Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 94
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 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 90 | ← | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | → | Archive 100 |
DrunkenGerman
Please can somebody have a word with @DrunkenGerman: regarding the Francky Sembolo article, they are displaying severe WP:OWNERSHIP issues by blindly reverting me when I try and bring the article in-line with the MOS. Their reversions are so blind they even undo an edit which (in part) agrees with their own comments regarding WP:KARLSRUHER. I have tried to apply WP:BRD but it's hard when they ignore the D and just start the R again, and if I don't pass it off to somebody else I am going to say something I will probably regret... GiantSnowman 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have made some "improvements" to the article, which, from a non-involved point of view, looks like a very ordinary stub. Hopefully this is the end of it. C679 21:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- The first sentence of MOS is "This page provides a suggested layout for footballer biographies." So it's just an idea to keep the articles kind of standardized and to ensure a certain kind of quality. That said, it cannot be an instrument to limit articles to a certain structure. Always has Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section to be kept in mind, it says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." So it's basically up to the editor to decide what these most important aspects are.
- And I have to say, I'm really annoyed by certain editors just changing well considered articles just because they don't fit to some templates. That's really not the way good work in an encyclopaedia should be done.
- In the Francky Sembolo case, it's just most significant that he is a Congolese footballer who has spent basically his whole career in Germany. So that should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph. Now I saw, that someone again has changed the article, e.g. stating his German citizenship in the introduction. A thoughtful editor would recognize that the German citizenship is just a result of his long time spent in German club football and is also of minor importance. DrunkenGerman (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Your subjective opinion. As for the citizenship, per MOS:PARAGRAPHS "single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading". If this is such a big deal to you, I suggest adding additional detail to warrant a stand-alone "personal life" section. C679 05:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks to @Cloudz679: for bringing some sense to this LAME dispute. GiantSnowman 13:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Didn't really see the problem with his edits. Anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks to @Cloudz679: for bringing some sense to this LAME dispute. GiantSnowman 13:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Your subjective opinion. As for the citizenship, per MOS:PARAGRAPHS "single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading". If this is such a big deal to you, I suggest adding additional detail to warrant a stand-alone "personal life" section. C679 05:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- The first sentence of MOS is "This page provides a suggested layout for footballer biographies." So it's just an idea to keep the articles kind of standardized and to ensure a certain kind of quality. That said, it cannot be an instrument to limit articles to a certain structure. Always has Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section to be kept in mind, it says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." So it's basically up to the editor to decide what these most important aspects are.
Atlético de Madrid and Intertoto Cup
Some users (i.e. this IP) insist on include the 2007 UEFA Intertoto Cup between the titles won by the club here, here and here. It is false for 4 reasons:
- 1) In the 2007 UEFA Intertoto Cup regulations (cf. art. 4.01 at p. 5) the competition's winner is the club with the best performance in the UEFA Cup and for that reason receive the trophy. That club was Hamburg.
- 2) According the UEFA official website the Spanish competition's winners are just four clubs: Villarreal (2), Celta, Málaga and Valencia (1 each).
- 3) In the club's profile at UEFA.com is not included the 2007 Intertoto Cup.
- 4) The club in its official website not include that competition in the honours list and it is not mencioned in history's section.
Please, control these articles, thank you.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Reverted and warned. Cheers, MYS77 ✉ 14:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- The IP @95.187.207.51: is still thinking that Atlético has one Intertoto Cup. Someone please make him understand the rules, I'm tired of trying to explain. Cheers, MYS77 ✉ 18:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Go check the UEFA.com at Atléti profile in the same link you provided at point (3).
Its very clear mentioned under the background photo.
Intertoto cup: 2007, (2004).
Also The intertoto cup history at UEFA.com clearly mentioned that there are 11 winners in 2007 and one of them is Atléti.
Here is the source:
http://en.archive.uefa.com/Competitions/IntertotoCup/index.html Regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.187.207.51 (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@95.187.207.51: Did you read what Dantetheperuvian wrote up here? The only winner is the one who goes further in the UEFA Cup, which in that year was Hamburg. MYS77 ✉ 19:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Please check the Intertoto Cup history link at UEFA.com that has been provided in my earlier response before you replay. 95.187.207.51 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- You disrespect the WP rules and uses a "superior" tone with other people who are trying to discuss and improve the pages here. Please, instead of being arrogant, check the club's honours list and UEFA Intertoto Cup regulations. And your UEFA link only lists the 11 winners, not the overall one, which was Hamburg. Thank you, MYS77 ✉ 19:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- IP makes a valid point. UEFA themselves list 11 winners, they consider Stuttgart (also winner, not furthest progressed) as three-time winners of the UI Cup. Maybe only one team get's the trophy, but eleven teams won that competition. -Koppapa (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding the point Koppapa.95.187.207.51 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously if UEFA trophy awarded only to Hamburg the trohy is because only considers this club as "UEFA Intertoto Cup Winner". The UEFA website is sometimes contradictory (i.e. here its written that Stuttgart have won the UIC twice (2003 and 2004) like Karlsruhe and Schalke), but a primary source as the competition's regulation, no.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
As per competition's regulation, the clause should be VERBATIM. Article 4 Trophies 4.01 The CLUBS which qualify for the second qualifying round of the UEFA Cup and which subsequently go furthest in this competition EACH RECEIVE a UEFA Intertoto Cup trophy. 5.246.112.107 (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
^^ Thanks for this addition. So the reasons (1) & (3) approved as wrong. Plus the UEFA Intertoto winners link provided earlier. The matter is responded. 95.187.146.197 (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- "[...] which qualify for the second qualifying round and which subsequently go furthest in this competition" are not all club qualified for the UEFA Cup. This link is even more explicit: "In the UEFA Cup campain 2006/2007, the best performing team was the German team Hamburger SV." (and the website was powered by UEFA and the Europan Football Pool).--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Why are Atletico Madrid only being discussed here? What about all the other side winners from 2006-2008? Like Napoli and Sampdoira. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/S.S.C._Napoli#National_titles Napoli for example don't count their side winner IC title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.120.119 (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Wait, this discussion has generic application but the edit-wars not occur in Napoli/Samdoria's related articles.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It was more in reply to the people who were editing the LIST OF UEFA COMPETITION WINNERS page, but only amending Atletico's total, and not the other side winners of that era like Napoli and Sampdoria etc.. And also, they have not included new rows for clubs like Tabol, who were also side winners from those years.
Why were people like SLBedit (a Benfica fan) only amending Atletico's total and not giving everyone their new totals? Obviously i understand the main guy's reason for editing, because he is a Atletico fan, but i don't get SLBedit's strange participation in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.120.119 (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Because "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone"
- Please sign your posts. SLBedit (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how to sign posts, and just use logic in your edits ok? How about you add all the side winners of the IC between 2006-2008 or none? Simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.104.189 (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Merger proposal (Republic of Ireland) - Fordsons F.C. and Cork F.C.
Grateful for any input to discussion here Mooretwin (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
List of top association football goal scorers by country
List of top association football goal scorers by country is poorly referenced since 2008. SLBedit (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- At AfD now. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
David Silva assists
Could somebody please take a look at David Silva. User adding Assists.. Discussed here many times before.JMHamo (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I put the "1953" flag where relevant throughout the football articles (unless I've missed something), because, in my opinion, there is sufficient evidence for it being the "correct" one. But I did not put the "1807" flag anywhere, leaving the current flag instead, because I think evidence is in favour of the current one (the "1807" flag isn't even mentioned in Flag of Wales). Further comments are welcome, and if consensus is reached for another change, I shall make it. --Theurgist (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys. I've been covering the Kenyan Premier League crisis on the 2015 in Kenyan football article and the information's started to become quite a lot (I'm still editing the article as I type this message). In a nutshell the section is about a power struggle that the Football Kenya Federation and the Kenyan Premier League have engaged themselves in for control of the top tier of the Kenyan football league system. I was thinking about creating a separate article to cover this (the crisis doesn't look like it's going to end anytime soon) but I came here to ask first because I've never heard of or seen any other article of this kind on Wikipedia before.
Is the crisis notable enough to have its own article or should coverage just continue on 2015 in Kenyan football? It's attracted intervention from FIFA and the Kenyan Ministry of Sports, Culture and the Arts as well, although I haven't seen any coverage from any international media houses or comments/recommendations from other football associations and leagues. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think a new article is not needed (as of now). Kante4 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Average attendances of La Liga clubs
Is Average attendances of La Liga clubs needed? It's a WP:NOTSTATS violation?
- Overkill and not needed as it's covered in the La Liga season article of each year. Take it to AfD i would say. Kante4 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- At AfD now. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Derek Foran made start yesterday (and got a yellow card) for Sacramento Republic FC of the United Soccer League listed as fully professional in WP:FPL. See [1]. It was nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Foran back in 2008 by User:Number 57 on the basis that "he has never played in a fully-pro league" which he now has. Normally I'd contact the closing Admin however they haven't been active in over 6 years. I did list it at WP:REFUND#Derek Foran yesterday, but I should have probably have just listed it here instead. Can an Admin please undelete this before someone recreates it unnecessarily? Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: Done. Number 57 16:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposal
I propose addition of "Collapsible Collapsed" in the WikiTables giving information of International Goals of Players with more than 30 International goals. Seriously who on the Earth would want to know if David Villa scored against Liechtenstein on 6 September 2011, or if Fernando Torres scored against Macedonia on 12 August 2009. Sybest 7 7 Talk to Me / Contributions 18:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Please list your opinions below. Sybest 7 7 Talk to Me / Contributions 23:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I do. The purpose of the list is to show international goals and you want to hide them just because you think other national teams are weak? SLBedit (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be hiding content that is not covered in prose. Hack (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - No, not at all, I wouldn't even dare too call any National Team 'weak', specially after seeing my NT's performances. What I meant to say is that I want to add "collapsible collapse" option in the wikitables of player with more than 30 goals on International stage. For Example Landon Donovan International Goal Tally looks like this -
All I want to do is to add "Collapsible Collapsed" option so that wikipedians who want to see other things aren't disturbed by this. If the changes come in effect the table would look like this -
Sybest 7 7 Talk to Me / Contributions 11:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - Personally, I don't think we should include these tables in articles at all. A list of every single goal a player has scored for his/her country is overbearing, especially if they've scored a lot of goals as the above example has. Lists of caps are even worse, but goals are pretty bad too. – PeeJay 11:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, I don't know why these lists exist in the first place....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- 57 goals is nothing - try a list of someone with 109.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'd also lean towards excluding them. In general, they're just stats for their own sake, and their length can overwhelm even a reasonably well developed article. At least in Egghead06's Ali Daei example, there's only one row for each match, not one for each goal... As far as I'm aware, MOS:COLLAPSE still applies, so collapsing them isn't something we could recommend. An explicit external link to the table source would be enough, and would also be appropriate per WP:ELYES, Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics,...). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would not be in favour of deleting them... I find them interesting/informative and there seems to be a pretty strong consensus reached through editing to include them. Macosal (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Macosal, international goals are notable, and most individuals have no more than 10. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would not be in favour of deleting them... I find them interesting/informative and there seems to be a pretty strong consensus reached through editing to include them. Macosal (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'd also lean towards excluding them. In general, they're just stats for their own sake, and their length can overwhelm even a reasonably well developed article. At least in Egghead06's Ali Daei example, there's only one row for each match, not one for each goal... As far as I'm aware, MOS:COLLAPSE still applies, so collapsing them isn't something we could recommend. An explicit external link to the table source would be enough, and would also be appropriate per WP:ELYES, Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics,...). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- 57 goals is nothing - try a list of someone with 109.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
FIFA Nationality and the Channel Islands and Isle of Man
What should be the correct way of putting FIFA nationality for players form the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man?
It is my understanding that players should have the flags of their FIFA nationality which for the Channel Island and Isle of Man there is no FIFA nationality as there are no FIFA recognised teams but people born there can play for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland although the islands themselves are under the jurisdiction of The FA (England). I therefore feel that players born in the CI and IOM should have England flags next to their names in club articles unless they have chosen to represent another team. What does everyone else feel? C. 22468 Talk to me 18:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Since the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands have their own "national teams" (see Jersey official football team, etc.), I'd say we should use the flags of the islands from which they come. As you say, they're technically qualified to play for any of the home nations, so adding the English flag would be inappropriate, even though club football on those islands is technically under the auspices of The Football Association. TL;DR: I think a player from Jersey should have the flag of Jersey next to his name. – PeeJay 18:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Only problem is its based on FIFA Nationality and all articles have Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality. above a player list which there is no FIFA Nationality for the Channel Islands or Isle of Man although there is for territories such as Hong Kong and the Cayman Islands there is a national team hence a FIFA Nationality. C. 22468 Talk to me 19:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Then that's a problem with the terminology we use. Not all players for whom we have articles come from countries recognised by FIFA, and you've just highlighted a prime example. If the wording we use isn't fit for purpose, it needs to be changed. – PeeJay 19:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- I came across a case, a Dery City player last played "international" football for the IOM, after playing u19 for ROI. His flag at the moment is IOM, yet our phrasing follows it should be ROI. Murry1975 (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, no flag then. -Koppapa (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- I came across a case, a Dery City player last played "international" football for the IOM, after playing u19 for ROI. His flag at the moment is IOM, yet our phrasing follows it should be ROI. Murry1975 (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Then that's a problem with the terminology we use. Not all players for whom we have articles come from countries recognised by FIFA, and you've just highlighted a prime example. If the wording we use isn't fit for purpose, it needs to be changed. – PeeJay 19:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Only problem is its based on FIFA Nationality and all articles have Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality. above a player list which there is no FIFA Nationality for the Channel Islands or Isle of Man although there is for territories such as Hong Kong and the Cayman Islands there is a national team hence a FIFA Nationality. C. 22468 Talk to me 19:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with Coolguy22468. I think it should be England. The Channel Islands and Isle of Man aren't recognised by FIFA and the FA is responsible for those Islands. TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- The FA being "responsible" for those territories has little to no bearing on the "nationality" of the players in question, though. Precedent has been set for Channel Islanders to play for England (e.g. Matthew Le Tissier and Graeme Le Saux), but what's to stop other Channel Islanders playing for Wales? Or someone from the Isle of Man playing for Scotland or Northern Ireland? Adding the English flag to players from the Crown dependencies assumes an answer to a question that we have no evidence for. Players from Monaco don't automatically get the French flag just because their national team isn't recognised by FIFA. Same goes for any player from a country listed in this article. There must be notable players from Micronesia or Kiribati playing somewhere in the world, and I very much doubt we would give them a flag that wasn't their own just because their nations' football associations aren't affiliated with FIFA. Obviously the difference here is that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands aren't sovereign states, but equally they aren't part of the United Kingdom either. My solution I suggested above would solve all the issues we currently have. – PeeJay 17:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing to stop someone from the Channel Islands of IOM playing for Wales but England is the most obvious FIFA Nationality when there is no clear FIFA Nationality, this is not unique to the CI and IOM for example if someone was born in Northern Ireland to Scottish parents what would their FIFA Nationality be? I therefore think the best answer is the following "For players born in the Crown dependences their FIFA Nationality is England unless their reason to suggest otherwise" with the reasons to suggest otherwise being things such as playing for a youth team that isn't England, being selected for a national team that isn't England or the player themselves has expressed an interest in playing for a national team that isn't England. C. 22468 Talk to me 20:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Players don't technically have a FIFA nationality until they play for a senior international team. Matthew Le Tissier from the CI but is considered an England player as he played for England. Players can be eligible to play for a number of different countries but only officially gain a FIFA nationality when they actually play for a country at full international level. Chris Martin was born in England and even played for the England youth teams but (as there was no reasonable prospect of him getting an England call-up at the time) he now plays for Scotland. Up until he got the Scotland call-up he was considered an English player by the media. There are LOTS of other similar examples. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's true. Players can certainly change nationality (even after playing internationally, in the manner of Diego Costa or Tim Cahill), but article 8 of Regulations Governing The Application of the FIFA Statues (p66 Eligibility to play for representative teams) implies that players have a default nationality of the nation of birth. Either way, flags in sporting articles should not be used to indicate 'nationality' as such; they indicate the nation that the player (currently) represents or is eligible to represent in that sport. The text which is generated using the squad template: "Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality." For players who haven't competed internationally, we should presume that they use the nation of birth, unless there is a verifiably-sourced reason for doing otherwise. For Crown Dependencies, this is England. My understanding is that there is actually a formal agreement preventing players from Crown Dependencies randomly picking a home nation to represent, under an agreement established similarly to that which prevents uncapped players playing in the Premier League from naturalizing and then representing another home nation.
