Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 76

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 70

←

Archive 74

→

Template:English football seasons

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Templates don't get much traffic, so I just thought I'd ask here if anyone would like to contribute to a discussion I started. Please head to Template talk:English football seasons. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Lists of expatriate footballers

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I know that 'List of foreign players playing in [LEAGUE]' are generally considered notable; what about 'List of [NATIONALITY] playing abroad'? e.g. List of Israeli footballers playing overseas, List of Costa Rican expatriate footballers, List of Estonian expatriate footballers... Giant Snowman 11:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

For reference, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indonesian expatriate footballers ended as a unanimous delete back in 2011. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 12:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

From my point of view, List of X nationality expatriates might be notable, while List of Y nationality expatriates might not be notable. (this and this is a good example.) WP:LISTN states that such lists are notable "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", and I believe List of Norwegian expatriate footballers would pass WP:LISTN (in addition to List of Norwegian expatriate football managers, given our recent success in the Football Championship :P) as long as Norwegian sources are "independent". I don't know about other obscure countries, but there should be sources for those somewhere. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, agree that they can be notable if the subject has received significant third-party coverage - which none of these have. PROD/AfD I go... Giant Snowman 14:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Iranian football

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I noticed this template on an AfD. {{Iran Football's 3rd Division}}

Seems to have a lot on it, and most of it seems to fail WP:NFOOTY to me. Do you lot agree? Govvy (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth creating List of football clubs in Iran, listing them there, and redirecting. Giant Snowman 09:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at some of the clubs on here when they were up for AfD. I couldn't see anything on RSSSF to indicate that any of those clubs competed in the National Cup and so it would seem that none of these contributions (of which unfortunately there seem to be a lot) are notable. The only caveat I would add is that I am not sure whether RSSSF is showing the full season's results for the cup or just the latter stages. The only refs in the whole piece seem to be in season articles, but they are in Farsi so I am not able to tell what they refer to. Fenix down (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

List of foreign footballers in the Iranian Premier League I thought this an interesting article, but the problem is lack of citation which is also clarification if these footballers are playing in Iran. Iran Pro League has some citation, might be able to use citations for the other articles. On Iranian football league system in the table there is Provincial Leagues with two links too, Isfahan Province League and Fars Province League. I don't see why those stubs are needed, it looks like they will remain stubs as it will be very hard gather information to fill those two articles. Shall we AfD them? Govvy (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I being a dick?

Latest comment: 11 years ago43 comments12 people in discussion

Aside from my usual dickish behaviour, am I being particularly unpleasant by refusing to use images supplied by Christopher Vose simply because he requires attribution of his photos when they're used? The copyright he's chosen to use in the commons allows for that. The images are good. But does this mean that we must use the images? Am I correct in removing them from articles on that ground? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you for what it's worth. BigDom (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The image use policy says that all photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page. There was a little discussion here. U+003F^? 17:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Far from the negative qualities you describe, you're probably doing the ethical thing. Mr Vose seems convinced that under CC-BY-SA he can stipulate the precise manner of attribution. If he is correct, Wikipedia policy would suggest that we politely decline the offer to use the images, and if he is incorrect, then unless I'm missing something else we can use the images without the relatively intrusive means of credit. To do so against his wishes would be somewhat unethical.

We should inform him that the images won't be used in the way he has specified, and ask whether he is happy for us to use them as we would any other image, or would instead prefer them deleted. The Commons G7 isn't quite as liberal as our own, but should still do the trick if necessary. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 18:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor has just restored my removal and likely re-introduced WP:OVERLINKs that I removed at the same time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

While I admit that it is rare that photographers stipulate that their work must include attribution, there is precedent. I list http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ayelet_Zurer as just one example. Why are other photographers given attribution, while mine are not if I have requested it in exactly the same manner? Thus far, I have supplied six images, five of which were far more recent photographs, and one (Anton Peterlin) had no photograph at all. I intended to supply images for all members of Vancouver Whitecaps FC that required it, and the odd one from an opposing player. Ordinarily, I have a watermark on my images, but I removed it for the ones to be used by Wikipedia, as I thought a note below the picture, as tradition in Wikipedia, would be fine. —Christopher Vose (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The question isn't whether you should or shouldn't be given attribution or not. You should. That was the way you released your work to the commons.

Our questions here are twofold:

Should we include your images when you expect to have your name follow the image. The opinion of project members to this point is no. There is no expectation that any Wikipedia article use your image just because you have provided it. There is an expectation that Wikipedians can choose not to use your images. There is no reason that you should force your images on any particular article, demand that we use them and expect us to credit you for them at the same time.
Am I being a dick, in this instance. Again, it seems that the editors who have weighed-in to this point agree that I'm not and am dealing as they would with the images.

We can't speak for other projects or how images are used in articles in those projects. There's certainly no expectation that we do things the way that the project responsible for those projects do things. I can tell you that several guidelines are not being followed in that article, but have no intention of fixing them at this point. Suffice it to say, on behalf of Wikicommons, thanks for the wonderful photographs. On my on behalf, I don't think it's necessary to use them. I'll let other editors state whether it's necessary to use them. I don't plan to remove the images at this point as that's too much of an edit war. I'll let other editors do that for now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

To me, this looks like a case of self-promotion by the photographer and I would seek to avoid it as I feel it goes against Wikipedia's spirit of collaboration. As such (and based on the comments above), I've removed the photos. Number 5 7 22:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I believe it is better to have a photograph of a football player, than no photograph of a football player (for example, Anton Peterlin). I also believe the recent photographs are more useful than old ones. For example, Jacob Lensky now has a shaved head and sadly for him, seems to be going bald anyway. The photo you've replaced it with has him with a full thick head of hair. All I asked for was the same respect to my work as other photographers who have supplied Wikipedia with photos, such as the example I listed above. —Christopher Vose (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have supplied several photos to Wikipedia, but I have not demanded my name appears beneath them on the articles they are used on. Number 5 7 22:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO not actually "the same respect as other photographers" but actually something equivalent to what looks like a one-off case; if you look though thousands of football player images on Wikipedia you are unlikely to see any such attribution on the infoboxes themselves, I have certainly never seen such attribution before and I had 20,000+ page views in December. If the project decides to reject this insistence of such attribution then I would imagine there are only two courses of action, the editor backs down or the images are ultimately not used and subsequently deleted, although I have to say I am completely neutral as to which line of action is followed. C 679 22:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment - many (semi)pro photographers upload their images under appropriate GFDL but with their name plastered all over the image name, e.g. "Thierry Henry - photograph by Joe Bloggs.jpg". Nothing we can do about that, other than rename them I suppose.... Just saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no problems with how a user names the file. Most readers don't see that. It's not particularly in the spirit of things to insist that your credits be used whenever the image is used in an article and then insert the image into the infobox of player articles, which is what's happening here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

My issue here is that some photographers ask for credit and get it, but my work is not judged to be equal to their contributions. It's also quite insulting that you'd rather use no photo or an inaccurate one than one of mine. I had heard that there was a lot of negativity on Wikipedia, but still wanted to contribute. I just wanted to be treated as well as other photographers are. —Christopher Vose (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this issue, but I think the thing that is unusual here is that the photographer asking for attribution every time the image is used is the same person introducing the images to Wikipedia articles. I don't think an editors sought to use these images without attribution (which would be unethical), so I don't understand why you think you're being treated unfairly. I think good-quality images improve the articles, but I also understand that this case looks like a photographer seeking to promote his own work. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I removed your attribution at first. I didn't realize that you had released your images with that request. I simply thought that it was self-promotion. When I realized that this was the case, I removed the images to avoid the self-promotion that way. I don't think I'm treating you unfairly now that you have corrected my misunderstanding. Thanks for not suing me for copyright infringement.

You do understand that we don't have to use the photographs that you provided if we don't like the terms under which you're providing them, right? I don't think that this is at all unfair. You made the rules for how they were to be used and we are choosing not to use them because we don't like the rules. I'm not sure how that's negative. If your terms were payment of $1 per month per image, would you say that we would be required to use them that way? In football terms, if you bring the ball to a scrimmage and then state that the rules are that only you are permitted to score with it, then would you expect anyone else to play?

While I finally understood your point earlier today, and want to be clear that I'm sorry for breaking your original terms of use, I want you to understand our point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel that I and my work have been treated unfairly. Walter Görlitz used several of my contributions inappropriately, by deliberating removing attribution on images that required their presence. Several days later, I learned of this, corrected this oversight, and asked that he cease and desist in using my work in violation of the permissions granted for its use. Furthermore, the suggestion that I offered my work simply for my own promotion offends me. I simply wished for my contributions to be used with the same stipulations that other photographers were allowed. It has been suggested that that what may be okay for some Wikipedia pages is not okay for others. I don’t understand that. Are not all photographs created equally? But it has become clear to me that the small group of people who have responded to this, feel that it is better to provide misinformation through an old, outdated photograph, or none at all, than one with the terms that I have asked for. It’s a sad state of affairs where people can bully, intimidate, misuse, and misrepresent freely without the fear of consequences. But then again, this is the internet. As always, all I wanted to do was contribute, to provide information, in this case being a visual medium, while being afforded the same treatment as my peers. I guess that was too much to hope for. —Christopher Vose (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry that I remove the attribution of your work from the captions. I explained why I did it and I trust that this issue has now been resolved.

As for the rest, you're dead wrong. We would love to use your photographs, but not under the terms your insisting on. You didn't just want to contribute, you wanted to be contribute and be widely recognized for your contribution. No one is bullying you. You brought your ball and your terms. We don't want to play under your terms. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I failed to address your point: "what may be okay for some Wikipedia pages is not okay for others" is completely a misrepresentation of the facts. No one has stated that if we use your image that it shouldn't be attributed to you. Let me say that again, in bold, so that you don't miss it: no one has stated that if we use your image that it shouldn't be attributed to you. What we are saying is that if you want to be attributed, a few of us don't think that we want to use your photos.

We are not saying that we don't want to use your photos because they are of poor quality. On the contrary, they are of a very high quality.

We are not saying that we don't want to use your photos because we prefer old and outdated photographs. On the contrary, updated photos are always appreciated.

A few of us who edit football articles are saying that we would prefer to use photographs from any photographer who insists on being identified in any way whenever the image is used whether that is with a watermark or with a copyright that requires attribution.

This is not treating you poorly at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are some photos on Wikipedia allowed to have attribution, while mine are not? Why am I being denied something that others are given freely? And most importantly, two world wars and one world cup, England, England! (that represents the end of the issue for me regarding the accidental attribution removal) —Christopher Vose (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All images can be allowed to have attribution, including yours, if the copyright you choose states that.

You are not being denied attribution. You are being denied to have your images used because we don't like your terms.

In the words of Basil Fawlty, "Don't mention the war!". I'm Canadian and I live in your community. I wear the same team colours as you do. If I happen to meet you at a Whitecaps game, I'll gladly buy you a beer and explain this issue to you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

As a follow up, out of curiosity what is acceptable to this, well, I don't know what to call it, project, group? Collection of like-minded thinkers? A mark in a photo? Would that resolve the issue or is it required to be a clean photo with no marks, no credit, nothing? As if it was found on the street and scanned by an anonymous person? I also would like to know why others are allowed credit. The closest I've come to an answer is that they're a different part of Wikipedia. Hardly sounds like an appropriate answer. —Christopher Vose (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Tha actually makes it worse. You could use my photos and attribute them, as you (Wikipedia) have with others, but choose not to, either because of me, personally, or my work. In the case of Anton Peterlin, you would rather use no photo than to treat my work with the same respect that has been afforded to other photographers. Congratulations, I'm been given a strong reason not to contribute to wikipedia. At least until such time that my work is viewed with the same respect as other wikipedia contribtors. —Christopher Vose (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You have presented us with a false dilemma. The choices you have provided are not the only possible options. You have missed the one option that I and everyone else has stated: we don't like the terms that you have provided. I even went to great lengths to state this and disprove your two stated options.

Congratulations! You've just learned that if you try to stipulate how your images are used, you may not have them used at all. Do you want me to walk by 375 Water Street on my way to the Skytrain and see if Mr. Lenarduzzi would like to use the images instead? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I wast just following precedent established by previous photographers who had contributed to Wikipedia. And incidentally, at last year's media day, the Whitecaps had used one of my photos of Martin Rennin on a cheat sheet for the media to recognise him! Since then, they've occassionally used my work in the match day booklets, web site, and at half time on big screen for those mobile phon trivia contests they run. —Christopher Vose (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You were following the precedent set here. No one is denying that you did that. No one is denying that you uploaded the images. No one is denying that they're good images. No one is denying that the images, when used, need to be attributed to you. No one is denying any of that. Stop saying that we are. It's a non-starter.

What you steadfastly seem to forget, or choose to ignore, or are completely incapable of comprehending is that we don't want, desire, or in any way fell compelled to use images with that sort of attribution. We are fully in our rights to refuse to use any image for any reason. In other words, you can't force us to use your images and you shouldn't feel slighted when we don't use your images. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You use a lot of 'us' and 'we's. I cancertainly see that the few people that frequent this page either agree or are indfferent. But people don't contribute for editors. They contribute for viewers. You may not wish the photo, but what gives you the right to speak for any poor sod who looks at Anton Peterlin or anyone else lacking a photo? You're saying its better to have no photo. I disagree. You and a small group of fiends seem to agree. Does that make it right? If so, looks like you've got a nice little kingdom in this corner of the internet. —Christopher Vose (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I got tired of using a more neutral term since it didn't seem to me that you were reading what I wrote.

We in this case means the majority of editors who have commented here to this point don't like the terms. Two don't care one way or the other. See WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It certinly took you a long time to get ired of using neutral terms. You began using 'we' in your opening paragraph. —Christopher Vose (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Another logical fallacy. This time equivocation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This entire argument is the reason why we use Free images, preferably where the author releases without restriction as I have done several times over because I frankly don't care and am not seeking to promote either my real name, or any business venture or personal vested interest - only factual and accurate representations of whatever topic I am dealing with. Christopher - your attribution is in the summary of the file. You should be listed as the Author, and your Permission should state that the image, when used in any further reproduction of the webpage, should be attributed to you. However the correct way for this attribution to take place would differ depending on the medium. For instance, a book may have a simple summary of image rights at the front or back of the book and the relevant artist. You generally do not get to stipulate that your name has to be presented in a particular fashion any more than you have any right to demand your name be presented in a particular font - and if you did attempt to force such a policy on any subsequent usage of your image, then the publisher could simply opt not to reproduce the image at all.

Here Gorlitz is siding with the option of not reproducing your image at all, rather than have a directly un-notable attribution on biography of a living person.

The instance of "Moti Kakayon" being referenced to on the main page of the article is actually incorrect policy. I can't see any justification for leaving an un-notable name on a notable persons page. If you look at the pages that the image is used on the related foreign wiki articles you will see that actually they do not actively refer to the photographer on the main page. [7][8] Koncorde (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've seen numerous examples of it over the years, but it's a hard thing to track down. It's not like it's a term that can be searched eaily. As for notability, when does one become notable. I've had my work published in newspapers such as The Vancouver Sun, The Now, on club web pages such as Vancouver Whitecaps FC, Los Angeles Galaxy, CD Chivas USA, Portland Timbers, Seattle Sounders FC, Middlesbrough FC, Wellington Phoenix FC, in club booklets given out on match days, by over a dozen universities in a variety of mediums, online news agencies, among other places. I don't know what I am at this stage. Am I to photography as Anton Peterlin is to football? Am I less? Am I more? —Christopher Vose (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You are not notable by wikipedia standards any more than I am (and I've been published in The Guardian, PC Zone Magazine etc in a professional capacity). The only direct reference to you would really be this promotional page [9]. Having your photos reproduced does not confer notability unless the photo is in itself something notable (and not merely of a notable person).

