place. Now, the club has announced that the transfer is agreed on, however the contract with the player will be signed on 16 March 2013 when the player in question turns 18. I believe it has something to do with international or Ghanaian transfer rules that makes it impossible for a player to move abroad before the turn 18. Should I add Fadi to the current squad section of Malmö FF and change his current club in his article on 1 January or 16 March? Here is the the official confirmation from the club (in Swedish) and here is an English version at goal.com. --Reckless182 (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

To confuse things further, the Goal.com article gives the date as February. To be honest it doesn't really matter; navboxes, squad sheets and biographies in general around here are notoriously unreliable around transfer windows. I'd personally exercise caution and wait until March, but I wouldn't be too concerned if someone jumped the gun. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that February is when he will travel to Sweden to join the squad. I'll probably wait until March considering that's when he will sign the contract. Malmö FF will have competitive cup fixtures before this and having him on the squad by then might be misleading, he is a part of the squad by then, but unavailable for selection. I'm just a bit worried about anons insisting on adding him to the squad section on 1 January if it is wrong. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Template for Deletion - Football statistics

See [14]. Whilst the general topic has been brought up here before I believe a link to the TfD should've been left here. Eldumpo (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Professionalism in association football

Is it worth creating this article? Charting the transformation from amateur to professional, as well as defining terms for use with notability queries? GiantSnowman 17:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say so. Could link from the football section in Professional sports, which is currently very focused on salary numbers. Salary is a part of it, but there's also things like the minimum/maximum wage, contracts, agents etc. Also grey areas such as "semi-professional" and illegal payments to players before professionalism was allowed (in England at least). --Jameboy (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Difficult bit would be finding and evaluating the sources to keep a historical balance and pitch it above the Spartacus Educational-stylee junior-school project level. I wouldn't fancy it :-) Not sure how wise it is trying to link an article to notability issues, though. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We've also got players been banned from their national team for turning professional (number of Danish in UK). GiantSnowman 19:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This should be one of our highest priorities. I dare say that dozens if not hundreds of books have been written on this aspect of footballing culture / history. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll start on it tonight. GiantSnowman 09:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with your researches - I look forward to reading the end result. The equivalent article on amateur football is only a redirect to a single unreferenced section in the amateur sports article. This topic merits a proper article as well. Incidentally, Professional football is also a redirect to a section in Professional sports. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe both should remain as redirects - as it could refer to gridiron as much as soccer. GiantSnowman 10:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I've started it, but cannot for the life of me work out where to go from here. GiantSnowman 20:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have some relevant sources, and have made a start to a history section. Will add more on Scotland, Scandinavia and South America when I get the chance. Oldelpaso (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! GiantSnowman 09:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"handball"

Is 'handball' a significant element of association football? There's a move afoot to change the use of the page handball, see talk:handball. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Arsenal_F.C._supporters#Section_Notable_supporters

I wanted to put part of the article to a vote, I feel the whole section on the article is listcraft and it should be removed. Thoughts peeps? Govvy (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd delete that. Look at the table of contents, 1/3 is about the club, 2/3 is about its suporters. Besides, there really is no hurdle to become a supporter. Anyone mentions a club in an interview, you add him? -Koppapa (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we please keep discussion to the article talk page. Thank you, Govvy, for bringing the discussion to the attention of the project, but I think the discussion itself should be restricted to the article talk page, Koppapa. – PeeJay 15:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

CAF Referee of the Year

I noticed that the CAF Referee of the Year award was absent from the CAF Awards article, so I added it to the article. However, I only have information on the last two winners of the award, Djamel Haimoudi in 2012 and Noumandiez Doué in 2011. Anyone know where I can find more information on the award, namely when it was started and who the previous winners were? I found a Goal.com article about the 2010 edition of the awards that made no mention of the referee award, but I'm not sure if it's because it didn't exist or it because it didn't warrant much attention. Any help would be very much appreciated. TonyStarks (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This hasn't any more. -Koppapa (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that link! From the info, it looks like the award was started in 2011, which would explain why I couldn't find any more details. Which brings me to my next question, do the individual awards warrant their own articles like the African Footballer of the Year award? This way we can provide more information about each award (date started, runner-ups, etc.). TonyStarks (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass addition of external links

On the articles of Greek UEFA Euro 2004 footballers, Iliochori (talk · contribs) has added profiles from a fansite, greecechampion.com. It appears that this website is run by Theodoros Mellis, who also runs iliochori.com. Unless I'm wrong, there is some WP:COI involved and addition of such links fails criteria 1, 4 and 11 of WP:ELNO. What does the FOOTY folk think? Cheers. – Kosm1fent 21:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

 It looks like a duck to me. Jared Preston (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sock of who? GiantSnowman 21:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sock? No sock. Also no dog. Duck. Quack. But not in sock terms. More like smells fishy. Do the links add anything? If not, delete. Jared Preston (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If he's not a sock then he can't be quacking. GiantSnowman 22:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Come on! Quacking reveals a duck's identity: in some wiki uses of the analogy, the revealed identity is that of a sock, but wp:sock doesn't have a monopoly on the cliché. Kevin McE (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see those pages are a "unique resource", and they do appear to be from a fansite. As such, they come under WP:LINKSTOAVOID. If the editor making the additions is connected with the website, as seems likely, then they shouldn't be doing so. It's linkspamming, whether they're connected to the site or not. Suggest removing the links – WP:ELBURDEN says "Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them" – and pointing the user to the COI guidelines and to WP:PROMO, if you haven't already. If they think the pages are useful, their addition can be discussed individually at the relevant talk pages, as per WP:ELNO#Advertising and conflicts of interest. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that. :) Cheers! – Kosm1fent 08:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The editor in question continues to add such links. Any course of action to be taken? – Kosm1fent 16:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Revert & warn. Issue a final warning next time and if he continues let me know, I'll block. GiantSnowman 16:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bradley Scott Reid

Hi everyone. Perhaps someone from this project can take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bradley Scott Reid. I don't feel comfortable making the call and it's been waiting for review for a while. It should only take just a couple of minutes. He's a football player. Thanks! :) SarahStierch (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Automatic Deny: Please see WP:NFOOTBALL for information on football player notability and WP:FPL for all the fully-professional leagues. From the article it says that he is a Welsh youth international which does not confer notability as he should be a senior international to be notable. He has also only played at the Conference National at the highest which is the 5th division of English football. FPL will tell you that the Conference National is not fully-professional at all and thus he fails N:FOOTBALL. Also the article fails GNG. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Would decline it myself if I knew how to. GiantSnowman 19:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

THanks guys! Sometimes it takes the specialists to verify that. I assumed GNG, but, I'm not as well versed in football :) Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Soccerway template

Would it be possible for somebody with the relevant skills to please create a {{Soccerway}} for easy linking to profiles? GiantSnowman 16:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Think that should work. It takes three parameters like so: {{Soccerway|Robin|Hulbert|53419}}, I'll do the documentation soon. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff, many thanks. Would it be easier just to have two paramaters - id= and name= like the Soccerbase template, for players such as Matthew Cooper (footballer) and Toko Nzuzi? The latter has 3 names on Soccerway. GiantSnowman 21:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't save much typing over copying the URL into *[ Soccerway profile].  ;) -Koppapa (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not, but it at least will add uniformity. I've seen bare URLs, I've seen the *[ Soccerway profile], I've seen full cites descriving them as 'Profile' or 'Player profile'... GiantSnowman 21:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

That's true. Would agree that it definately needs only one parameter then for the id. -Koppapa (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the dashes in the Soccerway URLs. If you just supply the name, e.g. "name=Matthew Cooper", I don't know of any way to get that to convert to "matthew-cooper" like it is in the URL. Unless you mean to write something like {{Soccerway|id=robin-hulbert/53419}}, with the name parameter set to automatically take the page name unless "name=xxx" is supplied? That would work. The Soccerbase template is OK because the URLs only contain the player's ID number. BigDom (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be perfect. GiantSnowman 16:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

id=robin-hulbert/53419 looks fine. And the link text would be just Soccerway profile? With the occasional tailing (footballer) the page name would look strage there, wouldn't it? -Koppapa (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

For players whose page names are appended with "(footballer)" you could use the name parameter, e.g. {{Soccerway|matthew-cooper/253988|Matthew Cooper}}. BigDom (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what I was after! GiantSnowman 16:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy to help. I've gone through and fixed the instances of the template using the old parameters. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Added "Venue/City" option to Template:Infobox football tournament season

I was doing some editing on the tournaments during the 2012-13 Indian football season and I stumbled upon an interesting thought when doing the 2012 Durand Cup edits. The 2012 Durand Cup was not like other football tournaments. The tournament was held in just one venue (and thus one city). So I was wondering if I could add a section to the template which would allow me to say what venue/city the whole tournament took place in. It would really just be a small change and for normal cups like the FA Cup you can just leave that part blank. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe simply change the county= paramater to location=? GiantSnowman 19:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like that better. You can still add the country to that section anyway. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Move

Anyone able to move CONCACAF U17 Championship to a CONCACAF U-17 Championship? There is a rule preventing me. -Koppapa (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You could copy and paste and then ask for a merge between the two pages. Or am I just over complicating the issue? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

DO NOT perform a copy-and-paste move. Under any circumstances. Just ask an admin to do it. Jeez! – PeeJay 12:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, that's why i asked here. -Koppapa (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it to late to erase what I said. I rather not look at the archives in a few years from now and I see that. :p --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Also 2005 CONCACAF U17 Tournament and 2007 CONCACAF U17 Tournament should be moved to 2005 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament and 2007 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament. All these moves have been blocked for some reason. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Carlos Mendes and Connor Lade

University teams are neither football clubs nor academies and both players were still on the books at their actual teams when they attended their universities, however they have UNIVERSITIES listed in there YOUTH CLUBS! Universities may have high promenance in American sport but nonetheless they are not sports clubs! Atban3000 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

See National Collegiate Athletic Association. GiantSnowman 21:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

We had a discussion about College teams on Template talk:Infobox football biography#Entry for college career before you began working on Wikipedia. Apparently either we're still trying to get this cleared up or something broke down. Also, Carlos Mendes wasn't in the hands of any team while he was in school. The problem here is, if we come to an agreement right now about College teams not being listed in the infobox, you would have to look for over 100 billion pages that have College teams listed under there's no chance that anybody will find every single page. That's my personal opinion of course. Another problem is, if College teams aren't allowed in the youth section and no college section has been added, where do you list them? So there's a lot of issues here regarding this if we do agree with removing college teams. – Michael (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to American sports! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

FIFA Club World Cup

Hello everyone! After Timao's victory in Japan, I have dedicated some time to improving the FIFA Club World Cup page and found out it can be labeled as a good article. I want to make a request to everyone here to read over it and tell me what other improvements I can make. I know I have three sections left to reference but that shouldn't take more than a few hours. Thank you!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by God Football (talk • contribs) 22:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I would be against promoting the article to GA status in its current state. There is far too much info about the prior competitions, which should be kept to the articles about those competitions. – PeeJay 23:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In that article's talk page, someone mentioned that also. I am not sure if you can understand what I am saying but FIFA has clearly stated that the IC was not a world title. I have at least 50 different sources, all on the article right now, saying so. Although the IC was absorbed into the FCWC, I felt it would be too arrogant/unfair/nearsighted/ to exclude the Interamerican Cup and the Afro-Asian Cup. The IC, after all, is simply a competition between two confederations with no title to play for other than being an "intercontinental winner".