- Either way - this is FIFA nationality only. Isle of Man/Channel Island representative teams are non-FIFA football and should be excluded, with the England flag the default for Crown Dependency players unless there is a reason to put something else! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with that with the Crown Dependencies one of the players born there can't remember which one has represented Northern Ireland at youth level which I would say would make a case to use the Northern Ireland flag for his description. However as I say for other players I would say use the England flag by default unless there is a case otherwise. C. 22468 Talk to me 19:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
KTP
Both articles are poorly referenced but as far as I can see FC KooTeePee and Kotkan Työväen Palloilijat are the same club? GiantSnowman 19:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- From what i see, it is explained in the article. Were different teams, then merged. -Koppapa (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Iceland's Throttur FC
Dear football experts: Can someone please tell me if Iceland's Throttur FC is a professional football team, whose members should have a Wikipedia article? I ask because Matt Elaison was just deleted. (http://www.tablesleague.com/teams/throttur_r/matt_eliason/) —Anne Delong (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Playing in the Icelandic leagues does not confer notability via WP:NFOOTBALL because they are not fully-professional leagues. GiantSnowman 14:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, GiantSnowman.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Just wanted to inform about an AfD for the article created after last night event in European qualifying. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montenegro v Russia (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying). QED237 (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Notability of Montenegro v Russia
A recently created article, Montenegro v Russia (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying), a match played yesterday, was marked as patrolled and fixed by me. Anyway, I've tagged it with {{Notability}} because, differently from Serbia v Albania article, I'm not so sure about its relevance. I prefer not to open a procedure for deletion, because I think it can also decide here whether the page is relevant or not. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 07:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think either of them are notable, but sadly some editors are keen to start articles as soon as something like this happens. Matches are abandoned all the time because of incidents with supporters. Number 57 08:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't look to be notable to me, I suggest you take it to WP:AFD. GiantSnowman 08:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have nominated it for deletion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't look to be notable to me, I suggest you take it to WP:AFD. GiantSnowman 08:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate page Inter Milan
Hi,
An editor has consistently piped Inter Milan to Internazionale and now created Football Club Internazionale Milano (F.C. Internazionale Milano), which is a direct copy of Inter Milan with motivation The original article has become corrupted and no explanation was given as to why the name was changed via consensus voting! and he is clearly not happy with article naming. Advice would be appreciated. Thanky you. QED237 (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: You often have good knowledge of this things as an admin. QED237 (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've deleted the copy & paste move - I suggest @PellèLong: explains themselves before they get blocked for disruptive editing. GiantSnowman 14:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not the only move they need to explain - Billy Mckay as well, which they moved without paying attention (which thus meant that their reasoning was completely invalid). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- and is now beginning to edit war over the move too... JMHamo (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
After the previous FAC was closed prematurely, I've opened a new FAC for the 2008 UEFA Champions League Final article. I'd appreciate as many comments as possible, as I'm hoping this article could set a new standard for what constitutes a Featured football match article here. – PeeJay 17:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Page move request
Could any admins about please move Sok Chanraksmey (footballer) to Sok Chanraksmey? The disambiguation is not necessary but the proper title for the page has been salted due to sockpuppetry. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Done. BigDom (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- @BigDom: Thanks. Could you do the same to Soeuy Visal (footballer)? Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- No worries, there you go. BigDom (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- @BigDom: Thanks. Could you do the same to Soeuy Visal (footballer)? Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Officials article
Hi,
A user that User:Kante4 and myself has had some discussions with in the past has created the article 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup Match officials which neither of us thinks should have been created. It is the same as the section 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup#Match officials (a list of referees) and there is no need for an extra article. What to do? CSD? PROD? AfD?. Any help is appreciated. QED237 (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- For a start, you could just redirect it to the existing section and see if anyone reverts. Maybe then go to AfD with the suggestion to merge. Number 57 12:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Redirected it. Kante4 (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation by position
Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Disambiguation by position. DrKiernan (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Is the action of kicking in relation to our beautiful game actually deserving of its own article? The article itself seems more akin to a medical text than an encyclopaedic work! – PeeJay 20:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Merge and summarise into Glossary of association football terms? GiantSnowman 20:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Get rid of the OTT stuff in the "Free Kick" section, but otherwise leave. No need to fix a problem that doesn't exist. And I would ask for a wider audience before simply "merging and summarising" given the quality of the existing article (Free Kick section notwithstanding). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Does not really need it's own article. Kante4 (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Doesn't need an article all of its own. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think the article title is definitely inappropriate; it's all about biomechanics rather than the kick itself, so maybe there could be a place for the content in an article something like Biomechanics of kicking, similar to the existing article Biomechanics of sprint running? BigDom (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Does not really need it's own article. Kante4 (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Question about Saint Louis FC
I need advice. A week or two ago I deleted articles at AFD about Bryan Ciesiulka and Jacob Bushue, because the consensus was they did not meet the standards of WP:NFOOTBALL. I have now been told, here, that both are now playing for the Saint Louis FC and that this makes them notable. I don't know enough about football/soccer to know if playing for the Saint Louis FC qualifies a person for an article. Advice please? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Took the field for a professional team in a professional league against another professional team. I see no problem with restoring if NFOOTBALL was the only reason for deletion.Cptnono (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: - your AFD delete(s) were correct at the time because to meet WP:NFOOTBALL you have to actually play - you cannot just be a squad/roster member. If they have subsequently made their professional debuts in a fully-professional league then they would now meets NFOOTBALL and be notable. GiantSnowman 08:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. My main question was whether the Saint Louis FC was such a team; apparently it is. There was actually a comment at the AfD where someone predicted that we would have to restore the articles within the month - because the season was about to open and it was likely these guys would play. Consensus rejected that prediction as WP:CRYSTAL, but it turned out to be correct. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- That may be so for these cases, but there are footballers who are on rosters who do not get a game in an entire season. Some never play. Some because they're not deemed good enough, others because they suffer a career-ending injury, like a broken leg. At the time of the AfD, deleting due to CRYSTAL was the right decision. --Dweller (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. My main question was whether the Saint Louis FC was such a team; apparently it is. There was actually a comment at the AfD where someone predicted that we would have to restore the articles within the month - because the season was about to open and it was likely these guys would play. Consensus rejected that prediction as WP:CRYSTAL, but it turned out to be correct. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: - your AFD delete(s) were correct at the time because to meet WP:NFOOTBALL you have to actually play - you cannot just be a squad/roster member. If they have subsequently made their professional debuts in a fully-professional league then they would now meets NFOOTBALL and be notable. GiantSnowman 08:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Football box collapsible fix
Gentlemen. I have noticed that one of the recent edits to Template:Football box collapsible resulted in displaying a bold matchdate for a single match, or a second match of two-legged pair, but not for a first match of the series. I guess it has something to do with using ''' characters to unbold eliminated team. Can anyone who has wikicoding skills fix this? (I think this affects lots of current pages) -BlameRuiner (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Longtime unreferenced football articles
Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2006 are the oldest unreferenced articles in Wikipedia. A large pool of them are football teams and stadiums. Do people here have sources that could be used to add refs to them? Would someone want to make sure that all of the articles on minor teams and stadiums belong in the encyclopedia? - SimonP (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Since a while ago, {{fb|BIH}} has been defaulting to 
Bosnia-Herzegovina rather than Bosnia and Herzegovina. Why? "Bosnia and Herzegovina" is the proper and common name for the country. That's how the association is labelled at FIFA.com and UEFA.com. There do exist a few other values of {{fb}} which default to versions containing the conjunction "and" (like {{fb|TRI}}, 
Trinidad and Tobago). --Theurgist (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- TBH, I'd say simply "Bosnia" was the common name for the country. Number 57 11:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well,
Bosnia would be too inaccurate and ambiguous. It would be like 
America or The States. I found out that the change was made last summer after someone requested it at Template talk:Country data Bosnia and Herzegovina with the rationale that "this is the official name used by FIFA and UEFA for Bosnia and Herzegovina". But, as we see, that's not quite true. If no one objects, I will request reversion of the edit. --Theurgist (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be ambiguous at all. What else could possibly be meant by "Bosnia"? Number 57 18:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think just saying "Bosnia" would be a bad idea as Bosnia only makes up 80% of the country, Herzegovina the other 20% or so. As for the original question, yes, it should be Bosnia and Herzegovina rather than Bosnia-Herzegovina. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Theurgist and DUCKISJAMMMY. Although it's interesting to note that the BBC has started referring to the country as "Bosnia-Hercegovina" in the football section of its website. – PeeJay 20:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently the change to Template:Country data Bosnia and Herzegovina went through about a year ago after some mistaken individual asserted that FIFA and UEFA had started referring to the country as "Bosnia-Herzegovina". Clearly, per here and here, this is not the case. – PeeJay 20:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- As the country's locals say, referring to Bosnia and Herzegovina as just "Bosnia" is like referring to Romeo and Juliet as just "Romeo". Anyway, thanks, PeeJay2K3, for getting the change reverted. --Theurgist (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think just saying "Bosnia" would be a bad idea as Bosnia only makes up 80% of the country, Herzegovina the other 20% or so. As for the original question, yes, it should be
- I don't think it would be ambiguous at all. What else could possibly be meant by "Bosnia"? Number 57 18:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well,
Javad Nekounam - International appearances
Could someone please assist in this matter? According to NFT.com, this player has 147 caps (plus one unofficial appearance), and if you visit his RSSSF entry, it'll say he has 149, but three of those caps are only viewed as official by the Iranian FA, thus I imagine not by FIFA. Today, after featuring against Chile on 26 March (still not available at RSSSF), he is celebrating his 148th against Sweden according to FIFA.
In spite of this, his total is changed again, again and again, without one word in summary or the article's page. I have looked for advice on how to handle this elsewhere, but still have received no feedback.
Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Add a footnote in the infobox explaining things. -Koppapa (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Naming of defunct clubs that have changed name
Is there any guidelines about what to name an article about a defunct club that had more than one name? Should the article be under, for example, the last name by which the club was known? Or the name by which it was known for longest? The particular club I have in mind is the Irish team that began life as Albert Rovers, then became Cork Alberts and finished as Cork United. (For most of its existence it was called Albert Rovers.) Mooretwin (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Good question. I think I would generally say the last name it was known by, but I guess there may be occasions in which a previously well-known club fell into obscurity and changed its name at that point. I guess as long as all the redirects are in place it doesn't matter too much. Number 57 15:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. That would be my instinct, too, but in this case the last name (Cork United) was only used for three years of a total existence of at least thirty (probably more) years. Mooretwin (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Usually it is the last name it was known by (I have noticed this especially with US franchises of 60s/70s/80s) but if you can make a solid case for the 'famous' name then that should be done - I am thinking here of 'Racing Club de Bruxelles' whose article is at K.F.C. Rhodienne-De Hoek. GiantSnowman 21:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. That would be my instinct, too, but in this case the last name (Cork United) was only used for three years of a total existence of at least thirty (probably more) years. Mooretwin (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
How to discover if a football player who fails WP:FOOTY can pass WP:GNG?
Hi there,
To me, the WP:GNG explanation is not that "understandable". How can I be sure that somebody who fails WP:FOOTY can be created through WP:GNG?
For an example: Aarón Fernández Sorroche. The guy never played in a fully professional league but another user removed my PROD by saying he's notable through GNG, and added a reference (which cites he's not professional) from El Norte de Castilla.
Example #2: Miguel Cardoso. He appears in almost all major Portuguese websites (Record, Mais Futebol, Sapo and O Jogo) and also in Marca and Mundo Deportivo, but never played any fully pro matches. He's notable or not?
Cheers, MYS77 ✉ 19:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- The user who removed the prod on the Aarón Fernández Sorroche has a long history of removing prods from non-notable footballers and forcing pointless AfDs, the vast majority of which end up in the articles being deleted (I don't know if non-admins can see this, but there must be at least 100 there, possibly 200).
- GNG is rather difficult with football, as due to the blanket media coverage of the sport, it's possible to argue that even footballers at level 8 or 9 of the English pyramid are notable – I could quite easily write articles on several A.F.C. Sudbury players and heavily reference them to newspaper reports, but are the players actually notable? No. Number 57 19:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Regarding Aarón, the user who claims the player meets GNG is well known for having an incredibly low benchmark for notability, so don't listen to them and take to WP:AFD if you feel they are non-notable. One source is generally not sufficient to meet GNG, which requires "significant" coverage i.e. a number of in-depth articles. Articles should not be routine news, transfer info etc. If you feel that Cardoso has received such coverage then the player would probably meet GNG and would be notable. Hope this helps! GiantSnowman 19:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the replies, now I can understand what GNG means in a correct way. Cardoso only appeared in these newspapers yesterday, so he's not that notable (yet). MYS77 ✉ 20:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please just make sure to not assume GNG is not met going forward. Bradden Inman is an example of a guy who had in depth pieces from around the world written about him by various reputable sources but the article was originally deleted based on a lack of anyone taking the 10 seconds to check.
- I was considering removing the recent PROD from Jesse Gonzalez because I found various decent sources. It likely falls short enough that I probably won't though.Cptnono (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not required but if the notability of a player is not obvious — for example failing WP:NFOOTY but meeting WP:GNG — adding a few examples of in-depth coverage in reliable sources can be helpful. 02:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Millwall F.C. Hall of Fame
What are people's opinions about {{Millwall F.C. Hall of Fame}} and Category:Millwall F.C. Hall of Fame inductees? GiantSnowman 17:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Have no problem with them per se. For a player to be in a club Hall of Fame probably is defining for a footballer and a highlight of their career. Main issue is in referencing. This template and category have been added to many players' pages without a single reference to verify their inclusion in the Hall of Fame? --Egghead06 (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Kosovo-Albania match - 2010
Hi everyone. I'm thinking for something and I need your help. You know the Kosovo national football team's case of being not full recognized by FIFA and UEFA, but it's permitted to play international friendlies with the FIFA members since 2014.
The question is, should we count the Kosovo's matches which were played before being permitted by UEFA and FIFA (before 2014) as a cap for their players who participated in all matches also the opponent players even? For example one of the "big" website for national football teams, the national-football-teams.com count the match Kosovo-Albania in 2002 and award caps to both sides players. Such as this match, another one was played between the same countys in 2010 but it's not published at the National-football-teams.com, but can I use this source to add caps to respective players who played in this match. I also have the list of called up players for both national teams (see here). Thank you Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- They're not playing Tier 1 international matches, so they shouldn't be counted even now. According to FIFA, a Tier 1 international match is a game between two member associations; Kosovo isn't a member association of FIFA.[2] Hack (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Hack:, can you summarise whether games against non-FIFA but continental member teams (Gibraltar, French Guiana etc) count as full internationals? If not, we may have to change the figures on Irish/Polish/Scottish players who have faced Gibraltar. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- It can't be a full international if one of the teams isn't representing a FIFA member association. Hack (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- It have been plyed internationals for decades before FIFA existed. Should English and Scottish caps be removed for players playing internationals before 1904? And qualififying matches for an international UEFA-arranged competition like UEFA Euro 2016 shouldn't count as fully internationals? Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Historically, full international status was determined by the participating nations. There are now regulations that define precisely which games are considered full internationals. Hack (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- It have been plyed internationals for decades before FIFA existed. Should English and Scottish caps be removed for players playing internationals before 1904? And qualififying matches for an international UEFA-arranged competition like UEFA Euro 2016 shouldn't count as fully internationals? Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- It can't be a full international if one of the teams isn't representing a FIFA member association. Hack (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Hack:, can you summarise whether games against non-FIFA but continental member teams (Gibraltar, French Guiana etc) count as full internationals? If not, we may have to change the figures on Irish/Polish/Scottish players who have faced Gibraltar. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think caps are so simple as an match between two national football teams (for example are excluded matches against football clubs) and it's not necessary to be "full international", thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's your opinion. Where are the facts? – PeeJay 20:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think caps are so simple as an match between two national football teams (for example are excluded matches against football clubs) and it's not necessary to be "full international", thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Reserve vs U23 stats
On Chakib Hocine's article, User:Mikemor92 keeps removing information I put in the infobox because "reserve league stats are a no-no" and then goes and replaces them with U23 stats. Is there any consensus on which should stats should be included? I personally don't see U23 as relevant, especially considering that it's in the PDL, a non-notable league. I don't want to revert his changes again and violate 3RR, so it would be appreciated if someone can jump in and provide some info. TonyStarks (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Playing in a reserve league should not be included in the infobox, unless the reserve team plays in the same league system as the senior team i.e. Bayern Munich II, Real Madrid Castilla etc. GiantSnowman 07:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- In North America, it's impossible to play in the same league system since there is no promotion/relegation and each league is a separate entity. Using that same logic though, we shouldn't be including U23 stats either then? TonyStarks (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- True, but the U23 teams still play in a 'senior' league, don't they? i.e. with other non-U23 teams? GiantSnowman 16:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well sort of. The PDL is basically where college soccer players apply their trade during the offseason (not all of them, but quite a few). But professional players have also played there (during their pro career). Like Jürgen Klinsmann for example. So the PDL is semi-pro, but it's definitely not youth. I can understand why Tony's confused because of the fact that Montreal's PDL team had U23 to their name, but I also mentioned on my summary that if they played in the PDL or even the USL under the name "Impact Reserves", then "Impact Reserves" would be included in the infobox. – Michael (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Tony if you are querying PDL stats being in the infobox then yes, they should be included as that is a senior league (even if reserve teams play in it). GiantSnowman 16:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- But no one has explained to me yet why I should not include Reserve League stats? The MLS Reserve League was part of the USL last season (see here and is higher on the North American football pyramind than the PDL (3rd vs 4th division) and it also a senior league. Either we include both or we don't include any but I don't understand not including "reserve team" stats just because the team name is listed as "reserves" when they're essentially playing in the same league or higher. TonyStarks (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Because that is the consensus of the community - we don't include Cup games, and we don't include Reserve games. GiantSnowman 10:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sometimes I wonder if you even read messages properly before you respond. The U23 team plays in the 4th level in the pyramind, the reserve team plays in the 3rd level. Please explain to me how the U23 appearances are more relevant? Saying it's consensus doesn't make it right or really give a valid reason as to why it's done. TonyStarks (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- If the reserve team and the under-23 team play in a senior league system (as opposed to their own standalone reserve/under-23 leagues), then of course we should include appearances made for those teams in the player's infobox/career stats table. – PeeJay 20:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sometimes I wonder if you even read messages properly before you respond. The U23 team plays in the 4th level in the pyramind, the reserve team plays in the 3rd level. Please explain to me how the U23 appearances are more relevant? Saying it's consensus doesn't make it right or really give a valid reason as to why it's done. TonyStarks (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Because that is the consensus of the community - we don't include Cup games, and we don't include Reserve games. GiantSnowman 10:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- But no one has explained to me yet why I should not include Reserve League stats? The MLS Reserve League was part of the USL last season (see here and is higher on the North American football pyramind than the PDL (3rd vs 4th division) and it also a senior league. Either we include both or we don't include any but I don't understand not including "reserve team" stats just because the team name is listed as "reserves" when they're essentially playing in the same league or higher. TonyStarks (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Tony if you are querying PDL stats being in the infobox then yes, they should be included as that is a senior league (even if reserve teams play in it). GiantSnowman 16:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well sort of. The PDL is basically where college soccer players apply their trade during the offseason (not all of them, but quite a few). But professional players have also played there (during their pro career). Like Jürgen Klinsmann for example. So the PDL is semi-pro, but it's definitely not youth. I can understand why Tony's confused because of the fact that Montreal's PDL team had U23 to their name, but I also mentioned on my summary that if they played in the PDL or even the USL under the name "Impact Reserves", then "Impact Reserves" would be included in the infobox. – Michael (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- True, but the U23 teams still play in a 'senior' league, don't they? i.e. with other non-U23 teams? GiantSnowman 16:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- In North America, it's impossible to play in the same league system since there is no promotion/relegation and each league is a separate entity. Using that same logic though, we shouldn't be including U23 stats either then? TonyStarks (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Fully Professional Leagues
WP:FPL is in serious need of updating and contributors. Any input very much welcome Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues Abcmaxx (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest at 2015 I-League 2nd Division.
Apparently there is a conflict of interest at this page over what I guess is the fixtures and results because when I redid the page the only major removal I made was the fixtures and results but only because there are 14 rounds and this league, unlike past editions, is being organized as an actual league, just with a neutral venue. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think this page should be maintained just like other leagues have been keep (well-sourced) statistics, points table and results table. Fixtures definitely doesn't fit with WP:FOOTBALL. Coderzombie (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- No fixtures. A results table is enough. Kante4 (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
"Missing" articles
Hello all. I have just run a catscan, which shows that over 18,000 Wikipedia articles connected to football are lacking the {{WikiProject Football}} banner. This is important to the project as tagged pages automatically show when they are listed for deletion or Good Article status, for example. I have just added around 100 banners, but there are plenty left, so if you have the time and inclination, get cracking! Thanks, C679 18:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Alternative to soccerway
Is there a good alternative to soccerway for player statistics (club)? Soccerway is a good resource, but it does not show more than 8-10 last seasons on player info page... --XXN, 20:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- The answer mainly depends on the league in which the player has played. Could you provide additional information? Thanks, C679 20:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- For example Ghenadie Orbu, a Moldovan international footballer which has a senior career from 2001 to present. On his soccerway profile i can see statistics only from 2008. --XXN, 20:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- This reminds me - does anyone know if Playerhistory ever comes back online? BlameRuiner (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Soccerway seems to be inaccurate, in particular when it comes to internationals. It is though often the best available source online for player statistics. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest footballdatabase.eu and for German statistics usually the best source is kicker.de. DrunkenGerman (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- You can check national-football-teams.com . The fact Soccerway is "inaccurate" is that in international matches, it covers only tournament ones, and not of friendlies of lower ranked nations. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest footballdatabase.eu and for German statistics usually the best source is kicker.de. DrunkenGerman (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Soccerway seems to be inaccurate, in particular when it comes to internationals. It is though often the best available source online for player statistics. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- This reminds me - does anyone know if Playerhistory ever comes back online? BlameRuiner (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- For example Ghenadie Orbu, a Moldovan international footballer which has a senior career from 2001 to present. On his soccerway profile i can see statistics only from 2008. --XXN, 20:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Soccerway is considered reliable for league/Cup games - but not international games. Playerhistory is still down and is likely to be so for a long time. GiantSnowman 15:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Title of reference
Hi, if I use this as a reference, then in the title as here, {{cite web |title=xx|url=xx|date=4 April 2015|publisher=xx|accessdate=6 April 2015}} should I write Soccerway profile or the name of the player in the format "Common name:Full name", which is in this case "Miguel Angelo:Miguel Angelo Ferreira de Castro"? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Why not just use {{Soccerway}}? Alternatively the simple 'Profile' is more than sufficient. GiantSnowman 17:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- In citations, as opposed to external links, the title is supposed to be the actual title of the page rather than a description of it. The documentation defines
|title=as "title of source page on website". So in your example, you'd put what appears at the top of the page, which is "Miguel Angelo". - {{Soccerway}} just sticks an access date on the end of a string formatted as an external link, which gives you inconsistent formatting within the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- In citations, as opposed to external links, the title is supposed to be the actual title of the page rather than a description of it. The documentation defines
Premier League records and statistics
- Premier League records and statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article had an unsourced claim about "Longest range free kick: Maynor Figueroa" being 88 yards for many months, from a quick look at the history. I don't see any mention at Maynor Figueroa. An IP has recently tried to change that to 60 yards, but has broken the template. There is a claim on the talk page about the value. Would someone please sort it out, or just remove the entry as unsourced if there is no verification. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Deleted it. This was a longer free-kick. Also volley is quite vague. -Koppapa (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- The article was full of unsourced claims - now no longer. GiantSnowman 17:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
'FIFA code'
I think the trigramme parameter of the national team infobox should be renamed. It practically prevents the trigramme from being included on the articles for Gibraltar national football team and Great Britain, for example, even though both countries have officially-assigned codes by other multinational sporting bodies recognised by FIFA and the latter's results also appear on FIFA's database. VEOonefive 13:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- What preventy to add those? FIFA has a code for them. I doubt it's written somewhere you need to be a FIFA member to have a FIFA code. -Koppapa (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- List of FIFA country codes. GiantSnowman 15:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Why not add a field "notfifa=true" so that when "FIFA Trigramme" contains a non-FIFA code, the display value is something like "Country code GIB"? Hack (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not necessary. They have a fifa code on the fifa-website. -Koppapa (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for that? Hack (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- I just assumed by reading the first post, but apparently FIFA totally ignores Gibraltar. Funny. GIB is used here but that probably is taken right from UEFA. -Koppapa (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- As mentioned in the Kosovo thread above, Gibraltar aren't a FIFA member. Hack (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- ...but they are a UEFA member, and as far as I am aware UEFA uses FIFA trigrammes. GiantSnowman 12:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Then why don't we just change the parameter so that it says "Three-letter abbreviation" or something, and then say in the documentation that FIFA codes are preferred where available but other codes may be listed when necessary. – PeeJay 12:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- ...but they are a UEFA member, and as far as I am aware UEFA uses FIFA trigrammes. GiantSnowman 12:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- As mentioned in the Kosovo thread above, Gibraltar aren't a FIFA member. Hack (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- I just assumed by reading the first post, but apparently FIFA totally ignores Gibraltar. Funny. GIB is used here but that probably is taken right from UEFA. -Koppapa (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for that? Hack (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not necessary. They have a fifa code on the fifa-website. -Koppapa (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Why not add a field "notfifa=true" so that when "FIFA Trigramme" contains a non-FIFA code, the display value is something like "Country code GIB"? Hack (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- List of FIFA country codes. GiantSnowman 15:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Recent created fb templates
Hi, I want input from football community.