Other examples would not help your case, they would also be wrong to be included in wikipedia in that format or with any other watermark or notice of copyright or ownership. It invalidates the whole principle of being able to reproduce a free service and (in my experience) would be removed. Koncorde (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability, in Wikipedia terms, defined. Specicially, about people. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to throw my two cents in: Christopher Vose, you don't really have the right to insist that your name appears every time the image is used. Your name appears when users go to the image description page, and that is enough per the licence you have uploaded the image under. – Pee Jay 11:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. If an image, hosted by one source, in this case Wikimedia Commons, has a description indicating that it is my work, embedding it on another Web Site, such as Wikipedia, would be usage without attribution. No different than ABC embedding an image link to a photo on ESPN. —Christopher Vose (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

When I click on one of the images I read: "This file is from Wikimedia Commons and may be used by other projects." In the Summary section there is a link: Reusing this file. It seems that two editors here seem to think that this means reusing outside of the various Wikipedia projects and the wording on the English link page seems to confirm this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If you upload on Wikimedia Commons but you don't want the images used on any other website, what was the point in uploading to Commons in the first place? – Pee Jay 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The commons article on "Credit lines" is quite clear in what is expected. Its final section in particular relating to attribution only referring to the actual file, not its presentation on web pages. Koncorde (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor is now edit warring to remove the images (and in some cases other changes). I don't want to edit war with the editor so if others feel it's important, they can revert the changes that are being made. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Let him take his images, just repair any other amendments. It is clear the important thing to him is the attribution to him in a prominent position on the page, and not the contribution to wikipedia. Koncorde (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the commons is intent on keeping is half-dozen images. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. Firstly, yes, this was handled atrociously. Secondly, so far as the Wikipedia project is concerned, we have WP:CREDITS, which states that our position on credit for copylefted images is that it should only be included on the image page itself. Any concerns over that guideline should have been referred to the guideline's talk page, rather than brought to the peanut gallery and treated as a personal spat. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Catalonian nationalism again

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Is there a policy or guideline for dealing with edits made to replace Spain with Catalonia? I just marked it as vandalism since I'm tired of seeing it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think mentioning the region in the prose constitutes nationalism or vandalism. For example, if I were writing an article on a player from Basildon, England I'd open the prose with "Born in Basildon, Essex", and if I were writing an article for a player from Barcelona I'd write "Born in Barcelona, Catalonia". If someone were replacing Spain with Catalonia in the infobox I'd agree with that constituting nationalism, but not this. As a compromise, could the text in the article you refer to be expanded to include both region and country, so "Born in Sant Carles de la Ràpita, Tarragona, Catalonia, Spain"? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A similar shitstorm happened a while ago over the use of the term "Northern Irish" in biographies - nationalism really is a pain in the derrière. If I remember right, the solution was to only use "Northern Irish" if there was a third-party source using that particular term. If I can find a link to this discussion, I'll post it here. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 10:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that Northern Ireland isn't in Ireland at all, whereas Catalonia was certainly part of Spain the last time I looked. In the case of the particular diff Walter highlights I don't see anything wrong with it, c.f. Matty's comment regarding Basildon, Essex; only if the edit appears to be presenting Catalonia as a separate nation should we really care. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

High level of vandalism from an IP range

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Someone removes informations and adds wrong informations to a lot of articles about football (not just in English Wikipedia - look at the global contributions) from the same IP range

Last week:

92.36.208.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
92.36.208.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
92.36.219.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
92.36.219.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
92.36.223.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

And now he came back as 92.36.219.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The same vandal seems to use a second range:

31.176.242.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
31.176.248.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Some administrators who are members of this project and can look at all edits which where made from this ranges should keep an eye on it. --Yoda1893 (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

See if you can request a WP:RANGEBLOCK (don't have the skills myself and they're often controversial). Giant Snowman 09:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that a range block should be the last resort because there could be blocked other persons who edit from this ranges. Maybe the vandal could be scared off when the edits from his ranges are supervised by some administrators. Today he returned as 31.176.252.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Yoda1893 (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Both ranges were blocked after I reported the recent vandalism [10] [11] --Yoda1893 (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the vandal returned today as 109.175.53.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) There were also two vandal edits (with the same mode of vandalism) from this third range before: 109.175.60.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Yoda1893 (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I want lesser known Footballers/Teams etc. to be taken more seriously

Latest comment: 11 years ago46 comments15 people in discussion

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello everyone, I come to you today to promote my ideas of how lesser known football players/teams etc pages should stay on Wikipedia no matter how well known they are. Right, you admins/moderators or whatever seem to take a dim view on the lower leagues of football and the players that are associated with them. Me, I beg to differ, I find them very interesting and recently I have been making pages for players which you may have not heard of, but others may have and it might be interesting for them but all of these pages are being taken down for no real reason. I am quite frankly shocked an astounded by your guidelines which state something along the lines of "They have a lack of importance" surely any new page or edit benefits Wikipedia. I mean, I don't get it, It's not like Wikipedia have a cap on the maximum amount of pages that are created so why are you requesting to delete me page my pages and perhaps other peoples pages, all they are doing is benefiting Wikipedia and not causing any harm whatsoever. I hope you admins can change the guidelines to make any football players/teams etc. no matter what league (maybe let pages/edits concerning football as low as the English Isthmian Premier stay on Wikipedia and not get taken down or blocked).

I would also like to point out that I am deeply surprised at how you don't accept new pages about the League Of Ireland players. I created Sean Gannon who is a young but established League Of Ireland footballer and the page remarkably got taken down! Now, Sean Gannon was requested for deletion by a user called 'Ariconte' and no offense to he/her but with a bit of research it seemed like he/she didn't have a clue about Football (this is not a personal attack at all, I respect Ariconte, I'm just pointing out it seemed like he/she didn't have much experience in football) so I wasn't sure if Ariconte even new what he/she was deleting. However with some reassurance from user 'GiantSnowman' and realising that Ariconte had been an admin for 8 years, I cautiously took the deletion on the chin and did not contest the block knowing I would get know where so this is why I came here to promote my case. I am hoping admins like 'GiantSnowman' and the 'Rambling Man' and possibly 'Writ Keeper' who I have grown fond of recently, I going to support my case here as I think I have a valid case as Wikipedia is going no where in terms of football with this current appalling state of the lower leagues of football and especially lesser known footballers.

So, Admins I am hoping you will agree with my and join my plea to change the guidelines of editing and creating new pages of lesser known footballers and teams etc and making it so these less notable players and other edits to lesser known football leagues STAY on Wikipedia and do NOT get deleted. I am pretty sure that the 'GiantSnowman' (who by the way is a top guy who takes an interest in less notable players, like me, - for example Exeter City player 'Elliot Chamberlain') likes his football and will hopefully see where I am coming from and user 'Rambling Man' (who was the person who told me to come here and present me case) will understand where I'm coming from. I hope all these keen football editors who are admins will support my case and take action. There will be those people who take a dim view on the lower leagues of football and they will just brush past this case but for those who care about football and its lower league players etc. thank you for reading my case and I hope you support my case and will take action.Boomage (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Long story short - regardless of what level of football somebody plays (World Cup final or semi-pro non-leaguer or whatever!) as long as they meet WP:GNG they will be considered notable. GNG says that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Let me/us know what lower-level player(s) you think meet the GNG and we can help find sources and improve the article. It could also be an idea to create a draft in your userspace so that you can work on it & improve it before releasing it into the WikiWilds. e.g. if you wanted to create an article on a player called John Smith, then you could create a version at User:Boomage/John Smith. Giant Snowman 21:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What is being pointing out has been a problem here for a long time and has yet to be solved. Us old timer (those of us here before polices were rampant) that understand our main goal here at Wiki are frustrated with the growing exclusionary polices here. We have a big problem when it comes to inclusion - on one hand we have our policy on notability that has gotten more and more exclusionary - this is in direct contrast with our mission statements saying "We want you to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge" that is seen at the Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation main pages. Not all is perfect here - all you can do is try an conform to our misguided policy on this and educate yourself on how to combat this problem - see - Wikipedia:How to save an article proposed for deletion. If you have any questions pls just ask me.Moxy (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need more articles on English lower league teams and players. But it's ridiculous someone like Sean Gannon can't have an article when every League 2 player can. Adam4267 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Does Gannon meet GNG? Giant Snowman 22:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No. But do the majority of League 2 players meet GNG? Adam4267 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No but they play in a fully professional league. Anyway I am surprised at how the League of Ireland is not even considered fully-pro. I barely follow Irish football but when I do, I see a league that is, to me, a lot more professional than leagues we have listed as fully-pro like the Myanmar Premier League or the Indian I-League. If someone would just take 10 minutes out of their life to prove how the League of Ireland is fully-pro then we would not have this problem which seems to now occur every month now with Irish players. If we can prove that the Myanmar Premier League is fully-pro then surely we can prove Ireland to be professional. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not fully-pro. The thing I disagree with is that, we have already made exceptions basically saying we'll completely and utterly disregard and ignore GNG if players who aren't notable play in a fully-pro league. And the majority of players who have never played higher than League 2 in England don't meet GNG. The thing is we're never going to get League 2 removed because the nunber of English editors on here wouldn't agree to it. So leagues in which players have similar GNG should be included IMO. I would say the LoI is slightly more notable internationally and obviously it is the top flight league in Ireland which is an English speaking country. The only difference is the amount of money players earn. And I don't see how that effects GNG. Adam4267 (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Irish league is definitely not fully-pro - though I would rather see it be granted 'automatic' notability status then the myriad of stubs we see from Burma, Malaysia etc. Do the majority of League 2 players currently meet GNG? No. Could they? Most definitely. That's what WP:NFOOTBALL, imperfect as it may be, is getting at - this player plays in a league of a certain standard and so it is presumed they will have the coverage to back up notability. Giant Snowman 23:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand that reasoning though. The majority of League 2 players don't meet GNG. Therefore they aren't notable and shouldn't have an article on wikipedia. The reasoning that "they might be notable in the future" isn't good enough IMO and I've seen it shot down on AFD discussions before. Certainly on players who could go on to be much more notable than your average League 2 player. Whilie I'm not against these players having articles, I think it's only fair that Leagues who meet a similar standard of GNG have the same rules applied. Otherwise it's just nationalistic bias towards countries with more vocal editors. And it's not just England, the Scottish First Division meets GNG now and I don't think thr League of Ireland is less notable than either the Scottish First Division or English League 2. Just look at Shamrock_Rovers_F.C.#First-team_squad. Almost every player has an article anyway. They're one of the bigger clubs in the league but it still illustrates the point. Adam4267 (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi all,Firstly, Moxy I think you are missing the point, I know you can't just put anyone on Wikipedia like obviously you cant't put me on Wikipedia! We are talking about professional association footballers here not just anyone and I am campaigning for these footballers and leagues to be able to be allowed on Wikipedia. I noticed someone else was campaigning to get the K league allowed on Wikipedia and you remarkably rejected his case, you can't keep rejecting us, directing me to all this WIkipedia Commons and the Sandbox rubbish, No, I am campaigning to get lower league footballers/teams etc to be put on the Main Wikipedia site where EVRYONE can view it, I'm intrested in all this Wikipedia Commons and Sandbox rubbish. Now, GiantSnowman, I appreciate you are glad that I'm campaigning but I am slightly disappointed how you have been a tad blunt in your're response and playing it by the book (AKA playing safe and its looks unlikely so far that your're going to take action) I presume you are an admin and why don't you get follow admins involved, You and I seem to know football well, why don't you bring fellow colleagues involved and help support my campaign as think I have a very, very valid and this could be the breakthrough that Wikipedia needs to kick start its football on the less notable leagues. Thank you for reading. Regards Boomage (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Anybody being an admin does not matter; if you want to change anything on Wikipedia then you need wide consensus reached through discussion and agreement. We have discussed footballer notability time & time again and nothing has really changed. It is something that certainly needs looking - however, any change is likely to make the rules stricter, not looser. Giant Snowman 22:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Boomage, professional footballers do generally get kept. It's those which have only played on a semi-professional or amateur basis and who have not been subject of news coverage that are eligible for deletion. It seems like you are a little confused saying "We are talking about professional association footballers here not just anyone and I am campaigning for these footballers and leagues to be able to be allowed on Wikipedia". Such players are on Wikipedia. If your Sean Gannon is a professional footballer and he has played in a fully professional league (or at senior level for a national team) then he is eligible for an article. Extending notability to guys who play football at the weekends as well as being a milkman between training sessions is not going to happen, with good reason. C 679 23:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What's the reason? Adam4267 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

From WP:N: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. C 679 06:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Adam4267 I don't think you have done enough research in to the lower tiers of English Football, it is appalling (no offence guys), there is no information on there career, references out of date, mistakes are being made and there is a significant lack of information on these players and nothing being done about hence my campaign. Also, I agree, Sean Gannon should have 100% stayed and once again it brings me back to point about does Ariconte know what he/she is doing? he/she seems to have no football knowledge however, I could be wrong and I acknowledge that. This is no personal attack whatsoever on Ariconte, I respect him/her but It's just unclear if he/she put any research in before putting Sean Gannon up for deletion when he clearly should stay as he has League Of Ireland experience. Thank you for Reading. Regards Boomage (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Everyone - anyone - should do research on notability before putting up for deletion, per WP:BEFORE. Giant Snowman 22:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if this was done in this case, the nominator would have found very little online in the way of significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have the opinion that any player who has played more than, say, 50 games in a top-flight division that isn't fully pro should qualify - but then, they will usually pass WP:GNG at that point. The same would happen for a player who had played a similar amount, or more, for a team in a grey area league (ie, a non top-flight one), like the Blue Square Bet Premier. But I'm well aware this would never wash. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really see the point of this discussion, what is the difference between "lesser known" and "does not pass GNG"? If there are sufficient, significant, reliable third party sources documenting a given player's career then regardless of the level that they play they are notable and can have their own article.

For example, a player at a very low league plays for a team that regularly throughout his career qualifies for at least the first round of the FA cup and he scores goals that knock out league teams. There are likely to be numerous sources documenting this and so there is a good chance he passes GNG. However, his team mates, although they played in the games are unlikely to have received such specific coverage and so would not. The level of the player is irrelevant to whether they should have their own article, as is whether they are professional or not, it is all about notability.

A player playing professionally in a fully professional league and in the top tiers of this league is much more likely to be inherently notable, but there is no lower band at which there would be no way a player could have an article simply because of the level they play at, it's just that it is increasingly unlikely that sufficient sources of the type mentioned above would exist for any such player. If anyone is concerned about having their work deleted, they can create the article in their user page and ask for it to be assessed before being promoted to the main space. If you can find sufficient sources then there won't be a problem. I guess in summary, I am saying a player cannot be "lesser known" whilst at the same time being notable. Fenix down (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that some editors simply don't bother looking for sources of information and will solely vote based on the fact it's a lower league player - in fact, I've seen one say that he/she can't be bothered to check if the article passed GNG or not (in this case, it did) because it failed NFOOTY - which is the wrong way around. Lesser known is kind of ambiguous - but a player can be lesser-known, but still notable (for example, how many League 2 players could people name, without being fans of a League 2 club? And that's a fully pro league.) Lukeno94 (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO if a player can't be proved to meet either WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG then they are simply too obscure to merit inclusion, it's as simple as that. Players in the Isthmian League Premier Division (as suggested by Boomage) are not generally known to anyone outside their own team's fanbase (unless they happen to have played at a much higher level, in which case they'd pass either NFOOTY or GNG anyway) and I don't believe players at that level really merit a place on WP.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Boomage I will remind you that it states at the top of this page to be polite, accusing experienced Wikipedians of not knowing what their doing isn't productive. In relation to this conversation it seems to be all about serving your agenda (Boomage's comment at AfD:"Do you know what, why don't you delete it! It took me an hour to make but I understand I can't say much to contest it. That is why as you may have seen I am trying to get admins on my side to get change these guidelines to allow less known footballers and less notable teams to STAY on Wikipedia and NOT get deleted. Hopefully, in the near future, Jordan Clement will be back on Wikipedia in no time at all."), not about improving our guidelines. Getting footy admins on your side all of whom currently disagree with you doesn't create a consensus we have 100's of members. As for the League of Ireland isn't fully pro, as an Irishman I wish it was. The case could have been made in the early 2000's that it possibly was but certainly not now, the league has gone backwards despite the clubs progressing further in European football. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yay, another interminable discussion about the GNG and our somewhat over-strictly applied rules on professionalism. The fact is that while we have the odd edge case of a notable player being deleted due to strict interpretation of FPL, the line is roughly where it should be: most players who aren't on the list exempted by FPL simply don't have enough non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources for us to hope to write remotely comprehensive and accurate biographies on them (as demanded by BLP), while most of those who are exempted do (including Football League Two, with an average attendance higher than several of Europe's top-flight professional leagues). We can argue about where exactly the bar should be, but the general consensus is that we've gotten it about right and that makes it vanishingly unlikely that we'll radically change it in the future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

By all means express your opinion on the matter (and on the prospect of yet another one of these discussions), but please don't claim a "general consensus" when you know full well that there is precious little.

The only consensus that I'm aware of on this issue is that the current guideline is easy to apply – in the absence of something which better reflects the GNG, NFOOTY does at least simplify most deletion discussions. But there is considerable disagreement over whether we should be putting simplicity ahead of a more considered approach. In my experience, those who see player articles as a respository of statistics tend to take one view, those who think that an article on a living person should be able to become a viable biography tend to take another, assuming no other bias (fans of specific teams or leagues included/excluded under the current system). And again, in my experience the majority take the view that the current system is outdated. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 19:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, All your views are deserved to be taken in to account but it really does astound me the view you take on this situation. 'DUCKISJAMMY' OK, maybe I shouldn't have asked admins to support me but, honestly, do you all disagree with me?! are you all Americans that generally don't care about the lower leagues of ENGLISH football?, and you say that there's no references for players that are not considered 'important' enough for a page. Well how come I got a significant enough of references for Jordan Clement (my deleted page) from big sports websites, and I can guarantee you that I could get a good amount of references for a player in the Isthmian Premier. I just get the impression that all you admin's don't really follow English football and are just Americans that just cannot be bothered to allow players from lower league because it would be too much effort. How can you say if someone scored in the FA cup from a lower league team, deserves a page but someone on the same team who didn't score, doesn't deserve one. That is unbelievable how you can say that, maybe take a look at you're comment again and re think your reply, I rub my eyes every time I read that post and check if you have really said that, that is how much it astounds me. User 'Arsenal kid700' stated that 'someone should just take 10 minutes of their time to change the guidelines to allow the League of Ireland on Wikipedia' and I really get that impression from you admins. One of you 100 members must stand up and be counted and not just play it by the book and agree with all your fellow admins who don't have a clue what they are on about and, quite frankly, don't know much about English football and probably live in America. Change the guidelines to allow leagues from the English football that are not as well known (I suggested allow leagues as low as the Isthmian Premier). 'DUCKISJAMMY' I see you noted that you are an Irishman, well, I doubt you know much about English Football in the lower leagues, so its a bit bias if 'DUCKISJAMMY' is disagreeing with me because he couldn't care less about my case. I want someone who I know takes an interest in the lower tiers of the English leagues to argue against me (GiantSnowman for example) not someone who doesn't know anything about the English Leagues. However, I respect and am interested user 'DUCKISJAMMY' that you are keen on the League Of Ireland and I will be happy to see that league become 'professional' on Wikipedia. User 'adam4267' I am pretty sure you don't take an interest in football as you wrote a blunt comment to me and you seemed to shovel 'arsenal kid700' comment right back down his throat and not even take in to consideration. Listen, I could protest more and name so many more unanswered questions in which none of you have answered but I'm not in the mood and it will save you from answering these very valid questions in which I have to ask you admins. Thanks for Reading Boomage (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Boomage - please do not make assumptions about people based on their nationality / location. Doing so will help get you taken more seriously. Giant Snowman 20:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