So to be fair to the other confederations, knowing the above, I have also added them also since they are essentially the same thing, just different continents.

My wiki girlfriend told me that it was fine to have background info on the other competitions. I stated to her that the info seems long only because there is next to nothing on the main articles of those competitions. Frankly, I have no interest in any of them since they are all effectively obsolete. But I felt that I should give them honorable mentions since the Interamerican Cup and the Toyota Cup had historical ties with the Intercontinental Cup.

I recommend you read the article now. I managed to learn so much about the history behind the FCWC. For example, FIFA gave a serious push for a CWC in the early 1960's. Or that the English FA tried organizing it twice. I managed to dig up a lot of buried history.God Football (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's all well and good having some info about the prior competitions, but what you've put in the article is far too much. A cursory glance is all that is required, IMO. Even the Intercontinental Cup, the most prestigious of the lot, doesn't deserve that much attention since the article is about the FIFA Club World Cup. – PeeJay 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and if there's not much info in the main articles about each of the former tournaments, I suggest you move your research to those articles, where I'm sure it would be much more appreciated. – PeeJay 23:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople

An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

I see a few of us here have been reverting IP vandalism on today's FA, Blackburn Olympic F.C.. Is there any reason why it's not semi-protected while its on the front page? I think it would be a good idea to have any "today's FA" as a semi-protected page due to the high amount of vandalism such an article attracts. For me, it should be implemented for future footy articles on the front page. Thoughts? Cloudz679 21:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The usual argument is that we only protect the page once vandalism actually occurs, rather than protect the page in case the vandalism happens. There's the added problem that it is the most widely seen article of the day right under the heading "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and then when people click on the article they find that they can't actually edit it. If a page needs to be protected it can always be requested if there is persistant vandalism. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Cloudz - you could always ask at WP:AN. While I doubt there has ever been a FA which hasn't been vandalised, the community desire to allow IPs to edit outweighs the vandalism that that sometimes brings. I feel you will get the same response as Delusion23, but it could still be an interesting conversation. GiantSnowman 12:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Who is Delusion12? ;) No, I expect the same answer, happy to have asked here and it wasn't too much work to revert, was it. Now three more months for the next TFA :) Cloudz679 16:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

A younger sibling? :P GiantSnowman 11:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Last played for

You see this phrase a lot in the lead of player articles, particularly when they've retired, e.g. "Player A is an English former footballer who last played for Club B". It's natural, when a player does retire to change "plays for" to "last played for", but while a player's current club obviously belongs in the lead, the last club they played for isn't always so defining. Something like "who played for Club C, Club D and E" or "who most notably played for Club D" would be better. Failing that, just "is an English former footballer" is enough, and better, I think, than giving undue prominence to a club a player may have spent a short, unremarkable spell with. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I normally state something like "English former professional footballer who played as a midfielder for A, B, C and D, making over 300 career appearances." GiantSnowman 11:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well usually the player doesn't go into retirement, he just fails to find a new club. You can't assume a player won't find another club just because he is 35 or whatever, and the article says "last played for" until somebody changes it.--EchetusXe 12:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this could be changed really. As mentioned above it is quite normal when a player's contract expires (but he has not explicitly retired). In cases where the person has finished his career, the lead can be updated, but that's what we're here for, isn't it? C679 13:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The "last played for" follows directly from some editors' habit of restricting the lead to a sentence reading "Fred Bloggs is an English footballer who plays in the Premier League for Template F.C." The obvious easy way to update that when his contract ends is to change "plays" to "last played". With a lead section that goes on to properly explain the player's notability, e.g. at minimum a sentence that says he played in the Football League for Foo F.C. and Losers F.C., it's just as easy to add his last club to the end of that sentence. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Excessive detail?

Jay Denny, one notable season (2005-06), then a lot of trivial information about playing non-league football. I think most of the article should be cut. Thoughts? C679 13:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In principle, it isn't excessive detail. His notable season is what entitles him to a Wikipedia article. Once that's established, we should be writing about the person's life and career. In practice, this one could do with a few more sources and a bit less hype: "the season was to end with heartbreak" and "series of eye-catching displays" is a touch peacock :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

However most of the article is completely ureferenced. As such unless references can be found and the language cleaned up considerably to remove the peacock words it should be trimmed considerably. The article actually doesn't reference several sections at all. A highly unreliable article that needs attention or trimming. Fenix down (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Falcao

I was just having a look at Falcao's article and noticed that there is absolutely nothing about the early years of his career and life. The Spanish Wiki article says he started his career with Lanceros Boyacá before joining River Plate. There's no mention whatsoever of Lanceros Boyacá in the English article and nothing about River Plate, except in the infobox. Anyone, preferably a Spanish speaker that can verify the details from his Spanish article, want to take a shot at expanding it? We're talking about one of the top players in the world right now and arguably the best striker. His article doesn't even have a personal section .. TonyStarks (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

An anon IP has gone ahead and added a bit of information about his early career in Colombia, but there's still nothing about his time with River Plate. I was able to find this link (RS?) which details his start with Lanceros. It also says he played briefly for Millionarios' reserve team before moving on to River Plate. TonyStarks (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This on the División Mayor del Fútbol Profesional Colombiano website is RS and more detailed for the Colombian part of his career. If nobody gets there first, I'll have a go at an English version of the Spanish text for the early part of his career. The Spanish article is well referenced, so it shouldn't be difficult, but my family might want me to have priorities other than Wikipedia over the festive season... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the additions about his early years in Colombia, as it thought playing in the top-flight at the age of 13 was something that shouldn't be added to the article without a citation :P Mentoz86 (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added an Early career section, mostly translated from the es.wiki version and mostly using the references from that page. Some of the statements aren't actually verified (stuff like his two goals against Independiente being his first "brace" (I hate that word) in Argentina football: no reason to disbelieve it, but it's not explicitly sourced). He did debut in Colombia at 13, though in the second tier, not the top flight, as per the link in the post above. Please feel free to improve. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the infobox with his the relevant information (added Lanceros to senior career and River Plate to youth career). TonyStarks (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

How to reference ENFA?

I've been looking at the English National Football Archive and there's some really useful information on there, but I'm not sure how to reference it because it doesn't use URLs, it's just a database. Does anyone know the best way to do it? Cheers, BigDom (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

How about, {{citation|work=English National Football Archive|title=Gray, A (Andy)}} which displays as "Gray, A (Andy)", English National Football Archive. Hack (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

ENFA pages are generated on the fly so they cannot be permalinked (or spidered for that matter). 109.173.212.187 (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I know, that's why I was wondering how best to reference them because it's still a reliable source even though you can't link directly to it. BigDom (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Unusual assessments

I see from the bot assessment log that FIFA Club World Cup (diff) and List of FIFA Club World Cup sponsors have been given an A-rating. The second article in particular has only had two edits. Eyes would be appreciated. Thanks - C679 09:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The hand of God Football, an editor who evidently believes in the veracity of the name ha has chosen for himself. Kevin McE (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

On this Christmas day I find out that the Maradona of Wikipedia is among us. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Maradona was good. But he would first need to talk to Zico, Socrates, Rivelino, Mauro Ramos, Pepe, etc. before attempting to stand beside Pele.

Anyway, according to the quality level of article ratings, those two qualify to be calld A+ articles. They explain the a lot of information that even I didn't know about such as the first attempts at a CWC in the 1900's, the competitions themselves, the initial prestige if the Intercontinental Cup and its degradation as well as the specific causes, the Interamerican Cup (which existance, as well as certain events, questioned those of the Intercontinental Cup and further degraded it), FIFA's numerous attempts to organize a CWC from the 1960's to 1990's and the final product.

It also explains the amount of sponsors in each edition of the CWC, who were they and what are they. It also explains what type of sponsor each of them were. According to the quality scale, these is very useful to readers, they are extremely complete on the subjects and most non-experts in the subject matter would be hard press to find anything about the subjects not stated in the articles.

I have been going about trying to find regulations of the usefulness on background information. It seems that, for this particular subject, most of those wanting just basic info (which is what the "Simple English" wikipedia is for) do not want to see it flourish. I can take a guess why but it is irrelevant. There is no rule against too many references on wiki as long as they are pertinent to the matter. God Football (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, A-class is above GA-class in terms of article classification, and it requires that a consensus by peers on the WikiProject agrees that A-class is deserved. A-class is not deserved for either of those two articles. B-class is the highest that can be given without needing community consensus, so that is what I gave to the FCWC article. The list of sponsors is definitely not worth B-class due to the massive amounts of irrelevant info; however, it is well sourced, so I gave it a C-class rating. As for Top-importance: don't make me laugh. Ha. Finally, what you have done to the FCWC article, while commendable for the amount of effort it must have taken, is unnecessary. All of the info on previous tournaments should probably be added to the articles on those previous tournaments, with only a passing mention in the FCWC article. The FCWC has only existed for 12 years, and the length of the history section should reflect that. – PeeJay 12:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the importance assessment (PeeJay didn't explain it very well), articles about top-level competitions get "high" importance. However, lists (like the list of FCWC sponsons) get "low" importance and a "list" on quality classification. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 13:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

PeeJay recommended the deletion of the list of sponsors page (which I kind of agree now and recommended deletion myself) since there aren't any notable third-party organizations making mentiones of them.

However, I firmly stand on the inclusion of information of the past competitions in the FCWC page. No one that ever reads it would say that it isn't pertinent since it explains, in detail, how FIFA, L'Equipe, the English FA, and numerous other organizations have tried to organized a FCWC from 1961 till 2000. That also ties in into the relationship between the fore mentioned and the intercontinental competitions such as the IC, IA and AA and why the IC lost so much of its attractiveness (no least thanks to Argentine football itself).

On top of that, I am currently doing more research into the European opposition to a FCWC. I can't put it on the article since I haven't got a single reference. But after doing some extreme research, it is looking more and more that it wasn't UEFA themselves who were opposing it but the clubs that eventually formed the G-14 in Europe. At least, that is my gut feeling but I am pretty sure it is the case. Either way, I am still researching. God Football (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

All that info prior to the FIfa Club World Cup's existence is not necessary. A paragraph about the previous incarnations would suffice, it's outside the scope of the article. It is about the current award not every detail of the previous competition. It needs to be moved to the Intercontinental Cup page or the relevant competition year article. NapHit (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Once again, it seems many some people here do not want this article to be informative on its history. Is it a coincidence that users, who haven't come anywhere, near close to this talk page or the FCWC article in years (or forever) all of a sudden come all about to voice their negativity on the history? Or is it because Kevin message them outside of wiki in the traditional, "Help me on this and I'll help you with those".