I recently reverted the addition of "Form" section (The section can be seen in this diff). To me it is not notable and content that will only be true for a very short period than change so it should not be included.
Then I spotted several templates being created and modified so I want to bring it here.
1. Template for using form. They were created as fb team templates, which I thought should be removed from use to use wikilinks instead of team templates?. The templates created are:
- {{Fb cf t}}
- {{Football club form}}
- {{Fb cf}} (redirect to Football club form)
2. Templates for infoboxes has been modified ({{Infobox football club season}} that was later reverted by User:PeeJay2K3) and {{Test infobox}} was created (and is now empty).
3. Also it seems like a major change was made to {{Fb rs}} was made without testing and consensus (like trial and error with many edits).
What do you think? Some TfD or should they exist? QED237 (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Looks horrible and is not needed. -Koppapa (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like a candidate for TFD to me. GiantSnowman 12:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know if the editor who created those templates was aware, but there was a discussion about adding form info to the club season infobox at Template talk:Infobox football club season and it was roundly rejected. Introducing these templates puts us even closer to contravening WP:RECENT than our season articles already do. TfD, I think. – PeeJay 14:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Their implementation looks horrible, it is arbitrary how many matches you use and it is not notable. So I don't see a reason to include it in any article. CRwikiCA talk 14:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know if the editor who created those templates was aware, but there was a discussion about adding form info to the club season infobox at Template talk:Infobox football club season and it was roundly rejected. Introducing these templates puts us even closer to contravening WP:RECENT than our season articles already do. TfD, I think. – PeeJay 14:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like a candidate for TFD to me. GiantSnowman 12:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Koppapa, GiantSnowman, PeeJay2K3, and CRwikiCA: The empty template has been put up for speedy deletion as it was blank by the only editor. The others are at TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 10#Team form templates. Feel free to bring your comments at the TfD. QED237 (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Intros
After a friendly difference of opinions with User:DrunkenGerman, the following note from me, lest I have forgotten past forum discussions:
in the introductions to footballer articles, we are not to write "currently", am I correct? Also, we are to write "is a footballer who plays as a X" rather than "is a football defender" to prevent overlinking, right?
Last but not least, if a player plays outside his country we are not to write leagues, only the nation. Example: "Nacho Monreal is a Spanish footballer who plays for English club Arsenal as a left back". Is this it?
Attentively, happy weekend all --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct on all counts. GiantSnowman 19:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Naming of defunct clubs that have changed name
Is there any guidelines about what to name an article about a defunct club that had more than one name? Should the article be under, for example, the last name by which the club was known? Or the name by which it was known for longest? The particular club I have in mind is the Irish team that began life as Albert Rovers, then became Cork Alberts and finished as Cork United. (For most of its existence it was called Albert Rovers.) Mooretwin (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Good question. I think I would generally say the last name it was known by, but I guess there may be occasions in which a previously well-known club fell into obscurity and changed its name at that point. I guess as long as all the redirects are in place it doesn't matter too much. Number 57 15:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. That would be my instinct, too, but in this case the last name (Cork United) was only used for three years of a total existence of at least thirty (probably more) years. Mooretwin (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Usually it is the last name it was known by (I have noticed this especially with US franchises of 60s/70s/80s) but if you can make a solid case for the 'famous' name then that should be done - I am thinking here of 'Racing Club de Bruxelles' whose article is at K.F.C. Rhodienne-De Hoek. GiantSnowman 21:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there is a disambiguation problem in relation to using the last name (Cork United), because there was another earlier club known by the same name (Cork United F.C. (1940)). If we stick with the current disambiguation name (Cork United F.C. (1979)), it gives the false impression that the club was formed in 1979, whereas 1979 is merely the date of the name change. The obvious thing would be to use the foundation date of the club, but that is unknown. Any ideas? Go with Albert Rovers F.C. - the name the club was known by for the longest time? Or maybe Cork United F.C. (II)? Mooretwin (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever name we agree upon, the Cork United F.C. (1979), Albert Rovers F.C. and Cork Alberts F.C. articles need to be merged seeing as they are all about the same club... GiantSnowman 07:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, agreed. I've already put merger proposals on the Talk pages of each article. I intend to proceed to merge once a name is agreed and after a few more days have elapsed to allow for any discussion. Mooretwin (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Albert Rovers seems to me to be the current name (albeit as a junior club) and the longest-standing name and the name that leads to least confusion. Merge all the others into that one, I'd say. Johnlp (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to agree (though the current club using that name is merely a phoenix club). Mooretwin (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'd also agree, and suggest then moving Cork United F.C. (1940) to Cork United F.C. (over a redirect) with a hatnote between the two. GiantSnowman 12:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think I would object to that (though I don't know how (or if I would have permission) to move a page over a redirect). Mooretwin (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- An (uninvolved) admin would have to do that. GiantSnowman 17:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you're both agreeable, I'll wait a few more days and then, assuming no opposition emerges, merge the three articles under Albert Rovers F.C. and then seek to move Cork United F.C. (1940). Mooretwin (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- An (uninvolved) admin would have to do that. GiantSnowman 17:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think I would object to that (though I don't know how (or if I would have permission) to move a page over a redirect). Mooretwin (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'd also agree, and suggest then moving Cork United F.C. (1940) to Cork United F.C. (over a redirect) with a hatnote between the two. GiantSnowman 12:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to agree (though the current club using that name is merely a phoenix club). Mooretwin (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever name we agree upon, the Cork United F.C. (1979), Albert Rovers F.C. and Cork Alberts F.C. articles need to be merged seeing as they are all about the same club... GiantSnowman 07:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there is a disambiguation problem in relation to using the last name (Cork United), because there was another earlier club known by the same name (Cork United F.C. (1940)). If we stick with the current disambiguation name (Cork United F.C. (1979)), it gives the false impression that the club was formed in 1979, whereas 1979 is merely the date of the name change. The obvious thing would be to use the foundation date of the club, but that is unknown. Any ideas? Go with Albert Rovers F.C. - the name the club was known by for the longest time? Or maybe Cork United F.C. (II)? Mooretwin (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Usually it is the last name it was known by (I have noticed this especially with US franchises of 60s/70s/80s) but if you can make a solid case for the 'famous' name then that should be done - I am thinking here of 'Racing Club de Bruxelles' whose article is at K.F.C. Rhodienne-De Hoek. GiantSnowman 21:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Fine by me. Johnlp (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Merger completed. How do I go about requesting the page move from Cork United F.C. (1940) to Cork United F.C.?
- Thanks. That would be my instinct, too, but in this case the last name (Cork United) was only used for three years of a total existence of at least thirty (probably more) years. Mooretwin (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Squad lists
Has anyone seen the squad lists in place at Yeovil Town F.C. and Port Vale F.C.? I remember us discussing a change, but I don't remember anyone agreeing it should be implemented. Should I change these back to the standard squad list? – PeeJay 11:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would say yes. I don't recall there being any consensus to adopt that format (and IMO, it's much worse than the normal one). Number 57 11:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Should be equally fine. All MLS teams use these, don't they? Also you can sort by name and position which is a plus. -Koppapa (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with N57 to change back, there is currently no consensus for the change to be introduced - and as for 'MLS do it', well unfortunately a lot of American editors think they have their own rules - well they don't and they should also be changed back. GiantSnowman 12:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Should be equally fine. All MLS teams use these, don't they? Also you can sort by name and position which is a plus. -Koppapa (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Chilean League
Hi, I need help with Chilean Apertura Tournament. It is definately at the wrong name as it is 2006 part of a league? I am not sure about this league structure so need help what name it should have and if it even should exist? Also it is very poorly sourced.
It seems like Chilean Primera División is divided in two parts and Apertura is first part. Looking at other seasons 2007 Chilean Primera División season exists but not 2006.
An other issue I have is that the links in infobox points to year 2007 and not 2007 tournament.
All help appreciated. QED237 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- See Apertura and Clausura. GiantSnowman 17:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- But why have 2006 article on the name above without year? QED237 (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be - you just meed to move the page in line with standard naming conventions. GiantSnowman 18:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, the question is if it should be a standalone article for the Apertura part or if "2006 Chilean Primera División season should be created and the Apertura included there. QED237 (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- 2006 Torneo Apertura (Chile) already exists, and Chilean Apertura Tournament was a copy-paste recreation of it. I've redirected it to Chilean Primera División for now, and messaged the creator. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Struway2: Thanks! QED237 (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- 2006 Torneo Apertura (Chile) already exists, and Chilean Apertura Tournament was a copy-paste recreation of it. I've redirected it to Chilean Primera División for now, and messaged the creator. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, the question is if it should be a standalone article for the Apertura part or if "2006 Chilean Primera División season should be created and the Apertura included there. QED237 (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be - you just meed to move the page in line with standard naming conventions. GiantSnowman 18:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- But why have 2006 article on the name above without year? QED237 (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Amateur clubs in infobox
I recently had a difference of opinion with User:GiantSnowman, when he reverted an edit I made to the Darian MacKinnon article. What I had done was to remove details from the infobox of the various adult amateur level clubs MacKinnon has played for, on the basis that the instructions / guidelines at Template:Infobox football biography emphasise that the "clubs1" etc. parameters are for listing professional clubs the player has been with. Should we interpret this to mean all adult-level teams, or should it be restricted to professional levels? My personal definition of this would stretch to including semi-pro leagues, amateur clubs competing at pro level (e.g. Queen's Park), national levels with amateur status (e.g. Scottish League pre-1893) etc. but not what are basically "public park" level amateur clubs. Whilst relevant information should, of course, be included in the article body where available, I think its inclusion in the infobox is distracting and in many cases it will be difficult to source the relevant facts such as years, appearances and goals that would, ideally, appear along with team names. The MacKinnon example is a particularly obvious one, although I concede that few notable players will have such a long list of clubs at this level as he does. I think it would be useful, however, if we could get some sort of consensus on the issue. Off the top of my head, other articles to which this is relevant would include Paul Sturrock and Colin Cameron (footballer); at present neither of these include amateur clubs in their infoboxes. Jellyman (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with GiantSnowman. Any club that it can be proved a player played for should be listed in the infobox, IMO, provided that club has an adult section. Clubs that are exclusively for juniors should perhaps be avoided, though. – PeeJay 09:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with GiantSnowman and PeeJay. All adult clubs should be listed in the infobox. Number 57 09:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- And me. The fault definitely lies with the documentation. The wording in the infobox was changed from "professional" to "senior" (i.e. not youth teams) eight years ago but the documentation never was. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agree too. Adding less notable clubs helps to establish chronological order and fills the gaps. FkpCascais (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Pile-on agreement with the above, although there are some examples where secondary teams are notable enough/separate enough to warrant their own entries (e.g. second teams in some of the German and Spanish leagues, and even the C team at Real Madrid and some others). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agree too. Adding less notable clubs helps to establish chronological order and fills the gaps. FkpCascais (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- And me. The fault definitely lies with the documentation. The wording in the infobox was changed from "professional" to "senior" (i.e. not youth teams) eight years ago but the documentation never was. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with GiantSnowman and PeeJay. All adult clubs should be listed in the infobox. Number 57 09:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
DAB
Best title for this new top level women's league Super League, replacing the BeNe League as highest league. Belgian Women's First Division will stay the second level league. (Belgium), (women), ? -Koppapa (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Super League Vrouwenvoetbal, in my opinion. TheBigJagielka (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, created it there for a start. -Koppapa (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Roberto Firmino
Views on this article welcome, I have been reverted for removing commentary-like content ("He played in this game, he scored a goal in that game etc.") and further input would be appreciated. GiantSnowman 13:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hello everyone. I am currently reviewing this article for GA. It is quite clear that it will not pass, but since I assume good faith, I gave the editor time to improve. Meanwhile, Giant first noticed me that I made changes that were to drastic (see my talk page), but later pretty much reduced the article to nothing by taking out most of the text. Once more: While the article was under GA review. I feel that this is not OK so I re-instated the content twice now. I hope he will not start an edit war about this. I will close the review after the full seven days have passed and after that, anyone can feel free to change the article, but I will not accept tempering with it so drastically while I review a third-party's work. It would be much apprechiated if someone here would back me up on this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that it was right to remove the commentary-like text — in normal circumstances — but possibly not whilst the article is actually under review, even if unlikely to pass. Which leads me to wonder how editors are able to tell if an article is being reviewed. If there was a prominent tag it would avoid unfortunate good faith disagreements such as this. Eagleash (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, those were my thoughts exactly. I also think that the problem of commentary-like text is an issue that should be addressed generally in the football-community here on Wikipedia. Pretty much every article suffers from it, even those granted GA status. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- There are articles where it has crept in but IMO it's not a major problem. Where it exists the regular/experienced editors will deal with it as appropriate — and it's acceptable, to a limited degree, in some circumstances. Eagleash (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, those were my thoughts exactly. I also think that the problem of commentary-like text is an issue that should be addressed generally in the football-community here on Wikipedia. Pretty much every article suffers from it, even those granted GA status. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that it was right to remove the commentary-like text — in normal circumstances — but possibly not whilst the article is actually under review, even if unlikely to pass. Which leads me to wonder how editors are able to tell if an article is being reviewed. If there was a prominent tag it would avoid unfortunate good faith disagreements such as this. Eagleash (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Recent changes to the graphics for Template: Medal
There is a template talk page discussion regarding the graphics used for medalists in infobox medals tables occurring at Template talk:Medal#Changing from gold/silver/bronze to 1/2/3. As this discussion is within the scope of WP:Football, you are invited to make your comments on the recent graphics changes there. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Someone has added a tournament style bracket to the 2015 CAF Champions League qualifying rounds article. Is it really necessary for qualifiers? I've never seen qualifying rounds represented this way and in my opinion it doesn't make sense. Brackets are used for tournaments where you're headed to a final, not for qualifiers. I didn't want to just go ahead and remove it without discussing it with others but I'm pretty sure that it's not necessary. TonyStarks (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, delete it. – PeeJay 21:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Just saw that you deleted it, thanks! What a pointless thing to have, no idea why it was there to begin with. TonyStarks (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Tirana derby
I find it strange that:
- there is a Tirana derby stub page but
- the KF Tirana-Partizani Tirana derby, also called "Big Derby" is called Tirana Derby I;
- the Dinamo Tirana-KF Tirana derby, also called "Little Derby" is called Tirana Derby II;
- that supposedly, leaves just Tirana Derby III: Partizani Tirana-Dinamo Tirana.
What makes the first derby "derby I" or the third "derby III", or the other way round?
I think either merge the pages into Tirana derby, or rename "derby I" and "derby II" to "KF Tirana-Partizani Tirana rivalry" and "Dinamo Tirana-KF Tirana rivalry", respectively Abcmaxx (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar enough with Albanian football but if each derby is notable enough and there's enough coverage/references and information in the articles, I don't see why they should be merged. However, I do agree that they should be renamed to something more accurate instead of an arbitrary numbering system. TonyStarks (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Surely all three clubs share the same derby which can be covered at Tirana derby? GiantSnowman 17:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- We do have London derbies, but there are also several subarticles on individual club ones (e.g. Millwall F.C.–West Ham United F.C. rivalry). Basically I'm in agreement with TonyStarks that if there is enough material, I don't see a problem with having multiple articles. Number 57 18:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Surely all three clubs share the same derby which can be covered at Tirana derby? GiantSnowman 17:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I beleave we could consult User:Oltianruci and User:Eni.Sukthi.Durres regarding the articles, as they are the two editors I mostly rely on help regarding Albanian football. Being named Derby I and Derby II doesn't seem like a good idea, so renaming the articles would seem adequate, but they could help us establish common names for the derbies. FkpCascais (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- To be honest I also found it a little strange that the Tirana derbies were numbered like they were, as I always felt they should simply be named 'rivalries' (e.g. KF Tirana-Dinamo Tirana rivalry). I would suggest renaming them and when I have time I will look over them and update them a bit to add more information etc. Being from London myself I think the things like the Millwall-West Ham rivalry says it all really, it doesn't need to have a special name like the El Clasico. Also, the Vllaznia-KF Tirana rivalry is another big one in Albania but the two are hardly even close as you have to drive past half of the country to get to the other ground. Even this rivalry is sometimes referred to as a 'derby' but often called the derby of Albania, or the Albanian derby. Oltianruci (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- The OED distinguishes between a derby (an important sporting match) and a local derby (match between two teams from the same district) - the usage is not incorrect. Hack (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- To be honest I also found it a little strange that the Tirana derbies were numbered like they were, as I always felt they should simply be named 'rivalries' (e.g. KF Tirana-Dinamo Tirana rivalry). I would suggest renaming them and when I have time I will look over them and update them a bit to add more information etc. Being from London myself I think the things like the Millwall-West Ham rivalry says it all really, it doesn't need to have a special name like the El Clasico. Also, the Vllaznia-KF Tirana rivalry is another big one in Albania but the two are hardly even close as you have to drive past half of the country to get to the other ground. Even this rivalry is sometimes referred to as a 'derby' but often called the derby of Albania, or the Albanian derby. Oltianruci (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree to follow the example of London derbies and to include each "derby" in a separate article with the example of @Oltianruci: (such as KF Tirana-Dinamo Tirana rivalry) since Tirana unlike from London isn't separated in regions such as North, East, etc. Also I propose to be named "Derby of the capital city (Albanian: Derbi i Kryqytetit)" such as The Rome Derby is. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Asomon Kenet, Kenneth Asamoah and Kennedy Boateng: same or different?