As someone who regularly watches Isthmian Premier Division football (largely Bury Town and Lowestoft Town), I do not believe that players at that level are worthy of articles - they are simply not notable enough (even though there may be a lot of material out there about them on Non League Daily or in local newspapers). I think the current guideline on players is the best we're going to get - professional football seems to be a very fair cut-off as far as notability is concerned, with the odd exception like Sonny Pike. Number 5 7 20:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"How can you say if someone scored in the FA cup from a lower league team, deserves a page but someone on the same team who didn't score, doesn't deserve one"....I'm pretty sure nobody's ever said that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think he's refering to Fenix Down's comments. C 679 21:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Boomage our nationalities are irrelevant, but had you bothered to check a lot of the users who voted in favour of deleting Jordan Clement are English as are a lot of people who responded to you here, so I don't know where you got the idea we're all American. I also suggest you cease accusing or implying an editor who has helped promote a number of football articles to good article status of not knowing what he's doing, it's not in anyway helpful. Additionally as ChrisTheDude said above we don't create articles for footballers from lower league teams based on the fact they scored in the FA cup nor has anyone to my knowledge suggested doing so. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just saying: I am American. Born and bred. Still does not mean I do not care about the lower leagues. Anyway It does not even matter. My father is fully English and does not care about the lower leagues. Many English people dont care about it, so dont assume on nationalities. We all have things we like a follow and things we dont. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Firstly, user 'ChrisTheDude' I think you'll find that user 'Fenix Down' said something along those lines. Secondly, its good to see user 'number 57' that you take an interest in one of the bottom leagues of English football and I respect you for that. Finally someone who follows the game in England. Perhaps you are right in this case I have took my campaign too far. However, It was only a suggestion I was making about the Isthmian Premier but there is no reason, in my opinion, that leagues like the Ryman league should not get recognition of any sort and are not deemed 'professional' enough to be allowed on Wikipedia. Who do you support then 'number 57', is it Ipswich? or is it one of the teams you noted above? I am interested. Finally, user 'GiantSnowman' I apologize about my comments concerning the location/nationality of the people I was noting. But all I meant was that I don't see any one who follows the English game here (obviously, apart from yourself and number 57) therefore, it would be bias to contest my campaign as they don't know enough about the lower leagues of English football. Thank you for reading Boomage (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Great entertainment, absolutely great. Having specialists or enthusiasts for particular leagues can be beneficial but WP:NPOV is a big influence on our articles. Wikipedia:Fancruft is not sought after, regardless of where our editors are from or what their personal preference of teams/leagues are. So do you have any valid questions, Boomage? Thanks, C 679 21:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I made the point earlier that there might, and I stress that very much, be a case for GNG if there was a lower league player who made a habit of scoring goals in the FA Cup which knocked out league teams (and I meant by that that he did it pretty much every season) as he would doubtless have a significant amount of coverage in national newspapers and the like over a long period of time, whereas his teammates would only be at best mentioned tangentially and so would not meet GNG and so would not have articles. This was an attempt by me to highlight how GNG trumps WP:NFOOTY whilst also illustrating the lengths a player would have to go to achieve GNG the lower down the league he plays. Boomage has just read what he wants into it and thinks I said if one player scroes one goal against league opposition in the FA Cup then he definitely meets GNG and should have an article but if he doesn't then he definitely does not.

To be honest, this debate is simply Boomage saying "I'm interested in this area therefore we should have articles on it", whilst everyone else merely points to the accepted notability guidelines. Boomage, if you genuinely feel that there is a given lower league footballer out there who would pass GNG, but you are worried for whatever reason that project members would jump all over it and delete it (although I have never seen that happen from anyone here) why not create the article in your userspace and then link to if here. This isn't just for unregistered editors and you will get feedback on whether an aritcle passes GNG from a source you might consider a little more neutral. That way you can see whether its just people on the project being too strict or whether there is a far wider consensus regarding notability. I am afraid I think you will find a similar response however as your rationale can't just be applied to English footballers but must be applied to all footballers across the globe. Still, I've been dying to get started on those tenth tier Swedish League players, so let me know if you have any luck. Fenix down (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, I will continue this debate tomorrow, Fenix Down I was appreciating you're lecture until you made that, quite frankly, insulting comment/joke at the end - "Still, I've been dying to get started on those tenth tier Swedish League players, so let me know if you have any luck". You were (I'm not trying to be rude) out of order and I found your joke quite offensive actually. Whether you were trying to show off to your fellow admins or were just cracking joke is another question but I thought there was no need for that joke as you wrote a very impressive response to me, shame you ruined it be that insulting joke at the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomage (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a debate ongoing, to address your initial point "Wikipedia is going no where in terms of football with this current appalling state of the lower leagues of football and especially lesser known footballers", Wikipedia reflects reliable sources and the appalling state of lesser known footballers is due to the corresponding appalling state on these individuals outside of Wikipedia. You also seem to misunderstand the role of admins, as their opinion on notability on an individual case carries no more weight than any other user. C 679 22:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What's so offensive? Yes it was tongue in cheek but why should you be given special dispensation to write about players in the lower leagues of one country and not allow the same of some one who wants to write about similar players that interest them in a other country? Personally whenever I see a lower league player up for deletion I apply what I like to call the Noel Bailie principle. This is a player who fails wp:nfooty on every count , a former semi pro playing in a non pro league who never got even one cap. However he did play over 1000 games for one club and is widely referenced in national newspapers and the like for this achievement. This is the sort of thing someone who fails wp:nfooty has to have done to pass gng in my eyes as the lower you go the wider the pyramid so the more you have to do to be notable. Fenix down (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Fenix down hasn't said anything insulting, yes sarcastic comments are generally unhelpful but he was just reflecting user's growing impatience with you. He gave you good advise about using userspace drafts so I suggest you take that on-board. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the assumptions expressed by the original poster here, this isn't worth pursuing any further, folks. (for what it's worth to anyone reading the archives, the majority of the most active WP:FOOTY participants are British, and most don't support top-flight teams.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes as Arsenalkid said above even if a user is not from England, it doesn't make them less knowledgeable about English football then an English person or you Boomage. For example the majority of my football edits relate to Scottish football but by your rationale (Boomage) I'm not entitled to an opinion about it because I'm Irish. I have to concur with Chris this conversation has run it's course, it started out as serving one person's agenda, then turned into the undermining of users & now into some ~~nationalist~~ nationality row. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Nationalism? Did someone mention that players in some Catalonia league should be notable because Catalonia is a country by itself to them?--ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

AK you knew what I meant, no need the make the situation worse. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I dont know why but for some reason I meant for that to be more "comical" than taken as something serious. Looking back now though I can see how that was not comical at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenalkid700 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Changing the subject slightly, did anyone see Bradford's win tonight against Aston Villa? I did, Go on the Bantams. Hopefully, they can win in the final at Wembley, it would be amazing if they did, they could get Europa league football. Also there is no Nationalism at all, all I mean is that there is no reason a Irishman would take an interest in English football, did you use to live here? For instance, If i lived in the Faroe Islands it is unlikely that I would no much about English football, would I? So this so called 'Nationalism' claimed by 'DUCKISJAMMY' is not accurate at all and is not true. Boomage (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Zaire winner of 1974 AfCON

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Do you know if all players of Zaire who played at 1974 FIFA World Cup in West Germany had won the 1974 AfCON? I have seen a lot of them won the title with the same coach, but I don't know for all.--FCNantes72 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The names below aren't 100% as it's from a Congolese newspaper. It should be obvious who the players are though. Some names are in order, some aren't. It's a minefield.

Name	Won AFCON in 1968	Won AFCON in 1974
Kazadi Mwamba	Yes	Yes
Kabamba Nico	Yes
Kembo Uba Kembo	Yes	Yes
Kidumu Mantantu	Yes	Yes
Kibonge Mafu	Yes	Yes
Mwanza Mukombo	Yes	Yes
Mvukani Philippe	Yes
Mange Salomon	Yes
Katumba Pierre	Yes
Matumona Bernard	Yes
Tshimanga Elias	Yes
Kasongo Pierre	Yes
Kalala Pierre	Yes
Léon Mungamuni	Yes	Yes
Ngenyibungi	Yes
Mwila Albert	Yes
Mbuli Paul	Yes
Muwawa Ignace	Yes
Mokili Saio Ernest	Yes
Bilengi Albert	Yes
Ebengo Augustin	Yes
Mwepu Ilunga		Yes
Bwanga Tshinemu		Yes
Lobilo Boba		Yes
Mana Mamuwene		Yes
Mayanga Maku		Yes
Mafuila Mavuba		Yes
Ndaye Mulamba		Yes
Kakoko Etepé		Yes
Mbungu Ekofo		Yes
Jean Kalala N'Tumba		Yes
Kabasubabu Baudouin		Yes
Tshinabu Wa Munda		Yes
Tubilandu Dimbi		Yes
Kalambay Otepa		Yes
Kilasu Massamba		Yes
Mwape Mialo		Yes
Taty Mbungu		Yes
Ndongala Jérome		Yes
Freddy Mulonga	Yes
Ngoyi Sendwe		Yes
Emmanuel Elonga		Yes
Nzoy		Yes
Bayungasa Baudouin		Yes

TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a more specifically verifiable source (or sources) than "from a Congolese newspaper", seeing as you're using the info to create another navbox? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

11v11.com supports Mwanza Mukomo, Robert Muamba Kazadi, Emmanuel Etepe Kakoko, Mambwene Mana, Maku Mayanga, Mulamba N'Daye, Muntantu Kidumu, Mafu Kibonge, Raymond Tshimen Bwanga, Boba Lobilo, Ilunga Mwepu, Kabamba Nico, Kembo uba Kembo, Laurent Kalala N'Goie, Mafuila Mavuba, Dimbi Tubilandu, Tati Bungu, Wamunda Tschinabu, Muntantu Kidumu, Ngoyi, Marra, Ekofo Mbungu and Mwanza Mukombo having appeared in the 74 AFCON finals.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

The table above is created using information from Radio Okapi and was copied to a blog here, it's a list of people who the Congolese government are offering a civil service pension to because of their involvement in the competitions. "Tati Bungu" should be "Taty Mbungu". TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This link reveals the following 24 names: Robert Kazadi Mwamba, Rio Ricky Mavuba Mampwila Sundu, Albert Mukombo Mwanza, Martin Tshinabu wa Munda, Albert Tubilandu Dimbi, Paul Kalambay Otepa, Lobilo Boba, Jean Kembo Uba Kembo, Joseph Mwepu Ilunga, Mana Mambwene, Kabasu Babo, Tex Mbungu Ekofo, NGoyi Kafula, Raymond Bwanga Tshinemu, Ndongala Diabonza, Kilasu Massamba, Ndaye Mulamba, Emmanuel Kakoko Etepe, Pouce NTumba Kalala, Mwape Mialo, Joseph Kibonge Mafu, Taty Mbungu, Albert Kidumu Matantu, Adelard Mayanga Maku.

The following are not mentioned on 11v11 from the above Kabasu Babo, Kilasu Massamba, Mwape Mialo, Ndongala Diabonza, Paul Kalambay Otepa, Pouce NTumba Kalala TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I never doubted that you had sources. But the point is, if you're creating a navbox that isn't just a reformat of sourced information from a competition squad lists page, the sources need to be included with that navbox. As they're complicated, it wouldn't be feasible to use the {{Squad maintenance}} template, as at e.g. {{Manchester United F.C. squad}}, so perhaps they should be listed at your new navbox's talk page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

References

^ [1]
^ [2]
^ [3]
^ [4]
^ [5]
^ [6]

Sam Magri

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Resolved

~~Can I have advice from one of you on Sam Magri. Does England U16, U17, U18 and U19 make him notable? Thanks JMHamo (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)~~

Ignore this, I see he's played in the League Cup once for Portsmouth. JMHamo (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well to answer your question for future reference - youth int'l caps do not confer notability. Giant Snowman 09:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

MLS stadiums map

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

I have been watching an anon edit the Template:MLS stadiums map for the past few weeks. I have observed it in three browsers in Windows 7 at home, the same three at work, and on my Mac at home. The anon's edits seem to place the text of several stadium names over the city points while mine don't. Is it a browser resolution thing or something else? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, in the other editor's preferred version, Gillette Stadium is in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, nowhere near Boston. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering. Why is this template needed? Preferably it should be based on club and not stadium, right? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It's common with North American sports articles. In the MLS, two teams share one stadium. I know that happens in some European leagues as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

2 teams sharing one stadium. Thats laughable. India has 12 clubs who share 3 stadiums. But on the subject: Everything looks fine, including the resolution but the location of the wording for Dicks Sporting Goods park can be placed better. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What about the previous revision? How does it look?

I did notice that the "k" in "park" for Dicks was just a bit too far to the right. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The previous revision is worse. The reader would think that the Revolution made a new state-of-the-art underwater stadium... only the Qatari's can make out-of-this-world stadiums. Also in the previous revision is was more harder to read some stadiums as some names were now over the dot. For the current revision I would just write "DSG Park" instead of the whole thing. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's strange because I'm using Internet Explorer 8 and they don't overlap. I have my zoom level(bottom right hand side in IE8) set to 125%. What I have noticed is when I set my zoom level to greater than 125%, the text is larger but it also makes the page unreadable because all the standard infomation on the left side of the page(Wikipedia logo, Main page, Contents, etc..)and on the top of the page(Talk, Sandbox, Preferences, etc..) are written over each other, which causes problems when you're reading it. You might want to check if your browser zoom levels are set too high. Roberto221 (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not at all strange. IE8 is marginally better than IE7, which is to say, not particularly good. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with using a made-up initialism - do we have a source that calls the stadium "DSG Park"? If not, I'm not sure we should use it. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 15:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Google has over 21,000 hits including Fox News and NBC, so that's the WP:RS taken care of. C 679 19:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Good enough for me; presumably if we have a line of the stadium's article stating "sometimes referred to as DSG Park" (or similar) with one/both of those articles as a reference, then that's good to go. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 20:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, there was already a redirect in place and I don't know whether a reference is strictly required. However I have modified the lead and inserted the references so I guess you can continue building your maps. Thanks, C 679 21:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It was so that if in the future someone raises the question of where we got the term "DSG Park" from, instead of some non-specific "we discussed it at some point" comment or an unnecessary trawl through the WT:FOOTY archives, we can simply say that the usage of that name is sourced in the article. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 15:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Topscorer at 12-13 years?

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

During 1980 Olympic games, Syria participated at the tournament and on this link ([12]), Kevork Mardikian is the only article which has been created. However, he was born in 1954 and we see the template about syrian topscorers, he was the first (1967), but he was 12-13. Really?Who can explain me that?--FCNantes72 (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no record at either FIFA or NFT of a player by the name of Mardikian / Mardekian / Mardigian (those seem to be 3 spellings of the name) playing international football for Syria or for them at the Olympics. The sole source that was on the article did not mention him either so I have removed it and tagged as an unsourced BLP. There is one reference at Syrian Premier League top scorers but I cannot access it as I am at work, so somebody else might want to check to see what that can verify. Giant Snowman 14:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

FIFA list a Kifork Mardakyan, dob 14 July 1954, in Syria's 1980 Olympics squad and other international apps. Their technical report for the 1980 Olympic tournament (PDF file) spells his surname Mardikian. The link at Syrian Premier League top scorers courtesy of Google translate just gives the name, which it transliterates as Kevork Markiyan rather than Mardikian-like, his club, goals/games in 1966/67, and a photo which certainly isn't that of a 12-year-old. Two different people, IMO. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin needed

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is there any admin that could help out, I asked GiantSnowman for help, but as he is INVOLVED, I'm asking here insted. I recently closed an AfD (WP:NAC) which looked like an uncontroversial closure, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lešinari, as redirect to FK Borac Banja Luka#Supporters. The creator of the article reverted my edit of the article twice, and I sent him a message that if he objected the closure of the AfD he should do a WP:DRV. Instead, the user again reverted the redirection for the third time and expanded the article, and wrote a comment in the closed AfD. I don't know how to solve this problem, but I think it's inappropiate to have an AfD closed as redirect while the article continues to be a stand-alone article, and I don't want to start a edit-war over this. If anyone with "the tools" could solve this and and do what needs to be done (I have no opinion whether that is to redirect the article and protect it, open a DRV, or leave the article as it is), I'll be very happy. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone else has already re-redirected. As yet another vanity article on an ultras group I very much doubt that this will ultimately end up with sufficient sourcing to survive as a standalone article, but if the user continues to revert I may stick it in his userspace to play with on the off chance that it does. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the redirect and protected the page. I understand where this guy is coming from, but consensus was clear and we can't ignore a decision just because he came to the discussion late. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 15:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

AFCON 2013 teams' kits

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could somebody, please, upload kits for AFCON participants? There are no real kits for Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and Cape Verde. Andrey Tsyganov (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

For Cape Verde, I think Arvedui89 updated it. I'll try to edit Mali's kit. GNozaki (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

International apps / goals stats tables

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

What are people's thoughts on these? Personally I feel they bring very little, and fall foul of WP:OR and WP:NOTSTATS - though for some player's their apps/goals have had significant coverage and it could be merited, but they are surely a small minority? Giant Snowman 10:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean. For me I only use 1 table for internationals and that only includes senior appearances like this one but I also see the ones that include the youth teams and I also see the ones which combine stats for internationals and club level which I believe should not be allowed as they are not notable stats. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

On that article you link to it would be the intrnational goals section. Overkill. Giant Snowman 12:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you meant the table that shows all the goals. Okay. Well for me, I like adding the goals from a player in a table on their page. I agree that we should not record every appearance. Just makes the article look ugly but the goals (with a collapse table) can still be in the article and still make it look good. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that table and many of them, so nothing personal arsenalkid, is that they are often totally unreferenced . A collapse table seems fine to me and is the clearest way to record information that would make for very dull prose but they need to be properly referenced like everything else. If referenced there is no issue with OR and they can easily by done to official reports either from the relevant federation or reliable newspapers. Perhaps there is an argument only for goals from competitive games to be added but I don't mind as long as the table is collapse. Fenix down (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that they are WP:OR although a lot of the time they are unsourced. Take John Obi Mikel for example his international goals section can be sourced by the Player's Soccerway match section it doesn't link directly to the national section but does source the information. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I dont see anything personal in that Fenix. I agree. Jeje's page is a page I have not been able to update since August or September. I was going to redo that table with the source when I get a chance. Anyway on the subject, again I agree. The goals should be referenced. I remember updating a few pages with Malaysian and Indonesian players and sometimes if they say they scored an international goal you can look it up and find out that goal was not their goal but an own goal or even another player. It happens and thus why it is important to reference them. Whether that sort of table should not be allowed or should I have to answer for. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me started on the Indonesian football pages, I have never seen a worse collection of overblown articles, full of excessive detail, no sources, half truths and downright lies, most of which peddled by a series of IPs. I've spent most of the morning reverting a load of edits some IP made across a number of articles whch were quite transparent garbage. Fenix down (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about image used in FOOTY biography

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

This article uses a hand-drawn image that was released for use by its author. However, I think we had a discussion in the past about hand-drawn images not being appropriate for use in a BLP. Can anyone confirm? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hand-drawn images are fine - for many older players the cigarette cards might be all we have - but a fan drawing is on dodgier territory. Giant Snowman 20:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

would a hand drawn image that did not have any sources linked on the image file page not be WP:OR. Any drawn image would include a degree of artistic licence and subjectivity. Cigarette cards would be different as they could be said to come from a reliable third party source. This image cannot and so should not be being used as far as I am concerned. Fenix down (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of assuming the worst, why not enquire and assume good faith? Maybe the user in question has simply forgotten (or indeed may not be aware at all) about the necessity of the source. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 23:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Er... I did, that's why I did not revert it and sought the opinions of people on here. Fenix down (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering that hand-drawn picture bears little resemblance to the man in question, I'd say it would be much better to find another image. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 09:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been bold and reverted it. It looks nothing like the person in question. The artistic license taken makes the image unsuitable. If there is no freely available image of the man then an external link at the foot of the article would be of more use. Fenix down (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that the image doesn't appear to match the non-free images that are easily found on the web. Hopefully, there is a free image somewhere that can be used, but if not, I think it's better that we have no image than a misleading one in a BLP such as this. Jogurney (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Brendan Rodgers

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A discussion has started whether content regarding his son's criminal charges should or shouldn't be included see here. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Also at WP:BLPN. Giant Snowman 16:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ersan Gülüm again.