Is it coincidence the original opponent, as well as his rescue friends, are from the British Isles while the one supporter is Swiss?

Is this really about the article or another British attempt to try and minimize the FCWC (since the UCL page looks absolutely pitiful for such a big competition)?

I'm sorry but the behavior of this users highly suggest that. Heck! The history section on the FCWC suggest that as well. God Football (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

How dare you make such a blatantly unfounded, and I assure you entirely untrue, accusation. Withdraw that immediately. Kevin McE (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck...

You realize that this is 2012, right? From yahoo messanger, utopia, bigsoccer, etc. everyone knows what certain patterns of behavior look like. When users, who haven't had no connection to a subject in years (or ever) all of a sudden come about (wiki makes it easy to see by looking at the contributions, forums by posts, etc.), it usually means someone messaged them. The "I scratch your back if you scratch mine" tactic is the primary reason you see that often in forums, RPG online games and boards. Everyone knows that to throw off suspicion, you never directly talk on the game board, site, or forum messaging system. That is a no-brainer. That is also the only way random user show up, all of a sudden, to make remarks about subjects they never had history of dealing with. Rule #39: There is no such thing as coincidence.

Never mind that the British are notorious about minimizing anything that is not from the British Isles or the UCL (even the USC and UEL aren't saved from scathing). The FCWC, as well as the IC, has been recurring victims for decades. Trust me...you do not want me to reference any of that. It would be enough to fill this entire page as it is now. God Football (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there has been no collusion between editors off wiki and I would like you to redact that comment, as that is very disrespectful to an editor of Kevin's quality. If you want to know how I came to the "rescue" as you state, it's because of the discussion here while I was reading the page. Multiple editors have stated the information is not relevant to the article, that is because it is not. The competition originated in 2000, a brief mention of competitions before that is all that is needed. By all means we want the article to be informative, but is has to be relevant to the article, that is currently not the case. Also, as there is clear consensus that your version of the page should not be used going against this is not advisable. You do not own the page, you should stop this mindless edit warring and making baseless claims about other editors or you will end up being blocked. NapHit (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Once again...at best, I made extremely brief mentions of the actual results of the competitions unlike the "FIFA Club World Cup" section in which I was significantly more detailed. About 90% of the content in the IC, IA and Toyota Cup sections deal with the specific problems relating to the IC, its degradation due to the IA and certain problems, and how that related to the FCWC which FIFA have wanted to organize for decades. Only the negativity of the eventual European G-14 prevented it from happening. Most likely, out of marketing reasons: can't say you're the best and sell your product if you get beat by who-knows-who. God Football (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You have any proof or this speculation? Hack (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

How can he possibly have evidence for an entirely irrational, unfounded and untrue rant? Kevin McE (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

For most of my "rant" (as you like to call it) the evidence is made clear in the IC and IA sections. I have found a few references to point directly at which individual European clubs were blocking the creation of a FCWC, all of them being those who created the G-14. I will put it on as soon as I can. God Football (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Information on the early attempts to create a world football club championship could be relevant to an separate article on exactly that topic (or a broader "history of" article), but I'm afraid the FIFA Club World Cup article is not the place for an in-depth discussion on it. Example: the UEFA Champions League makes only passing reference to earlier forerunner tournaments, but European Cup and UEFA Champions League history gos further into it. I'm not even going to comment upon the rather fanciful and borderline ridiculous accusations made earlier - I would say that it might be prudent to calm the fuck down. Remember, we all want the same thing: namely to improve the football articles across Wikipedia. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 14:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not calm. As a matter of fact, I am quite amused. They, and others, have already tried some ridiculously lame tactics like accusing me of being a sockpuppet. Not only that, after I gave the consent to do a check user and came back negative, they tried to accuse me of being a neighbor of someone. I had a feeling that, eventually, they would accuse me of being a sockpuppet for being in the same planet. Never mind the immature personal attacks I have received until now...

How is information on early attempts to create a world football club championship irrelevant to an article pertaining to the world footbal club championship?!

Anyway, the UEFA Champions League article is a very poor comparison since that article is pretty much a stub with a few outdated tables and not even half-decent information. Never mind that the history between the first attempts to creating a European Cup to its creation is nowhere near as long as that of the FCWC. For the FCWC, it was almost five decades full of matches, attempts and competitions compared to the four decades (in length, not practice) of one-off events here and there. Heck! It was the South American Club Championship of 1948 that inspired L'Equipe to create the European Cup in its actuality in the first place. God Football (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

On top of the above, this extremely blatant Tag team is a very serious matter that should get looked at. Having edited at some site for years is no excuse to this apalling behavior and now I wonder how many new users have been turned away because of this sort of thing. This can't be the first time they have done something like this. Looking more into wiki about this, their entire behavior fits the description I gave above into Edit Ninjas where multiple users, with no relation to a subject at all, show up and edit one after the other. God Football (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

To quote WP:TAGTEAM, "Tag teaming [...] is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." I have seen no evidence to suggest that anyone here has "coordinated their actions" with anyone else, nor have any of the contributions by the so-called tag-teamers been against consensus. I suggest that you retract your accusations (all of them) immediately. – PeeJay 17:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Number of goals in squad lists & help with template

I have two issues I need help with:

1. What is the consensus on listing goals in squad lists of competitions? For example, for the 2010 FIFA World Cup squads article, only the number of caps are listed for players. Why are the number of goals not listed? The information is available everywhere and there's a parameter to include the number of goals. I noticed the same thing on the 2010 Africa Cup of Nations squads article.
2. I created this template for Algeria's squad at the upcoming Africa Cup of Nations. However, the squad numbers have not been announced yet. Is there anyway to change the template so that instead of numbers I can have dashes, and that way I can add the numbers when they are eventually announced?
   

Thanks! TonyStarks (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone .. ? TonyStarks (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Europa League qualifying rounds articles

I've just come across an issue with the Europa League qualifying rounds articles for this season and last; basically, they're fucking huge. Another editor suggested a split on the talk page of last season's article, there was little opposition and the split was carried out. My problem is that it seems a little daft to have separate articles for each individual round, especially when no one has complained of any accessibility issues with the page as it was. Suffice it to say, there is now a discussion going on at Talk:2012–13 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round#Split due to size, and I would appreciate it if anyone who has an opinion on the issue comment there, not here. Thanks. – PeeJay 23:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Dutch Supercup

I believe we need to standardise the articles pertaining to the Johan Cruijff Shield. Bizarrely for me, the season articles are not numbered by year but by edition of Johan Cruijff Schaal from 1996. For example, the 2012 Dutch Supercup is at Johan Cruijff-schaal XVII. Furthermore, from 1991 to 1994 the articles are labelled YYYY PTT Telecom Cup and before and after that just YYYY Dutch Supercup. What should we do with this? C679 20:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If that is the proper name then do what they do for the NFL Super Bowl, when I type in 2012 Super Bowl I get roman numerals in the main title instead of 2012 Super Bowl. Have the 2012 Johan Cruijff Shield be a redirect basically and have the main article title be Johan Cruijff-schaal XVII. It would be mentioned anyway in the article that it is the 2012 version and I am guessing the readers are not that lazy to read a sentence. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The match report used as a reference to this year's match just refers to Johan Cruijff Schaal whereas the Dutch Wikipedia uses Johan Cruijff Schaal YYYY for their article. C679 21:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As there is no evidence that the tournament is actually known as "Johan Cruijff-schaal XVII" rather than simply Johan Cruijff Shield (2012), and Dutch Wikipedia shows it as Johan Cruijff Schaal 2012, I think the article should be moved to 2012 Johan Cruijff Shield. The year should come first, to be consistent with other articles. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

p.s. The annual articles themselves are not referenced, other than a match report.

FLRC

I have nominated List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 07:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Romania/Rumania

Please see note 4 at All-time table of the FIFA World Cup. If it can be confirmed that the country was known in English as "Rumania" prior to WW2, I think the articles on the 1930, 1934 and 1938 World Cups should be using that spelling. --Theurgist (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The name of the country at that time was the Kingdom of Romania. GiantSnowman 11:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

But see Romania#Etymology (the last paragraph). I think "Kingdom of Romania" is the modernized spelling of what was "Kingdom of Rumania" at the time. Article titles in the English Wikipedia are being written in modern English, not in dated English. --Theurgist (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

To me that paragraph says that some sources used 'Rumania' up to World War 2 - even though the official spelling has been 'Romania' since 1861. GiantSnowman 11:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

RSSSF use the 'o' when referring to the 1930 World Cup. Eldumpo (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

GiantSnowman: The permanent link is here. It might be me who is misinterpreting it, but I think it says that România (Romania) as a name is officially in use since 1861, as opposed to other names like Țeara Rumânească (The Romanian Land). I placed a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania anyways. --Theurgist (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Muslims were known as "Mohammedans" prior to the 1900s and African-Americans were known as "Negros". Should the articles about the 1800s use those words because that's how they were known in English back then? bogdan (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If those articles discuss the matter from contemporary perspective - no. But football articles usually do use historical country names and flags. --Theurgist (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Playerhistory

Playerhistory again, still needs to be deleted per this from six months ago. I am bringing this up because the template was actually changed to use another url, soccerdatabase.eu, but this is now down as well. Hoping an admin can make the necessary changes or I can help out if necessary.