I am not a football expert and don't know which sources are reliable for footballer bios, so I hope someone here can help disentangle what seems to be a muddle. I came across the redirect Asomon Kenet while sorting out a dab page at Kenet. It redirects to Kennedy Boateng, which shows his middle name as "Asamoah" but doesn't mention the "Kenet".
There's another redirect, from Kenneth Asamoah to Kennedy B.
Looking at the history of that KA redirect: [[3]]
- in Oct 2008 @Buttons to Push Buttons: "(moved Asomon Kenet to Kenneth Asamoah: More common spelling of name, from what google suggests)"
- in Aug 2014, @FkpCascais: made this into a redirect, saying "(fix duplicate articles)"
But the article here: http://uk.soccerway.com/players/asomon-kenet/64552/ lists Asomon Kenet with date of birth 12 April 1988, not the same as the 30 November 1989 given for Kennedy B in his Wikipedia article. Soccerway also has a separate article http://uk.soccerway.com/players/kennedy-boateng/286921/ (which gives his date of birth as 1 August 1992). And http://uk.soccerway.com/players/kenneth-asamoah/90379/ (date of birth 1 August 1988).
So have we got one or two or three footballers here, and which of the four dates of birth is or are right? Is Soccerway reliable? Have fun. PamD 15:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- PS And if anyone manages to create an article for Asomon Kenet, rather than leaving him as a redirect to what appears to be someone else, could you please add him to the Kenet dab page? Thanks. PamD 15:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Kenneth Asamoah Boateng is one of the players, and I guess Asomon Kenet is another one. I wasn't aware about the Asomon Kenet redirect. NFT.com lists this one as having played for Ghana. The birthdate saying 1988 seems real, as by 2008 when he arrived in Serbia he was already a footballer. The birthdate saying 1992 cant be this player, but probably another one. FkpCascais (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- I expanded the article last August, and I found his career at westafricanfootball.com which, till day, has been quite reliable whenever I search info about African players. FkpCascais (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- The thing is that he became known in Serbian press as Kenneth Asamoah, while in Ghana he was better known by his second surname Boateng, as Kennedy Boateng. Regarding the age, I just hope it isn't another one of those cases players cheating their age. FkpCascais (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Any Uruguayan users out there (preferably)? Can we get this person's infobox complete? At least ZEROZERO.pt says he played for Peñarol before arriving in Spain, but the site is not very reliable because it's user-generated.
Attentively, thanks in advance --84.90.219.128 (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
MLS discussion
I've had a user revert an edit that I've done on the Major League Soccer season's table. I'd initially placed on the overall season's table the qualifiers for the end of season MLS Cup Playoff Series. This conforms to what is used in the season tables for the A-League (showing the Finals series teams) and also the ASB Premiership. The user that reverted this edit claimed that he had done so, as the MLS Cup spots are determined by position in the Western/Eastern Conference, and shouldn't be included on the overall table. I feel that if this were truly the case, that the winners of National Cup competitions wouldn't be shown on their league tables as having qualified for their subsequent tournaments. I feel as though showing the MLS Cup qualifiers on the overall league table if anything makes more sense than showing the winners of the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup winner's Champions League spot... Am I missing something, or shouldn't all major tournaments such as these have their qualifiers shown on the overall league table?... Thoughts? - J man708 (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- You've had two users revert. @Bmf 051: and then me.
- The East/West qualification was dealt with on the East/West tables. Why do we need to duplicate that information on the season table? For instance
- They're generally both listed in articles
- So I'll ask again, why do we need to duplicate that information on the season table? It makes the season table cluttered.
- Another issue is that you're including information that was not the result of league play. Canadian Championship qualifications, did not have to do with league play except in 2014. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- J Man, I think you're missing the point of tables in general (and not just sports tables). They're meant to express the information being presented in a way that is understandable and readable. Take a look at this. If a typical reader sees this (so someone who's maybe not as knowledgeable about the subject as you or me), and sees Southampton and where they are located in the table, they can see immediately that Southampton is very close to the final European spot, and is slightly further away (but still close to) the last Champions League spot. It's presented in a way that is clear, easy to read and understand.
- Now take a look at this. Suppose you have the same situation as above, but the reader is looking at the Colorado Rapids. Is it clear how close they are to a playoff spot? It doesn't convey that information very well. That's why we have the conference tables. Bmf 051 (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Because that is their overall league table, which shows qualification into everything. As I said, cup winners in almost every country of the world have their Continental Qualification shown on the league table, which has no impact on the overall table, yet is still shown. The ASB Premiership, the A-League, the Hong Kong Football Championship all use post season playoffs and their qualifiers are all shown on the overall league table. Hell, the Hong Kong league has a Playoff spot determined by a cup winner and not by league position, too. This is important to show on the article, as often people will look to the table to see who, what, when, where and why.
- Walter, it doesn't matter if two different users revert the table, these changes have been created as a consensus as late as a month or so ago. So, I ask you, while this is being discussed, can YOU keep it not only the way they were, but the way that WikiProject Football has voted for in a consensus? "Discuss."
- BMF, I realise that it may appear misleading, however this can easily be amended with a footnote suffix, stating that these teams are in positions X, Y and Z of their conference and therefore are entitled playoff spots. We often have European Cup winners being relegated and also holding onto their Europa League spots, which again, we work with. We don't just delete the information because it's too hard. Why is it that the US league needs special treatment and not contain playoff qualifiers in their table? Again, as I said in my reply to Walter, this is something that has already been voted on and had a consensus achieved. If you wish to challenge this, by all means, but until such time as a new consensus is met, it needs to conform to the WikiProject Football standards, not what you believe it should be.
- EDIT - BMF, you've also deleted all references to the Champions League spot. Why? - J man708 (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- You're right. What's happened is one edit has decided something should be changed and two other editors reverted. We discuss while it's in the original form. See WP:BRD. The rest of your argument is no different than your first argument. I am not persuaded that it's a better situation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, I won't be reverting you again. I expect an admin to step in and block you for breaking WP:3RR if you revert to your preferred version prior to establishing a consensus to accept the new format. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- How many times does it need to be said, that a consensus has already been reached? Just because it has taken a month for the MLS tables to have been updated, it doesn't make it any less valid. The WikiProject Football consesnsus' dictate what goes where for situations just like this. I could understand the issue if it were something over the top, with incorrect information, or unwarranted colouring of all non-qualifying teams to be in silver or something ridiculous, however this isn't the case. This is something that has already been rolled out on the Australian, New Zealand, Hong Kong articles and hasn't yet cross the Atlantic. Once again, these changes have already been voted upon and are warranted. - J man708 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- A-League, ASB Premiership, and Hong Kong Premier League do not have conferences. That is the difference. The way it is done now, by listing playoff qualifiers in the conference tables, is more clear. And it works fine. Please allow a consensus to be established for this particular situation before you change it from the current format. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- How many times does it need to be said, that a consensus has already been reached? Just because it has taken a month for the MLS tables to have been updated, it doesn't make it any less valid. The WikiProject Football consesnsus' dictate what goes where for situations just like this. I could understand the issue if it were something over the top, with incorrect information, or unwarranted colouring of all non-qualifying teams to be in silver or something ridiculous, however this isn't the case. This is something that has already been rolled out on the Australian, New Zealand, Hong Kong articles and hasn't yet cross the Atlantic. Once again, these changes have already been voted upon and are warranted. - J man708 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you look through the edits, I did keep them originally, and I'm personally fine with having them. Following WP:BRD, I should have reverted your edit to the original format. Bmf 051 (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Again though, this shouldn't be an issue, surely? As I've already stated, why must we include the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup winner's non-league qualification spot, but the MLS Cup qualifiers (which are determined on a sub-league) shouldn't be shown? This doesn't make sense. While the Hong Kong Premier League doesn't contain a conference, their FA Cup winners qualify for their playoff series and are subsequently shown on their league table. Why must a blanket rule be utilised for every league bar this one? As I stated before, it's not like this is a one off situation wherein the team sitting in 18th is coloured silver for no apparent reason, votes have already been made in the past that overall league tables should be utilised to show playoff series qualifiers. I understand that the teams don't qualify through this table, but the Conference Tables, but it's beside the point. Every qualifying club has shown on the league table what they qualified for. The MLS Cup must honestly be the only one that isn't currently shown. Why must this be the case? - J man708 (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- The consensus you're talking about was in regards to what colors to use in certain situations. It was not about what information to list for this particular league (or for any league, for that matter). By that I mean, if it is decided that playoffs position should be included in the Overall table for MLS seasons, then the color used should be yellow based on the consensus you're referencing. But that consensus says nothing about what about whether that information should be included in the table at all (or if it's better to just include it in the conference table). This issue is going to require a separate consensus, because the one you're referencing is about a completely different issue. That consensus was about the color, not the content. I suggest you create a section on the template's talk page seeking a consensus.
- However, I do agree that, based on the consensus you mentioned, the playoff qualifiers in the conference tables should be yellow. If it is decided (by consensus) that playoff qualifiers should be listed in the overall table, they would be yellow there too. So I will update the conference tables to use the correct colors. Bmf 051 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's heavily implied. Why create it and use it on every article that has a playoff series, bar the US. It doesn't need to be voted on. It's common sense. Why create something with a hypothetical need? - J man708 (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Heavily implying" something is different than actually saying it. And saying an idea is "common sense" is another way of saying that there is a consensus that it is true. Clearly that's not the case here. Bmf 051 (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. If we had to vote for every edit on Wikipedia, then we would get nothing done at all. I feel like we should discuss the issue at hand, though. Is there any reason why you strongly think that the MLS Cup qualifiers have no place on the overall table, but the US Open Cup winners should be shown? I mean, I genuinely want to know your vierpoint on that. Is it just because they qualify through the means of the West/East Conferences and not the table itself, yeah? Is there any other reason? - J man708 (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- That is the way it works. We don't vote on every edit. We vote on ones like these, where there is a clear disagreement. I suggest you create a section on the template's talk page seeking a consensus. I've outlined my reasons above, but I'll summarize them again (this is not to say there aren't any other good reasons that I've left out). The qualifying method is one reason. It also has to do with presenting the information in a way that makes sense, is readable, and is displaying it in the best way possible. To me, adding playoff qualification to the overall table would be like taking this diagram and this diagram, and combining them. We could try to convey in one image both pieces of information found in these two images, but it would not effectively convey either to the reader. Bmf 051 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. If we had to vote for every edit on Wikipedia, then we would get nothing done at all. I feel like we should discuss the issue at hand, though. Is there any reason why you strongly think that the MLS Cup qualifiers have no place on the overall table, but the US Open Cup winners should be shown? I mean, I genuinely want to know your vierpoint on that. Is it just because they qualify through the means of the West/East Conferences and not the table itself, yeah? Is there any other reason? - J man708 (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Heavily implying" something is different than actually saying it. And saying an idea is "common sense" is another way of saying that there is a consensus that it is true. Clearly that's not the case here. Bmf 051 (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's heavily implied. Why create it and use it on every article that has a playoff series, bar the US. It doesn't need to be voted on. It's common sense. Why create something with a hypothetical need? - J man708 (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Again though, this shouldn't be an issue, surely? As I've already stated, why must we include the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup winner's non-league qualification spot, but the MLS Cup qualifiers (which are determined on a sub-league) shouldn't be shown? This doesn't make sense. While the Hong Kong Premier League doesn't contain a conference, their FA Cup winners qualify for their playoff series and are subsequently shown on their league table. Why must a blanket rule be utilised for every league bar this one? As I stated before, it's not like this is a one off situation wherein the team sitting in 18th is coloured silver for no apparent reason, votes have already been made in the past that overall league tables should be utilised to show playoff series qualifiers. I understand that the teams don't qualify through this table, but the Conference Tables, but it's beside the point. Every qualifying club has shown on the league table what they qualified for. The MLS Cup must honestly be the only one that isn't currently shown. Why must this be the case? - J man708 (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- EDIT - BMF, you've also deleted all references to the Champions League spot. Why? - J man708 (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Because that is their overall league table, which shows qualification into everything. As I said, cup winners in almost every country of the world have their Continental Qualification shown on the league table, which has no impact on the overall table, yet is still shown. The ASB Premiership, the A-League, the Hong Kong Football Championship all use post season playoffs and their qualifiers are all shown on the overall league table. Hell, the Hong Kong league has a Playoff spot determined by a cup winner and not by league position, too. This is important to show on the article, as often people will look to the table to see who, what, when, where and why.
Firstly, thank you for taking the time out to discuss this with me. I appreciate it. Secondly and rather comically, those diagrams you showed I genuinely do believe that both pieces of information could be merged into one, provided it were to be done correctly. But I do see your point about it appearing a bit shambolic. I will agree with you that it does appear to be that way at the moment, however the further the season goes, the wider the overall gap will be between the haves and have-nots of each conference and will be very unlikely that we will find a block of three MLS Cup teams so far outside of the Top 12, as is currently the case. I'm curious as to why you've only reverted the edits on the 2015 page and not the previous seasons, which have also been edited to show the MLS spots? If you are to delete the MLS Cup spots for the interim, could you at least replace the Champions League positions, as that too is something that every league in the world has listed on their pages. I understand that they're reliant on the conference winners, but it's pretty set in stone that you have to be the top team to win it (unless you're Canadian). That's sorta the issue now, is that there is a Canadian team atop the standings, which throws this out of whack. A similar issue has occured in the A-League this season, wherein the Wellington Phoenix (from New Zealand) were sitting in an Asian Champions League spot, despite being ineligable as they're from Oceania. This was the end result, that everyone seemed happy with. A similar set up surely should be utilised for the MLS. Outside of the conference system, the A-League is almost identical to the MLS (being franchise based, salary caps, etc.)... When you mentioned earlier that I should've brought it up for a discussion, I kinda feel like I already have and that we're talking in the place wherein the discussion is taking place. For me, this is an issue that had already been decided upon globally and thus, negated the need to bring up on the individual talk page. - J man708 (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Secondly and rather comically, those diagrams you showed I genuinely do believe that both pieces of information could be merged into one, provided it were to be done correctly If it can be done, then prove it. Then replace the existing diagrams on U.S. House of Representatives with the one you've created. Finally, see the reaction.
- I'm curious as to why you've only reverted the edits on the 2015 page and not the previous seasons, which have also been edited to show the MLS spots? I did revert them, but you reverted them back. Multiple times. More than 3 times in fact. I could't be bothered to revert every single change you made, since it seemed likely you would revert it back. Now that you seem to have agreed to let this go (for now), I will fix the other templates.
- If you are to delete the MLS Cup spots for the interim, could you at least replace the Champions League positions, as that too is something that every league in the world has listed on their pages. I have no problem with this, and I've said that. But I'm also fine with the way it is.
- I will agree with you that it does appear to be that way at the moment... It will always be the wrong way to do it in my opinion. Even so, if there comes a point where you think it doesn't appear that way, bring it up for discussion and we'll try to establish a consensus. Be sure to invite me to that discussion. This is the way we do things. Bmf 051 (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- We're not discussing houses of parliament here, mate. You brought up a topic that you saw as similar, I retorted and now you wish to talk about that? No. This page is about football. To your second bolded point, you waited some four hours to edit it (oddly, you chose not to revert it, but just edit it) after editing every few minutes. This made me think that you showed no interest in those pages, just the 2015 one. Thirdly, it's already established that you and I have differing opinions on this. "Be sure to invite me to that discussion" - This is an open page for everyone to edit? I don't understand it. Do we need to send out a mass message to every editor every that we intend on discussing a football issue? No. You come across these debates on here. This is exactly what this page is for. I'm going to create a subcategory to this wherein I wish to gain input on the issue at hand itself, not the semantics that are currently being discussed. Your opinion is more than welcome, provided it doesn't become a tangent like this current discussion has become (Let's face facts, noone else besides the three of us will be reading this. To get more people talking, we need a clean slate. - J man708 (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Moats
I was reviewing a picture I took of a moat at Estádio Olímpico João Havelange.. I was expecting to find an article about Hooliganism mentioning moats as a safety measure (where I could add the picture). Researching, I found there was a large moat at the previous incarnation of Maracanã Stadium, at Estadio Azteca and the specialized construction at The Float at Marina Bay. On-line blogs say moats were common in European stadiums in the 1970's. I must admit I'm not fanatical about the sport of football, so I don't know too much of the history There doesn't seem to be any discussion or mention of moats here. If those major stadiums have gone through the effort to build moats, or they were later removed, I would think it would be more common, thus an article on the subject would be appropriate. Maybe I'm ill informed. I'm certainly not the right person to write about it, maybe someone in this project would be. Trackinfo (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- The moat might not have been a reaction to hooliganism specifically, just stadium security. Hack (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- The question I pose here is if it is a common enough feature (I identified four major stadiums that use such a feature) to merit a mention here, either in its own article, or in some other article you could refer me to. Trackinfo (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Any admins about...
...fancy semi-protecting Trevor Benjamin? Hilarious vandalism of the day appears to be to change his middle name to "Goal Machine"... It's been at RFPP for some time but nothing's happened yet. thanks in advance, Struway2 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Wanderson Souza Carneiro
Hi, I noticed this article was sorted on Baiano so I renamed the article to Baiano (football player). I have now found Dermival Almeida Lima who is also known as Baiano, so its a bit of a pickle, can someone fix, (including getting Defaultsorts to match the article names ? Sorry for acting in haste by renaming... Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Apart from anything else, the disambiguator should be "....(footballer)" not "....(football player)" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- @GrahamHardy: I have reverted the move and deleted the redirect. If you believe it should be moved I suggest you use WP:RM (the correct format would be Baiano (footballer, born 19xx) by the way) but please bar in mind the multitude of people by this nickname. GiantSnowman 18:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
League table dispute
Hi everyone.