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Last discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 74. Samessi Seems to think that because he has been called-up and not played for the senior Turkish side that this makes him Turkish. Since he has dual citizenship and I'm not sure if he has to request a release to play for Turkey, that that his nationality is Turkish or not. Samessi seems to not want to discuss this here, so I'll start the discussion.

The edits are affecting the Beşiktaş J.K. roster list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

After a brief search, I haven't found anything indicating that he has made an official request to switch his FIFA allegiance from Australia to Turkey, which he will have to do if he wants to represent Turkey in international competition. He might have already done this but there is nothing I've found to confirm this. With that said, until proven otherwise, his flag in the Beşiktaş article should remain as Australia. TonyStarks (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this issue Talk:Luis Suárez#Liverpool singh: Removed biasd information from questionable sources

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I invite all members of this WikiProject to participate in this discussion, and regarding this issue: do you consider BBC Sport and The Guardian as questionable sources publishing biased and unreliable information? Starship.paint (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Darije Kalezić

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Yesterday this article included the following :

On January 24th, 2013, he was announced as manager of Stockport County.

On the 25th January, Kalezic resigned his position as manager of Stockport County as he had got Swansea City and Stockport County mixed up due to a language barrier. Kalezic was later asked to comment and described this as a 'hideous misunderstanding'. In response to this embarrassing debacle, Stockport CEO Ryan McKnight has made an approach for Guus Hiddink because he wants a football specific focus. Not to mention he is best mates with Hiddink as he proudly proclaimed in his cliche ridden interview with local radio Pure FM.

I have removed the second paragraph as it was a hoax, the first statement remains (!)

GrahamHardy (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:FC Seoul

Latest comment: 11 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

Is this far too much? Do the Honours even need to be in the template? Govvy (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely; take {{Manchester United F.C.}} or {{Arsenal F.C.}} as examples of what should be included. Giant Snowman 16:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Have informed Footwiks who seems to be the main contributor for it. I have seen those other templates, I just wanted a second opinion! Govvy (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And I'm not sure if it applies to templates, but do look at WP:CONTRAST! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, everything looks fine here. Like GiantSnowman said, the Manchester United and Arsenal templates are great examples. I use them a lot and they prove very influential. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is what Footwiks just said on my talkpage!

(I don't accept your opinion. If Manchester United or Arsenal's templete don't honous, Does FC Seoul templte also delet honours? Wikepidia is not military. I insist that templeate individuality be acknowledged and respected.)

Sounds like he doesn't care what other editors think! Govvy (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the excess information, this is not needed at all and is not standard on football navboxes. Giant Snowman 13:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Template creativity - rather than template individuality - is a rather good point actually: we shouldn't do something because everyone else is doing it, we should do something because it's a good idea. I refute the idea that just because something is different, that automatically makes it wrong. The template individuality point doesn't really follow, because if a style works particularly well and receives near-universal approval, then it should be rolled out across the football team template spectrum. For the record, I've seen more than just the FC Seoul template in that style (see here for four in a row!). Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 15:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of navboxes is that they're consistently-formatted groups of relevant links. The more baubles get added to them, the less useful they are as readers have to hunt and peck through the idiosyncracies introduced in order to find what they're looking for. Frequently the root cause is not a desire to make Wikipedia more accessible: it is to glorify the achievements of whatever team one happens to own a scarf for. That's what's happened here, and we needn't devote too much energy to sympathising with it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Footwiks has reverted my removal, I've asked him to discuss the matter here. Giant Snowman 12:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping Footwiks would take an interest in this project, but it doesn't seem to be that atm. Govvy (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

hmm, I see Footwiks keeps saying wiki is not military and reverting, by my count that's three editors telling him it is too much! I do feel he seems to be claiming ownership over FC Seoul articles. Govvy (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he has posted a bit of an aggressive (also hilarious) message over at Cloudz' talk page. Think maybe he needs a warning from an admin? That navbox is ridiculous. I have no desire to insist on every nav box being identical but that is so far out of kilter with other boxes that it needs to be trimmed back. My understanding was that navboxes were meant to provide ease of navigation to related articles. The number of links in this prevents this.Fenix down (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

We have clear WP:OWN issues here. Giant Snowman 14:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, some time back I caught him emptying categories out of process and warned him, as well as suggesting that he go through CFD. He's suddenly returned and blamed me for introducing incorrect information, noted that he's angry because I'm doing this despite being a foreigner who doesn't know about Korean football, defended himself by stating that his English is poor, and outright refused to follow my suggestions (or alternate paths) for getting inter-language help. If he keep going, I'll be seeking a block, since I'm a bit too involved right now. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, now we have another "You dont follow football in country X because you are foreign so therefore stop editing country X football articles" person. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Czech Cup

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can an admin please move Czech Republic Football Cup to Czech Cup, over redirect. Reliable English-language sources, e.g. Guardian, BBC and Independent all use this name with no hits for the current variant, which seems to be overly disambiguous considering no other Czech national cups apparently exist other than the Tipsport Hockey Cup. Thanks, C 679 21:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Should we not be using a proper translation of the formal Czech name rather than what a random selection of English journalists say is the title of the league. Czech cup sounds over generic and whilst it may satisfy now it in no way guarantees that there will not be another notable cup article created in future that claims this title in a different sport. Should not be moved without formal discussion in the appropriate place.. Fenix down (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, if anyone is interested in the move discussion, it can be found here. Thanks, C 679 09:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

2013 Commonwealth of Independent States Cup

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Came across 2013 Commonwealth of Independent States Cup and 2013 Commonwealth of Independent States Cup squads but there are no references provided at all. What should be done in situations like this? Which template should be used? Thanks - JMHamo (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well the tournament, at least to me, is notable as their are links in the results that show that this is a tournament for the former Soviet countries. Since there are no references the best thing to do is add Template:Unreferenced to the top of the article or you could add references yourself. Also if there is a main editor of the page I would notify them and ask them to add a reference of two. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't remember the correct template.. I've added Template:Unreferenced now. - JMHamo (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Pengoal

Latest comment: 11 years ago23 comments8 people in discussion

I'm not sure if I have imagined this or not but Penmiss has has always been a football with a X through it. However I think Pengoal has been recently changed from just a normal football to one with a tick through it, I think it unnecessary & detracts from penmiss's. Additionally I don't think it was ever discussed before it was changed & something like this really should be given it affects a large number of articles. Thoughts ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Think it should be reverted per WP:BRD. Thanks, C 679 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah unfortunately it's not that straight forward the user has created this Template:Pengoal/doc & altered all the similar templates & not being overly familiar with these types of templates I'm afraid I'd miss something, plus it's probably best to discuss it now which is better with or without the tick. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the tick is pretty good. Plus it helps people to realise that the {{pengoal}} template is meant for penalty shootouts only and not to indicate penalties that were scored during the game. – Pee Jay 23:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with PeeJay2K3 on this one. The penalty shoot-out in template really does help differentiate the shoot-out goal and the penalty scored during a game template. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a change for the better. It seems to be common practice to contrast a tick with a cross when reporting shoot-outs. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I know I've said it before, but I think a ball is a most inappropriate icon for a goal, or for a penalty in a shootout. The ball is used for everything in the game, not just for scoring: there is no logical connection between a picture of a ball and a goal being scored. If an icon does not communicate information, it is a pointless little picture, and a ball does not communicate anything in this context. For penalties, a simple tick or cross would suffice: what extra information is communicated by superimposing them on a ball. Kevin McE (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point, yeah, a tick shoud suffice. Also clearer to make out due to the contrast. -Koppapa (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps in this context a simple tick or cross may suffice, but I must object to any opposition to the use of a ball icon to indicate a goal. See this FIFA report of the 2012 FIFA Club World Cup final, in which the goalscorer is indicated by a ball icon. UEFA does the same, as indicated in this report of the 2008 UEFA Champions League Final; note also their use of ball icons to indicate goals and misses in the penalty shootout. – Pee Jay 11:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Objecting to opposition seems rather dictatorial: I'll assume you meant you would defend the practice against opposition. Just because other publishers use an icon, that does not justify breach of our own policies on icon use: they should be explained on first use, they should not be purely decorative, they should convey additional useful information. In what way does a picture of a ball do this? Where is the explanation on first use? In regard to a ball with a tick or a cross in it for penalties, this appears to additionally breach WP:OI. Kevin McE (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well the ball with a cross in it is definitely not in breach of WP:OI due to the UEFA link, and if we are supporting a ticked ball rather than a blank ball, then logically that must be fine too. Plus, the use of the ball icon for penalties correlates with its use to indicate goals in the game; therefore it indicates to readers who are not overly with the sport that the tiebreaker is carried out through attempting to put the ball in the net as during the game. I will also defend the use of the ball icon for goals in normal time; in cases where people record other information in the {{footballbox}} template, such as yellow cards and the like, the ball indicates a goal far more clearly than simply adding the goal time plain – if we did that, they might be confusion as to what the time refers to. – Pee Jay 11:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

None of which addresses MOS:ICON: I repeat, they should be explained on first use, they should not be purely decorative, they should convey additional useful information. In what way does a picture of a ball do this? Where is the explanation on first use? Kevin McE (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If we had to explain every icon used on football articles on first use, we'd be here forever adding keys to every article that uses them. Why not just add a link from the {{footballbox}} template to some sort of documentation subpage? The icons are useful to people who intuitively know what they mean (which should be most football fans) and can become useful when explained, so instead of coming up with reasons to nullify them, why not come up with a solution that lets us keep them? – Pee Jay 16:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of them: why would I come up with a solution to keep them? If you are in favoiur of keeping them, you need to explain why they are more than uninformative decoration, and devise a way of making their use conform with MoS. Kevin McE (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Because they are not uninformative. A ball icon represents a goal, a yellow rectangle icon represents a caution, a red rectangle icon represents a sending-off, etc. and all of these are far more useful than simple words. If we rejected everything on the basis of being "decorative", we'd end up with an encyclopaedia so bland that no one would want to read it. You have to have some decoration sometimes, and this decoration is also informative; I fail to see how you don't recognise this. – Pee Jay 17:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm only talking about the ball to represent a goal, which is by no means intuitive or logical, and only represents a goal to cognoscenti. A ball is also used for throw-ins, goal kicks, unimaginative passes from midfield to a centre back... As to your final points: you would need to raise them at WP:MoS, but until you achieve a change in consensus there, there cannot be a right to ignore it in this way. Kevin McE (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The way the icon works: there is a number, such as "3" representing a scoreline, with 3 icons below it - I don't think you'd need to be cognoscenti to work out what that means, whatever the icon. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't there alt-text sometime, when you mouseover? -Koppapa (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is so self evident, what purpose does it serve? If there is a number three representing the scoreline, with three times below it, what additional useful information does a little ball before those times convey? And even if you consider it self evident, that does not exempt the practice from the requirements at MoS. Kevin McE (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It serves as a bullet point, which is always useful in a list. The fact that it's a football is largely decorative, but I don't see anything wrong with that. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

But the issue is not whether we like it, or see anything wrong with it: it is whether it complies with the MoS. Do you wish to present reason to believe that it does? If those in favour of it cannot, it should go. Kevin McE (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, template assist

is still there. And i guess injury, referee and minutes can go too. -Koppapa (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I tagged that one for deletion per {{db-xfd}}, and we should send the other decorative ones to WP:TFD as well. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

2013 Africa Cup of Nations – Article Improvement Drive

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Just three days to go until the 2013 Africa Cup of Nations and I am reminded of last year's article improvement drive on the nations involved in the cup initiated by User:Bar Code Symmetry.

The goal is to get all articles to C-class (except South Africa, Ghana and Togo, which are already at C-class). The drive ends on 10 February, the last day of the tournament. If you enjoy improving national football teams, then consider joining the national teams task force. Below is a list of teams in the 2013 ACoN with class icons.:

Group A

Group B

Group C

አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh64)

Group D

Ideally, I'm looking for four people or more to help (at least one person per group, I'll be the fourth if needed). Please add your name and your chosen group below, if participating. Change the class icons when appropriate, and strike finished teams. Happy editing, C 679 09:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't realise that task force still existed. Hack (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You might also wish to seek help from Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement. Giant Snowman 17:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think a realistic goal could be to get the South Africa article past B-Class. Hack (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. I have brought the Burkina Faso article up to start-class, so there are no longer any stubs. Thanks, C 679 07:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

HOLY STARTS BATMAN! But seriously that is a lot of starts. This should be very fun. I might not be available to help with this one as much but for people who will have time and considering... trust me. This will interest you very much. Lots of knowledge to be gained from doing this. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Four team articles per person should be fun! I've made many improvements to Ethiopia over the past few weeks. I don't know where to go from here on Ethiopia, its now pretty close to or at C-level. There is not much else that can be added as they have never qualified for World Cup and this is the first time they have qualified for ACN since 1982. If you guys can take a look and tell me what parts need improvement, I would appreciate it. I was concentrating on the prose. I could use help and criticism improving the formatting and tables. Zambia, hmmmm... let see. OMG! It's almost empty. What have I gotten myself into? — አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely a C. Nice one. -Koppapa (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't contain my excitement! The Zambia vs Ethiopia match has ended (refresh) A historic event in African Football. — አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't remember what the policy on WP:OR is for the "Foo will progress IF xyz..." comments that are all over the tournament article. Was it just to ignore it, as anonymous IPs will keep adding it? Thanks, C 679 18:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

After much discussion at this page, I believe it was resolved at dispute resolution (Discussion can be seen herehere which was closed as "resolved against inclusion of the material", so I guess it can be removed on sight. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

January moves

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Just a note here - if a player moves clubs in January, his infobox should show that he left his previous club in 2013, not 2012. Even in countries with winter breaks, this does not cover the entire transfer window (the Bundesliga re-started on Saturday), so in some cases players are being listed as leaving a club in 2012 that they played matches for in 2013. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If the league is 2012–13 season (German etc.) then we'd say he leaves in 2013; if the league is 2012 season (Sweden etc.) then he leaves in 2012. Giant Snowman 14:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with that. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I always do the from/to dates as the day of the actual transfer, i.e. if a player were to leave a club today, the infobox would show his spell at the previous club as ending in 2013, and his spell with the new club as starting in 2013 too. Why shouldn't this apply to summer leagues (such as Sweden) too? – Pee Jay 15:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think because the seasons are so distinct - 5 months apart - it would look like a player that moved in December 2012 was there for the 2012 season, which would be misleading. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. A year without text has to be understood as early as January or late as December. The article-text will explain therefore. -Koppapa (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay - the dates in the infobox should be the actual year in which the transfer, contract etc. happened - the season is irrelevant. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That is against long-standing practice i.e. every single US article, probably every single Swedish article. Leagues with summer seasons have much more distinct seasons, showing '2011–2013' implies a player was there for 3 seasons even though they joined on 30 December 2011 and left on 1 January 2013...Giant Snowman 16:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If a player transfers from one club to another, i.e. they're under contract to one club and are directly transferred to a second club, the years should be the year in which that move takes place.

However, if a player's contract with club#1 has ended in year#1, and they join club#2 in year#2, as might well be the case in countries with summer seasons, the years should be different. Note that in this case, the player isn't transferring from one club to another, they're joining the new club as a free agent, and one might expect prose and infobox to have already been updated to reflect their leaving club#1 in year#1.