Secondly a certain Karl Marginson had references from Playerhistory and I am not sure now whether he really played league football. If anyone could shed any light, that would be great. Cheers, C679 11:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

soccerdatabase.eu is a mirror site, has no affiliation with PH, and I believe PH were taking legal action against the former. I've asked the TFD closing admin to delete, and Marginson's FL appearances are verified here. GiantSnowman 11:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Soccerdatabase.eu is not down, and I've been using it alot after playerhistory.com went offline to check appearances in Scandinavia before 2000. I've also used this template in citations, in a way that "credits" playerhistory for the information while the link pointed to soccerdatabase. I'm wondering what I'll do when the template is deleted, whether I should cite the dead playerhistory URL or not use the information at all. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It was down when I posted the message above. Regardless, it has already gone through a deletion review, where its deletion was endorsed. C679 17:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Chris Bascombe

Does anyone know anything about him? I was wondering if he was a former footballer at all. Govvy (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Never played in the FL, doesn't look to be notable - I've PRODded. GiantSnowman 12:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As a journalist it should be other ways to be notable besides playing in the FL. I don't know the names of many British journalists, but Bascombe is for some reason one that I've heard of. While that is no reason to say he is notable, I believe that it needs a wider discussion to be deleted, and I've dePRODded it. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The FL part referred to Govvy asking if he was a football - for what it's worth he fails WP:NJOURNALIST but to AfD we go. GiantSnowman 14:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

wow, User:Edgar Baron started a little edit war, what was that all about? It's good to see a few more citations in the article, close to passing GNG I think. Govvy (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• We may need semi-protection here due to edit-warring! C679 09:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've withdrawn my AfD, article has improved dramatically from when I first nominated it and I am happy with notability. GiantSnowman 14:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Bundesliga player of the week

I came across a claim pertaining to the "Bundesliga goalkeeper of the week" in an article I was cleaning up, Jan Koller. I cannot find anything on Wikipedia about this "award". If anyone with an interest in German football can help find a reference for this, it would be most appreciated. Thanks, C679 17:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

He made the Kicker Elf des Tages (Matchday's Best 11) on the goalie position. See http://sportbild.bild.de/SPORT/Kurztextgalerien/fu_C3_9Fball/feldspieler-als-torhueter/ktg-feldspieler-als-torhueter,templateId=renderInline,rendertext=13730162.html , This is the full 11. It's a funny sidenote worth mentioning, but not a real award that get's handed out. -Koppapa (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic, have added those refs to the article. Thanks, C679 19:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait can we do that? The Indian league does not give actual awards till the end of the season but goal.com does their usual Team of the Week. Can I use that as a source for the Team of the Week on the 2012-13 I-League article? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think those Team of the weeks (India, Germany, whereever) are that notable by itself, especially as there are many different ones depending on website/magazine. -Koppapa (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I was just wondering and personally I thought the same thing. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Team of the Week awards are not normally notable. In relation to Jan Koller, however, it is notable since he made the team of the week in a position that he doesn't normally play in. – PeeJay 15:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

William Reaside

Apparently this chap played for Stockport & Dumbarton, can anyone please verify? GiantSnowman 21:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No listing for anyone of that name in Joyce's "Football League Players Records 1888-1939"........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody with that name listed on the ENFA either (couple of Raesides though), so he never played in a competitive game in England. BigDom (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Does anybody have the 'Scottish Football League Players' Records 1890/91 to 1938/39' by Emms & Wells? GiantSnowman 12:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability of Scottish Junior Clubs

Why are there so many articles for Scottish Junior Football Association clubs? A great many of them appear to be unreferenced stubs for obscure village teams e.g. Fochabers F.C.. A few slightly more prominent examples are already tagged for notability (e.g. Tranent F.C., Newtongrange Star F.C.). There appears to have been a couple of bizarre deletion discussions in 2007 [15] [16] which I can only assume pre–date the current notability consensus for football clubs. Since these discussions, the bigger "Junior" teams such as Pollok F.C. and Irvine Meadow XI F.C. apparently get wildcard entries into the Scottish Cup so may qualify as notable in that sense.

However, there are a number of these teams who have never played in the national Cup and obviously don't play at a national level of the league structure either. In addition most, if not all, evidently fall well short of WP:GNG. 176.253.45.152 (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If any of the team articles can't be shown to meet GNG they are candidates for AfD. Eldumpo (talk)11:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Junior clubs don't really fit into any hierarchy, as they have their own FA and there is no pyramid structure in Scotland. Number 57 12:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It could be worth creating a List of Scottish Junior Football Association clubs, creating a table with basic info name, town/village, year of foundation etc. and redirecting any that do not meet GNG. GiantSnowman 12:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Any list ought to specify that unlinked articles should not be created unless they meet GNG, else there is a danger people will try and fill in the list. Eldumpo (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Might be a good idea, in that case, to check if any are notable before creating such a list. C679 18:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if none of the clubs are notable, I have no doubt that a list of them would be notable. I imagine such a list could be easily sourced, at any rate. – PeeJay 21:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Some clubs will definitely be notable and a list certainly would be; I'll start it tonight. GiantSnowman 09:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Apologies for being off-topic, but taking a moment away from the main task, I'd like to wish all WikiProject contributors a Happy New Year and hope you all achieve success in 2013. C679 00:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE ON HERE!!!! Everyone here has really made 2012 a great year for me, I got to explore the more inner depths of wikipedia and I had an amazing experience doing it. I would like to believe that I made many non-personal friends while on here in 2012 and I wish we can all continue an amazing run in 2013 and beyond. CHEERS TO 2013!!!! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

File:SoccerBallChistmas2013.png

The greek "Wikipedia:WikiProject Football" wish you a happy new year full of health, fun and football! Xaris333 (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year all! GiantSnowman 09:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Jewish footballers

I have nominated the category Category:Jewish footballers for deletion, as per WP:OC#EGRS. For anyone interested in discussing, for or against the deletion, the CfD can be found here. Also, just in case, I'm not here to canvass, just thought that the WP:FOOTY members would be interested in knowing. TonyStarks (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony, thanks for letting us know - in future you can list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves. GiantSnowman 09:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. For some reason, I tend to only list player deletions and moves, even though I know there's a section for categories as well. I'll try to remember for the next time. TonyStarks (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin help needed

Could an admin please take a look at Kelantan FA. Akumalok77 (talk · contribs) moved the page to Gomo Kelantan Gomo FA, then an IP did a copy/paste move to put the content back to the correct title. Unfortunately this means the page history is all screwed up. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Think I undid it all...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Conference National

Is it fully pro now? Or not? I was wondering if it's time to review the criteria for the league. They get decent media coverage now, national newspapers cover tables, print articles about the teams sometimes along with coverage from the BBC regions ect. Govvy (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No it's not pro despite all the coverage .. but if the league gets sufficient coverage from reliable sources you can argue that that confers notability through WP:GNG. Of course, that will depend on a case by case basis, assuming you're referring to players. TonyStarks (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There are without doubt some Conference players who have done more of note than a large number of those with a handful of league appearances. But getting rid of this arbitary crock of shite would be a prerequisite to covering them in any significant number. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 07:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, if said Conference player has received significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, then there's no reason for them not to have an article. TonyStarks (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you write an article, going out of your way to justify the subject's notability, in the knowledge that it is likely to be deleted anyway? For as long as the aforementioned crock of shit is in place, that's the situation we're in. Editors who like the status quo can bury their heads in the snow all they like, but as much as some might like to, they can't deny that this is the way Wikipedia generally, and these guidelines specifically, work. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 13:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, plenty of 'automatic' notability exists independent of GNG across Wikipedia - not just NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And that's your excuse for defending a system which you are not even pretending is a good reflection of notability? —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 14:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not defending NFOOTBALL - I agree it's flawed - I'm simply stating that automatic notability guidelines are found throughout Wikipedia. No need to be so aggressive. GiantSnowman 14:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - don't like NFOOTBALL? Ensure they meet GNG, which outweighs it, and which all articles should be striving to meet (regardless of professionalism). GiantSnowman 09:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree, all player articles should meet GNG anyway, but the existence of FPL means that in reality huge numbers of football biographies do not come close to meeting GNG, and that's when it can seem unfair when other articles have to conform to GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly, GS. C679 15:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I emailed the Conference last month to ask which clubs were fully pro and received this reply: "This is always difficult to clearly determine because some players, whilst not being strictly full-time, may not have other gainful employment. But quite obviously, others like Luton and Wrexham are full-time clubs. I would estimate Alfreton, Braintree, Dartford, Hyde, Nuneaton, Southport and Woking are probably not 'full-time' clubs." --Jameboy (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

So not all clubs are operating on fully pro, that's what I was interested in, so it back to GNG, keep the status-quo. Govvy (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And the GNG is obviously going to be met because the Conference National is vastly more prestigious than the majority of other nations' top-flight leagues. It warrants being included in FPL because this dissuades well-meaning editors from wasting everyone's time taking players who definitely get enough coverage in RSes to AfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

2019 AFC Asian Cup bids

I just saw that this page was created today. Not sure if it should have been created or not. I have only seen these types of pages for the World Cup and Euros but shouldnt we wait till more real bids are announced. Meanwhile someone with better understanding of Persian can look at the source because the google translate seems to reveal unfactual information which, to me, makes the source unreliable. Meanwhile no word on the stadiums in the article that would be used if Iran win the bid. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile someone should get a source for India. India was never out of the running. In fact the AIFF in a recent meeting talked more about how the infrastructure development from the 2017 U17 World Cup could help them host the 2019 AFC Asian Cup as well. So we are well in the running. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It all seems a bit premature. A number of countries have expressed interest but as far as I can see, no bids have been submitted (or withdrawn for that matter). Hack (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

AFC Asian Cup 2019 bidding procedure and timeline were approved in November 2012. So having the article in fine i think. Needs more sourced for those countries interested. If one were actually able to find the timeline and bidding process published somewhere that would help improve the page too. I didn't find them. -Koppapa (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats the thing. I could not find anything concrete. Sure the procedure etc is released but I don't think it is right to have the article created at this moment when everything is in its infancy. I suggest the article be merged into the AFC Asian Cup article and when the point arrives in which more sources from the AFC come out we can have the article come back. Not enough to have an article yet. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lists of association football players by club

I intend to subcat Category:Lists of association football players by club by nationality i.e. English clubs, Scottish clubs etc. Possible suggestions:

1. Lists of [nationality] footballers/soccer players by club
2. Lists of [nationality] association football players by club
3. Lists of footballers/soccer players by club in [country]
4. Lists of association football players by club in [country]

Any idea the best way to word it? GiantSnowman 13:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It has to be 3 or 4, the first two suggest the players' nationality is the purpose of the lists. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought - the nationality would be the nation the club is in, but I fear it's too ambiguous. GiantSnowman 13:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, #4 with the usual soccer exception for the Colonies is the way to go here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well #3 and #4 are nearly identical - the former would have 'footballers' and 'soccer players' depending on country conventions, the latter would have 'association football players' for all. Are you suggesting a combination of the two? GiantSnowman 14:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't quite clear. Yes: use #4 unless it's soccer, in which case use #3. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. GiantSnowman 14:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it me or is this over catagarization? Govvy (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It's just you. There are nearly 350 articles, the subcats are long overdue. GiantSnowman 14:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ezekiel Fryers

Now he has moved to Spurs, should the Expatriate cats at the bottom be removed? Govvy (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, they should stay, just as the Antwerp categories should. The categories (with few exceptions) are supposed to be permanent, to represent what people have done or are doing. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

k, wasn't sure if that was the case or not, "Expatriate footballers in Belgium" was clear in what was said in the cat, but wasn't so sure of the other, "British expatriates in Belgium", didn't seem to be that clear as there wasn't much of a desciption for it's inclusion and didn't have much population. Govvy (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Loan return dates

I am trying to avoid an edit war with an IP over Alex Smith (footballer born 1991) and Fulham F.C... I know Smith is due back at Fulham on 2 January, but it has not been officially confirmed by the club and usually the loan deals are extended. I would wait until the club confirm he is back personally before editing. Any thoughts? JMHamo (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