There is a league table dispute at Template:2015 Allsvenskan table making it full protected, which is not good with matches today and upcoming days, so please join discussion at Template talk:2015 Allsvenskan table#Table position. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Johndrew elaine
ResolvedCould an Admin please block Johndrew elaine (talk · contribs) for mass disruptive editing. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: Thank you! JMHamo (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- That'll be the editor who was blocked at 180.241.170.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a couple of days ago for the same thing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Continental competition notability
Hi all, I would like to know if a player becomes notable if they have played in a continental competition, e.g. Champions League, Europa League, etc., but havent played in any domestic/professional league? Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Definitely not if the league they play in is not fully professional. There is some disagreement over whether players from clubs in fully pro leagues attain notability by playing in cup competitions (which includes European ones), but I think the consensus (and certainly mine) has generally leaned towards yes. Number 57 11:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I had a similar question a while back, and got the answer that if both clubs involved in an international fixture are fully-pro (not their leagues, but clubs themselves) than yes, player is notable. Or something along the lines. -BlameRuiner (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's definitely not right. Number 57 14:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be easier if you listed the player in question? I would say that playing in any professional competition passes notability, especially when dealing with the Champions League. At the same time, it's generally a case-by-case thing. Obviously a player who hasn't made their league debut, but plays for Arsenal in the UEFA Champions League would pass, but it probably isn't as much the case with a player making his debut for Tafea FC in the OFC Champions League. - J man708 (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Just becuase you play in a cup is not enough. How about champions from Gibraltar playing in first round of CL, just because they play in CL dont make the team proffessional. 9 or 10 players in starting XI last year had a normal job besides football. QED237 (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- As long as the player plays for a professional club, I'd say any first-team appearance in a competitive match makes that player notable. That would mean an appearance in the first qualifying round would confer notability on a player just as much as an appearance in the final, provided the club was fully pro. It wouldn't make sense to limit notability to domestic leagues when the Champions League is the pinnacle of club football. – PeeJay 23:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- If they're from Gibraltar and they have jobs outside of football, then they aren't professionals. :P Besides, the first qualifying round would be one thing, but something like the group stage would be another, surely. I am curious if this is a hypothetical situation, or something that has happened recently? - J man708 (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Player in question is Jorge Gotor Blas. He havent played in any professional league, but have played in 2014 AFC Cup, a continental competition. I believe that based on comment here, he should still not be notable. He just recently signed with Indonesia Super League side Mitra Kukar but havent made his debut yet. There is also an AfD for his article. MbahGondrong (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- If they're from Gibraltar and they have jobs outside of football, then they aren't professionals. :P Besides, the first qualifying round would be one thing, but something like the group stage would be another, surely. I am curious if this is a hypothetical situation, or something that has happened recently? - J man708 (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- As long as the player plays for a professional club, I'd say any first-team appearance in a competitive match makes that player notable. That would mean an appearance in the first qualifying round would confer notability on a player just as much as an appearance in the final, provided the club was fully pro. It wouldn't make sense to limit notability to domestic leagues when the Champions League is the pinnacle of club football. – PeeJay 23:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Just becuase you play in a cup is not enough. How about champions from Gibraltar playing in first round of CL, just because they play in CL dont make the team proffessional. 9 or 10 players in starting XI last year had a normal job besides football. QED237 (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be easier if you listed the player in question? I would say that playing in any professional competition passes notability, especially when dealing with the Champions League. At the same time, it's generally a case-by-case thing. Obviously a player who hasn't made their league debut, but plays for Arsenal in the UEFA Champions League would pass, but it probably isn't as much the case with a player making his debut for Tafea FC in the OFC Champions League. - J man708 (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's definitely not right. Number 57 14:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I had a similar question a while back, and got the answer that if both clubs involved in an international fixture are fully-pro (not their leagues, but clubs themselves) than yes, player is notable. Or something along the lines. -BlameRuiner (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Can someone, after a quick glance at this person's PERSONAL LIFE section, deem the info that appears therein vandalism? I have had this section removed three times, having my efforts called vandalic and receiving absolutely no other forms of feedback from the other party. My two cents? A ETA fanboy, nothing more, nothing less!
I do appreciate sincerity, so please do tell if you think the aforementioned section is not encyclopedical (methinks it is, his father got 30 YEARS, and it affected the son's career in a negative way), remove it and we all can live happily ever after without this nuisance. The crowning turd in the waterpipe? He removes the section and has no summary note attached to his edit, I revert him and receive a "possible BLP issue or vandalism" tag. Yes, my summaries, always my summaries (but this one was merely hysterical, nothing else - and by the way, I think it's a mere technical glitch when a bot "calls" you a potential vandal, but I'm not having that from other users, would you? Thought not), I apologize to the community again, all I can do.
Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Personally, I think the information should be there, but incorporated into the prose at the right point, i.e. when Hercules didn't sign him because of it. As it affected his career, it isn't personal life but professional.
- Another time, you'd do better taking the discussion to the article talk page and just leave a note here linking to the discussion and asking for comment (without making any of your own: referring to another editor as an ETA fanboy is hardly constructive). There's no point going to the talk page of an anon with a dynamic IP address ten days after they made the edit, they won't see your message. Or consider the biographies of living persons noticeboard. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Dispute 2014–15 Liga I
Hi football people,
At 2014–15 Liga I there is a dispute wheter or not to display note for dinamo bucharest about the fact the can not get one of the places to european competition because they filed for insolvency. To me it is notable because the readers can see what teams can get the CL and EL spots and when teams switch places it is also good for the updating editor to see what teams can not get the CL and EL places in the table. The other editor dont think it is notable to note in table. What is your opinion? QED237 (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Also we have it for some teams so why not dinamo? QED237 (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you. If Dinamo's league position indicates that they should qualify for Europe, then a note would be appropriate to explain why they can't. – PeeJay 14:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- At the moment they are outside such league position (by goal differential) but I still think it is worth noting that they can never reach a European spot. QED237 (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. – PeeJay 14:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Without the notes the table wouldn't make sense. So it seems essential to include them. What is the rationale for not including it? One might argue using the same footnote "Club is ineligible for European competitions, because of insolvency" or something along those lines might work as well instead of having separate footnotes. CRwikiCA talk 15:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- The reasons given in edit summaries is that it is useless and not notable because dinamo is not currently on a european spot and also that there are even more teams that has filed for insolvency that not have a note (so I said please include those also). I can agree that one note may be enough for all teams. QED237 (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Without the notes the table wouldn't make sense. So it seems essential to include them. What is the rationale for not including it? One might argue using the same footnote "Club is ineligible for European competitions, because of insolvency" or something along those lines might work as well instead of having separate footnotes. CRwikiCA talk 15:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. – PeeJay 14:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- At the moment they are outside such league position (by goal differential) but I still think it is worth noting that they can never reach a European spot. QED237 (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
For now, Dinamo isn't on a European spot. So that note is completely useless. When Dinamo will ocupy a European spot, the note will have to be used to explain why they can't qualify. It is the case with Petrolul and CS Universitatea Craiova. Eddie Nixon (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Of course it makes sense to explain for all teams if the actually can qualify or not. Good information for the reader that otherwise may think "dinamo only need 1 more point" but then suddenly info appears saying they can not qualify. QED237 (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
A moment to relax
I know this is not encyclopedical (at all), but I'd like to offer some comic relief to the footy community, ever so stressed out :) Yesterday, at half-time of the La Liga fixture between Athletic Bilbao and Real Sociedad, someone was on the pitch being honoured with an award (later I found out it was the ONE-MAN CLUB AWARD, for players that have spent their whole career in the same club), and I said to myself "I know this guy". After five seconds, light was made, I recognized Matthew Le Tissier, with his crooked tooth on the left side and his "overall good bloke" smile.
Part one...part two: the broadcaster from Sport TV made the following comment: "And there you go, a former legend of this club (by "this" he meant Athletic Bilbao!) being honoured". I didn't want to be a buzzkill to all the Saints fans out there, but here is the truth, Matty is far from being a saint, he's a downright lion!
You guys continue to have fun out there, improving those articles, keep it up from Portugal --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you have five minutes spare: link — Cliftonian (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks! A true genius of football, and he did well choosing family and stability over money, I suppose player of his (immense) caliber must have have had tons of offers in his prime. And not only the mad skills, he shot the ball with tremendous power as well. A real Bilbao (sorry, So'ton) legend :) --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Honours
Im asking here as the main club article template doesn't really cover it. The Heart of Midlothian F.C. article Honours section is split into minor and major honours, should it be done like this and if so what constitutes major and minor. Currently the Scottish premiership is listed as minor, however leagues such as the second tier the Scottish Championship or East of Scotland are minor. Is major and minor not too open for debate, without proper inclusion guidelines. Whats everyones thoughts on this? The section has been organised in different ways but this is how its been for a wee whilst.Blethering Scot 16:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't bother dividing it; generally honours sections tend to be ordered by the importance of the trophy being won, so the split would happen naturally. The one thing I would change is having the first and second tier titles together, and removing at least the third places, if not the second places too (personally I don't think finishing runner-up in a division is an "honour"). Number 57 17:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't even class third as honour in football to be honest. So would you do, premiership, second division, other leagues and then the cups or?Blethering Scot 18:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- My order would be (1) Scottish top division (2) Scottish second tier (3) Scottish Cup (4) Scottish League Cup, then stuff in the same order. Number 57 21:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't even class third as honour in football to be honest. So would you do, premiership, second division, other leagues and then the cups or?Blethering Scot 18:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Jacob Mellis section blanking
Hello, could people please watch Jacob Mellis, LawrenceBarnard11 (talk · contribs) is removing the Controversy section, so I think he's some way related to the player. I suspect it may be a sock of blocked Mmanagementltd (talk · contribs) but I cannot say for definite. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- WP:SPI I would suggest. GiantSnowman 17:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: I don't have enough evidence for SPI, only my gut instinct.. JMHamo (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- A checkuser could be able to link the two. GiantSnowman 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: I doubt a CU would be approved based on past experience. I'll keep an eye on the account for behaviour that will allow me to prove the connection. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- A checkuser could be able to link the two. GiantSnowman 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: I don't have enough evidence for SPI, only my gut instinct.. JMHamo (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Disruptive IP
Is there an Admin about to deal with 114.124.32.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) before they request updated photos for the entire Manchester United squad? JMHamo (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK, they seem to have stopped.. JMHamo (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
This FAC has only had three responses so far, and none from any established members of this community. Any chance a few of you could throw a glance over it and let me know what you think? I'm certain it's a hair's breadth away from reaching FA status, but it's going to fail automatically if it doesn't get at least two more responses in the next few days. – PeeJay 23:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Responses have started to come in, but I'd appreciate some input from experienced members of WP:FOOTY to advise on the level of detail in the article. – PeeJay 15:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Don't all help at once, guys... – PeeJay 10:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
TSG 1899 Hoffenheim squad list
Is in a bit of a dispute with DrunkenGerman regarding the style of TSG 1899 Hoffenheim squad list, i see now purpose or improvment of the article by the breakers he have added and considers it breaks the Club manual of style (subjective i know), decided to seek a consensus before it grows to unecasary proportions.Halmstad (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Where applicable we organise by squad number initially and position if the club doesn't use numbers - but we should never have breakers like that. Reverted. GiantSnowman 20:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Breaks are useful to structure squads and offer also a tidier and easier look at them. DrunkenGerman (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- ...in your opinion. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid argument. GiantSnowman 21:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- And you have no argument at all. It's whether numbers or positions and whether breaks or not. The club at least shares my point of view and orders the players by position, 1899 Hoffenheim squad, and also adds a graphical line between positions. Anyone with a little sense for the graphical depicition of data would understand that a content-oriented view is key to the reader's access. DrunkenGerman (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- The argument is consistency. Lots of clubs order numerically (not just on Wikipedia, but on their own websites) and there's no point breaking that consistency just so Hoffenheim can have it their own way. I do see the benefit of ordering by position and adding the breaks, but I also think any benefits are outweighed by the drawbacks. – PeeJay 10:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well I absolutely see your point, PeeJay. But I think that my proposed approach is followed by the majority of the better-administered websites, at least of Bundesliga clubs. I just did a little "reserach study":
- Ordering by position
- - Bayern Munich squad
- - Borussia Dortmund squad
- - Schalke 04 squad
- - Bayer Leverkusen squad
- - Borussia Mönchengladbach squad
- - FC Augsburg squad
- - Hamburger SV squad
- - Eintracht Frankfurt squad
- - Hertha BSC squad
- - SC Paderborn squad
- - 1. FC Köln squad
- - FSV Mainz 05 squad
- - VfB Stuttgart squad
- - SC Freiburg squad
- - VfL Wolfsburg squad
- - Hannover 96 squad
- Ordering by number
- - Werder Bremen squad
- That makes 17 of 18 Bundesliga sites have their squads initially ordered by position. I think that makes its kind the rule/consensus. I haven't checked but I guess that approach will be followed also by most websites of higher quality internationally. DrunkenGerman (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- It certainly shows a pattern of consistency in Germany, but this Wikiproject has agreed on its own pattern based on a wider sample than just the Bundesliga (at least, I hope it has). It is possible that we could change our minds, but I believe that ordering by number is more logical as it makes it easier to find a player in the list (i.e. you're more likely to search for a player by his squad number than his position as that's what you're more likely to know a priori). – PeeJay 11:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well I absolutely see your point, PeeJay. But I think that my proposed approach is followed by the majority of the better-administered websites, at least of Bundesliga clubs. I just did a little "reserach study":
- The argument is consistency. Lots of clubs order numerically (not just on Wikipedia, but on their own websites) and there's no point breaking that consistency just so Hoffenheim can have it their own way. I do see the benefit of ordering by position and adding the breaks, but I also think any benefits are outweighed by the drawbacks. – PeeJay 10:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- And you have no argument at all. It's whether numbers or positions and whether breaks or not. The club at least shares my point of view and orders the players by position, 1899 Hoffenheim squad, and also adds a graphical line between positions. Anyone with a little sense for the graphical depicition of data would understand that a content-oriented view is key to the reader's access. DrunkenGerman (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- ...in your opinion. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid argument. GiantSnowman 21:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Breaks are useful to structure squads and offer also a tidier and easier look at them. DrunkenGerman (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Could always adopt the format used in e.g. the featured article Seattle Sounders FC and the other MLS teams. It lists by squad number, but all columns are sortable so that if the reader wants all the goalkeepers together, they can have them. Apart from which, it comes considerably closer to meeting the accessibility MoS than does the more widely used template. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well I highly doubt that Wikiproject has put a lot thought it that, they likely just followed the easiest approach, as a number is sortable easiest. Also I question that you search for a certain player in a squad's list, it's more likely that you read the list to get to know which players are with the club. And as players move so frequently from club to club I guess knowing a player's number has become very little widespread. If you would wanted to follow that search approach, ordering by last name would be the way as it is most commonly known.
- I also like the idea of Struway2. A by user sortable list would of course be very nice to have. But I think that format at Seattle Sounders would need a little work, like making it fit to having it displayed at once glance (like making two colums). But also in that case, we would have to decide for an initially ordering. DrunkenGerman (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Positions are somewhat subjective - is Gareth Bale, or other attacking wingers, MF or FW? Squad number is not, there's no arguing with it. As for Struway's table, that has not yet been proposed as a new standard and until it is done it should not be used on any articles. GiantSnowman 12:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- It certainly has been proposed as a new standard, some three years ago, but never really got anywhere. There was massive discussion, but unfortunately for those advocating it on accessibility grounds, it got mixed up with and messed up by association with a related discussion about flags. The format was adopted for MLS articles, and trialled elsewhere: see e.g. Talk:Birmingham City F.C.#Squad table format, where a trial was proposed.. Another problem was the perceived amount of work involved in making the change. Another problem was general apathy for what many editors see as unnecessary change.
- I'm not convinced that we can insist, or indeed should be trying to insist, on using a template that fails the accessibility MoS as comprehensively as was credibly asserted in the earlier discussion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- We're going to have to change the style of our squad lists at some point. As Struway points out, the current design fails WP:ACCESS, plus it could benefit a great deal from the addition of a sortability function. Technically, I don't see how sortability would work across two columns, but I'd like to see us at least explore the idea of a revamp before everyone gets weary of the inevitable long-winded discussion. – PeeJay 10:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not opposing the new style being implemented - I'm saying it should not be implemented without a thorough discussion and concrete community consensus; and if/when it is it should replace the old style entirely. For a more recent discussion, see this from 14 April 2015. GiantSnowman 12:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- We're going to have to change the style of our squad lists at some point. As Struway points out, the current design fails WP:ACCESS, plus it could benefit a great deal from the addition of a sortability function. Technically, I don't see how sortability would work across two columns, but I'd like to see us at least explore the idea of a revamp before everyone gets weary of the inevitable long-winded discussion. – PeeJay 10:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Positions are somewhat subjective - is Gareth Bale, or other attacking wingers, MF or FW? Squad number is not, there's no arguing with it. As for Struway's table, that has not yet been proposed as a new standard and until it is done it should not be used on any articles. GiantSnowman 12:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well I highly doubt that Wikiproject has put a lot thought it that, they likely just followed the easiest approach, as a number is sortable easiest. Also I question that you search for a certain player in a squad's list, it's more likely that you read the list to get to know which players are with the club. And as players move so frequently from club to club I guess knowing a player's number has become very little widespread. If you would wanted to follow that search approach, ordering by last name would be the way as it is most commonly known.
José Mourinho - Controversies
Please take a look at José Mourinho#Controversies, tagged since June 2013. SLBedit (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Arsène Wenger is a GA, and his controversy is described as "Relations with others". For Don Revie I had to give "Dirty Leeds" and Allegations of financial misconduct their own sub sections because the criticism of Revie is so acute. I would say Mourinho is less controversial than Revie but more so than Wenger. Could probably put those controversies in the main body and write up a section on his managerial style, making reference to the fact that he has been criticised for going overboard with his comments on officials and rival managers.--EchetusXe 09:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Paul Hunter
Hi all
I recently performed a move closure on Talk:Paul Hunter (American soccer), which was a clear consensus for move, but without a clear consensus on where to move to. I'd like to see if we can get some definitive clarification on whether the disambiguator "American soccer" or "Canadian soccer" is preferable. Please could as many of you guys as possible go there to give your opinion. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Inclusion of MLS Playoffs in the overall table.
RE: The above convo, it's better to start again to save other readers the headache of having to make sense of the above convo. I've come across an issue when rolling out changes to the MLS league tables for the last few seasons. Being a league with a post-season playoff series (called the MLS Cup), the MLS allows 12 teams to qualify via finishing in the Top 6 of their respective Western/Eastern Conferences. This can lead to Team A making the playoffs, Team B failing to make it, but Team A finishing on the Overall Combined Table ahead of Team B. The issue at hand here is whether or not these teams should be listed on the Overall Combined Table as MLS Cup qualifiers (as seen here), or not shown (as seen here). - J man708 (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I believe that the MLS Cup qualifers should be shown on the combined table, as other leagues show their playoff qualifiers on the table, and others even show situations where the playoff qualifiers come from means other than their league table position. - J man708 (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose - Qualification for the MLS Cup playoffs is granted based on the conference table, not the overall table. That's why there are separate conference tables (here and here). The leagues mentioned by the OP either handle playoff qualification via a single table, or are best presented in a single table.
- It was mentioned in the conversation above that other leagues include Domestic Cup winners in their league tables. That's because that is the best way to present that information. The same goes for example above of the Hong Kong Premier Division - the information being presented is presented the best way it can be. Adding the playoff qualifiers to the overall table is not the best way to present that information. The point of a table is to present the information being displayed in a way that is readable and easy for the reader to understand. To reiterate a point I made above, compare this and this. Suppose the reader is looking at the former with the aim of understanding where Southampton stands. It is pretty clear that Southampton is close to qualifying for the Europa League (one spot out), slightly further away from qualifying for the Champions League (3 spots out), and not all that close to winning the league (6 spots out). Now suppose the reader is looking at the latter with the aim of understanding where the Colorado Rapids stand, specifically in the regards to the playoff. The truth is that Colorado Rapids are in last (10th) place, four places out of the playoffs. So not really near making the playoffs at all. But that's not easy to understand from the table. That's because Colorado is in a different conference than the three teams above them, hence why this information is better presented in the conference tables. This isn't an extraordinary example. Suppose, the 6th place team in one conference and is one spot behind the 2nd place team from the other conference. It would appear as if the 6th place team is close to qualifying directly to the Conference Semifinals, which isn't the case. The way things are done now is clear, readable, and uncluttered. The way being suggested is vague and messy and is not a net improvement on the template or the article in which it appears. Bmf 051 (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Playoff qualification should be kept in the conference table. It could clutter the main overall table significantly. I would like to see a mock-up of what it would look like. Suppose you have a situation, as is now, where you have a Canadian team first overall. They would qualify for supporter's shield, playoffs but not for champions league through league placement. What would that look like? Similarly, how do we signify supporter's shield, playoffs and other awards? This view completely misses playoff positioning. I see 11 teams that are highlighted and it's not clear who is in and who is out of the playoffs. I won't take a position until I can see it clearly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- It would look exactly like the situation that I mentioned to the other day, which happened in the A-League. Showing who has qualified for the playoffs would easily be distinguished if we were to add the words Western Conference and Eastern Conference. I understand that early on in the season it's going to look a bit off as one conference can contain more successful sides, but further into the season, this issue should start to right itself. - J man708 (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Playoff qualification should be kept in the conference table. It could clutter the main overall table significantly. I would like to see a mock-up of what it would look like. Suppose you have a situation, as is now, where you have a Canadian team first overall. They would qualify for supporter's shield, playoffs but not for champions league through league placement. What would that look like? Similarly, how do we signify supporter's shield, playoffs and other awards? This view completely misses playoff positioning. I see 11 teams that are highlighted and it's not clear who is in and who is out of the playoffs. I won't take a position until I can see it clearly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I want to notify @Jkudlick:, because he has in the past brought the distinct North American view into these table discussions. I am doubtful both ways, because it is anomaly (football/soccer wise) by having conferences and overall standings. One can on the one hand argue that all information should be included in both tables, on the other hand one can argue that the conference standings qualify you for the play-offs, whereas the overall standings qualify you for the CONCACAF competitions. CRwikiCA talk 15:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Arbero, Qed237, Koppapa, and Kante4: You guys have been involved in similar discussions in the past. What are your thoughts on this? - J man708 (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'd only include the cup in the conference tables. It's easier to understand that way. They aren't used far apart anyway.-Koppapa (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Arbero, Qed237, Koppapa, and Kante4: You guys have been involved in similar discussions in the past. What are your thoughts on this? - J man708 (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Conference tables should be used as this is the method how they qualify for the playoffs. Kante4 (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Salisbury F.C.