This is consistent both with common sense and with the wording at the infobox documentation, which defines the parameter as "a list of years that the player has been contracted at each professional club", not "a list of seasons in which the player has been available to play". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this yet another of those discussion where we can't really agree, or have everyone agreed with Struway's comment? In my Scandinavian eyes, the readers does not know that the years in the infobox is when a player was "contracted" to a club, unless they read it at Template:Infobox football biography: I believe most people who follows football in Scandinavia would find it weird if a player who was at a club from November 2011 to January 2013 is listed at 2011–2013 in the infobox when he only played for the club in the 2012 season, which lasts from April to October. Besides, most of our articles on Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish footballer does not have explanatory text to explain (as they are simply stubs), and even though it would be easy to find out for current players, it would be almost impossible to know if they transfer from club A to B in December or January, for players that were active for more then 10 years ago... Mentoz86 (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Prva HNL

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I read the top part of the article, it's the top tire yes, but it doesn't say if the league is fully professional or not. Govvy (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's listed at WP:FPL. Giant Snowman 12:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to know because I was looking at the afd for Jean Evrard Kouassi, even know the infobox on the article says he has played, his club official website hasn't given him any stats for games! heh. Govvy (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The figures in the infobox are wrong - according to Transfermarkt he joined Hajduk on the 17th but the Prva HNL doesn't resume until the 16th February. The only game they've played this month was a friendly away to Dresden, and that was the day before he joined.[13] ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 16:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He is a youngster who just joined the club in this transfer window comming from Cote dÍvoire and as Bald Zebra said he will only pick eventually his first cap in a HNL at the restart of the season after the winter break... So no pro appearances yet, for sure. FkpCascais (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

On another note regarding the player Jean Evrard Kouassi, he was deleted per AfD result by admin Postdlf. And then immediatly recreated by ‎Jolicnikola. I have informed Postdlf about it, I just wondered if ‎Jolicnikola is acting in bad interest to the project after I looked at his talk page! Govvy (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Bosnia National Team Edits

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I have been reverting an IP editor, who continually adds increasingl long lists of "recent games" to the team article, so much so, that the previous revert was to remove games nearly nine years old, despite the fact that there is already a results article. Two questions:

1. How far back should recent results go, I feel anything over a year (or the beginning of a major competition if it straddles a year), but I am not too bothered if it was two or three depending on the number of fixtures played.

2. Does an admin think it is worth a look at the I.P. who has been making these edits: 77.38.53.3? He has already been blocked for making stupid edits to Serbian football articles and has now also been adding in "famous" Bosnian players here and here for no good reason as well as removing results on other pages where Bosnia has lost, such as here. These are just what I have rolled back, but it seems that this IP has made very little in the way of a positive contribution. Fenix down (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are recent results needed at all? Surely this is a classic case of RECENTISM.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think a year max. Of course there is a case against having recent results at all, but I think they are useful to readers. C 679 08:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the past 12 months, or past 5 games - if referenced - are fine. Giant Snowman 09:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the last few, plus a link to the results article if it exists provides a useful summary and is not really recentism. Fenix down (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Kay Street Baptist Church Football Club

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I came across this new article in a bot search for Cheshire-related articles, and wonder if the team is at all notable? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb is that a club needs to have played in the national cup competition (the FA Cup in this case) in order to be notable, which this club obviously haven't. I'd also say their league (South Manchester and Cheshire Christian Football League) isn't notable. Only question is - PROD or speedy delete? ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 14:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've PRODded the Kay Street Baptist Church Football Club article, will look at the league momentarily. Giant Snowman 14:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

PRODded both. Giant Snowman 14:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That was my feeling, but I don't have any understanding of what might constitute notability for a club that doesn't play in the FA. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Both articles are now bundled at AfD. Giant Snowman 15:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong line-up in 2010 FIFA World CUp

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

For the 2010 FIFA World Cup match between England and Algeria, the wrong line-up is used for Algeria in the match details at 2010 FIFA World Cup Group C#England vs Algeria. Specifically, the image used, File:ENG-ALG 2010-06-18.svg, the positions of Halliche and Belhadj should be reversed. If you check the history, a user made the change but User:PeeJay2K3 reverted it, not sure why. I don't know how to go about changing it or if there's way to revert the change so I'd appreeciate some help. This should be the correct version of the image, so shouldn't be too hard to implement the change. TonyStarks (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Now it is ok? To revert you must go to Commons file description and then press revert. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Almost lol, you reverted to June 18 edition, the correct version is the June 19 one (Halliche in center of defense in front of the goalkeeper, Belhadj as a LWB) .. and thanks for the tip about Commons. TonyStarks (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the FIFA MatchCast (see here), Halliche played left midfield and Belhadj was a centre-back. I'll correct the pages and the formation to reflect this. – Pee Jay 17:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect though and an error from FIFA. Halliche is a CB and Belhadj is a LB. Here is the line-up from a very reputable Algerian website. As you can see, Halliche is listed with the defenders, while Belhadj is listed with the midfielders. TonyStarks (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

2005 Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,

I recently made the 2005 Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira article which was a match between Benfica and Vitória de Setúbal in August 2005. Can any only help me to create the kits for both sides. In this message section I have added links for you, to help you create the kits.

Benfica's Kit

Vitória de Setúbal's Kit

[17]
[18]

User talk:Alexgreene87, 29 January 2013 14:51 UTC

Close enough? -Koppapa (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ghana AfCoN

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Have you got informations about winners of 1963 and 1965 Africa Cup of Nations?Because there is not template about them.--FCNantes72 (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No and apparently not 1962 or 1990 either. If there's no information, then no template. C 679 20:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

My goal is to create all templates about winners of AfCoN on french, and as English Wikipedia is more completed than french, I ask to english people, and also to ghananains. I want to show the story and the strength of the Black Stars. I have some of them but I don't know all.--FCNantes72 (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

January transfer window

Latest comment: 11 years ago19 comments11 people in discussion

Following on from a similar scheme over the summer, it could be a good idea to list articles that are the subjects of repeated transfer speculation etc. in order for us to keep on top of it. Giant Snowman 10:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hope Akpan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - at 3RR. GiantSnowman 10:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Semi protected for 2 weeks. Number 57 11:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  - Cheers. Giant Snowman 11:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Ryan Nelsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - QPR have confirmed Nelsen has agreed to take charge at Toronto FC BUT he has not left the club yet and could still play against Spurs at the weekend. JMHamo (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, could somebody take a look at this now? I don't think the article should be updated until he's confirmed as leaving the club, as I said, he's still with QPR and could play this weekend. JMHamo (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Craig Davies (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Should move to Bolton for £300,000 but contract negotiations can break down.--EchetusXe 22:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- This one appears to have gone through without any problems. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 13:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Tom Ince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Has been moving nearly everyday for a month now to Liverpool - still at Blackpool.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Even gained a squad number at one point I see ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  - I've semi'd this one too. Number 5 7 09:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Vegard Forren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - according to the IP's his has moved to Liverpool, but nothing is confirmed yet. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- He has now signed for Southampton. --- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Nicolas Anelka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - at 3RR. At Juventus - could sign, might sign but nothing to show he has signed.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Jackie McNamara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – not a transfer as such but a manager Jackie McNamara is in talks with managerless Dundee United, IPs making unsourced additions as if it's done. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

At 3rr, likely to be confirmed tomorrow but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball could fall through on personal terms hasn't even left Partick yet. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Already protected. 48 hrs. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Mohamed Nagy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Ahmed Fathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Both linked with Hull City but neither transfer has been completed yet. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Both have now signed. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTBALL and cup competitions

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I was just looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Higgins (footballer born 1993), where the argument is being made regarding appearances in a cup match played between two fully-pro teams. At the moment, WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't allow for this (only fully professional leagues), but would there be scope for amending this guideline? ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 11:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, it's common sense and I'm sure it's been added and removed before. Wording like, "in a competitive Cup match between two teams from FPL" would suffice? Giant Snowman 11:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the wording could be better than that, does anyone have a counter-proposal? C 679 14:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

How about "Players who have appeared and managers who have managed, either in a fully professional league or a cup match between teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable." It might also include a note to specify what cup means. Hack (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wording related to playing in a cup match was added (and removed) before, because the consensus then was that it was not appropriate. Clubs these days routinely field weakened sides in domestic cup competitions, so I don't see why playing in such a match should acquire automatic notability. Any recent (i.e. Internet era) players should really be required to actually meet GNG anyway, in my opinion. Eldumpo (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC).

For info here is a previous discussion on this matter. Eldumpo (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that the League Cup situation was reasonably cut and dried - it was my impression all Football League and Premier League teams were fully pro. If it's good enough for a run-of-the-mill league match to confer notability, surely the same could be said of a cup match. Hack (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Eldumpo - by that logic, we would exclude players who make their Premiership debut in a 'weakened' Man Utd side playing against QPR. How do we know a team is 'weakened' - OR? Giant Snowman 09:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the perceived strength of one of the squads shouldn't be relevant - both teams would still be fully professional. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 09:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hack - the reality is that teams are far more likely to field weakened teams in the League Cup than 'run of the mill' league games. [19]

GS - it's disingenuous to say that the occasional weakened team in the Premier League is the same thing. At the AfD in question I see you voted keep and stated that it needs improving to meet GNG, but as if you think it will be able to meet GNG. Have you any reason to think he can meet GNG. You're probably aware that a few articles have been deleted before when someone just played 1 game. We have enough trouble with FPL now, without encouraging even more stubs of doubtful worth. Eldumpo (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If Roy Essandoh's only professional appearance was in the Wycombe FA Cup match, he would have an article. Not because of some footnote devised by over-zealous football enthusiasts, but because the level of coverage he received would quite obviously meet the GNG. If a player has never made the headlines for anything, and has never played in a professional league, he really isn't notable enough to warrant a biographical entry.

We wouldn't allow a match report for a first round paint pot match, or indeed 99.8% of FA Cup first–fourth round matches. And yet, under this proposal, we would routinely create multiple biographical entries whose sole "claim to notability" was such a game. Ludicrous. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 19:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Heurelho Gomes

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I removed one table on the artcle as I don't see the point of it, but have messed up the other table, was hoping someone could fix it for me, thanks. Govvy (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section. The club stats table was out-of-date, in the incorrect format and completely unrefrenced; the int'l stats table was simply overkill. Much better to start again. Giant Snowman 17:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

o, LOL, nm, loads of players have stat tables, which are covered by the external links for sourcing, I don't understand why you need to remove the club stats table. Govvy (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said - out-of-date, not in the preferred format, and not directly referenced. Giant Snowman 18:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Jorge Nuno Pinto da Costa

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm copying this note from WP:BLPN, and I urge you to comment there, not here--consider this a call for attention.

Need some editors to have a look at this given the recent edit war with possible BLP violations involved. I have semi-protected it for two weeks and I urge any passing admin to see if any established editors in the history have been violating policy. I'm posting this on WP:FOOTY as well since eyes are necessary. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Indian footballers who have played for foreign clubs

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

If I remember right, these types of pages are not notable for wikipedia, however, I forgot what reason to put when I PROD it. If someone has the time could that person just quickly PROD this with the correct reason. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus at AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli footballers playing overseas. Giant Snowman 10:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Has there really only been six Indians play overseas? Hack (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say obvioulsy incomplete. I'd delete that. -Koppapa (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I think it is a complete list... Giant Snowman 15:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If you count actual Indian-born players who were signed because they were actually scouted by foreign clubs then that number is really 3 (Mohammed Salim, Baichung Bhutia, and Sunil Chhetri). The others are just brought for marketing reasons and in the end don't even feature in a game (Chhetri actually played a lot of non-MLS games). --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think there is a consensus to delete such articles (the Costa Rican player list should be kept based on its AfD). The ones that have been deleted fail the GNG, so I think that's what needs to be checked for the Indian player list. Jogurney (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me re-phrase - there is a consensus that such lists are not inherently notable. Giant Snowman 14:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jogurney (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Now PRODded. Giant Snowman 15:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

AfD. Giant Snowman 09:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Denis Kolodin

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Are you sure all this about Denis Kolodin killing 17 Badgers and 3 Ponys and a teacher is true? Blimey you guys not only close my other case without my permission but you let something as simple and stupid as this stay on Wikipedia, You are lucky I found this. Boomage (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand how Wikipedia works? TonyStarks (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do, but more to the point Wikipedia let something as stupid as this slip through their fingers. Just goes to show how bad ClueBot NG is, blocking legitimate posts and letting illegitimate posts stay on Wikipedia. Unbelievable. Boomage (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

International Federation of Football History & Statistics

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There is very little about this article that I find anything positive about - it appears to be an overload of stats regurgitated from the IFFHS website. What do others think? Giant Snowman 17:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a great page and all those flags look terrible. Eldumpo (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't look nice. Totally overcrowded. Is club of the month notable, even if you consider the site notable? -Koppapa (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be about the organisation, not a list of awards. Giant Snowman 09:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for article: Secure a point (football)

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I am an American unfamiliar with the terminology used in football (what we call soccer). I have seen the phrase "secure a point" used in football articles, and it appears to have a specific meaning, but I have been unable to determine what it means. Would someone here be willing to create a new article to explain its meaning?

In short, this is a request for a new article called Secure a point (football) or just Secure a point. Thanks. Jonesey95 (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Not appropriate material for an article, but also inappropriately informal, journalistic tone to use in articles. If writers want to say that the team achieved a draw (one point in a league system), that is what they should say. Kevin McE (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Kevin is right, it is jargon, but we do have Glossary of association football terms for things like this. Any reason why it shouldn't be included there if it's something that could benefit our international readers who get linked to reliably sourced articles by the BBC or The Daily Telegraph, ESPN, The New York Times, etc etc etc which use the term freely? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Having it defined in the Glossary strikes me as a perfect answer. In answer to whether it is too informal to use in an article, maybe that is so, but then what do we do about all of the reputable journalistic organizations that use the phrase frequently? What do we do about the 30+ WP articles that already use the phrase? What if I were trying to learn about football by reading news or WP articles and saw the term, then thought "I'll go to WP to find out what it means; WP knows everything!"? I tried just that while editing a football article that included the term, and I found nothing. I would add it to the glossary, but I don't really know what it means, hence my request here. Thanks all. Jonesey95 (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely 100% doesn't need a standalone article, but I agree that adding it to the glossary wouldn't hurt -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I hate to disagree, but this doesn't seem idiomatic to me and in any case is relatively straightforward to work out from first principles (draws earn a team one point; ergo, to get one point from a game is to draw it). "Secure a point" is only one of dozens of ways in which this could be phrased. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

But non-football fans might not know that you usually get a point for a draw (in some leagues though, such as the French CFA, you get one point for a loss, two for a draw and four for a win) so there's no harm in it being in the glossary. Could probably have a Wiktionary entry as well. BigDom (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Same person?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Sometimes I get a hunch, but I got one just now! But I was wondering if the accounts Fetx2002 and Footwiks belong to one editor? Govvy (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see anything suspicious in their contribs - the first seems to focus solely on Korean footy, while the second has a broader range. What's given you this hunch? ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 14:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Because there is no communication on the talk pages and yet the two accounts have worked on some of the same articles. But it was just a hunch. Govvy (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Both users have been editing at the same time over the past few days (e.g. at 09:38, 2 February 2013: Footwiks and Fetx2002), so I think it is unlikely that they are the same person. Even if they are, is that a problem? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yericho Christiantoko

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

may an admin, restore Yericho Christiantoko article?. As the player now play in Indonesia Super League and meet wiki GNG and FPL (Fully profesional league) criteria. see this reference http://www.goal.com/id-ID/people/indonesia/27175/yericho-christiantoko. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.13.6 (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

General query on history section names

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Clubs#Generl_query_about_history_section i only just realised this is posted in sub page that might nto be watched as much so positng link here to itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Pablo Aracil

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

So this player was recently created after making his debut in the Indian I-League but there are a few things I am confused about. I only found about 2 reliable stat websites about him on transfermarkt and soccerway and some articles but thats it. Now on his article the creator of the page said that he played for all those clubs (that are listed) but I can not find any sources (reliable or unreliable) to prove them. For example, in the article is says that he played for Gillingham F.C. yet I can not find a record of it. Surely if he played for Gillingham there would be a record for him or an article. Something. This is just a bit to suspicious for me and I am wondering if someone could help me out with this one. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

He's better known as Pablo Rodriguez and it was only a trial at Gillingham.[20] TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. So I will take that off but what would I do with the others. Honestly I am that close to just getting rid of the unsourced teams. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wakaso Mubarak name order

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think the names are in the wrong order.

His brother is Alhassan Wakaso.
FIFA.com (sometimes wrong), CAFonline GhanaFA, RFEF.es, Espanyol list Wakaso as the surname

On the other hand;

UEFA and Soccerway refer to the player as Wakaso Mubarak.

What do others think ? TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right - for example, his club, this BBC match report, and this Ghanaweb report name him as Mubarak Wakaso - that last one is important, seeing as its his home country. There's certainly a case for renaming the article. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 07:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we ignore NFOOTBALL for a minute and focus on GNG or encyclopedia value? Just for a moment?

Latest comment: 11 years ago18 comments10 people in discussion

This question mainly has to do with Indian football articles and articles like them. Now I am not talking about the articles from Indian football like Jeje Lalpekhlua or Alwyn George but I am talking about the pages for guys like Hringsolal Thomte and Creson Antao where if you look at their articles you will find nothing. Nothing of value. Nothing that you would expect to see in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. So why do we still allow these pages? Yes, I understand that if you look-up the two players that I mentioned you will see that Thomte has 2 caps this season and that Antao has 14 caps this season with 1 goal in the I-League which is a fully-professional league and so they pass WP:NFOOTBALL but lets forget about that for a moment and focus on the main concern here. I don't believe that these players should have pages. There is nothing in them that a reader will find interesting. No stats, no biography, and not even a reference for significant moments in them. They may pass NFOOTBALL, per say, but do they offer anything to us. As readers and editors on wikipedia we would find such articles like these two as atrocities.