He is not listed on the Leyton Orient squad anymore on the clubs website so I would think that the loan is now officially over unless either Fulham or Leyton say anything different. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

He was probably never added to the Leyton Orient squad on their webpage to start with.. JMHamo (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless a source says otherwise there is no reason to assume he will stay beyond 2 January, especially when he hasn't played since 15 December.--EchetusXe 09:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

National team result templates

Is there a reason the many templates at Category:National association football team results are grouped together in a mainspace cat and not part of the Category:Association football templates tree? Would anyone object to the creation of a Category:National association football team results navigational boxes and moving these templates into both that and the subcategories of Category:National football team navigational boxes? --Qetuth (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Highest English football stadiums by altitude

Stumbled upon this article by chance .. and all I can say is really? Do we really need a list of English stadiums by altitude?? Considerably overkill in my humble opinion! TonyStarks (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree OTT, England is not exactly known for being a mountainous country & certainly not in a footballing sense. Playing at altitude has never been a issue in England & I think this is reflected by the highest stadium being only 304m. An article for somewhere like Peru may just be notable but not this one, although I think a number of editors would disagree with us given some of the experience people who have edited it. Is there any similar lists for other nations, I don't see any. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Now at AfD. C679 07:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

User adding unreferenced information

Would someone keep an eye on Heyguysimjakob (talk · contribs)'s contributions? He seems to be adding unreferenced information in various articles of sport clubs – his additions at the Panathinaikos F.C. article in particular not only are they entirely unverifiable, but also wrong. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 07:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Standard Liège

Couldn't find that template to says this article needs citation to put at the top. I think we need to add that, Not sure how update the squad is, I have removed Fryers as I know he just gone to Spurs. Also should an article for List of Standard Liège records and statistics be created? As the European record section could certainly go in it. Might need to have one of those templates at the bottom for the different Standard Liege articles also. As for the rest of the article... well... certainly needs a really good clean-up!

For Ron Jans I wanted to find a decent citation on the web regarding his sacking, but struggled to find a decent one. Any help there would be of help. As I wanted to use the same citation on Zeki Fryers. Cheers all Govvy (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Added some cleanup tags to the top as requested. C679 14:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, don't know why I couldn't find those before, Govvy (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have taken to creating stub articles for Ibrahima Cisse and Dino Arslanagić who have appeared to have played top level footy for Standard per this [17]. Certainly could done with improving, I am off now, Govvy (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Royal Standard de Liège players

This list needs some kind of paragraph explaining what the inclusion policy should be, citations, clearing up also. Govvy (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created this list, I added a category for Category:Belgium football club statistics but unlike English football doesn't seem to be a cat for that, could be populated. Also, there does seem to be a lack of categories to add, might need some help with the page, there was no objection to creating such an article when I brought it up, hope it can evolve with help from other peeps. Maybe because I followed the cats off of List of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. records and statistics which has only two, any help much appreciated, cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Took me all of 30 seconds to find the category you were after, Category:Belgian football club statistics. As for other categories, I suggest you look at similar articles for inspiration. C679 14:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Demba Ba

I don't know if it's possible but could someone please upgrade Demba Ba's article to semi protection the pending changes protection isn't sufficient given high number of the edits in violation of established convention. Experienced users are wasting their time reverting the same incorrect stat additions, messaging the individual Users/IP's & the introduction of hidden notes haven't prevailed, getting silly at this stage see Revision history. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, had I known the list was not backlogged, I would have made the request. I normally have to wait about 12–16 hours for the request to evaluated. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Finally protected after 60 more edits (after protection was requested) of which about 25 were further additions of deliberate factual errors. Nobody at WP:RFPP was bothered, had to contact a friendly admin directly, pity the footy admins were asleep. I don't know how I refrained from swearing my brains out at the illiterate IPs & users. PeeJay was right some people shouldn't be let anywhere near a computer. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I don't think adding 2 goals and 1 game in the infobox is adding deliberate factual errors, and I guess that's why no admin wanted to semi-protect it. If it were added transfer rumours etc at the same rate, I believe an admin would have semiprotected it at first sight. One a related note: when a page has pending changes protection, are we only allowed to reject recent additions that aren't blatant vandalism, like in Demba Ba's case goals in infobox, three times in 24 hours to not violate 3RR ? Mentoz86 (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the two hidden notes, saying not to add this I feel it was deliberate at least from some of them that had been messaged about it & still re-added. Yes in pending changes, your not expected to be an expert on each subject so you would normally accept non vandalism edits, but if your're knowledgeable about the topic you may reject misleading information. I was under the impression that rejections made by reviewers to edits which have not taken affect don't count as reverts. For the record you also made more then 3 rejections/reverts. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I won't exactly call it edit-warring to reject such uncontroversial edits. I know that I made more then 3 reverts, I was just curious to prevent being blocked. :) Mentoz86 (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Category linked from team page

So what is the consensus for linking "player of X" categories on a team page. I mean for example Chelsea F.C. links the Category:Chelsea F.C. on its navbox, but navboxes aside, is it a good idea to have a link to category:foo f.c. players on the main club page? Thanks, C679 20:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The club page should link to a list of players, the category can stay in the navbox. SounderBruce (talk · work · sandbox) 08:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Lists of players are frequently very small, for example only players who played 100 games or more... what about smaller teams who have only five or six such players? Doesn't seem to be worth making a list, but the category still exists - should we link the category directly? C679 08:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Some votes on the renaming of Categories for Indian footballers from West Bengal and Mizoram would be great.

Last week I created a CFD for two categories involving Indian football. One was Category:Mizo footballers and the other was Category:Bengali footballers. Now obviously I know that the normal title for these types of categories is "footballers from New Jersey" for example or "footballers from London". So I made the CFD asking for them to be changed from their current titles to "Footballers from Mizoram" and "Footballers from West Bengal" as those are the states the categories are referring to. So far the response has been less active than I thought it would be. So after a week of seeing barely anything on my discussion and around a billion responses to the discussion below mine (Category:Muslim footballers) I decided to come here in the hope that you guys can do the vote (or if you can just change the names of the categories automatically). The section is linked to here. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a section on the main project page to list CFDs, I see yours aren't on there. That would be a good place to add them. As for the discussion, I will take a look. C679 21:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I never noticed that before nor partaken them. I shall add it now then. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wording of English football bio stub tags

Concerns have been raised about the wording of English football stub tags. Some stubs, although about a player who was born and/or lived and played in England, do not have enough information to establish nationality for BLP purposes. For purposes of grouping stubs for editor convenience, it makes sense to stub-sort these into the English football tree rather than just leave them in the generic parent, as England is the only region the article has any connection to.

The stub tag {{England-footy-bio-stub}} says "This biographical article related to English football is a stub.", but sub-category tag {{England-footy-defender-stub}} says "This biographical article related to an English football defender is a stub." which could imply nationality. This second wording applies to almost 50 stub tags in the tree. An earlier discussion here resulted in the changing of the decade wording on some tags (eg {{England-footy-defender-1890s-stub}}) to "This biographical article related to English association football, referring to a defender born in the 1890s is a stub." but this was not done across the board and some have been reverted since for consistency.

I would like to come up with a decision on a rewording (or perhaps two, with or without decade of birth) which does not seem to imply nationality where that may be unclear, to apply across the board to these tags. The template can do anything of the form "This __ article __ is a stub".

• This biographical article related to English association football, referring to a defender ((born in the 1890s)) is a stub.

Previous suggestion, works well I think for decades, but sounds a bit awkward to me with the decade clause removed.

• This English association football related article about a defender ((born in the 1890s)) is a stub.

My suggestion for a more concise wording which works with or without the decade.

I would appreciate comments or suggestions. --Qetuth (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion #2 looks perfect to me. I don't believe that bio stubs are mandated to contain the word "biographical" if the context is clear enough. We really need to get a drive sorted out to unify these once and for all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There are 30 countries with positional stub splits - I didn't realise it was so widespread. Still, I'm happy to go through and reword them all, I'd just rather get it right first. It looks like the only soccer playing nation among them is US, but soccer can just replace assoc footy in the wording there. --Qetuth (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think wording along the lines of 'related to association football in England' might be better. 'English association football' makes it sound like it's the English variant of association football and I don't think it's as clear. Eldumpo (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Before or after the 'article' do you think? Maybe:

"This association football in England related article about a defender (born in the 1890s) is a stub."

"This (biographical) article related to association football in England about a defender (born in the 1890s) is a stub."

Also, if I am going to edit a whole lot of stub tags anyway, do you think the project would find a stub template category in the style of Category:Literature stub templates useful? --Qetuth (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the second sentence, although should there be commas after 'England' and after the bracket? I'm not sure what specific changes you propose by following the Literature style. Does this style affect any of what is being discussed above? Eldumpo (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. I'm not great with comma use. About Literature, it is unrelated: I was suggesting a Category:Football stub templates to hold all the stubs. Currently each template is only categorised automatically into the category it populates, so there is no single category which shows all stub templates relevant to the project. --Qetuth (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I always thought the specific stub (England-1880s-defender, Welsh-1930s-goalkeeper etc.) did refer to nationality...? GiantSnowman 10:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ideally they do in the vast majority of cases, but the concern raised is that we often do not reliably know nationality, since it's not something that always comes up in sources, especially local or incidental ones. --Qetuth (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

{{England-footy-bio-stub}} is and always has been worded as referring to "biographical stub articles relating to English football". The positional splits are and, again, always have been, worded as referring to a "biographical stub related to an English football (defender, for the sake or argument)". A wording which can be interpreted both ways: either as a football defender of English nationality, or, and I suspect how it was originally intended for consistency with the clear meaning of the parent wording, as a defender in English football.