After the demise of Salisbury City F.C., a new club has been formed called Salisbury F.C. and is likely to join the Wessex League next season. Assuming this club merits a new article and not a continuation of the City article, I was wondering what to call it. Salisbury City were originally called Salisbury F.C. (until 1993) and Salisbury F.C. is currently a redirect to the City article. Should it be "Salisbury F.C. (2014)" or something along those lines? Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I see no problem with having the new article at Salisbury F.C., with a hatnote between the two and ensuring all incoming links intended for 'Salisbury' (pre-1993) are adequately displayed as [[Salisbury City F.C.|Salisbury]]. GiantSnowman 10:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Number 57 11:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input :) When they're certain to be playing at the required level, I'll start the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Number 57 11:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
About colors in league tables
Hi, people. Looking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League_season#Table formatting I can see the color for the qualification to promotion playoffs in lower divisions is yellow but we are using blue like in 2014–15 Football League Championship or 2014–15 Segunda División.
I want also to ask you how must be coloured a table where there are several stages in a promotion playoff but not a direct promotion, like in 2014–15 Segunda División B?
And last, where can I see the RGB codes of the colours used in these tables? Thank you! Asturkian (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. When we made the table conversion we started based on consensus to use "green first, blue second and then yellow" and the major leagues like English leagues and Spanish leagues were amongst the first being updated to the new format. After a while a editor said that in Australian leagues they qualified to secondary continental tournament some years (making national playoffs yellow) and not other years (making national playoffs blue those years) so after a long period of discussions we modified consensus to the one you linked above to always have playoffs as yellow. It is just that no editor has had the "strenght" and time to go back and modify tables that had already been updated. So the playoffs should be yellow (with first and secondary continental tournaments, i.e. Champions League and Europa League, should be green and blue and also direct promotion is green).
- The Segunda B situation I have never seen before and I am not sure how to display that situation. Normally there is some for of direct promotion that should be green and the playoff in yellow, and there is no qualification for next season cup tournament. CRwikiCA and J man708, do you know what to do here? How does the promotion playoff work in segunda b? In the table it sound like it is two different qualifications or are there just different rounds? If it is different rounds it seems like yellow1 for first place and place 2-4 should have yellow2 and then have copa del ray as blue1 for domestic cup qualification.
- The RGB codes has been tested several times and the current codes are
Current colors Level Green Blue Yellow Red Black Level 1 BBF3BB BBF3FF FFFFBB FFBBBB BBBBBB Level 2 CCF9CC CCF9FF FFFFCC FFCCCC CCCCCC Level 3 DDFCDD DDFCFF FFFFDD FFDDDD DDDDDD Level 4 EEFFEE EEFFFF FFFFEE FFEEEE EEEEEE White White White White White White
- In the table you write green1 to get green level1, blue3 to get blue level3 and so on. The "bronze" is #FEDCBA. QED237 (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- According to the colour guidelines the direct promotion should be green1 and promotion play-offs yellow1, because the Segunda Division B is a lower division (or different levels of yellow if there are different entry rounds). It's quite similar that way to the 2014–15 Eerste Divisie. CRwikiCA talk 14:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @CRwikiCA: Yes but there is no direct promotion so we should not have any green in segunda B? QED237 (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Qed237: So, according to your sentence "So the playoffs should be yellow (with first and secondary continental tournaments, i.e. Champions League and Europa League, should be green and blue and also direct promotion is green).", I must change the Template:2014–15 Segunda División table playoffs spots to yellow.
You can see the format here. The four group champions join a special playoff where the two winners promote and the two losers are dropped to the "normal playoff" with the rest of the qualified teams for two more spots. Copa del Rey qualification is for the top five non-reserve teams of each group and two more places. I hope I explained it well. Asturkian (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Asturkian: Yes, the segunda playoffs should be changed to yellow (as well as the English playoffs). Okay I understand (even if it is a complicated structure). I would the use yellow1 for the winners and yellow2 for the others with blue for copa del rey. QED237 (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I see my mistake, I clicked the Segunda Division instead of Segunda Division B, for B it should indeed be yellow1 and yellow2 for the play-off qualification and blue for the Copa del Rey qualification. CRwikiCA talk 16:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
IP adding unsourced stats
Initially I suspected it could be User:Zombie, however this one is based in the United States. I found at least two cases of this IP adding unsourced stats, Ladule Lako LoSarah and Lamin Samateh. Just wanting to call the attention of the community about this. FkpCascais (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- A well known vandal, see this log. GiantSnowman 15:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Missing players articles
If somebody is interested, I have a list of players, which hasn't article here at English Wikipedia. The link is to Russian Wikipedia and the number is iw links. Of course, some of them may not pass notability criteria, bet I think this list would be useful overally. Feel free to remove players from list if article is created or player isn't notable, make some comments there or do whatever you want :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Needs a new title for so many reasons - any suggestions? Or is the premise so flawed it would be better off being deleted anyway........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sweet jesus. Delete it, its inclusion criteria are arbitrary beyond belief. Who determines what a major football club is? Do the clubs listed even fit the definition of a major club? What's a major honour? – PeeJay 10:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- As per the article, major clubs are "the European clubs from the 6 top major leagues according to the UEFA Coefficient" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- But those can change on a fairly regular basis. Does the author intend to delete all of the Portuguese/French teams when they get overtaken on the UEFA Coefficient list? Besides, including every club that's won a trophy just because they come from a particular country doesn't make for an exclusive list. – PeeJay 11:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- As per the article, major clubs are "the European clubs from the 6 top major leagues according to the UEFA Coefficient" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Arbitrary. POV. Delete. --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Which is a bit of a shame, because I'd quite enjoy the inevitable ensuing argument about the English League Cup ending up at WP:LAME. Not to mention the Simod Cup and the magnificent Anglo-Italian Cup. And the Norfolk & Norwich Hospital Cup. Ooh look, a redlink. --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- If 4-time European Cup winners Ajax aren't considered a "major football club" then the premise is clearly pretty flawed. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- <Applause> --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Clearly they just aren't as "major" as Luton Town or Barnsley........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- <Applause> --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Q If the chart was done in a non POV way (if there was such a way possible) wouldn't Rangers cake-walk it? --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is arbitrary in many ways (Dutch clubs have won 17 international titles, whereas French and Portuguese clubs have won less), I also don't see what it adds to List of UEFA club competition winners. I think the whole premise is flawed, because an international comparison exists. Comparing domestic honours does not make sense, because some countries have more competitions than others. The list is also too long and too unstructured to give much information at all. CRwikiCA talk 14:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
{{od} Now at AFD. GiantSnowman 15:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Jérôme Boateng
Help needed at Jérôme Boateng, high level of vandalism after Champions League tonight. I have asked for page to be protected. QED237 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
BLP violations / Technicalities
Teammates,
I have just added a new section to Raül Agné's article (see PERSONAL LIFE). I think it is encyclopedical, but it the community does not deem it so, please remove it and sorry for any inconvenience. However, if you do deem it so, the following: in reference #14, I had to insert characters similar to WP:SHOUTING because it's the ACTUAL title of the source, and a filter perceived my actions as potential vandalism, further adding that if I clicked "save" upon being warned I could be blocked if the verdict was finally that of "guilt".
Any suggestions? Thanks in advance, attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I talked to AL about this. The title was originally (for artistic reasons) in Arabic, but the website has since corrupted it to gobbledegook. A good technical hand is needed to fish out a "pure" version by web archive. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Ivory Coast national football team matches
Template:Ivory Coast national football team matches, and ten other similar football-related navboxes, have been nominated for deletion. Because these templates are within the scope of WikiProject Football, you are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Brazilian state leagues in box - controversies.
Our previous agreement was only league apps in box, right? But what happens if a team doesn't have a league to play? For an example, this year: teams like Ituano, Audax and others don't have a national league to play for, while Santos, São Paulo are playing at national levels.
My question now is: should we include the Campeonato Paulista apps and goals for these teams who don't have any national leagues (Série A, Série B and so on) to play, or should we leave them as 0/0? If we leave the last way as pattern, everybody will see an infobox like Hernane (the guy won recognition in Brazilian football through a Campeonato Paulista, and his apps related to that year's tournament are 0/0 in box), or worse, like Rafael Longuine (represented a bunch of lowly state clubs, and it appears that he only played ten times for an Austrian club).
Cheers, MYS77 ✉ 01:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- The last agreement was to include only the national leagues. Not the state championships. However, I allways had the same question as you, if having 0/0 in infobox was a good idea. I think we could find a better solution, perhaps a note or something. FkpCascais (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- @FkpCascais: I personally think that if the team in question didn't play in a national level in that campaign, the state league apps/goals would fit it perfectly. With a (very) quick search, you can easily discover if the team in question played (or not) in Série A/B/C or D. Cheers, MYS77 ✉ 04:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like the consensus to not count state leagues isn't applied consistently. Pelé's appearances in the Paulista are counted with his Brasileirão matches in the overall stats. On the other hand, Romário's infobox stats only count his national league appearances. Hack (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @FkpCascais: I personally think that if the team in question didn't play in a national level in that campaign, the state league apps/goals would fit it perfectly. With a (very) quick search, you can easily discover if the team in question played (or not) in Série A/B/C or D. Cheers, MYS77 ✉ 04:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Hack: I know, but Pelé's apps in box are wrong then, because Santos played in a national level besides playing in Campeonato Paulista. What I'm trying to reach here is a consensus of when the club doesn't play in a national level, wouldn't be right to add his state league apps? MYS77 ✉ 15:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I guess it depends what domestic league means. If it is taken to mean national league level, then no. Hack (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Hack: No, I don't think so. If a club doesn't play in any national level, the state league is "like" his main tournament of the year (indeed it is for those lower clubs). MYS77 ✉ 02:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- You can't really selectively choose which appearances are counted. Hack (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- If a player has only played State football I don't think we should include their stats in the infobox just as if they were for the national league. Could we instead have an asterisk or something with a brief note saying the player has only played at the state level? However that's not really a consistent approach. What about someone playing for Man Utd in a cup before playing a league game? Eldumpo (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- There's nothing stopping it being used in prose or in a stats table. The exception should be when there is no national league and the state league is the highest level of competition in that country. Hack (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- If a player has only played State football I don't think we should include their stats in the infobox just as if they were for the national league. Could we instead have an asterisk or something with a brief note saying the player has only played at the state level? However that's not really a consistent approach. What about someone playing for Man Utd in a cup before playing a league game? Eldumpo (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- You can't really selectively choose which appearances are counted. Hack (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Hack: No, I don't think so. If a club doesn't play in any national level, the state league is "like" his main tournament of the year (indeed it is for those lower clubs). MYS77 ✉ 02:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Transfermarkt at Burak Yılmaz
Hi, an IP insists on using Transfermarkt as source at Burak Yılmaz, help needed. I dont want to edit war. QED237 (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- See Talk:Burak Yılmaz#Career stats. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Youth caps
2 questions have come up in a discussion I've been having with Simione001:
1. In 2012, Australia sent their U20 side for 2013 AFC U-22 Championship qualification where most teams were U23 sides. Football Federation Australia said: "Although the upcoming tournament is for U-22 players, Football Federation Australia took the decision to field the Qantas Young Socceroos (U-20 players) in the competition as part of their preparations for the AFC U-19 Championship" (source). Should these games count as caps for the U23 or U20 side?
2. Should matches in L'Alcúdia International Football Tournament count as youth caps, when games are between national teams, despite the presence of club teams in some editions of the tournament?
Macosal (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever the FFA did, in both cases. We can't decide what team players in the AFC U22 qualifying should have been capped for, we record what team they were capped for. And if the FFA count matches against the national teams as official appearances, then so do we.
- See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 86#2014 Toulon Tournament. England picked an U21 squad for a Euro qualifier, and sent those members of it who were young enough (which was most of them) to the under-20 Toulon Tournament the following week. The FA awarded under-21 caps to those players for their appearances at Toulon, so that's what we record them having received. See e.g. Solly March, who made his U21 debut against Qatar at Toulon. It'd be original research to do otherwise. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. In fact, having looked at it, the FFA didn't award caps for L'Alcúdia International Football Tournament (FFA: "matches are 2 x 35 minute halves and allow ten substitutions. As a result these are not considered full internationals" here). But re the U22 qualification, the side was definitively and consistently recognised as a U20 team by the FFA (as mentioned above). Macosal (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Incoherence
On this article (KF Apolonia Fier) the manager is Elidon Demiri whereas it is written in 2014–15 Albanian Superliga that the manager of KF Apolonia Fier is Artan Mergjyshi. Did it change at the beginning of the season ? A.Gust14 (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Soccerway says that Demiri left in November 2014 and Mergjyshi took over in January 2015. AlbaniaSoccer.com seems to say Mergjyshi took over at the beginning of January 2015 after another man had replaced Demiri, assuming Google-translate can be trusted. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Just came across this WP:STALEDRAFT created by a blocked user and I'm not sure what to make of it. It appears to be some sort of list of team lineups in some tournament of some sort, but I can't say much more than that. I am posting about it here because I am hoping that someone who knows more about this subject could determine what this is. Everymorning talk 00:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Everymorning: - it's made-up info, likely using it as place to put info from a video game or something similar. GiantSnowman 07:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Now that Carpi has been officially promoted to Serie A, I think it's a good time to re-open the discussion about the name of the article. The page was moved from Carpi F.C. 1909 to Carpi FC 1909 with the motivation "the logo has no punctuation" (see also the article's talk page), while all the articles on italian football teams and the official website of the side use it. CapPixel (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- The question is how other Italian clubs' names are presented (i.e. WP:CONSISTENCY). Looking in Category:Football clubs in Italy, it would appear that including the punctutation is standard, so the article should be moved back. Number 57 11:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I opened a new move request for Carpi. CapPixel (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- @CapPixel: - please be careful about WP:CANVASSING. GiantSnowman 11:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: You're right, I'm deleting the vote suggestion. CapPixel (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Sport London e Benfica F.C.
Please see Sport London e Benfica F.C.. Eagle1981 is edit warring without providing a reliable source. SLBedit (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- What is actually notable about this team? Jared Preston (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know. SLBedit (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- They played in the FA Vase, so meet the generally accepted notability criteria. Number 57 18:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Cited Sources have been added. Please note: A letter has been sent to Wikipedia regarding the violation of trademark and fraudulent use of Sport London e Benfica name by SLBedit. Eagle1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle1981 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Eagle1981: If you have sent that letter, then I suggest you retract it immediately per WP:NLT. Otherwise you will be blocked. I might add as an aside, that the claim that SLBedit is somehow violating the club's trademarked name is utterly ridiculous. Number 57 22:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Eagle1981 has been reported at WP:ANI. SLBedit (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Eagle1981: Thanks for the laugh. SLBedit (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Eagle1981: If you have sent that letter, then I suggest you retract it immediately per WP:NLT. Otherwise you will be blocked. I might add as an aside, that the claim that SLBedit is somehow violating the club's trademarked name is utterly ridiculous. Number 57 22:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Cited Sources have been added. Please note: A letter has been sent to Wikipedia regarding the violation of trademark and fraudulent use of Sport London e Benfica name by SLBedit. Eagle1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle1981 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- They played in the FA Vase, so meet the generally accepted notability criteria. Number 57 18:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know. SLBedit (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The person in question has continued steal the identity of the club in various social media. We have tried to politely ask him to stop doing this without result. Our club neither has the time or the resources to continually chase this person from harrassing our organisation. After several pages were removed from facebook we politely request Wikipedia to do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle1981 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea who that person is. As for removing the article, read WP:UNCENSORED. SLBedit (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
For the second or third time, User:GiantSnowman does not allow for external links to be inserted in this player's article, even though I try my "bestest". Yes, I know, according to him (and probably several users, I'm not bashing that), it's best to cite directly, but pretty much everything is now directly cited in the piece, and the links are harmless and useful.
What costs me the most if the "usage" (or lack thereof) or the BDFUTBOL.com link. The player spent five years in Spain, the link contains cup appearances, should it be discarded in this fashion? Methinks not. I repeat, we can have both approaches blend into one (all the contents directly cited, and a couple of interesting and, I repeat, HARMLESS external links)? On a related note, FOOTBALLDATABASE.eu and NFT.com have been removed too (yes, the latter already exists in the form of a reference, but I've seen hundreds of articles where NFT was used as both a ref - mostly for stats charts - and a link and nobody touched that).
Am I missing something here, and external links are a definite no-no these days? And I don't think this is a case of WP:OWNERSHIP on my part, I am respecting GS's approach, would like to have the same done to mine and be allowed, at least, to reinstate BDFUTBOL entry as a link. Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest you read WP:EL; the external links do not add anything to the article and having four near-identical links is overkill. Furthermore as you say NFT is already cited in-line so there is no need for that to be listed as an external link as well. GiantSnowman 15:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, four near-identical links is overkill, i'll take that one. How about just BDFUTBOL.com? If that link adds nothing to the article when the guy spent FIVE years in Spain then I rest my case, will never touch that article again, be sure of it, don't want to be a nuisance to anybody, especially now that I don't have an account. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Again, I don't see what a simple player database brings as an EL. GiantSnowman 15:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Footballdatabase.eu is inappropriate as an external link because you need to register to get anything out of it worth having, and it's not particularly accurate, either. The Soccerbase link adds little. As GiantSnowman says, NFT is used as a ref so doesn't need to be an EL as well. But personally, I would restore BDFUTBOL. As the anon (I wish you'd register an account, by the way, I don't like referring to you as "the anon") says, it covers a reasonably lengthy Spanish career in more detail than other more general stats sites, and includes cup as well as league data. If there were a career stats table on the article in question, it could reference much of that, and then wouldn't be needed at EL. But given there isn't, WP:ELYES bulletpoint 3 specifically mentions professional athlete statistics as an example of the sort of thing we may and possibly should link to. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Struway (and thank you both for your inputs). I am going to restore BDFUTBOL, and only that one. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Personally, I use external links just for very basic stub footy bios to source the stats in the infobox (I usually use soccerway, nft, and specific league ones). However, whenever I find myself with time, I expand the prose of the stub and insert the external links as references. The way I would do it here would be to add bdfutbol (definitely most reliable for Spanish La Liga) to the paragraph regarding his spell in Spain. So basically, I agree with GS, cause in this case we have enough prose to have refererences with no use for external links, I only back the use of external links using generalistic sites when they source the infobox stats when there is little prose in the article. FkpCascais (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
But his spell in Spain is already 99,999999999999% cited with REAL refs (and I can make it 100% if asked to), and the link is (for the umpteenth time) harmless, not to mention comprehensive. The way I see it, an external link is something for easy consultation (oh, this guy/gal played for this/that team, scoring this many goals and being sent off 16 times), the storyline (and the refs that (should) accompany it) is a much more comprehensive read.