Now I am all for creating an article for a new youth player who makes his debut in the league or that player who makes his debut for his new club because then we can start from 0 caps and goals but these articles (the ones I linked above along with others like them) are just plane messy. So I guess what I am saying is that, forget NFOOTBALL, let me PROD these types of pages because they provide no value to wikipedia at all. Despite passing NFOOTBALL they fall way off of GNG or any content at all. So ya, thats basically it. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest going through afd rather than PROD'ing these articles. Given that they meet WP:NFOOTBALL deletions is by no means uncontroversial. That being said, I'm not opposed deletion of these articles, and this type of move is not without precedent either. I can think of at least two cases in which articles which technically met WP:NFOOTBALL were deleted because they very clearly failed WP:GNG. I'll see if I can find the afd's in question. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is one of several examples of an AfD that resulted in Delete for an article that narrowly satisfied NFOOTBALL but showed no sign of being able to satisfy the GNG. I think the age of the article is a strong indicator (Seletskiy's article was essentially unchanged over 3 years) that the GNG cannot be satisfied. Alternatively, in-depth searches of online content that produce no evidence of significant coverage would be another indicator that the GNG won't be met. Jogurney (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I had forgotten about that one, which somewhat surprising since I was the nominator. In any case, this was one of the other two I was thinking of. Here the issue was similarity to previously deleted version of the article. If memory serves there was third one, in which the player in question made a single, brief appearance for the national team of a sub-Saharan African country, Angola or Zambia, I think, and then dropped off the radar completely. With no coverage in the years that followed the article was deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I believe NFOOTBALL should be changed from 'played in a fully-professional league' to 'played in a notable league' - we achieve consensus of a list of leagues that achieve significant media coverage, and we can therefore assume notability by playing in them. This would mean removing a bunch of fully-pro leagues (India? Malaysia? Iran? etc.) and the addition of semi-pro leagues (the Conference? Ireland? Estonia? etc.) Giant Snowman 09:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I'd like to think a good few others do. It's just the simple matter of making it happen...Eldumpo (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Totally disagree. "Notable league" would be a huge WP:OR and WP:BIAS violation. How would you define notable? The current guideline isn't perfect, but at least there is a clear definition. Attempting to define notable league would no doubt heavily favour countries with media saturation like the UK and disfavour countries that may have fully professional top flights (i.e. where there are enough locals attending to make it feasible to pay players a full time wage) but a less developed media sphere (typically a developed world/less developed world split – I'd also expect an English/non-English speaking divide too as editors can't look for foreign language sources, especially those with non-Roman scripts). The examples given by Giant Snowman prove my point - you can get crowds of 100,000 in the Indian and Iranian top divisions - are players there less worthy of articles than someone playing for Levadia Tallinn in front of 200 every week?? Number 5 7 12:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with 57. I mean look at the Bias overhere. Do you guys follow Indian football? No. Most of you may only hear about it whenever I need help on this talk page but overall not at all. Sure Indian footballers dont get as much coverage as Premier League but we certainly get the same exact coverage as a Championship or League One player for I-League and then we could get Premier League or MLS coverage for the big Kolkata derby and India national team matches. For one of the guys I mentioned about, Antao, I could easily revamp his page to make it notable if I actually tried but I wont because stats are missing. The problem with the Indian football articles is that many stats are missing from pre 2011-12. The 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons (Right after the 2011 AFC Asian Cup where India played in) really saw a spike in Indian football coverage and why I create pages for the young players. Their stats are actually available and not only that but information about them is available. Enough to pass GNG easy.

The only problem here is this: There are pages that pass WP:NFOOTBALL technically but fail WP:GNG and have no stats at all. Basically they are blank. Just a name and a sentence that says "Andrew Barney is a professional footballer who plays for Bull Moose FC in the Long Good Friday League". There is no point. For guys though like Manandeep Singh and Chidi Edeh I have stats and I can easily find plenty of sources to fill their articles. Others I can not. I hope I made this clearer now.--ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Relying solely on GNG to determine whether a player's league is notable or not will put countries which don't regularly use the Roman alphabet at a real disadvantage - Iran and Thailand spring immediately to mind here. A month or so ago there were a couple of AfDs about Thai players, and trying to find information on them using Thai-language websites was tricky to say the least. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 13:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the sources used to prove Thailand as fully-pro on WP:FPL you will find that both sources are Asian Football Confederation websites. One of them has an error while the other links you to the AFC Champions League criteria in which Thailand passed. I think their professionalism is not based on GNG but the fact they are in the ACL... same with India. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, the AFC made it nice and easy for us - if only other confederations would do us the same favour! But if a league's professional status wasn't a factor, can you imagine how difficult it would be to root out enough information on every notable player in that league to try and satisfy the GNG? ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 14:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay I created the first AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hringsolal Thomte. I will wait for the result of this one before progressing with others. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I just googled him. He was at the club in 2007 probably till now. Removed the soccerway-ref, as incomlete thus and that had a wrong birthday also. Maybe i improve him more. Point is, even if there are no stats. If he meets GNG, the article state doesn't matter. It's not that he gains GNG by having a good article with stats. -Koppapa (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If he can meet GNG then I am fine. The problem is not just stats but that even when I looked him up I could not find any sources, English or Hindi, that said anything about him specifically and that could make the article better. The article remains barren. If anyone can help it meet GNG then I am all for keeping it but in its current state there is no point because it is useless. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with GS's proposal and disagree with Number57's view that the existing standard uses a clear definition. There has been plenty of debate over the years about what "fully-pro league" means and leagues have been added and removed based on the ambiguous definition several times. I don't know how best to measure the "notability" of playing in a league, but the current standard is broken and has been for years. We've talked about changing it dozens of times, but unfortunately no consensus is ever reached. Jogurney (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

But is this the section to be talking about this though. What you and GiantSnowman are talking about should be on another section because this one has nothing to do with it. Right now this section is about a player who passes WP:NFOOTBALL but fails GNG horribly and has barely any internet history. No stats, nothing. Not if WP:FPL should be revamped (I do have many views on that BTW but again this is not the proper section). Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"Relying solely on GNG to determine whether a player's league is notable or not" is precisely what we should be doing here. With due respect to the argument that it puts articles on subjects covered primarily by non-Latin (hell, non-English) sources at a disadvantage, the solution to that is to try and get more editors from the regions in question involved (if not here, then on their own local-language Wikipedia), not to drop our requirements simply so that we get a few more redlinks turned blue. If we allow for articles on such subjects to exist without proper referencing then there is no way of the average editor here knowing whether a player whose career is solely in countries that doesn't use the Latin alphabet is notable or not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Going back to the original post - Antao and Thomte have their names spelt a number of different ways and in different orders. For example, a quick search on Antao brings up seven different spellings of his first name in reliable sources (I've posted the list at Talk:Creson Antao). Hack (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Billy Bridgeman

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

I have been in some discussion with someone who is the grand daughter of this footballer. She has a birth certificate which conflicts with the sources in the article (namely - this and Tony Hoggs' book West Ham United Who's Who. These show a year of birth of 1884. The certificate shows 1882. Has anyone encountered anything like this before? Is the cert a reliable source? If not can it be made one by scanning it and downloading it to Wiki?--Egghead06 (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY would apply here, albeit for a deceased person. Giant Snowman 13:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That's... not strictly the case. While it's tempting to think of BLP as just "having higher standards", there are specific areas in which BLP's recommendations are specific to the case of living people, and contradictory evidence on birth certificates is one of them. The specific reason that we don't use primary sources for details like that in BLPs is because the best source for such detail is still walking around, and if the question of material being contradictory comes about it is typically because sources disagree with the person in question, rather than with each other. That's typically less of a serious matter in the case of the deceased. (I also note a recent VP thread which meandered into this territory, though that isn't in and of itself an overruling of what BLPPRIMARY says.) Personally, in a case like this I'd go with the primary sources unless there's a good reason to consider them to be wrong. It would be best to attempt to corroborate the birth certificate with other available sources such as local birth records. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to confuse things further, the 1891 Census lists a William Bridgeman born in Bromley... but it says he was born in 1883. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 15:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

On that link it only gives his "estimated" year of birth as 1884 based on the fact he was 7. He could still have been born in 1883 depending when his birthday was and when the census was taken..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

5 April according to Census in the United Kingdom. Giant Snowman 17:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And don't forget that the celebration of birthdays wasn't as common back then so people's ages weren't reinforced in people's minds. Parents could easily make a mistake with the exact ages of their children, especially in large families. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Think the appropriate Census entry is the William Bridgeman age 8 born Bromley Middlesex estimated birth year 1883, assuming the details in Mr Bridgeman's WP article are otherwise correct. FreeBMD lists a William Walter Bridgeman whose birth was registered in Poplar registration district, which covers Bromley/Bow, in the first quarter of 1883, which is not inconsistent with a December 1882 birth. In addition, the same site lists the death of a William W Bridgeman in Romford in March 1947 at the age of 64, which is consistent with a late 1882 birth. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi - I have his birth certificate here which states he was born 24 dec 1882, birth was regsitered 12 Jan 1883. His death certificate says Died 11 March 1947 aged 64 years old. So now wondering how I can fix up this entry so WP is correct. Thank you for everyone's input - please advise on the next step. Bridgemanphillips (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If you get no joy here as to what to do next, you might try Wikipedia:Teahouse - a wider audience and there to help new editors.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Match-fixing

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This morning's headlines about the Europol investigation inspired me to create Match-fixing in English football. I'm sure there's lots of incidents missing, so please add any I've missed. As an aside, the lack of a wider article on match-fixing in association football is a surprise. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This should include the 1964 British betting scandal involving Tony Kay and others. And what about Bruce Grobbelaar#Match-fixing allegations? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Para 3 of 1913–14 Birmingham F.C. season mentions attempts to fix matches by offering bribes to Birmingham's and West Brom's captains. Not sure if it's important enough to include. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Jack Hillman of Burnley was the first player in England to be banned by the FA for match fixing as far as I know so should probably include that. BigDom (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This article and this one mention a few more cases. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Lists of kit manufacturers

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Quite a few club articles contain lists of kit manufacturers down the years - is this encyclopedic? Is a club's history defined by which sportswear company happened to win the contract to make the club's kit in 1987........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say not. If there is enough coverage on the kits to merit a separate article (and there rarely is, as a few recent AfDs have shown) then it could be mentioned. Giant Snowman 09:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is. A club's jersey plays a key role in the identity of the club and the logo of the kit manufacturer is part of that, even though like you said, they just happened to win the contract. Also, the manufacturer is creating a visual representation of the colours and values of the club for them to wear every single match, so in that sense the kit manufacturer definitely merits to be mentioned in articles. As long as the information is referenced I don't see a problem in having it and in fact I would encourage it. TonyStarks (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that if the article has a section about the sponsorship of the club, as the Manchester United F.C. article does, then such a table could be included to the side of the page. Otherwise, I wouldn't say it was particularly relevant. – Pee Jay 20:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Spurs Reserves and Academy # Notable Academy graduates

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I don't know who wrote this list, but I think it needs stripping right down, it was stated on the talk page of the article about assessing notable guidelines. But should it be clarified to those players that have played over 100 games for Tottenham first team? And isn't the other problem that who ever is on the Academy list will also be duplicated on List of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. players? I see a few problems with this here and was thinking it would be best just to run a paragraph or two instead of lists! Would like some input to help me out from you WP:Footy peeps. Cheers, Govvy (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A player could graduate from the Academy but never make an appearance for Spurs, instead playing elsewhere. If it's a list of every player to graduate from the Academy, and who is "notable" by Wikipedia's standards, then it should state that. If it's some other, unknown subjective criteria then it should be removed. Giant Snowman 13:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Then how about, academy players that have played over 100 professional league games tire 4 and above? Govvy (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally it would be useful to list all Graduates who have gone on to make professional appearances, seeing as there is no related category. Giant Snowman 14:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, Or maybe just have a category? Might be better, keep the maintanence down to as low as possible? Govvy (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There is consensus at CfD (Real Madrid & Juventus if I remember)that youth-team categories are not considered notable. Giant Snowman 14:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a shame, I was about to suggest a category myself. I never have liked the way players who never made the senior team at a club (but did sign a pro contract) still get put in Cat:X F.C. players. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I personally would do away with the list as I am not a big fan of lists anyway, I think the main Spurs player cat houses them all anyway, I am more inclined to write something about the few notables like Ledley King and Peter Crouch. Govvy (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If reliable, third-party sources have discussed certain notable players as Graduates, then it would be preferable to turn the list into prose. Giant Snowman 15:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What we've done with the list in the Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy article is restrict it to players who have made senior international appearances. – Pee Jay 21:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

John Rudovic

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

jonh rudovic played for ny eagels and new york cosmos 1984 and 85 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.58.148 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources which would indicate notability? We could then create an article. Giant Snowman 18:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that he played for the New Jersey Eagles in the APSL, but never made a league appearance for the Cosmos (I'm not sure he ever signed with them). I think it's very unlikely that there are sufficient online sources to create an article that passes the GNG, but perhaps there are offline sources that covered him sufficiently. Jogurney (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Footballers from ...

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I noticed we have some new categories: Category:Footballers from Hertfordshire for example. There are 85 such categories, as seen here. Many are Chinese regions. Almost all of those outside of China have only 1 or 2 articles in them. Is this a new thing or should something be done to prevent them?--Echetus Xe 22:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say they were a logical extension of the subdivision of 'People from...' categories. These are often sub divided into 'Sportspeople from...', 'Actors from...' etc. Therefore 'Footballers from... ' would be a logical subdivision of 'Sportspeople from...' - that said it should only be developed if the 'Sportspeople from...' category is of a size to make it difficult to browse and there are enough players to warrant it, not just arbitrarily with only a couple of players in it.

On a related note however, one editor has gone through and unilaterally added a large number of 'Foo United F.C. players' categories to their local 'Sportspeople from...' categories, insisting that the 'sportspeople' category is for people who have once been associated with the place, not someone born and raised in it. This seems ludicrous to me as it now infers that a player born in Africa, who may have spent one month on loan playing for SUFC, is now categorized as being a 'Sportsperson from Sheffield' and therefore a 'People from Sheffield' - which makes absolutely no sense. Any thoughts? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There was a whole thing previously at WP:FOOTY with the Chinese categories, my concern remains the same with these cats - how can you tell somebody is from a region/city? Making assumptions based on place of birth? Giant Snowman 09:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Saying that players who played for club X are "from" that city is patently ludicrous - by that reckoning John Burridge would be "from" about 20 different places...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, Bladeboy, feel free to revert that editor as they patently fail to understand the category's purpose. Giant Snowman 11:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done it once but he replaced it and just reiterates his assumption. I've read the MOS on the categorization project and it says that POB isn't notable and those categories are based on notable residence. I've questioned that definition over at that project but it seems a bit dead there and not elicited a response. The issue would be that POB is a matter of public record and therefore citeable, whereas 'residence' is much more esoteric and difficult to even find out let alone cite. BTW - editors might want to have a look at some other club 'players' categories as this editor has been through and amended quite a lot of UK ones (Manchester, Bristol, Newcastle Leeds amongst others I've seen.) Thanks Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to direct him to the discussion here, where he will find no support for his edits. Giant Snowman 12:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This is probably not the right place for a general discussion on the "People from ..." Categories, but to me this should always be based on the place of birth. Anything else is OR. Hypothetically, if I was born in Luton, spent most of my childhood in Hampshire, lived and worked in London and Southampton and now live in Sussex, where am I "from"? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A case in point is Phil Jones who was born in Preston but brought up in Clayton-le-woods. He is not listed in Category:People from Preston, Lancashire but in Category:Footballers_from_Clayton-le-woods and in Category:Footballers from Chorley (district) (which includes Clayton-le-woods). -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Place of birth might be documented for most/all players, but where they spent their early childhood is not. Hypothetically, you would be "from" wherever you identify as coming from - but that would rely on RS that simply do not exist. Giant Snowman 10:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with GS, the key thing with these categories is there is an inherent assumption being made. At national level it is easy to make an objective decision based on passport / who they play for internationally / who they have declared for. Place of birth is not necessarily where a person is from. The issue that the precise locality that someone identifies with is to a greater extent personal choice (unless they are from a country with a system of internal passports). For example, I am from part of the UK where there are several towns that all run one into the other. I was born in the only hospital with a maternity ward in these towns, however, as soon as I left hospital I went to live in a completely different town. I was "born in x" (this is an indisputable fact), but I am not "from x" (this is a subjective claim dependant on which area an individual identifies with most). Personally the main issue I see here is the idea that someone is "from" a place. It would be much clearer for the category to be "born in", if the player then lived in other parts of the country for significant perods of their life, this can then be noted in the article. As such, I would prefer to remove these "footballers from..." categories. Fenix down (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Leonard, Thames Ironworks player

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I've some information relating to Patrick Leonard, the player listed on the Thames Ironworks page. Patrick was my great grandfather. He was born and raised in Scotland, in Cambuslang, Lanarkshire, where he's also buried in Westburn Cemetry. His first professional Club was St Mirren in Paisley before he moved South seeking work in Ironworks (my grandfather was also a steelworker). He also played for Gillingham and Manchester City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.20 (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

WestHamStats. Giant Snowman 11:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
He's on my (long) list of former Gills players to create articles on as and when I get round to it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Leonard (footballer) created. Giant Snowman 12:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Macedonian footballers

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the interest of full disclosure, I wanted to let everyone here know that I've tagged a large number of Macedonian footballers for deletion now that the Macedonian First Division is listed as non-fully pro at WP:FPL. Normally, I'd simply list them on the project page, but given the sheer numbers I figured this was easier. In any case, anyone who's interested should feel free to check my contributions for 7 February 2013 between 00:45 and 02:30 UTC. Please let me know if I screwed something up. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ideal team