The amount of time wasted by this project on inconclusive discussions about nationality in lead sections and flags in squad lists makes it absolutely clear that indeed we often do not reliably know nationality. And we shouldn't be categorising on something we don't know for a sourced fact. I'd be comfortable with the second wording, with commas round the "about" phrase, i.e "This (biographical) article related to association football in England, about a defender (born in the 1890s), is a stub.". The commas aren't required grammatically but they do make the meaning clearer. And I do think a Category:Football stub templates would be useful. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like everyone is happy with that wording, I'll get to work. I put the brackets to denote optional, if that wasn't clear - so the wording I'm reading as final is "This biographical article related to association football in England, about a defender born in the 1890s, is a stub." and "This biographical article related to association football in England, about a defender, is a stub.". --Qetuth (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Noting the convention of the Category:Football templates tree, I will make the parent category at Category:Association football stub templates instead. --Qetuth (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Double loan

Any idea how to handle the Steve Leo Beleck situation in the relevant articles? He has just been loaned to Stevenage from Watford, but in turn is on loan at Watford from Udinese. This terminology is being used by both his new club, and by the BBC, but I'm not sure quite how to denote it in the relevant squad lists, or in his infobox (I've had a go at the latter). —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 18:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The rule is clarified here; Watford are definitely the club loaning him out. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 18:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"I heard you like loans, so I put a loan in your loan."; is that even possible? Anyhoo, I think two arrows in the infobox is an overkill, one plus indentation would suffice. – Kosm1fent 18:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Two arrows looks weird, but a few spaces before the arrow would work. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How about this? It should also be clarified in the prose. GiantSnowman 18:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. I clarified it in the squad article with a footnote, and SBFCEdit seems to have done the prose (and will presumably have the Stevenage squad covered). —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 19:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary, and will look like an error in years to come. He will have some appearances to his name for Stevenage: they will have been racked up while he was on loan. If more than the normal indicator of loan status is needed, have a footnote. He is at Stevenage until the end of the season, so he is not due to return to Watford. There is nothing explicit about a double loan in the text, where only the observant will notice an apparent contradiction between the Watford and Stevenage loan dates. Kevin McE (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In 2008, [Segundo Castillo]] was on loan to Everton from Red Star when was loaned from El Nacional. For whatever reason, it was never reported in the British press. TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin, the intended arrow is unnecessary and looks like a mistake more than anything else. Also, technically, being on loan from Watford who has him on loan from Udinese means he's also on loan from Udinese. I think it's best to indicate a regular loan in the infobox and just add the details of the loan in the text. Like Kevin a suggested, a footnote would work too. TonyStarks (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the indenting. The arrow is simply a marker: it is not supposed to indicate that this is some sort of tree. For an infobox, which contains at-a-glance comparative information, it suffices to note that the player is on loan: that sighted readers happen to get the advantage of being able to tell quickly which club the player is on loan from by looking up a row is felicitous, but is not an intended effect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

On #date

Okay, I am getting annoyed at the way a lot of articles are written, can editors please reframe from written bio's in sentences where every sentences starts with

"On 14 December 2012, player did this that and other." "On 16 December 2012, he did this" "On 28 December he did that".

Come on now, I am seeing a lot of this across many football articles, it's lazy English, it's reading a list of things and looks a poorly written paragraph. Can I please ask editors to stop this from happening and be versatile in their writing. Govvy (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is such a bugbear of mine that I once started an essay on the subject, User:Oldelpaso/No-one died. Though I think its more something that comes from anonymous drive-by contributions than regular editors. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Matches take place on certain dates, but I don't think its necessary to say "on 6 June 2012 it was announced that he signed with the club" when you can just say "he signed with the club in June 2012".--EchetusXe 14:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm guilty of doing this, I always assumed it was the norm and even encouraged for an encyclopedia. If everyone is in agreement that it should be avoided I'll make sure to stop doing it. TonyStarks (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's face it: this is by far the most prevalent style of writing on the project, and we're extremely lucky if the sentence in question does not read "On December 21 Smith scored the most beautiful goal in the history of the sport, making United look like mugs for selling him". That's simply what happens when you let anyone edit, and frankly it's an amazing source of free historical data that can subsequently be rewritten into a more natural biography of someone's playing career. Nobody sets out to write like this. FWIW, proseline is the most commonly-used jargon for such things around the project. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

For most current footballers this type of timeline reporting is as good as it is going to get and I think we should be grateful people bother to edit at all. The life of a pro footballer is not that exceptional unless you are, for example, Beckham or John Terry. Mostly they play, score, save, get transferred etc and only after their career has ended can this prose timeline be evaluated and turned into something which reads as we would wish. Unfortunately for some of our greatest players from another era, eg Geoff Hurst (20 year domestic career - 11 lines) or Terry Paine (713 games - not one reference) we have no timeline and are left with something less than could be acheived with some, dare I say it, research. Who knows Jermain Defoe's 113th goal for Spurs or that sub appearance by Wayne Bridge for Sunderland may be vital when their career's are evaluated!--Egghead06 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:PROSELINE covers this issue, though I like Oldelpaso's essay too and I thank him for attributing my "no-one died" terminology :-) --Jameboy (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Tomer Chencinski nationality???

Hi, have ended up in a dispute regarding the nationality of goalkeeper Tomer Chencinski with user User:Maccabit. Tomer Chencinski is born in Israel, however the sources i find claims him to be a Canadian [18], [19], [20], [21], while Maccabit claims that aslong as he havent played for Canada, he is Israeli due to his duel Israeli/Canadian citizenship and even Maccabi Tel Aviv F.C. reports him as Israeli [22].

Rather have more people give their point of view and give a form of consensus regarding his right nationality, then risk starting a editor war or close to it. Halmstad (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to his nationality in the intro? Can't you guys just say he's Canadian-Israeli, which he clearly is? TonyStarks (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Until he plays or declares to play for one national team, mentioning his nationality in the lead should be avoided per WP:OPENPARA. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 08:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say that? I read the section over a few times and I don't see where it says that it should be avoided. Also, not sure what's so difficult about saying he's Canadian-Israeli. He's obviously both and there's nothing factually wrong by stating it. It does not imply anything either from a footballing perspective, just that he is both. The same thing is done for many different players and it has never been an issue. TonyStarks (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The dispute is regarding what flag should be shown in the clubs article squad list, Tony. Halmstad (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have long preferred the attitude of Kosm1fent, and gone further, preferring a lead that simply states that he "is a footballer who plays for Melchester Rovers and the Fooland national team"; this is the generally recommended remedy to disputed nationality here, and seems effective at settling disputes. However, I have come across a few edits recently citing MOS:BIO (more specifically WP:OPENPARA) which does virtually insist upon declaration of nationality based on citizenship. Kevin McE (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If there is no question over nationality, then I see no harm in mentioning it. If it is an issue then I agree with removing it from the lead. GiantSnowman 11:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree (and suspect that you and I are the main implementers of the practice), but MOS:BIO makes no such concession, and features citizenship rather than "sporting nationality". Kevin McE (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Simply invoke WP:IAR. GiantSnowman 12:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, where is the harm in saying Canadian-Israeli? I've said it before and I'll say it again. I work mostly on Algerian football and we have tons of French-born players. In cases where it's obvious that a player holds two nationalities and has not represented either country, the articles say Algerian-French or French-Algerian. It's never caused an issue. Once a player represents either country internationally, we change the intro to reflect that and mention descent/other nationality in the prose. I really don't understand what is so difficult about this if we just apply some common sense. TonyStarks (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry: where do you source the "obvious" fact that these players hold two nationalities? They might be eligible for dual citizenship, but holding this is very rarely in the public forum. I fear you are conflating ethnicity and nationality: reference to ethnicity, or to place of birth if it is not directly relevant to notability and differs from citizenship, is specifically warned against at MOS:BIO. Kevin McE (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of clubs list both nationalities that a player holds. For example, the official French league website, LFP.fr, lists both citizenships of a player. For example, Michael Fabre and Yoann Touzghar. In the case of Tomer Chencinski, he was listed as Canadian with his previous clubs and is now listed as Israeli by his Israeli club. Since he's born in Israel and grew up in Canada, it's quite obvious he holds both citizenships. Don't get me wrong, I definitely agree that if there's any doubt whatsoever then it should definitely not be listed. TonyStarks (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"it's quite obvious he holds both citizenships": not remotely obvious. He might be eligible for citizenship in both countries, although neither growing up nor birth automatically brings citizenship rights in all nations, it is far from obvious that he has acted on that right. And what is meant by "holding" a nationality? Kevin McE (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It is obvious when his previous teams list him as Canadian and his current team as Israeli. A club will register a player based on his nationality and passport. He was registered as Canadian during his time in Scandinavia and now registered as Israeli. So obviously he's both, not sure why you're trying to complicate things. TonyStarks (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting rid of problematic nationality issues from the lede is actually simplifying matters. GiantSnowman 10:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree. However, there is nothing problematic here. The player in question has two nationalities. List both. Move on. TonyStarks (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? I mean, really? We do not need to include the nationalities (professed, speculated, or invented) of players in their intros. If there is no doubt as to a player's nationality, it does not hurt. Where there is doubt, leave it out, or explain the situation more fully with good sources. End of story. Why are people who have seen five hundred runs of this thread at WT:FOOTY still arguing with that? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm done arguing this. Sometimes I wonder if people read discussions before posting replies. TonyStarks (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

How to reference a list

I'm working on a List of foreign Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 players. It's still in my sandbox (here) but I was wondering how I would go about referencing it. Most lists like these simply have a bunch of external links to back up the claims but no individual references for every player, I was wondering if that is OK. While it is WP:OR in a sense, it's also all verifiable if you click on the player name (those that have articles anyways). TonyStarks (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, you should include a reference for each player's statistics, although these don't need to be listed in a "References" section. For example, on the List of Southampton F.C. players, I included a column headed "Source" in which I showed the sources(s) for the figures I used with an explanation at the foot. On the List of England international footballers (alphabetical), I did this slightly differently, with a link to each player's profile on the englandstats website. I hope this helps. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Individual cites can be useful but I don't think they are necessarily required for every entry, especially if you've got a long list. The Southampton list works OK because a lot of the cites are for a book, but if it were all web cites it could add a lot of load to the page, whereas general references at the end can be sufficient, as long as they are clear. Eldumpo (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am working on a similar list for the Mexican league and the individual player references have made the page terribly slow to load. I worry that a general reference to a database website (such as Medio Tiempo) is too difficult for a user to find the individual players, but it seems that is that standard way these lists are created. If it won't cause too much trouble, I would gladly remove the individual references where possible (some players are not listed in a general database and the sourcing comes from news articles, etc.). What do you recommend? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In your case, given the large number of Argentine and Brazilian players on the list, I would have separate articles for both of them like they have for Serie A: List of Argentine footballers in Serie A and List of Brazilian footballers in Serie A, and just link to them in the main list. Might help with the loading of the page. TonyStarks (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Emmanuel Frimpong's nationality again

An editor changed Frimpong's nationality to Ghana and I reverted. A discussion started at Talk:Arsenal F.C.#Emmanuel Frimpong. I stated that the project's guideline is to follow FIFA nationality and that is determined by an actual appearance and not simply leave to play for a nation or declaration to play for the nation. Feel free to correct that statement at the talk page or here. As a reminder, he was capped for England at the U16 and U17 level and has made no further appearance for either national team since. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And this was recently discussed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 73#Emmanuel Frimpong nationality and hopefully a consensus for the future. The discussion there was clearance, which he now has. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

His flag should be Ghana since FIFA approved his change request. He can longer represent England now and can only represent Ghana. I've made the change to the Arsenal page. TonyStarks (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It does not state that he can no longer represent England, but I won't change the nationality back. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That's how the process works. Once you submit a request to change nationality you're "locked in" to your new country, whether or not you have represented said country. TonyStarks (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Source? – Kosm1fent 16:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Jared Jeffrey / AfD

Not sure how many people take an interest in what articles live or die but sometimes more voices of reason need to be heard. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Afrikaans in infobox