I'm lost for words... And what about his youth years with Lyon, am I "allowed" to re-insert that in box? --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Jackichand Singh - Extra Opinions Welcome
Talk:Jackichand_Singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsenalFan700 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Born in one country but represents another
How should we describe players who are born and raised in one country but represent another at international level? I'm having an issue with @TonyStarks: at Riyad Mahrez but this principle applies to thousands of articles. I think we shouldn't assign a nationality at the start of the intro, but should instead go into details re:nationality further in the intro i.e. like this. On this article in particular TS is pushing his pro-Algerian POV but that is another matter... GiantSnowman 22:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- In my opinion where there is ambiguity as there is here the solution that best satisfies everyone is to start the article "X (born on date) is a professional footballer who plays for the Ruritanian club Strakenz United and and the Azania national team." Then give more details thereafter. If there is ambiguity and the player in question has not actually played for any international team yet, look if the sources give any indication regarding self-identification, either football-wise or not. Avoid defining players based on place of birth unless the location is relevant to their notability, per WP:BIRTHPLACE. — Cliftonian (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Except there is no ambiguity here, only the case of an admin trying to make a deal out of thing. Mahrez has never played for France and was never considered to play for France. On top of all the articles that list him as Algerian, as I pointed out with plenty of references from reputable sources, even the most important French football sources refer to him as Algerian: L'Equipe, France Football and another article from France Football for good measure. In case that's not enoguh, here are some articles from just yesterday from very reputable sources that all list him as Algerian: from FIFA, the Express, Business Insider, Daily Mail, The Guardian. Like I told Snowman, if there was any ambiguity where a player hasn't played for another country or has player for two countries, sure, I get it but this case is as straightforward as they come. TonyStarks (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Also, to answer the original question, the nationality we should be using is the last national team they have played for. A footballer is notable for being a footballer and international football defines a player's nationality even if they may hold other nationalities. Messi has Spanish citizenship and has lived there since he was 11, we can argue that he's just as Spanish as he is Argentine but common sense tells us that he's Argentine. TonyStarks (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- He's clearly French-born Algerian. – PeeJay 13:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- WP:OPENPARA: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." The fact that he's born in France is irrelevant in this case. TonyStarks (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- The fact he represents Algeria at international level is irrelevant to his notability, given that he was notable as a (French!) professional long before he switched nations... GiantSnowman 15:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Irrelevant? I guess you're just going to ignore all the references I posted where he's listed and referred to as Algerian? If it was irrelevant, he would be referred to as a Frenchman but the fact that he's not means you're wrong and it's very relevant. TonyStarks (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody is doubting he has Algerian nationality - in fact it is only you who says he is not French. Just accept he is "French-Algerian". You are giving the 'Algerian' aspect undue weight i.e. your usual POV pushing. GiantSnowman 15:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Irrelevant? I guess you're just going to ignore all the references I posted where he's listed and referred to as Algerian? If it was irrelevant, he would be referred to as a Frenchman but the fact that he's not means you're wrong and it's very relevant. TonyStarks (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- The fact he represents Algeria at international level is irrelevant to his notability, given that he was notable as a (French!) professional long before he switched nations... GiantSnowman 15:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- WP:OPENPARA: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." The fact that he's born in France is irrelevant in this case. TonyStarks (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- He's clearly French-born Algerian. – PeeJay 13:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Also, to answer the original question, the nationality we should be using is the last national team they have played for. A footballer is notable for being a footballer and international football defines a player's nationality even if they may hold other nationalities. Messi has Spanish citizenship and has lived there since he was 11, we can argue that he's just as Spanish as he is Argentine but common sense tells us that he's Argentine. TonyStarks (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Except there is no ambiguity here, only the case of an admin trying to make a deal out of thing. Mahrez has never played for France and was never considered to play for France. On top of all the articles that list him as Algerian, as I pointed out with plenty of references from reputable sources, even the most important French football sources refer to him as Algerian: L'Equipe, France Football and another article from France Football for good measure. In case that's not enoguh, here are some articles from just yesterday from very reputable sources that all list him as Algerian: from FIFA, the Express, Business Insider, Daily Mail, The Guardian. Like I told Snowman, if there was any ambiguity where a player hasn't played for another country or has player for two countries, sure, I get it but this case is as straightforward as they come. TonyStarks (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- If it were me, I'd put
- [[Algeria national football team|Algerian international]] [[association football|footballer]] who plays for
- whoever it is. Not Algerian but Algerian international. Avoids all the damn silly ethnicity/citizenship/nationality arguments. And if people want to include his birthplace as part of the summary of the rest of the article, they can. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I've never seen the problem with a solution like "is a French-Algerian footballer". With the exception of the home nations and a few islands, a player has to be a citizen of a country to play international football for it, so if they hold two passports, then both should be mentioned. Number 57 18:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Trouble with that construction is that it isn't obvious what it means. You're defining it here as holding those two passports. Others might think it implies one parent of each nationality. Others might see it as a more general description of ethnic origins. Personally, I'm reluctant to use wording that can be understood in a variety of different ways in the defining sentence of a BLP. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. Is Zinedine Zidane a French-Algerian footballer because he has both nationalities? Is Karim Benzema? Of course not, they're French and you don't see me pushing to change those article intro's because it wouldn't make any sense at all (despite Snowman's constant reference to his theory about my "Algerian-POV"). We're over-complicating things for no reason at all. As a footballer, if you represent a country internationally, to me that is what defines you and pretty much every single news article, website, league association, as well as FIFA use that approach. TonyStarks (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence to suggest that either Zidane or Benzema holds Algerian nationality, as opposed to just being of Algerian descent? Indeed do you have any evidence to suggest that either of them has even ever been to Algeria? They are both French citizens, born and raised in France, just like Mahrez (and, indeed, at least half the Algerian team). The only difference, so far as I can tell, is that Mahrez took up the right to play internationally for the land of his ancestors while Zidane and Benzema did not. Does this suddenly make Mahrez solely "Algerian" and not French? In terms of his international football registration, yes. In real life terms, not really. I would support Struway2's proposal above which tidily sidesteps all of this silliness. — Cliftonian (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes there are sources that indicate that both have but let's have a look at better examples. Patrice Evra, Marcel Desailly, Blaise Matuidi, Jean-Alain Boumsong were all born in various African countries before moving to France. Technically speaking, they weren't French at birth and probably didn't have French citizenship right on arrival in France. Are you suggest we change all their intros to make their nationality "neutral"? Is Patrice Evra no longer a French footballer but a professional footballer who plays for France? TonyStarks (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what should happen. The player is notable not for their nationality, but their own performances and who they represented. I'm disappointed that it seems several of these articles have been reverted back to their original language. Koncorde (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, TonyStarks, I'm proposing to use Struway2's proposed wording—"Algerian international footballer"—which is exactly what is used in the Evra and Matuidi articles you just linked. — Cliftonian (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what should happen. The player is notable not for their nationality, but their own performances and who they represented. I'm disappointed that it seems several of these articles have been reverted back to their original language. Koncorde (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes there are sources that indicate that both have but let's have a look at better examples. Patrice Evra, Marcel Desailly, Blaise Matuidi, Jean-Alain Boumsong were all born in various African countries before moving to France. Technically speaking, they weren't French at birth and probably didn't have French citizenship right on arrival in France. Are you suggest we change all their intros to make their nationality "neutral"? Is Patrice Evra no longer a French footballer but a professional footballer who plays for France? TonyStarks (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence to suggest that either Zidane or Benzema holds Algerian nationality, as opposed to just being of Algerian descent? Indeed do you have any evidence to suggest that either of them has even ever been to Algeria? They are both French citizens, born and raised in France, just like Mahrez (and, indeed, at least half the Algerian team). The only difference, so far as I can tell, is that Mahrez took up the right to play internationally for the land of his ancestors while Zidane and Benzema did not. Does this suddenly make Mahrez solely "Algerian" and not French? In terms of his international football registration, yes. In real life terms, not really. I would support Struway2's proposal above which tidily sidesteps all of this silliness. — Cliftonian (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. Is Zinedine Zidane a French-Algerian footballer because he has both nationalities? Is Karim Benzema? Of course not, they're French and you don't see me pushing to change those article intro's because it wouldn't make any sense at all (despite Snowman's constant reference to his theory about my "Algerian-POV"). We're over-complicating things for no reason at all. As a footballer, if you represent a country internationally, to me that is what defines you and pretty much every single news article, website, league association, as well as FIFA use that approach. TonyStarks (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Trouble with that construction is that it isn't obvious what it means. You're defining it here as holding those two passports. Others might think it implies one parent of each nationality. Others might see it as a more general description of ethnic origins. Personally, I'm reluctant to use wording that can be understood in a variety of different ways in the defining sentence of a BLP. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I've never seen the problem with a solution like "is a French-Algerian footballer". With the exception of the home nations and a few islands, a player has to be a citizen of a country to play international football for it, so if they hold two passports, then both should be mentioned. Number 57 18:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Also, tuppence worth as I go about fixing some international profiles - but I really hate the terrible use of "former". In the absence of a new profession it leaves a players profile hollow, which is why "retired" I believe is better. The profiles of various players appears split 50:50, but the use of "former French footballer" is abysmal, at least "retired French footballer" isn't somehow stripping a man of his nationality as well as his profession. Koncorde (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Cliftonian: I'm OK with that and I think it accurately describes the subject in question without leaving things vague like some of the suggestions some other users are making. I'll wait to see if we have consensus before I proceed in the case of Mahrez. TonyStarks (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say "professional footballer who plays for [club] and [national team] as a [position]" is the best outcome here. GiantSnowman 08:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's a sensible wording which describes the situation clearly. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's clear enough, assuming the player is professional: many international players are not, and are notable because of their international apearances. But not having anything nation-related early in the sentence just begs for editors to add something. The "is a Foolandish international footballer who plays for" version does remove the appearance of something being missing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's a sensible wording which describes the situation clearly. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say "professional footballer who plays for [club] and [national team] as a [position]" is the best outcome here. GiantSnowman 08:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Cliftonian: I'm OK with that and I think it accurately describes the subject in question without leaving things vague like some of the suggestions some other users are making. I'll wait to see if we have consensus before I proceed in the case of Mahrez. TonyStarks (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The current version looks like a good compromise, I hope everyone agrees. GiantSnowman 18:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think "born in France" is irrelevant, it's in his infobox and immediately mentioned in the next sentence of his bio. Koncorde (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Err so is most of the info - the point of the intro is to summarise the article as a whole. GiantSnowman 18:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but is it in two consecutive sentences? It's bad enough it currently goes "plays in England, and for Algeria" in sentence 1, then "played in France and England" in sentence two, before in sentence three flowing into "Born in France, plays for Algeria" anmd sentence four "born in France, eligible to represent Algeria". The lede is a complete mess full of masses of duplication. Koncorde (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Err it's not in two consecutive sentences? You added it into the opening brackets which is against WP:OPENPARA. The lede is not a "complete mess", it looks completely acceptable. GiantSnowman 19:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, wasn't aware of OPENPARA but it's used elsewhere (have been editing a lot of Italian player articles and almost all of them have it so assumed it was allowed), however how you can't see the consecutive sentences I'm not sure:
- Sentence 1: "Born in France, he made his international debut for Algeria in 2014 and represented them at the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2015 Africa Cup of Nations."
- Sentence 2: "Mahrez was born in Sarcelles, France, and possesses French, Algerian, and Moroccan citizenships."
- Can't get much more consecutive.
- On top of which we also have England mentioned twice, Leicester twice, and clunky "has played" when referring to Leicester. The composition of the lead was not good to start with and remains borked. I'll happily take it to the players talk page because this is a separate issue to his nationality. Koncorde (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- One is in the lede; the other in an actual section. It's not a problem. GiantSnowman 20:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Is there any point of having this discussion if users (namely Koncorde and Giantsnowman) are just going to go and apply what they want in the article anyway? Isn't the point of these discussions to attempt to reach a consensus before going and making changes? TonyStarks (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Which is what we have reached...the only one who seems to disagree with the current version is you. Any reason why you feel the need to mention that he is an Algerian international twice in the same sentence? GiantSnowman 09:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Are we reading the same discussion or you just going to blatantly lie? Read the messages by Cliftonian and Struway2, when you add myself that makes 3 editors who are proposing something different. TonyStarks (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Again, nobody other than you has expressed a problem with the current version. A number of editors proposed slightly different variations, Koncorde was WP:BOLD and introduced a version which I agreed with (well 99%!) and which nobody other than you has raised a problem with. If you stopped editing then the article would be stable and would therefore represent WP:CONSENSUS. You continue to duplicate Algeria/Algerian international in the opening sentence, it is simply not required. Leave it as it is. I've conceded on 'born in France' and 'As of May 2015 has x caps' for the sake of harmony; I suggest you do the same on this rather than keep pushing it as this is now entering WP:LAME territory. GiantSnowman 09:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Using your brilliant logic, if you stop editing the article then the article would also be stable and would therefore represent WP:CONSENSUS. Also, again using your brilliant logic, I was also being WP:BOLD and introduced a version which others agreed with. And no, you're still lying, we're having a discussion and have yet to reach consensus. Just because Koncorde has gone ahead and made changes to the article doesn't mean any consensus was reached. For an admin, you seem to really lack an understanding of how these things work. TonyStarks (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well no, seeing as your version is different to the version preferred by myself and Koncorde - so you are editing against consensus and being disruptive. If we're still discussing as you claim, why are you editing? Are you not aware of, for example, BRD? The only one who lacks understanding here is you, yet again. GiantSnowman 09:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Using your brilliant logic, if you stop editing the article then the article would also be stable and would therefore represent WP:CONSENSUS. Also, again using your brilliant logic, I was also being WP:BOLD and introduced a version which others agreed with. And no, you're still lying, we're having a discussion and have yet to reach consensus. Just because Koncorde has gone ahead and made changes to the article doesn't mean any consensus was reached. For an admin, you seem to really lack an understanding of how these things work. TonyStarks (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Again, nobody other than you has expressed a problem with the current version. A number of editors proposed slightly different variations, Koncorde was WP:BOLD and introduced a version which I agreed with (well 99%!) and which nobody other than you has raised a problem with. If you stopped editing then the article would be stable and would therefore represent WP:CONSENSUS. You continue to duplicate Algeria/Algerian international in the opening sentence, it is simply not required. Leave it as it is. I've conceded on 'born in France' and 'As of May 2015 has x caps' for the sake of harmony; I suggest you do the same on this rather than keep pushing it as this is now entering WP:LAME territory. GiantSnowman 09:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Are we reading the same discussion or you just going to blatantly lie? Read the messages by Cliftonian and Struway2, when you add myself that makes 3 editors who are proposing something different. TonyStarks (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Which is what we have reached...the only one who seems to disagree with the current version is you. Any reason why you feel the need to mention that he is an Algerian international twice in the same sentence? GiantSnowman 09:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Is there any point of having this discussion if users (namely Koncorde and Giantsnowman) are just going to go and apply what they want in the article anyway? Isn't the point of these discussions to attempt to reach a consensus before going and making changes? TonyStarks (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- One is in the lede; the other in an actual section. It's not a problem. GiantSnowman 20:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, wasn't aware of OPENPARA but it's used elsewhere (have been editing a lot of Italian player articles and almost all of them have it so assumed it was allowed), however how you can't see the consecutive sentences I'm not sure:
- Err it's not in two consecutive sentences? You added it into the opening brackets which is against WP:OPENPARA. The lede is not a "complete mess", it looks completely acceptable. GiantSnowman 19:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but is it in two consecutive sentences? It's bad enough it currently goes "plays in England, and for Algeria" in sentence 1, then "played in France and England" in sentence two, before in sentence three flowing into "Born in France, plays for Algeria" anmd sentence four "born in France, eligible to represent Algeria". The lede is a complete mess full of masses of duplication. Koncorde (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Err so is most of the info - the point of the intro is to summarise the article as a whole. GiantSnowman 18:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- The original issue was between two versions: yours and mine (May 9th). We both stopped editing once you brought it up to WT:FOOTY and opened up the discussion about how to deal with cases like this. On May 11th, Koncorde decided to make changes to the article despite us not having reached a consensus here. Looking at the discussion, more than 3 people have contributed to say that you+him is a consensus is absolutely not true. If we're going to be civil about this and follow the proper procedure, let's try to reach a consensus that we can all agree with before going back to the article and changing it. TonyStarks (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Summary
- "French-Algerian" - PeeJay, Number 57
- "Algerian international footballer..." - Cliftonian, TonyStarks
- "professional footballer who plays for [club] and [national team] as a [position]..." - GiantSnowman, Koncorde, SNC
I have not listed Struway2 as while he initially suggested #2 he also stated #3 was acceptable. I suspect Cliftonian would also agree with #3 given his earlier comments in the discussion. No editors other than myself, Koncorde, and TS have edited the article or indeed participated in this discussion any further since then. The only person who therefore expresses an active opposition to the current version is Tony - but why? GiantSnowman 09:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Because 3 out of 7 is not consensus. TonyStarks (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- You do know it's WP:NOTAVOTE, right? There's more to consensus than mere numbers. Plus like I said, there are only three people still engaged and it's 2 v 1, so by your logic... GiantSnowman 10:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Put me down for Algerian international footballer, please. I said 3 was acceptable but 2 was better, and explained why 2 was better (IMO, obviously). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am with Struway2; I think 2 is my favourite but 3 is also acceptable. — Cliftonian (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Also, not sure what's meant by being "still engaged". I haven't been here at all since yesterday afternoon, and on my return I prioritised answering a query from the well-known Portuguese anon and reverting mass unsourced changes to stadium capacities. And I thought that how discussion worked was, you discussed stuff, made the points you wanted to make and commented on other people's views. And then it got summed up on quality of argument, compliance with policies/guidelines, common sense. Pity the discussion came here rather than the article talk page, then the article could have been protected till a conclusion was reached.
- Personally, I prefer WP articles written in normal English that convey the facts of the matter in a clear yet readable manner and avoid misleading the reader. I do hope we're not trying to impose some sort of rule as to the exact form of words that must be used in all opening sentences regardless of readability or context. Struway2 (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Put me down for Algerian international footballer, please. I said 3 was acceptable but 2 was better, and explained why 2 was better (IMO, obviously). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- You do know it's WP:NOTAVOTE, right? There's more to consensus than mere numbers. Plus like I said, there are only three people still engaged and it's 2 v 1, so by your logic... GiantSnowman 10:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I never said I thought he was French-Algerian, I said he's French-born Algerian. Of the three options, though, I think number 3 is probably the best. Although I would say "professional footballer who plays as a [position] for [club] and [national team]..." – PeeJay 11:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Mass unsourced changes
An editor is making a large number of unsourced changes to articles. I am tied up in the real world and can only dip in and out here today but feel that the sooner they are stopped the less cleaning up will be needed. Britmax (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
National Football Teams Highest and Lowest FIFA Rankings
Is the article National Football Teams Highest and Lowest FIFA Rankings notable? QED237 (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- The information is included in infoboxes of the national teams, so either both would have to go or both can stay. The way it is ordered currently does not seem to make sense though, Italy has the highest high (#1) and the highest low (#16) yet they are listed 13th, because that is their current position. Having a that Pos. column doesn't seem to make sense, the table should be sortable too. CRwikiCA talk 15:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- My major issue is that it is completely unsourced and original research. QED237 (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- The other problem is that it seems to be ordered by the current position of each of the teams, not by either the highest or lowest positions as would be suggested by the title. Also, am I wrong or aren't the FIFA World Rankings copyrighted in their full form? IIRC, that's why we don't list the whole table at FIFA World Rankings, because we'd be violating the protection of FIFA's intellectual property. Personally, I've never seen any evidence for that, but it's worth thinking about. – PeeJay 15:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, the way it currently is formatted without sourcing is horrible. I am not sure whether this information is notable or not, but if it isn't, it should also not appear in infoboxes. It would probably be possible to find sources, but again, if not, then it should appear in infoboxes either. CRwikiCA talk 17:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Having that information in the infobox is very different to having it in a separate article; by your logic CRwikiCA every infobox parameter should have their own articles? List of Sheffield Wednesday F.C. capacities; List of Arsenal F.C. full names; List of Charlton Athletic F.C. websites? GiantSnowman 17:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Non notable. Nostats. Most people don't know anything about the FIFA ranking. Sure, when country150 reaches a new record height, it's a big news on their FA website, but that's it. And I never read anything about a record low in the media. -Koppapa (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: A particular statistic is either notable or not, as to your example the only one of the three that is a stat also has an article (List of stadiums by capacity).