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI

There is a new article, Ideal team, that deals with virtual teams of top players like the FIFA World Cup All-Star team. You are invited to discuss at Talk:Ideal team how best to handle this.—Bagumba (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Index system

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there no Index of football? I was wondering if there was a List or Index system page to put on Portal:Contents/Indexes All there is under the sport heading is Basketball and Surfing! As of right now there is no index there. Govvy (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've never come across an "Index" article before. How do they fit in with the much-maligned "Outline" articles and the barely used "Portal" namespace? Does this project's A-Z of football terminology fit the bill for you? --Dweller (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

'INJ' on national squad pages

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Was wondering when 'INJ' started appearing on national team squad pages? I really don't like it - it's not necessary, ill-defined and I'm not convinced that people adequately update it. I've removed it from the England national football team page, but I've checked round and it appears to have become standard. Squads are on national team articles not to provide match-to-match sports reporting, but to present the current group from whom the national team is selected. Has there been a discussion in which this was decided on as a positive addition?--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, you have the greatest name I have ever seen. Secondly, I agree that 'INJ' should not appear - violates WP:RECENTISM. Giant Snowman 19:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Delete on sight, violates not only recentism and NOTNEWS but also WP:V, as there are never any sources. Mind you, there are rarely sources for the makeup of a current squad, and approaching never for each player's number of caps... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with both of the above, and I especially agree with GiantSnowman about your name, SNC! My favourite Ralph Wiggum quote in history. – Pee Jay 00:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Good, I thought that would be the response but was just checking I hadn't missed anything. Cheers! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Nikola Vasiljević

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

There are two football players called Nikola Vasiljević: Bosnian and Serbian. They have the same name and were born the same day, but they are two absolutely different men. Would someone like to correct this mistake? - Schrike (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If there are actually two individuals born the same day (one in Zvornik and the other in Belgrade), most sources only support the existence of the one born in Zvornik. I checked the Russian WP article quickly and it seems to use sources that describe the one born in Zvornik. Are we sure the Russian WP editors haven't made a mistake? Jogurney (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have that question about that player for long time and I saw all sources from all football websites and I can´t get a clear conclusion. The one born in Zvornik exists for sure, and he has even represented Bosnian national team. The one allegedly from Belgrade may be just a mistake, as he played for some time in Serbia in Belgrada-based clubs, and occasionally some local websites put by default as place of birth the city of players club. FkpCascais (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It certainly would be a staggering coincidence if there were two professional footballers with the exact same name born on the exact same day.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. This interview with the Bosnian guy indicates that he was being confused with the Serbian one born on the same date! Pretty incredible coincidence! I'll try to fix the existing article to remove the information about the Serbian guy. Jogurney (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Manager notability

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

John McMahon was recently nominated for deletion. Which led me to wonder: does the generally assumed notability at WP:FPL extend to caretaker managers? U+003F^? 12:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It should do, yeah, it's equivalent to playing a match. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That CSD tag was plain wrong, I've left the editor a note. Giant Snowman 12:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ian Lister

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Ian Lister played for 'Inverness Caledonian' according to a number of sources, but Inverness Caledonian Thistle formed 20 years after this chap was playing, and the IC name does not fit with either Caledonian or Inverness Thistle as far as my limited knowledge goes. Does anyone have any idea who he actually played for? Giant Snowman 12:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Inverness Caledonian was a widely used name for Caledonian FC before their merger (just as we call many Dutch teams by city names they don't have). Number 5 7 12:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for clarifying. Giant Snowman 12:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Club Sport Emelec (soccer) Ecuador

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've been trying to estimate the Value of the club. Does anybody have any idea what "Club Sport Emelec" is worth? Any info would help. Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernie72 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is the correct place for this sort of query. This is Wikipedia, not a football forum. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup of dead links

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Did you know 19 FA-class football articles are suffering from dead external links? Did you know a further 119 Good Articles under the scope of WikiProject Football have the same problem? Is it a good advertisement for the project that the Association football article has dead external links? If you'd like to help, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Cleanup#Fix_dead_links, where the relevant pages are listed and instructions for cleanup can be found. Thanks, C 679 16:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You may want to add a link to WP:Link rot to that page. It contains more detailed instructions/alternatives on how to repair dead links. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, added. C 679 16:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting to see the article on Drew Carey listed there as one of "ours"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions, we are still on 14 FAs and 108 GAs which could do with some TLC. Thanks, C 679 13:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Worldreferee.com

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Has anyone used this site for references. Can it be regarded as reliable? I see from the intro page that it is currently not being updated, but it says it's been quoted by BBC. Anyone got evidence of it being used by reliable sources? Eldumpo (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio Kits

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

No idea how to link to kits, but the ones at Portsmouth F.C., Anorthosis Famagusta FC, Hércules CF and Newcastle United F.C. (home shirt only) are clear copyvios as far as I am concerned. What's the point of including the sponsor on the image? Clear fair-use violation. Please could somebody tag them for deletion. Thanks, C 679 16:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, i'd delete those images. If the whole kit concept wasn't so complicated. Any source would describe the Portsmouth one as blue-white-red. So i'd also delete the kappa-images. -Koppapa (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Am I right to assume then that any kit showing the logo, even if almost illegible should be deleted? Does this also include the badge of the club, again if almost illegible? I don't have any issue with this, but would like to know whether there is consensus. I don't think the kit needs to be anything other than the basic colour / design. I don't think that missing sponsors / logos / badges detracts from the image and makes it less informative. Fenix down (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

When I saw this, I thought "not again!", this has been a constant thorn in the side of our project.... Anyway, kit images can only be deleted if they break a rule over the road at Commons. We have our own rules here, and if the images don't make the grade there but break no Commons rules, we can only really remove them from our articles. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 18:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone remove them from the above articles, then? Thanks, C 679 20:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

After a lengthy search, it turns out the Portsmouth ones are not hosted at Commons, but at en.wiki. I have tagged them under F7, but if anyone knows of a better criteria under which to nominate them, please do so. Thanks, C 679 21:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The ones at commons I tagged have been speedy-deleted; Newcastle United F.C. now don't have a working kit in their infobox. Thanks, C 679 22:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I recently nominated this image for deletion on commons but this was declined on the grounds that "At this size, anything with a copyright is only a few pixels and is de minimis." (see here. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

While in theory copyvio could be a problem here, our primary motivation for deleting these is to discourage folks from entering into an arms race of increasing detail for trivial paper-doll images that we only want to be approximate at best. Ideally Commons will be more strict, but it's not our problem if they aren't. We should still ensure that our own guidelines on detail are followed by removing them from our articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox stastics

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there anything I can do to stop people from adding non-league stats to player infoboxes? For example, for Ahmed Hassan Koka, I think I've had to change it 10 times, if not more, because of people adding goals he's scored in Cup and friendly matches. In fact, for many articles on Egyptian players it seems to be the norm to include all goals, which obviously is not correct. A part from manually having to revert it every time, is there any other solution? I don't think protecting would apply since it's not technically vandalism and I believe the editors have good intentions. I've already added a hidden note in the infobox but that doesn't seem to work. TonyStarks (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We need more manpower. That's all there is to it. Areas of the project which suffer from a lack of contributors will always reflect that. You could try appealing to WikiProject Egypt or something to attract some eyes from editors who may be more interested in that particular domain. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tottenham talk page

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Resolved

I am not sure how to do it, but I was wondering if someone can add the archive bot for it. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Rangers Board of Directors

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a bit of an issue on the Rangers F.C. article and it's been suggested it be brought up here on the project. I've pushed for the Board of Directors to be listed as it is for most football clubs, I did eventually add it a few weeks ago but again it's been removed because of a user objecting. The idea seems to be that since it was decided Rangers the club were bought by a new company it means the directors work for the company and not the club, therefore can't be listed. Now it seems ridiculous to me, plenty of clubs have complicated ownership structures and separate companies involved but ultimately the CEO etc are working for the club, and reliable sources never (or very rarely anyway) state 'the chairman of Somebody FC's holding company' or something along those lines.

The Board is clearly listed on Rangers' official website and Charles Green is always in the media, referred to as "chief executive of Rangers" in articles such as this, it seems mad that such a big figure can't be included on the club's main wiki page. I have even suggested compromise by having the title as "Holding Company Board of Directors" or along those lines but there's no budging it seems.

Any more neutral type thoughts? Sparhelda 23:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Some football clubs which have publicly listed on stock exchanges have separate plc and football club boards. As far as I know this does not presently apply to Rangers as the football club company (The Rangers FC Ltd, formerly Sevco Scotland) is wholly owned by the quoted company (Rangers International FC), which does not have any other activities. I don't see a problem with listing Green etc under board of directors as long as there is a hatnote to Ownership of Rangers F.C. and perhaps an explanatory paragraph of how and when they came to the position. Perhaps also include information about previous Rangers boards and/or chairmen? I know most clubs don't have this, but for most clubs this information isn't as readily available. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Image in the grounds/stadium section

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Should the image used in the grounds or stadium section of an article be the exterior (facde) of the stadium or an image of the pitch. I've always assumed it should be the latter. There's a fan of Real Madrid who likes to change the English image to one of the facade when there are several of the pitch that are superior. The editor changes creates a new account, makes a series of edits and then never uses the account again. The most recent edit is here. Any suggestions, guidelines, policies (other than 3RR)? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, if the façade was architecturally distinctive (like the San Siro or Wembley for example), then I would personally favour that, but in this case the Bernabeu isn't all that special and your preferred photo is definitely better. I don't know any official guidelines or policies regarding this so I would suggest attempting a discussion on the Talk page, assuming the user feels like discussing this after his 1 day block expires. Second, if he seems to using different accounts to edit war, it'd be worth bringing this to WP:SPI as that kind of behaviour is a definite no-no. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 12:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article history, there's at least four different accounts attempting to make the same edit - you're not the only one who can hear quacking. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 12:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if you look at those four accounts, they are all the same person and show the same pattern of editing. That editor makes a series of changes and then the accounts cease operation.

~~And to link to WP:QUACK seems to imply that I am a sockpuppet, which I find offensive.~~

Back to the topic. No other interwiki articles show the facade. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeez, Walter, re-read what BZ said and then start AGF - he was agreeing with you that somebody is socking, not accusing you! Giant Snowman 14:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Completely mis-read the statement and have struck it. Perhaps the same should be done to me when I'm half a sleep like this. Thanks for pointing-out my error.

I see that PeeJay2K3 restored the image and Mark Arsten has imposed pending changes, which should reduce the edit warring. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Agung Supriyanto

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Could an admin please restore Agung Supriyanto, he has since made his debut for the Indonesia national football team against Jordan national football team in January. Thanks in advance. Borgarde (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Done; please update and improve. Giant Snowman 09:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks GiantSnowman. Borgarde (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Jan Mak DOB

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a slight ongoing issue here, is anyone able to please find a definitive source for the DOB, 1945 or 1948? Comments at the article talk page appreciated. Giant Snowman 11:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Bayern Munich vs. Real Madrid - needs some work

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Someone with some knowledge of the subject might like to have a look at improving Bayern Munich vs. Real Madrid. There seems to be a reasonable degree of coverage of the rivalry in reliable sources so there is some scope for improvement. Hack (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it actually a notable rivalry though? Giant Snowman 09:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. -Koppapa (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is! These two teams have had plenty of memorable encounters .. and bad blood over the years. For starters, see here and here. With that said, the article needs plenty of work .. if not a complete re-write. TonyStarks (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's currently unreferenced though. Has bad spelling ("laliga", "german"). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It's also not a proper rivalry. Sure, the clubs have had heated matches over the years, but if you asked any fan of either club who their rivals were, I very much doubt that Bayern fans would name Real Madrid or vice versa. – Pee Jay 15:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Lampiões/Lampioes

Latest comment: 11 years ago61 comments12 people in discussion

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Two redirects recently nominated for speedy deletion as "vandalism" by a fan of S.L. Benfica. It's hard to say, Portuguese media sometimes call fans of S.L. Benfica "lampiões" [21], [22]. What do you think about it? Is it an offensive term or rather a harmless nickname? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Portuguese media sometimes call fans of S.L. Benfica "lampiões"" No they don't. The article you shown was to describe the rivalry between Benfica and Sporting fans. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not a harmless nickname and that's why media doesn't use it. That Google search is showing that word because it was written by Benfica haters. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, see more specific links in my comment bellow. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't need those links to understand this. I'm a Benfica fan and I'm offended by those words. If you think they are not offensive then I suggest adding also offensive redirections for their rivals. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What does it actually mean? Giant Snowman 12:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

lanterns (or red lanterns) I think. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case it's not pejorative is it? Same as calling Arsenal fans Gooners etc. Giant Snowman 12:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It is pejorative. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't comment on the issue, but as i see there is a disagreement, the article has been un-speedied until consensus is reached. It is now under PROD, and could be taken to AfD if required. The original delete requester should make his case here. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We probably need some Portuguese editors to help out with this one to determine if the term has any negative connotations. TonyStarks (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Procedural note - it should be taken to WP:RFD if anywhere, surely? Giant Snowman 13:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, definitely. TonyStarks (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. "Lampião" or "lampiões" (plural) is an offensive term used by Benfica rivals use to describe Benfica supporters. The media do not use that word to describe Benfica fans, instead they only use these: "benfiquistas (supporters), águias (eagles), encarnados (reds). BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

See this (Expresso): The image caption says: "Lagartos e lampiões, eternos rivais". (Lagartos is a nickname of Benfica's rival, Sporting Lisbon.) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Or this (Placar): "Os sportinguistas são chamados de lagartos, e os benfiquistas são os lampiões." (Which is, roughly translated: "The Sporting fans are called lizards, and Benfica fans are the lanterns.") --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the nickname is harmless. For example, FC Porto fans are known as "corruptos" (corrupts) and "batoteiros" (cheaters) in Portugal and yet those words don't redirect to their page and they aren't used by the media. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Those Porto terms aren't used by the media? Probably why we don't have articles on them. But as Vejvančický has indicated, the "lampiões" term is used by the media. Giant Snowman 13:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Now I feel I am being trolled. Corruptos or batoteiros are not used by the media simply because they are afraid of the consequences, as they are offensive. The article presented by Vejvančický is about the Derby between Benfica and Sporting and they used the offensive nicknames lagartos and lampiões to describe the rivalry, not to describe the supporters. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this RfD may be relevant. The redirect was kept, despite containing an offensive word and negative connotations, because it was ruled to be a useful and likely search term. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

But how is 'lanterns' an offensive term? Giant Snowman 13:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether it is or not. It might well be, to someone who understands the connotations of the word. I couldn't comment on that. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it is! I gave you examples below and you still do not understand it. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If there is match involving Benfica the press doesn't write "lampiões are going to play" they write "encarnados/the reds/Benfiquistas are going to play", the same applies for Sporting and all the other teams. Why do you think "lampiões" and "lagartos" are not used in any article related to the clubs? Because they are offensive = they offend people. So why is "lampiões" redirecting to Benfica? May I add "franquistas" as a redirection to Real Madrid page? May I add "corruptos" to FC Porto? May I add "lagartos" to Sporting CP? BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you haven't explained why. There is no consensus here for deletion, please take to WP:RFD. Giant Snowman 14:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please translate the text in Portuguese in the edition nº 30669270 and you will understand why the (originaly) offensive article was created and why it became a redirection. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Translate what, sorry? Giant Snowman 14:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot the article was already written in a bad english. Please check this edit: Lampiões&oldid=30669270 (sorry I don't know how to link it). BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link, it is the initial revision of the redirect Lampiões. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That has no bearing on the current state of the article (i.e. as a redirect). Giant Snowman 14:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You can see that the initial text was trollish, innacurate and offensive. But the user Quarl thought the article was not vandalism and created a redirection. Just because that page exists since 9 December 2005 it doesn't mean it's ok. I only found that page "by accident" when checking redirection links to S.L. Benfica. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, previous states of any and every article does not matter in the slightest. Giant Snowman 14:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course it does... If the offensive article wasn't created there would be no redirect. Without redirect I wouldn't be here wasting my time trying to explain why it's offensive. This is frustrating but I will keep trying until someone understands it. «Lampiões [incorrect, the correct name is Benfiquistas] is a nickname to Sport Lisboa e Benfica fans. They say they are almost [wrong, we say or used to say Benfiquistas were 6 million, not almost] 6 million of Portuguese natives [in Portugal] are Lampiões (Benfiquistas] (this number probably is a little high [wrong] but probably not far from the truth [correct], specially due to Benfica's victories in the 60's in Europe and to being the team with most Portuguese Titles) [incorrect, in 2005 Benfica was the club with most titles overall, not only Portuguese). Every football fan likes to emphatize their club's victories, players,...multiplying that by 100 [trolling] and you have the grade of fanatism [trolling] Lampiões [Benfiquistas] have. It's almost impossible to have an argue about football with the majority of Lampiões because of this fact [trolling]. Their idols are Eusebio [correct] (the dark panther) [wrong and racist, it's The Black Panther], Chalana, Valdo, Rui Costa, Miklos Fehér [wrong, he's remembered because he died while playing for Benfica] and the spanish coach Camacho [wrong, Camacho was not successful in Benfica].» Do you want more explanations? BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Okay, but it has nothing to do with the current state of the article. BenficaNNossaPaixao, we don't want to insult your club. Your username and edits suggest you are a fan of the club, therefore there's a possibility that you might be biased and attempt to remove facts you dislike. Of course, you may be right, but it should be properly discussed. Why do you think the redirect is offensive? What's wrong with lamps/lanterns? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Fact: everyone is biased. Yes I'm a little biased, yes. If I wanted to hide things I wouldn't be using Benfica in my username which means "Benfica Our Passion". BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Btw, an article by Correio da Manhã says that the officials of Sporting were insulted by replacing of their traditional symbol (lion) by lizards on their logo (Lagartos=Lizards). I believe there is some tension in those seemingly innocent terms. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes that incident happened recently. And of course Sporting fans were not happy with the insult. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Just out of idle curiosity, why is calling Benfica fans "lanterns" considered offensive? I can't see the obvious connection myself, I'm just genuinely interested to know what it's all about........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Because we are not (red) lanterns and also because of the simple fact that the rivals use it to offend us. You guys have to understand that Benfica is one of biggest clubs in the world (and of course the biggest in Portugal) in terms of fans (at least they were 14 million in the past around the world) and the biggest in terms of sócios aka paying supporters (currenly around 250,000), not only because of the victories but also because of its social dimension and that leads to a lot of hatred, historically from Sporting and more recently from FC Porto. Benfica is the most hated club in Portugal also because Pinto da Costa which joined FC Porto in 1982 started to fabricate lies to put almost every club against Benfica. And guess what.. after 30 years (31 in April) of hatred and corruption scandals it worked.. and it will continue to work until Portuguese Justice system does not work. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

BenficaNNossaPaixao, this is a neutral encyclopedic project, not Benfica's fansite. We describe all notable and verifiable facts and subjects, not just those we like or agree with. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not the point. Those links you provided are not "notable and verifiable facts". They just describe the rivalry between Benfica and Sporting. They are not used regulary by the press because they are offensive! Don't you get this? If you do and think it's ok then I will be fair and I will add pejorative redirection pages to Sporting, FC Porto and any other club. I will do it for the equality. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Is calling offensive names being neutral? Do you have anything against my club? If not why are you keeping the redirection page? BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Benfica (Lampiões), Sporting (Lagartos) and Porto (Tripeiros) are provocative names given by the fans of each club one to anothers. The point may be that beside a possible mention of it at each club article, there should be no other point of using those names in any encyclopedic articles basically. FkpCascais (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree except for "tripeiros" which is a pejorative term to describe people from Porto (city) and that's why I always write "FC Porto" (club) which leads to Always Learning reverting my edits. :) BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes i have to agree with BENFICNNOSSAPAIXAO, i am also Portuguese even though not a Benfica fan (i have no club), that name "Lampiões" is utterly and tottaly offensive and constitutes vandalism here (there is a disgusting saying in Portugal uttered by some football gangs which reads "Em cada lampião há um cabrão", meaning "A motherfucker in every lampião", does not rime in English, not quite neutral is it?