At the moment the Afrikaans name is listed in the infobox for the tournaments of the 2013 Africa Cup of Nations and also of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. However there are 11 official Languages of South Africa. The infobox should either have all 11 offical languages, or only English. Afrikaans should not receive special treatment. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:2013 Africa Cup of Nations#SA's 11 official languages. GiantSnowman 16:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Lists of internationals/players/footballers

I notice that we have at least three different naming conventions for lists of international players by club, e.g.:

• List of Burnley F.C. internationals
• List of Coventry City F.C. international footballers
• List of Everton F.C. international players

I'm wondering whether it is worth having a standard naming convention, if there is a consensus. "players" seems to fit in with existing conventions such as List of Ipswich Town F.C. players, so would just about be my preferred choice, though I'm also wondering whether it is possible or desirable to get "capped" or "international caps" into the title. Any thoughts? --Jameboy (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Are such lists of 'internationals' even notable? GiantSnowman 19:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely more notable than those lists of "foreign X-League players" in the thread above, if nothing else... BigDom (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of the coverage I've found has been on the (number of, quality of, etc) foreign players in a particular league - not on players capped with a foreign national team. So I also wonder if these lists are notable. Jogurney (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Coincidently I have spent all day working on lists and have nominated a few player lists which have less than ten players for deletion. I don't see why internationals cannot be highlighted in a a more comprehensive list, literally in the case of Port Vale. Anyway, to answer the original question I don't think the Coventry example the way to go. I just think the Everton example is to be preferred as the uninitiated could wonder at what a Burnley international could be.--EchetusXe 20:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

EchetusXe - please remember to liost all AfD/PRODs etc. at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves so we can get as much participation as possible. GiantSnowman 10:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that there used to be Rangers F.C. internationalists until I pointed out that "internationalist" doesn't mean what Scottish people seem to think it does. – PeeJay 22:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone prejudiced against capped players?--EchetusXe 23:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Four of these lists was nominated for deletion in April 2012, and the result of that discussion was no consensus. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just discovered the rather ridiculous A.S. Roma and the Italian national football team. GiantSnowman 13:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Face, meet palm... – PeeJay 14:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll add these lists to my ever-growing 'To Do' pile. GiantSnowman 14:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Help with fb template

In this league table, the 13th placed team should be MC El Eulma. However, it currently says OM Saint Eugene for some reason. The template used seems to be the right one and I also checked the MC El Eulma fb template and found nothing wrong there either. I have no idea how these templates work exactly, so can someone with experience please have a look and try to fix the issue? TonyStarks (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Done, it was using the template for "El Eulma" and not "MC El Eulma", don't know why there should be different results, but the immediate problem seems to have been resolved :) Thanks, C679 22:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And this is EXACTLY why we shouldn't use templates for shit like this. The sooner we get rid of them, the better. – PeeJay 22:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah I was never a big fan of these templates, especially since I have no idea how they work. TonyStarks (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do we use fb templates? GiantSnowman 09:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Inertia? I fail to see why we don't use Wikitables. Whenever I've created an article on a season, I've always used that to do the league tables rather than the fb system. Number 57 14:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. People say it's for consistency, i.e. if we need to change the standard style of league tables, we can do it by changing templates, but I can't really see that happening any time soon. Might as well just use wikitables and provide a model table in some sort of MOS here on the Project. – PeeJay 14:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what people said about {{Football player statistics 1}} but look what happened with them. WikiTables are the way forward and we definitely need updated MOS pages. GiantSnowman 14:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

At least use the fb cl2 team t= system which accepts normal wikilinks and doesn't require hundreds of templates to work. Last time getting rid of those somewhere fizzled out. There should be cases where now due to that system old tables use a newer club name. That would be a good argument to finally ablolish those. -Koppapa (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The template names and the names of their parameters don't even make sense. Why is everything an abbreviation, and often one that doesn't fit with what it's meant to indicate? – PeeJay 15:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ejike Uzoenyi DOB

We have two conflicting DOBs - input appreciated at Talk:Ejike Uzoenyi#Year of birth. GiantSnowman 17:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Serious BLP issue

Hi there, just come across the Majid Musisi article. I was surprised to see no citation for the "Uganda's first professional footballer to make it to Europe", but it got progressively worse - especially the section entitled "the other side of Musisi" and I think it is in need of serious attention. I don't quite know how to handle it myself, so passing it on to someone else from the project. Thanks, C679 22:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, but he's dead. But still I think it should apply. Thanks Sputnik, C679 22:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculously written article, I've removed the vast majority of unref info and tagged for improvement. Stuff should be re-introduced only if directly cited. GiantSnowman 22:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks GS, had a look at the history and it had been like that since 2006, makes you wonder how many more like that are out there?! Thanks, C679 23:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Al-Wehda Club (Mecca)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion regarding the page "Al-Wehda Club (Mecca)." Comments and discussion are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 03:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Brandi Chastain 1999.jpg

FYI, image:Brandi Chastain 1999.jpg has been nominated for deletoin -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Add K League to the list.

See here. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The K League Classic page might now need a cleanup to avoid confusion. Hack (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ya, I am planning on taking time out during the weekend to do some clean-up for South Korean articles and Japanese articles. Hopefully then I can create a case to include the new K League (2nd Division) as a fully professional-side. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Would be interesting to see if players at Korean Police FC and Sangju Sangmu Phoenix actually have to do police/military work outside of playing. Hack (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That concerns me the most because usually a fully-professional league would not have these kinds of teams. And its surprising to me the the Korean FA allowed these teams in the league. If one of them get promoted that would be against AFC Licensing rules. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Judging by this article, Sangju Sangmu were relegated from the top tier for refusing to sign pro contracts with their players. That now means all teams in K League Classic now have professional arrangements with all of their players, an ACL requirement. It also means that the new K League isn't fully pro by Wikipedia standards. Hack (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well judging from that I would have to, as much as I dont want to, agree with you that the new K League is not fully-pro. It may be glamorus and all that but regulations and sources do not prove that it is fully-pro. I am guessing the KFA will make sure that if either one of the two clubs mentioned above make the promotion spots that they wont be promoted. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Dawson (Irish footballer)

Article deleted 2 days ago with Dawson playing for Yeovil v Orient in last nights Football League Trophy a competition for fully-pro teams in fully-pro leagues. Unsure if this makes him nobable (some say it would, others not) but if so maybe article could be restored? --Egghead06 (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been re-created but I've restored the history. It could probably do with a move to Kevin Dawson (footballer born 1990) - any opposition? GiantSnowman 09:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've moved & disambiguated the 2 footballing Kevin Dawsons. GiantSnowman 12:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge backlog

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves there are a number of merge proposals that have been ongoing, dating as far back as September. Can an uninvolved admin please review and close if appropriate? GiantSnowman 15:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've closed them all. Number 57 16:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. GiantSnowman 16:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What happens with the actual merging of content into the target article - does that need to be flagged up somewhere to perform.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess now that the discussion has been closed, it's up to any volunteers to actually merge the articles? I noone beats me to it, I'll have a go at the articles I proposed for merging (2011–12 Taça da Liga)Mentoz86 (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

English National Football Archive

I see this source being used more & more, which is good, but it doesn't use direct URLs, which is bad. I know there was a previous discussion about how to reference - would creating {{ENFA}} be a possible solution? GiantSnowman 10:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If we had a template, we could track its usage and update in the future if it becomes linkable. Is that beneficial? Thanks, C679 11:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that - definitely beneficial. GiantSnowman 11:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought, relevant to this suggested template as well as to existing ones... Can we remember that when using a templated link as a reference, as opposed to their normal use as external links, that an accessdate is required, just like it would be if we were using cite templates or hand-coded refs? e.g. <ref>{{soccerway|Player-Name}} Retrieved 10 January 2013.</ref>. Particularly relevant to sourcing stats via a templated link. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

But if they are used in conjunction with a career statistics table, then wouldn't the {{updated}} suffice? GiantSnowman 13:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not the same thing. The correct-as-of date at the top of a stats table ought to reflect the date at which the stats are correct. The accessdate of a reference ought to reflect the date when the cited source was last accessed. Doesn't give the reader much faith in our accuracy when stats claiming to be up-to-date at 9 January 2013 are referenced by a source last accessed 18 months ago... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. Why not introduce a parameter directly into the templates? {{template|id=12345|name=John Smith|accessdate=10 January 2013}} GiantSnowman 13:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just tried doing that on the Soccerway template but it didn't work. It's easy to get it to show all the time; I'm not sure how to only get "Retrieved on X" only when a date is supplied though (since you might want to use it as an External link rather than a reference, then you don't need the last bit)... BigDom (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I've changed the Soccerway template to accept the accessdate either as a named parameter, |accessdate=, or as the 3rd parameter. As

{{soccerway|matthew-cooper/253988|Matthew Cooper|10 January 2013}}, which gives

Matthew Cooper at Soccerway, or

{{Soccerway|theodore-whitmore/79653|accessdate=10 January 2013}}, which gives (this page name rather than player's name, but whatever)

WikiProject Football/Archive 75 at Soccerway. Retrieved 10 January 2013.

If the optional 2nd parameter isn't supplied, it needs to use the named accessdate parameter: if the 2nd parameter is present but blank, as

{{Soccerway|theodore-whitmore/79653||10 January 2013}}, it gives

WikiProject Football/Archive 75 at Soccerway, i.e. with no pagename at all, which isn't entirely desirable... I'm about to go out, so can't look at it further now, but if anyone who knows about templates can fix that, please do.

If anyone notices it breaking stuff, or thinks of good reasons why it won't work or is undesirable left in its current state, please revert. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And without the date, {{soccerway|matthew-cooper/253988|Matthew Cooper}} gives

Matthew Cooper at Soccerway. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Now restricted implementation of accessdate to the named parameter, |accessdate=. Seems to work. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Career statistics tables

What to do in the career statistics table when a player has two spells with the same club in the same season - say on loan before signing permanently? I am thinking specifically of how to display Ross Hannah's time at Grimsby, now that he signed a permanent deal with the club. GiantSnowman 17:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It should be clear enough from announcements on club site or BBC Sport which date the player is signed. It's not that unusual (Mark Stimson took half the Conference on loan before singing them in his first season at Gillingham: see infobox of Adam Miller (GA status) for example)) Sorry: misread. I was thinking about stats in the infobox: that example doesn't have a stats table. I think I recall a similar question years ago, I opined that those stats tables are about club played for rather than contract status, and so to combine the stats, but rather than various other thoughts being ventured, the questioner just thanked me and followed my suggestion. (If only the kids I teach followed my word so unquestioningly...) Kevin McE (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How about this? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I asked Kevin's advice but that is what I do, just combine the stats. In fact its getting rather creepy checking on the page, because as with the player lists question I literally have just this second combined Liam Chilvers's Port Vale loan stats together into the one total section on the table now that he has joined the club permanently (I know that probably makes no sense so just click here to see what I mean).--EchetusXe 22:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, i wouldn't include arsenal four times at the top, so i'd just keep the loans in stats table. -Koppapa (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions guys - I think I'll combine the stats in the table; after all, the breakdown is evident in the infobox. GiantSnowman 09:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Unusual football-related RfD

I never thought an RfD would cause me to burst out laughing, but I was wrong. Thing is, its actually a plausible search term. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Twat in a hat" used to work for bringing up Jay Kay thanks to The Sun or The Mirror I recall. Should we start building redirects for things like "Calamity James"? :D Koncorde (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:National association football teams

Hi!