CRwikiCA talk 17:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: A particular statistic is either notable or not, as to your example the only one of the three that is a stat also has an article (List of stadiums by capacity).
- Non notable. Nostats. Most people don't know anything about the FIFA ranking. Sure, when country150 reaches a new record height, it's a big news on their FA website, but that's it. And I never read anything about a record low in the media. -Koppapa (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Having that information in the infobox is very different to having it in a separate article; by your logic CRwikiCA every infobox parameter should have their own articles? List of Sheffield Wednesday F.C. capacities; List of Arsenal F.C. full names; List of Charlton Athletic F.C. websites? GiantSnowman 17:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, the way it currently is formatted without sourcing is horrible. I am not sure whether this information is notable or not, but if it isn't, it should also not appear in infoboxes. It would probably be possible to find sources, but again, if not, then it should appear in infoboxes either. CRwikiCA talk 17:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- The other problem is that it seems to be ordered by the current position of each of the teams, not by either the highest or lowest positions as would be suggested by the title. Also, am I wrong or aren't the FIFA World Rankings copyrighted in their full form? IIRC, that's why we don't list the whole table at FIFA World Rankings, because we'd be violating the protection of FIFA's intellectual property. Personally, I've never seen any evidence for that, but it's worth thinking about. – PeeJay 15:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- My major issue is that it is completely unsourced and original research. QED237 (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
@CRwikiCA, PeeJay2K3, GiantSnowman, and Koppapa: Okay so AfD then? QED237 (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I would say so. GiantSnowman 17:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I highly doubt this data (especially the lows) can be sourced properly. (Going through all individual rankings would constitute OR in my opinion.) CRwikiCA talk 17:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@CRwikiCA, PeeJay2K3, GiantSnowman, and Koppapa: Now at this AfD. Feel free to post your comments. QED237 (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@CRwikiCA, PeeJay2K3, GiantSnowman, and Koppapa: Two similar articles now at AfD here and here. It is the articles Turkish Super League Teams Ranking According to League Positions and Turkish Super League all time table. Feel free to voice your opinion. QED237 (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
For the third time (or more), User:Postcard Cathy can't seem to understant the rules of WP:MCSTJR. The subject is known as HUGO, and only HUGO. Not as Cabral. The sources ([4], [5], [6], [7]) confirm this, and if you Google his name you'll clearly see that he's known as HUGO.
I was reverted without any explanation why, and got the same outcome why when I asked her directly.
Can someone take a look at this? Thanks, MYS77 ✉ 19:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
West Ham United in Europe
An IP has been repeatedly adding an unsourced list of West Ham's games in Europe. I have twice reverted but it's back again despite me advising him of the lack of sources. Not only is this unsourced it is also in West Ham United F.C. in European football. Surely the unsourced duplication in the West Ham United F.C. article is unnecessary?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, it should not be in two places. QED237 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Magdala Amateurs F.C.
FA Amateur Cup appearances in the 1930s enough to denote notability? Thoughts on Magdala Amateurs F.C. article? Cheers. Del♉sion23 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- "The club is currently only represented by its reserves" - how does that work? How can a club only have a reserve team....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's possible if the first team pulled out of their league midway through the season... Number 57 10:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- According to own website, they have three teams including a first team.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
My mistake, I couldn't find them before but the first team are here in the relegation zone of the Nottinghamshire Senior League Division One. Notability question still stands though, are they notable? Del♉sion23 (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- If we accept clubs that have played in the FA Vase as notable, which I believe has happened in the past, then there is no reason not to give the same treatment to the Amateur Cup, which was effectively an earlier incarnation of the Vase..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The recent ban in third-party ownership or involve in the takeover AC Milan, would the article Doyen Group have a strong point to discuss in deletion review, or still not yet notable? Matthew_hk tc 13:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say redirect to Third-party ownership in association football at most. GiantSnowman 15:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Just a head's up that this user is flat-out refusing to follow the standard way of dealing with articles for players who will be released at the end of their contract. They're insisting on saying those players have left before they've actually left, and are trying to edit-war their way down that path (violating 3RR in the process on one article) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, problematic editor, won't work collaboratively, had my own run-ins in the past. GiantSnowman 12:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
All time appearances in European Cup and UEFA Champions League
Someone created All time appearances in European Cup and UEFA Champions League after i removed it here (in article European Cup and UEFA Champions League records and statistics) because we already have a list for appearances in main round (excluding qualifications). Do we need this new article? QED237 (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- One table is enough and it should be in the stats article. As the given source UEFA includes qualification, probably that table should be used, or another source added. -Koppapa (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- WP:NOTSTATS + WP:LISTCRUFT = WP:AFD. GiantSnowman 17:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Not to mention that the title is rather bad at telling people what the article actually contains. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've seen far less useful tables shown on Wikipedia. It could warrant usage on a article somewhere, but it doesn't really need its own article. - J man708 (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- WP:NOTSTATS + WP:LISTCRUFT = WP:AFD. GiantSnowman 17:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This article is now at this AfD created by User:Lukeno94. QED237 (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Greater Los Angeles Sports by year navboxes
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1946 and similiar templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_18#Greater_Los_Angeles_Sports_by_year_navboxes. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello to all of you. I was going through some pages and noticed that this french player has two pages here, with different spellings. It seems, according to his Soccerway and L'équipe.fr profiles, that the first one is the correct spelling. Can anyone here nominate the second page for deletion ? (Or explain to me how to do it, I'll gladly to it once I know how).
Regards, Tuttiseme (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've redirected the 'newer' one to the 'older'. GiantSnowman 14:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! Tuttiseme (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Non-free use of File:Hyundai A-League logo.svg
There's a discussion currently ongoing regarding the non-free use of the "Hyundai A-League" logo in A-League, 2014-15 A-League and 2015–16 A-League at WP:NFCR#File:Hyundai A-League logo.svg. Use of non-free images is covered under WP:NFC and there are specific criteria that need to be satisfied in order to use such an image in an article. NFCR is not a file deletion discussion; It's simply to discuss whether the usage of non-free content complies with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. All interested editors are invited to comment and any additional clarification that can be provided about the logo would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Miami FC
The American North American Soccer League has just announced that a new club called Miami FC will play in their league come 2016. There was already several links to an article/club called Miami FC which renamed itself to Fort Lauderdale Strikers in 2010. To avoid confusion, I've updated those links to the page Miami FC (2006) and amended categories on player and season articles. TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have time to do it myself but I think the history of Miami FC from 18 February 2011 to 19 December 2011 should be merged with Fort Lauderdale Strikers. GiantSnowman 20:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Augusto Batalla
Hey, any help is welcome. He isn't notable or am i wrong? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augusto Batalla Kante4 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have logged at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves; please be careful about WP:CANVASS. GiantSnowman 20:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Validity of photographs of museum exhibits as sources?
I took a few photos while I was on a tour of Old Trafford a few years ago, but I forgot to refer back to them for use here. Some of the info on the exhibits in the museum doesn't seem to have been replicated anywhere else (such as the fact that tennis player Suzanne Lenglen played an exhibition match at Old Trafford in 1927). How valid is this as a source, and if valid, how would I go about adding a reference to it to an article? – PeeJay 18:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- You could reference the exhibition itself, rather than a photograph of it? Maybe use {{Cite press release}}, or even {{Cite journal}} if there was a programme/guide which accompanied it? GiantSnowman 19:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- There's no problem in principle with citing item descriptions from exhibitions. But whether individual ones would be acceptable would fall under the standard definition of RS: would the exhibition and its curator(s) have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? The British Museum would; the average seaside-resort museum to entertain the kids when it's wet probably wouldn't. Where would an Old Trafford stadium tour come on that scale? Or alternatively, ask at WP:RS/N, which is what it's there for. In terms of how to cite, it'd probably be best to say the facts come from the label description of whatever it is, at Old Trafford's museum, date viewed etc; might be easier to write freehand than try to shoehorn it into a cite template.
- Or alternatively, on Ms Lenglen's exhibition match specifically: Do you have access to old newspapers via your library or via one of the WP access programmes? if so, you can source it easily enough from the Manchester Guardian. Or if you haven't, I could email you a screenshot of their report (you'd have to send me your email address, the WP email facility doesn't allow the sending of attachments). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Cite AV media}} (for the actual image) and {{Cite sign}} (for museum plaques) to the rescue. Hack (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
F.C.S.B.
Someone just added newly created F.C.S.B. to the top Romanian league table at 2014–15 Liga I instead of Steaua Bucharest, which I reverted. The article claims Steaua is defunct, but I know they got UEFA license a few days ago. Is this true or a hoax? Qed237 (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's still Steaua. They uses FCSB sometimes to not get in legal trouble, as much as i know. -Koppapa (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Deleted/redirected. GiantSnowman 20:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hoax Articles
Declan Martin, a relatively new user seems to be engaged in creating nothing but relativley detailed hoax articles. I already speedied Johan Jamaza as an obvious hoax, but am less sure about:
I mean, I am pretty sure they are hoaxes, but just didn't think they were so blatant as to definitely be G3'able. I have Prodded two and one was alreayd BLPPRODed. Does anyone have anything to indicate these are real people / clubs (even if the article contains misinformation)? Fenix down (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Blatant, blatant hoaxes. No Blanco played in Benfica, no Suharabat is international for Bangladesh, and no CD Bilbao played in Segunda B... FkpCascais (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Deleted. GiantSnowman 20:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Club Football Elo Ranking
Please check Club Football Elo Ranking. Is it notable? SLBedit (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Most likely not. -Koppapa (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Non-notable, please take to WP:AFD. GiantSnowman 20:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
New Sporting Kansas City 3rd Kit
I'm looking for help on doing the new Sporting Kansas City 3rd kit in the club & season template for the team. I don't know how to make it. The design is here. Elisfkc (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Repairing dead links
I originally asked about this at WT:WikiProject Football/Australia task force#Repairing dead embedded links, but was advised by two editors that it would be better to ask here.
I was looking at 2009–10 A-League National Youth League and found that all of the links to match reports were dead and are redirecting to http://www.a-league.com.au/. I've already found archived versions for all of the dead links and have them formated using {{cite web}}, so the only thing left to do is add them to the article. The match report links were originally embedded into the article; This is a style that may have been OK in the past, but is one that is no longer considered acceptable per Wikipedia's guidelines on citing sources. I am not suggesting that the templates be scrapped; I am only suggesting that the embedded links be converted to footnotes. The working of the template will not be affected (as far as I can tell) and the only difference will be as to how the links appear in the article: Instead of appearing as "Report", they will appear as "Report[1]". Using citation templates will also allow more information about the source to be provided besides its url. I am not asking others to stop whatever they are doing and help me do any of this. I realize it's an old article, but old articles are typically where links go dead and I think its better to repair the dead links per WP:DEADREF than simply leave things as is or just adding {{dead link}}. Normally, I would discuss something like this on the article's talk page, but since the same problem affects other individual season articles and since it is involving a template, I thought I'd ask for input here. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Don't see why not, personally. Fixing dead links is a good thing, and we shouldn't be encouraging a bare-link format. If it were me, I'd be inclined to go a step further and omit the word "Report" entirely. Most readers of Wikipedia are used to the idea that a little number in square brackets tells you where the information came from, and not displaying the word "Report" might encourage editors to think of the parameter as a reference. Might be a step too far, though.
- Three years ago, the deadlink problem was raised unanswered at Template talk:Football box#Broken links in the |report= parameter? – trialling a solution at a carefully selected low-profile target such as 2009–10 A-League National Youth League seems like a good way to proceed... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- As I said on the WikiFootball Australia page, I think it's a good idea. I can't imagine anyone having any reason to object this, but it will probably be a herculean task at times. I think Struway2 has hit the nail on the head by suggesting to utilise the lower traffic pages as a bit of a testbed for this. - J man708 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Struway2 and J man708 for the input. Embedded links seem like the perfect one-click approach when everything is working fine. When they go dead, however, you're only left with a bare url to work with which can make it a bit harder to find an appropriate archived version of the link. Even if you do find an archive version, repairing the dead link can be problematic because you either have to simply embed the archived link or add it using templates (e.g., {{cite web}}) as pointed out in Broken links in the |report= parameter?, neither of which is a very good option. Using footnotes (e.g., <ref>{{cite web}}</ref>), however, allows the text in the article body to remain essentially unchanged and only affects how the citation appears in the references section. This does mean a reader has to click one more time to see the actual source, but I think this is a minor inconvenience that is far outweighed by the additional information that can be provided about the source. Anyway, I'm not advocating the across-the-board immediate replacement of all embedded links in all of the article's under the purview of this project. I just felt it would be fairly easy to convert the embedded links to footnotes while repairing the dead links for this one particular article. Perfectly fine with this being a test case to see how things look and use as a basis for future reference. Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- After doing a few practice edits, I kinda agree with Struway2's above comment about the word "Report". Simply adding <ref>{{cite web}}</ref> to "Report" gives us "Report[1]" which seems sort of pointless when the citation can just as easily be added to the final score like "1-0<ref>{{cite web}}</ref>" to give us "1-0[1]". The end result is the same I guess, but for some reason the latter seems better to me. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Struway2 and J man708 for the input. Embedded links seem like the perfect one-click approach when everything is working fine. When they go dead, however, you're only left with a bare url to work with which can make it a bit harder to find an appropriate archived version of the link. Even if you do find an archive version, repairing the dead link can be problematic because you either have to simply embed the archived link or add it using templates (e.g., {{cite web}}) as pointed out in Broken links in the |report= parameter?, neither of which is a very good option. Using footnotes (e.g., <ref>{{cite web}}</ref>), however, allows the text in the article body to remain essentially unchanged and only affects how the citation appears in the references section. This does mean a reader has to click one more time to see the actual source, but I think this is a minor inconvenience that is far outweighed by the additional information that can be provided about the source. Anyway, I'm not advocating the across-the-board immediate replacement of all embedded links in all of the article's under the purview of this project. I just felt it would be fairly easy to convert the embedded links to footnotes while repairing the dead links for this one particular article. Perfectly fine with this being a test case to see how things look and use as a basis for future reference. Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- As I said on the WikiFootball Australia page, I think it's a good idea. I can't imagine anyone having any reason to object this, but it will probably be a herculean task at times. I think Struway2 has hit the nail on the head by suggesting to utilise the lower traffic pages as a bit of a testbed for this. - J man708 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I wouldn't move away from using |report= to hold the reference. Logically, that is the reference parameter, and attaching the ref specifically to the score carries an implication (to me, anyway) that all it's sourcing is the score, not the whole row. And if it stays in the position where the word "Report" normally goes, below the score, then visually it'll be only a minimal change from the expected format. So, using |report=<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.a-league.com.au |title=Ref title |publisher=A-League |accessdate=19 May 2015}}</ref>,
| Adelaide United | 1 – 1 | Central Coast Mariners |
|---|---|---|
Monterosso  78' |
[1] | D'Apuzzo 90+4' |
cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Ref title". A-League. Retrieved 19 May 2015.
- Thanks for taking the time to add that example Struway2. I can understand what you're saying about citing the score instead of the report. A bare footnote marker does seem a little strange to me, but it is another option to consider. Maybe others will chime in and have their say. Regardless, I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus is since either way the dead lnks get repaired. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about this and have reverted to my original suggestion of citing the game score. The
|report=entry is only visible to the reader if there's something added for it. My guess is embedding links was considered standard back when the template was created, so having a report entry for the infobox seemed perfectly logical at the time because you could embed a link and call it "Report". Embedded links, however, have been deprecated, so a report entry does not seem to be as essential as it once was and putting the footnote after the score is better in my opinion, at least better than simply trying to fill up the parameter with a bare footnote marker or by "Report"[1]. For reference, the entries for|attendance=and|referee=are not filled in for each match and infoboxes often have entries that are left blank. Once again, the only way a reader would know that there could be a "report" entry would be if they looked at the edit page markup. Anyway, I've just repaired the dead links for Rd. 1 so that others can see and assess, but I think "score"[1] would be better here. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)- Well the first thing that comes to mind that "1–1[1]" makes the score less clear. Putting the reference anywhere away from the score itself , including underneath, is fine in my opinion. C679 08:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about this and have reverted to my original suggestion of citing the game score. The
Concacaf Task Force?
Is anyone interested in creating a task force for the CONCACAF? We would need a few willing members to help build the page and make articles for it. I'm gonna begin making templates and the layout for it soon in my sandbox as well. So what do you guys think? Da Drewster (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- We already have a USA/Canada task force, not sure how much more useful a CONACAF-specific one will be, to be honest... GiantSnowman 20:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Definitely not a good use of your time to make the templates, etc. before interest is established here. C679 08:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Alert to bogus link to commercial website
The link to "summary" just below the score of the 1966/67 League Cup final between QPR and WBA is a link to a betting website. There is no summary of the match as the link suggests. If there was a true original link to a match summary, it has been invaded by a commercial interest or a company is just adding "pretend" summary links. Please could someone with Wikipedia oversight privileges look into this abuse. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.202.129 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's fine. Soccerbase was bought by the RacingPost some years ago. The target URLs have changed (and in some cases are quite hard to find) and it looks like the link was never updated. I can see the stats here for instance. This is the kind of irritant that FIFA and UEFA give us now and then when they redesign their websites and break all of our references. Nanonic (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hull United A.F.C.
A page for this club was created around a year ago, and it was rightly deleted as at that time it wasn't notable - having never played in a national competition or at Step 6 of the National League System.
The club has recently won promotion to the Northern Counties East League, and playing at this level has usually been enough to show notability, so I re-created a page for the club this week.
However, a deletion tag was soon placed on it based on the previous deletion argument and, despite my contest, the page has been deleted for a second time.
The user here seems convinced that Hull United A.F.C. have to play in a national cup competition to be eligible for a Wikipedia page, and won't accept that playing at Step 6 also confers notability, as shown here. I would appreciate it if someone could enter the debate and help get this page undeleted. Kivo (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Does the team pass WP:GNG? (i.e. has the team "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"?). I'd say WP:GNG trumps an essay by a user. Del♉sion23 (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I understood that consensus here was that playing at Step 6 was enough, although I'd say satisfying GNG is also necessary. Does anyone know where the Step 6 notability consensus is? I don't fancy trawling through the archives to find it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- The consensus is via many, many AfDs over the years. See an example here, which also contains links to several others. Number 57 13:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'd be tempted to wait until it actually meets the consensus criteria by playing at that level, though. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's precisely what I said on JamesBWatson's talk page. As Hull United haven't yet played at either a league in the 6th step, or in the FA Vase, they don't yet satisfy notability on that grounds. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'd be tempted to wait until it actually meets the consensus criteria by playing at that level, though. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- The consensus is via many, many AfDs over the years. See an example here, which also contains links to several others. Number 57 13:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I understood that consensus here was that playing at Step 6 was enough, although I'd say satisfying GNG is also necessary. Does anyone know where the Step 6 notability consensus is? I don't fancy trawling through the archives to find it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)