You didn't lose the chance to insult Benfica indirectly. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Even though Mr.BNNP is one of those users that stopped interacting with me JUST BECAUSE, i have to support him in his query here, please delete this redirect, a good nickname for Benfica would be the Reds or the Eagles, not Lampiões. --AL (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the words. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Finally someone agrees with me. It seems only Portuguese people understand the hatred and name calling in Portuguese football... BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk)

Thanks AL and FkpCascais for your constructive comments. You seem to be neutral and familiar with the Portuguese football. I have no objections against deletion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Those names are indeed widely used ammong people, in pubs, etc. but allways in a provocative/prejorative way. The actual nicknames for the supporters are Águias (Benfica), Leões (Sporting) and Dragões (Porto), and these other ones are their popular provocative version, but never, or extremelly rarely, used officially or in the media. Best regards Vejvančický FkpCascais (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's natural for Portuguese people to have wider knowledge of Portuguese football, but you completely failed to describe why these terms were offensive, so thanks to FKP for doing so. As stated before, multiple times - if you believe the redirects do not have merit then please take to WP:RFD. Giant Snowman 16:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't fail to describe why but failed to convince you that I was telling you the truth, for 2 reasons: my english and my nickname. Regards. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for wasting the time of everyone. I was in doubt because BenficaNNossaPaixao's explanations weren't persuasive. It's always better to get more eyes on this sort of thing. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Lampioes (without ~) should also be deleted. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Now at RFD - Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 14#Lampioes. Giant Snowman 17:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The term "lampião" is somehow derogatory but hardly all out offensive. It is not correct that F.C.Porto fans are nicknamed "curruptos" (currupt) nor "batoteiros" (cheaters). Yes, F.C.Porto - as a club - is accused by many Benfica fans of being corrupt and cheaters. But so is Benfica by Porto's fans... It is not a nickname. (I am portuguese, a Benfica fan, and highly suspicious of the neutrality of anyone signing with a "NN" - though I have seen quite a few OK edits from him) - Nabla (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nabla, the term in not offensive, in the early days of Benfica, lantern's in the street glowed in red, so red→benfica→lampiões. Although not offensive, it's never been use by the press recently, it's use by rival fans. I would prefer to make it neutral to redirect "tripeiros" to FC Porto and "lagartos" to Sporting. Actually some media have called Sporting, lagartos, but as a deliberate mistake. If Benfica it's the only one, then it's not right and it should be deleted.--Threeohsix (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. If it's not deleted I will create "neutral" nickname redirections for every club I know. And BTW Tripeiro already redirects to the city of Porto, which is correct. FC Porto are called Andrades, Corruptos or Batoteiros. I will add them if Lampiões is not deleted. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Do not threaten to disrupt Wikipedia if you do not get your own way, that is one sure way to get yourself blocked from editing. Giant Snowman 13:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not a threat, it's a logical thing to do. You are the one threating me with a ban only because my arguments go against yours. If I create the redirection Lagartos for Sporting and Andrades for FC Porto I'm only following your logic: nicknames used by fans to offend each other are neutral. Do you know what equality means? BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it's very much a threat. You have a clear pro-Benfica agenda here and you need to stop it. I have not threatened to ban you, I've said I will block you if you disrupt Wikipedia. I have no opinion on the merits of the 'Lampiões' redirect, hence why I have no expressed an opinion on it at the RFD. Giant Snowman 13:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion here has become unproductive. Further comments should be made at the relevant RfD. C 679 14:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've posted a grant proposal at meta titled "Backlog pages for all WikiProjects". Summary: The Category:Wikipedia backlog page quantifies cleanup templates for English Wikipedia, but WikiProjects don't have similar pages to know what needs improvement. Because this is such a successful WikiProject, I'd appreciate any input over there on the idea of it. Please comment there if you think it will be a help to WikiProjects, generally speaking. It may or may not be funded, but even if it is not funded, perhaps the idea will flourish and benefit all WikiProjects thanks in part to your input (see part 3 towards the bottom of the page). Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Jean Evrard Kouassi

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can admin restore his article, he has made debut yesterday in fully professional league [23]. Thanks. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, please update & improve. Thanks, Giant Snowman 11:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Noone

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Can anyone provide WP:RS for the pronunciation of Craig Noone? I had a look and found this but it's not RS. Think it would be good to have it at the appropriate page. Thanks, C 679 17:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not that unusual a name: why is there any doubt or querying of it? As in midday, lest there be any uncertainty. Kevin McE (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why anyone would think it was pronounced anything other than "noon".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Due to the similarity with the common phrase "no one", which has a markedly different pronunciation. C 679 18:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely "noon". A really nice lad and talented player. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of Armin Hodžić article

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Can an admin restore this article? He's played in the Bosnian Premier League. [24] TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bosnian Premier League is not fully-pro according to WP:FPL meaning playing in it does not automatically grant notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that WP:FPL may be wrong in this case. Article 71 of this [25] seems to suggest that the top two divisions in Bosnia can contract professional players. Google translation I think the only way this can be settled is by contacting the league as I could not find a source that flat out say the league is professional. TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I realise some of the entries at WP:FPL are sourced to league regulations etc, but it may not be the best approach to just ask leagues directly. They may not be neutral in their response? Eldumpo (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The Final Straw - Amendment to WP:NFOOTY

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

As you can tell from the title, I have finally lost it really. Currently I am trying to redo most Indian football player pages but it pains me when I see pages like Sudhakaran Kumar where nothing is on the article. Now I have had this discussion on here just last week and I already did two AfDs. One which was successful in getting rid of one of these types of pages while the other one is looking like it will fail and all because the player passes WP:NFOOTY.

Now first of all, lets get this straight, this is India, not England or the United States. I dont have pages beyond pages of information about specific players who made there debuts before 2010. In India, the football media and football websites did not release player profiles or even stats till 2010 when India qualified for the AFC Asian Cup. Before that there was nothing except for national team stats or results in the league. That is why I ask for pages like Soccor Velho or Sudhakaran Kumar to be deleted because there is nothing available about them. They obviously fail GNG and honestly, think about it, why would I be coming here to ask for them to be deleted if I could just expand on them with simple google searches. The answer is that I cant. Nothing is available specifically about them accept for some match-reports. If you want, you can go do it yourself.

And to me, this is the problem. I understand the reasons for why we allow players who pass NFOOTY but not GNG is because the player in question is probably young and is guaranteed to have more sources eventually but these guys are far from it now. Velho is 29 while Kumar is 24. They have passed that mark and yet they still have super-stubs which even I cant expand on. And its not just these players. There are many within the Indian football scope and other Asian football scopes but I can do nothing about it because of NFOOTY.

Again, what I am asking for is less leniency when dealing with these pages. Last week I had user create a bunch of stubs for players I decided to skip when going over squads in the Indian football league. There is a reason for why I skipped them. If I cant make a meaningful article then why create one? I am just asking for users on this WikiProject to take this into consideration because right now I am ready to do a "cleansing" of all these stubs in the Indian football pages. I just need the okay. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with offline sources? C 679 13:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do use offline sources like newspapers that cant be found online for example but, I have tried to look for information on both these players mentioned above using sources offline and I cant find them and nor can people I ask. Again, why I ask. I cant find anything online or offline. If I could I would use it to my advantage. Its not hard to add if I have it or someone else does but so far no one does.--ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok I see what you're saying but the AfD will take care of this issue, we both know it's unlikely NFOOTY will change to reject players where multiple reliable sources are "not available" as even an exhaustive search of the internet where nothing is found does not rule out offline coverage. Do you have any books about Indian football? You may know I propose articles for deletion, usually when no references exist or when I feel the topic is not notable; in the case of "notable" players in the Indian professional league, it seems strange you would try to have them deleted. Ultimately if consensus is to keep, my advice to you would be to ignore these stubs and try to get alternative articles up to higher status; there is only one article in the Indian football taskforce that is above C-class, for example. It will help your motivation, for sure. Thanks, C 679 16:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I usually do. My rule is for whenever I see an Indian player that has no page is this: If the player is over the age of 23 years old, has played a game in the I-League, yet has no information or stats then I will not create the page. I will ignore that player. The only exception is if the player does something extraordinary (one of the top scorers in the I-League or selected for the national team) or if information can be found. Thats basically it. As for me and wanting them to be deleted. Well, as you know, I have been doing this for over 2 years and it has not bothered me till 2 weeks ago. Before I just ignored them and let them be. Then all of a sudden I see a bunch of stub articles being created and not only stubs but untruthful stubs. Some of the new stubs said that the player joined in 2012 when really it was either unknown or before that; or the user would place this seasons stats in the infobox for a player who has been at his club for years. That just got me livid for some reason (not to an extreme extent) and honestly I just did not want to see them. Why create random stubs? That is why I am asking to delete them. That morning I woke up to a flood of stubs was ridiculous. And I dont mind if it is a stub for a younger player because those are easy to expand upon but for guys who are older it just takes a lot of work and most times comes up with nothing. In Velho's case (AfD) Struway was able to find sources and now I will drop the AfD that is just one of many pages that should be on AfD. Go to the Sporting Clube de Goa squad section. So many stubs there. Thats really my problem. An overgrowth of stubs.

As for the 1 article above C-Class (Sunil Chhetri if I recall). That is the point of my many projects and the many revamps of all 14 I-League clubs pages. Right now I am also rewriting the whole India national football team page with much, much more detail than the current version. I have just been slow really. Plus the expectation in terms of players is that the players under the age of 23 should be "B" class in a few years after they get a few seasons under their belt. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Hinko72

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The above user seems intent on making disruptive edits to BLPs - specifically Ben Starosta for whom he is trying to invent a more accomplished career history. Based on comments he's left on my talk page he is obviously either the player's agent or acting on behalf of his current club, which is obviously non-neutral before we even get to his attempts to manipulate career stats. I notice Giant Snowman has already left him a warning about his edits on another players article so I assume he'll be widening his activities. Please keep an eye on him. Cheers. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There's now a new user profile, claiming to be the player himself that has amended the article once again - I'm pretty certain it's the same guy. For clarity he's removing some of the less successful parts of the player's career (all sourced) amending stats to try and show he played in the Premier League for Sheffield United and has added in a completely unsourced (and erroneous) international appearance for Poland. Some help would be appreciated. Thanks Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverted and warned the new user, article added to my watchlist. I'd advise to to take it to WP:SPI if you believe they are the same. Giant Snowman 13:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - based on the language he used on my talk page I'm pretty certain it's the same person. He claims to have no knowledge of any of the stuff he's removed - which is interesting as he's claiming never to have been signed by Darlington when you can actually see him in the picture here [26]. :) Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

For balance, you could always add in Mr Starosta's appearance in the Conference North for Alfreton :-) [27][28] cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even find that when I updated the article originally - I've added it in now. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

International stats table

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I am starting to see these tables popup on player articles, I don't mind the domestic table, but for some reason the international table seems wrong. William Gallas#International for example, it's just three colomns, year, apps, goals. There is already a goals table above and the international section should cover the information in simple text. It's overkill on statistics, it's just repeated information in tabular format. Can we come to some consensus and remove these tables? Govvy (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Previous discussion in January 2013 didn't result in any consensus either way; personally I agree that they are overkill and not needed. If they are, then we need agreed guidelines on format & layout, like we (kinda) have with club stats. Giant Snowman 15:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How about this: User:ArsenalFan700/sandbox. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If anything I'd say the table listing every international goal with opponent, etc, should go, I've never understood why we have those....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

ArsenalFan - what WP:RS differentiate between tournaments / friendlies / others? NFT, probably the premier source for int'l stats, simply shows number of appearances in a calendar year.

Chris - agree 100%.

Giant Snowman 15:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree 100% on the tables listing individual appearances and goals, but I'd say it's only logical to include a table listing year-by-year apps and goals, in the way we do for club career stats. This also allows us to explicitly cite a player's international stats, which is more appropriate than the oft used method of just sticking in another external link. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see a very basic table listing 'Year', 'Apps' & 'Goals' (a la NFT). I think that's all we need, and we certainly don't need a breakdown of every single app/goal. See this as an example. Giant Snowman 16:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me; here's an example of one I've used in an article. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought ArsenalFan table looked better, that one on Andre Boucaud looked a bit odd to me, I was wondering if it would be a better use of space to have a horizontal table instead of verticle, it's the added space these thinks make in an article that get me! Govvy (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

FA Cup Finals

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I have been writing up the season by season articles for Southampton F.C. starting from the very beginning. In 1900 and 1902 the Saints reached the FA Cup Final. The articles on these two finals were very poor and I will bring them up to scratch at some point. Although I have plenty of information from the Southampton point of view, the Cup Final articles should be more neutral. Can anyone point me to an online resource with details of the early FA Cup Finals? www.fa-cupfinals.co.uk used to have match reports for each final but these are no longer accessible other than those up to 1879. The Sporting Chronicle has the line-ups but little else; e.g. 1900. I would have hoped that the Football Association website might have something but, if it does, it's well hidden.

On specifics, most of the articles give a kick-off time of 3.00 pm. My Southampton books include a picture of a flyer advertising tickets for the train from London Bridge station to Crystal Palace which show the match kicking off at 3.30 pm. Are we sure of the other kick-off times; if not, they should be left blank rather than be wrong. (Incidentally, the flyer says that the last train from London Bridge was at 3.00 pm - as the journey time today is between 25 and 30 minutes, that's cutting it rather fine. Not a lot of time for a pre-match drink!)

Any help/pointers would be greatly appreciated. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I could certainly add some more information from the Sheffield United perspective for 1902. I've been trying to update their entire history but as I started at the beginning I've only got as far as 1893 at the moment!! Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I found the Wayback Machine has archived the pages for the 1900 and 1902 finals, though they don't add much compared to the first final, for instance. Anyone with a library card should be able to access online databases. I found a great article in The Standard under Football Notes about the 1900 final that details the build-up, the match itself and post-match. It was played under favourable conditions, "a summer-like temperature". Bury won the toss and set Southampton "to face a strong sun". Lord James of Hereford (I presume it's him), president of Bury F.C., presented the medals and handed the cup to Bury captain Jack Pray.

Regarding kick-off time, the article begins with: "Southampton's apologists have been very busy since four o'clock on Saturday afternoon. Account for it how one may, Southampton were a beaten team from the very start of the great match at the Crystal Palace." That suggests it started at 4.00 pm but Southampton were 3–0 behind after 23 minutes so it could easily be 3.30 pm. There is a lot of text but it doesn't appear to state exactly when the match kicked-off. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the Evening Standard article? Thanks. --- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I searched for it here using the words "cup final southampton bury". If you can login it'll be there. I found a way to link to articles on NewsBank without the need to login but I can't see a way to do it on Infotrac. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It always worth checking what news archives you can access (from home) via your local library's website. In most counties that's the Times and Guardian/Observer at a minimum. Though most of the time you need to hit the microfilm machines to be able to do a thorough job. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for their help. West Sussex libraries only have the Times archives available which has a great report on the two finals, although I can't find a reference to the kick-off time. Does anyone know if their is a shortcut to citing the Times Online. I can't really use the URL that has been generated by the various searches. Thanks again. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

On browsing further, I have now found brief articles that confirm both the 1902 matches kicked off at 3.30 but nothing yet for 1900. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not really that important. Just remove it then. -Koppapa (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

[1] [1]

[2] [2]

[3] [3]

[4] [4]

[5] [5]

[6] [6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]