One can see that you are sorting the different association football national teams in (example) Category:European national association football teams by using this patter: "Countryname national football team", for instance "Austria national football team". Nevertheless, wouldn't "Austrian national football team" be gramatically correct instead of the use of the country name? So, why don't you use "Category:Austrian national football team" instead? Thanks dor helping. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Using national team names as compound nouns - the national football team of England - is a long-established convention. Categories should of course generally tie in with articles. Thanks, C679 22:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do you use categories like Category:England national football team instead of "Category:National football team of England"? Is there a certain reason? "England national football team" seems grammatically incorrect. --High Contrast (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That's just standard verbiage in football. See for example this site, the title of which is "The official website of the England football team" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because it's not (really) referred to in third-party, reliable sources as the 'National football team of England', it's referred to as the 'England national football team'. GiantSnowman 17:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, "Category:National football team of England" or "Category:English National football team" would also be thinkable, wouldn't it? Or is it completely wrong? --High Contrast (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the current category name, so why should it have to be changed.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I really do not want to wish any changes on en:wiki. But there is a controvery on Commons about this category scheme which was copied from en:wiki. As such I wanted to determine the reason why this category has been chosen here in order to collect arguments for Commons. Therefore I am happy to get some enlightening sentences. --High Contrast (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's another one for you then, High Contrast, the team is typically referred to as England as its common name. However due to the name England having numerous other uses such as the country, the rugby union team, the cricket team and so on, national football team is an appropriate wording for clarification or disambiguation. Outside of England a similar case exists. Accordingly this has been standardised across the project (with the exception of USA, Canada and Australia, where a slightly different disambiguator is required). Due to the terminology being based around the name of the nation, it is inappropriate to reword, and because in English nouns can be used in the adjectival position to create compound nouns, this does not represent a grammatical violation. I hope this clarifies the issue. Thanks, C679 08:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry for asking. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

100% assessed

Just noticed that the project currently has 100% of pages assessed for quality. Impressive achievement! Well done to anyone who contributed to that :) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite staggering. On 1 January there were over 4000 still unassessed. I wasn't aware of any project drive to assess them, so it is either a bug or someone has been working their socks off (and if so, they should certainly be congratulated). --Jameboy (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think GNozaki (talk · contribs) contributed a lot towards that goal. :) – Kosm1fent 13:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Every time I looked at my watchlist it was GNozaki who did all the assessments. However they could have been more accurate but I appreciate that he took the time to do this.--ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done to everyone involved, thanks for your hard work. On to the next task...! GiantSnowman 13:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello guys :) . I may have made some mistakes, I had a little difficulty to understand the criteria difference between Start and C-class for some season articles. Most of the articles that needed assesment were season articles, though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GNozaki (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 January 2013

Football wikicup?

Could we try to implement some sort of football Wikicup like the Bacon Wikicup? Of particular interest, it would be great to see some of the men's and women's national team articles improved. Many of the men's national team articles lack sources and contain lists and lists with out much information. --LauraHale (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a fantastic idea Laura. I am planning an announcement of an article drive for the Africa Cup of Nations between 19 Jan and 13 Feb, maybe we could schedule a football wikicup in Feb/March if there is sufficient interest? Thanks, C679 14:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Excessive stats?

2013 Malaysia Super League looks like a statsdump, also lacking a large number of citations. What gets me most is the fact that every match is listed. As far as I know, in general a table of results suffices elsewhere. Other things such as number of clean sheets by club, looks terrible. I've never seen anything like it before. There also seems to be a large instance of WP:MOS violations with regard to the flags. Thoughts? Thanks, C679 16:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, guess the flag in front of the teams should go. Listing all matches seems strange for me too. The larger 2012–13 A-League does it for seasons though. By the way, List of Super League Malaysia seasons should be prodded for redundancy, right? Also 2012_Malaysia_Super_League_goalscorers and 2013. -Koppapa (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

British Home Championship

Main page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_75 § British_Home_Championship

I see that these articles are still incorrectly titled with a - instead of –. Can a bot move these to the correct title? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know how to type a "–" without copying and pasting! TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"–" is on the insert bar above edit summary. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That's actually a question I've been meaning to ask for some time now. Are there any keyboard combos to make that dash? Also, when do we use each dash? Which dash is used for matches, which for dates? TonyStarks (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

On Macs, an endash (–) can be created by pressing Alt+hyphen. On PCs, it is Alt+0150. Not sure what you mean about the distinction between matches and dates, but I always use an endash regardless of the situation, because I'm British. Then again, the only difference between us and Americans is that Americans use emdashes to indicate pauses in speech, whereas we use a spaced endash. – PeeJay 02:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I've moved all the pages to correctly endashed titles, and sorted out the main template too. At least now they're all correctly formatted, now it's up to people to decide if it is correct to label them with year ranges. And yeah, the best way I find to do endashes quickly is also using the shortkey Alt+0150 using the number pad. I've been sorting out endashes so long now that it's easier for me to do that than it is to type the word endash! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Samuel Affum or Samuel Afum?

The article name is currently spelled with two f, whereas on the websites of his new club, Swiss league and FIFA, his name is spelled with one f only. Is there enough evidence to move the article? --Leyo 22:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Even the player himself uses Afum on twitter. [23] --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

While there is some sites you write his name with two "f's", most of the sources are with one "f", including his twitter-profile - so I moved the article. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Should the redirect be deleted or kept? --Leyo 10:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely kept, given the discrepancy in selling. GiantSnowman 11:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Golden Shoe 2012/2013: Multiplier Portugese League and French League

2012–13 European Golden Shoe

Why are the goals from Portugese clubs counted for 1,5 point and French clubs counted for 2.0 point? I thought top 5 leagues the goals counted for 2 points. As you can see here , portugal ended 5th http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method4/crank2012.html So i believe this season goals from portugese clubs should count for 2 and france clubs (ended sixth) should count for 1.5. I also see that for the Golden Shoe of 2011/2012 the end rankings of 2011 were used for the multipliers, but for 2012/2013 the begin rankings of 2013 instead of the end rankings of 2012. Maybe i am wrong so i hope someone can explain this before i am going to edit the article. ` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.206.224 (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

YOu are right, France is at 1.5 . See http://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/intligen/startseite/579046/artikel_messi-ist-schon-wieder-vorne.html -Koppapa (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like WP:OR to me, the whole thing. If the article was created after the award was given, there would be no such problems. C679 13:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually I fail to see how season articles for a magazine award are necessary. Placing other than first is not notable and the main European Golden Shoe article already lists each year's winner. C679 13:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, i wouldn't deem those seasons notable. The source website seems wrong/non-reliable actually because of the coefficient. Then it states "When a player transfers to a new club which plays in a different league (calendar or summer), goals made for the 2 clubs won't be added up to each other." yet, the previous season (in wikipedia) does add them. -Koppapa (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Now at AfD. C679 14:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

FIFA Coach of the Year

FIFA World Coach of the Year is better than FIFA Coach of the Year [24].--Dipralb (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Espérance de Tunis

I just moved the article to its current name from the full version of the name. The article has tons of links to the old name and it would take too long to do it manually. Is there anyway to have a bot do this? I have no previous experience doing something like this so wasn't sure where to go to ask. TonyStarks (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I use WP:AWB for these kind of edits. GiantSnowman 09:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The only links that need fixing are double redirects, i.e. redirect pages that link to the old name, like ES Tunis. There is a bot that does this, but I don't know how often it runs; personally, I do fix the double redirects myself manually if I move a page. If you choose to do it yourself, what you do is: go the the old name page and click on What links here in the LH sidebar; any page that shows up in the list with (redirect page) after it needs editing to redirect to the new page instead (there are only 6).

Anything linking directly to the old name will just redirect to the new one in the normal way (see WP:NOTBROKEN). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the bot's been round and fixed the double redirects, so there's nothing left for you to do. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Copa América's old name

I already asked a similar question here some months ago, but no one answered, so I'll give it another try: the Copa América article here on en.wiki reads The tournament was previously known as sup Campeonato Sudamericano de Selecciones (South American Championship of National Teams). South American Championship of Nations was the official English language name. Now, let's focus on Campeonato Sudamericano de Selecciones: if you take any South American source from the Sudamericano era, it will read "Campeonato Sudamericano de Football". For example, see here, the official Peruvian FA book on the 1927 edition: "Sudamericano de Football". I don't want to bore you linking all the sources, you can take a look at the AFA annual Memorias here (you can also check page numbers here). Additional sources can be found on the online version of the Jornal do Brasil on Google News, on 1926 issues of the Chilean magazine Los Sports, and others (if you want a more detailed list, I can provide other sources). What I think happened was: user JorgeGG writes "de Selecciones" on es.wiki. Everyone copies it, the mistake spreads worldwide. No one probably looked for South American original sources, they took for granted that es.wiki had the right answer, something that, in this case, was not true. You should correct en.wiki's article (we already did on it.wiki) from de Selecciones to de Football (not to mention the "official English name" issue). Could you please give me a feedback? I think this is quite a relevant issue. Many thanks. :-) --Triple 8 (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you should change it in the article on en.wiki, with the edit summary "see talk for rationale" and then copy-paste your explanation here to a new section on Talk:Copa América. My impression of this project, is that when no-one replies to you, it is because no-one disagrees with you (or have no clue :P ) Mentoz86 (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have edited the article, adding a partial list of sources to explain the reason of the edit. I hope we have solved this problem. :-) --Triple 8 (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Football records in England

There have been discussions re this article as to whether it should include stats for the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. It seems this was not organized by UEFA so some view this as 'not an official European tournament'. It is recognized by FIFA however. Anyone any views on including stats for this tournament or excluding?--Egghead06 (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC).

Granted, this tournament was not organized by The FA, UEFA nor FIFA, yet the latter does consider it a "Mayor title". Its being the official predecessor to the UEFA Cup, which is mentioned, does add to the merit of including it. Now, for consistency purposes, this decision will also affect the Football records in Spain and Football records in Italy articles, since both also include ICFC, while the other winning countries (Belgium, Yugoslavia, and Hungary) do not have "Football records" articles. Finally, this issue has been long debated int the Spain article and the consensus was to keep it. I vote to also keep it here. There is already a note saying: "Although not organized by UEFA, the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is included here under UEFA as it is the official predecessor to the UEL."--Coquidragon (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)