Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Clubs/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Kingjeff, please stop

Kingjeff, I ask you again. Please do not add stadium and suporters subsections to the Red Bull New York article. If you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, you will see it clearly spelled out: Avoid overuse of subheadings. It makes the article look horrible. Please stop. I really don't understand your actions. First you tell me to discuss it here until a consensus is reached. While a discussion is going on, you continue to alter the article in your way, disregarding what myself and others are posting here. Meanwhile, I have altered all the articles to adhere more to the standard, without victimizing their look. It seems to be that the consensus, and following the Manual of Style, is to not have subheadings for 1-sentence paragraphs. Yet you continue to insert them. Please respect others' work. And you wonder why so many editors are having problems with you. DR31 _(talk) 04:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't insert any one sentence. I inserted standard headings for soccer clubs and you reverted more then my edit. If you have problesm with small headers, then add to it instead of insulting me. Kingjeff 04:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Who insulted you now? Adhere to the consensus please like you promised. Which part of the above don't you understand?

1. Do not revert pages, or make large changes to the layout, unless you have a really, really, good reason.
2. the manual of style "is a proposal for the general style and contents of an article on a football club" not set guide lines
3. you don't have to add empty or quasi-empty paragraphs only because they're listed among the suggested ones
4. Avoid overuse of subheadings DR31 _(talk) 04:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

and what was the consensus? It seems as if you have an answer to everything. Kingjeff 04:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

See the summarized points made just above your most recent post. DR31 _(talk) 04:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Defunct football club infobox

I have created a variation of the football club infobox suitable for use in articles about defunct football clubs. Suggestions for changes and improvements welcome. Oldelpaso 13:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Manager histories

I've been looking at the Manager History sections in the 44 Premiership and Championship club pages (no disrespect to any lower division teams intended), and have noticed that these sections have widely differing names between the different club pages. The breakdown is as follows:

• Managers - 18
• (no section) - 12
• Managerial history - 5
• Manager History - 2
• List of managers - 2
• Club managers - 1
• Famous Managers - 1
• Team Managers - 1
• Notable former managers - 1
• Managers since 1946 - 1

Interestingly, not one uses the Templated suggestion 'Noted managers'. I'd like to propose a standard name be used (for example #Managers, as it is seemingly the most commonly used). I think this would make the manager succession boxes a lot easier to create, as the link in the centre box would always be of the form Club Name F.C.#Managers. The drawback would be that many such existing links to the manager histories would need to be corrected. I'd be interested to hear what people think... Jameboy 13:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, the best way to link from the succession boxes is Club Name F.C. manager. I still think the section names could benefit from uniformity though. Jameboy 15:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For a full list of managers, Managerial history makes sense, for a partial list I'd probably plump for consistency with the Noted players section. For lengthier club articles I advocate giving a full list of managers its own article, not that I'm biased or anything. Oldelpaso 19:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, does every club name include "Football Club" abbreviated "F.C."? Or do 'pedians, historians, database builders use "F.C." sometimes as a marker to show that this is a football club? Do some clubs in non-English-speaking countries use "FC" in the club name in recognition of England's historical role?

The section name should be "Managers", not "Famous managers" or "List of managers", etc. (1) Use English prose, probably above the list, to explain the scope of the particular list: "Nineteen men and one woman have led the storied squad but only six worked at least two full seasons. [list includes only six]". (2) Use English prose, probably below the list, to explain variable historical terminology: the manager was titled "Coach" until a wealthy Australian purchased the club and he is still called "Coach" in the local newspapers, or whatever. --P64 03:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

FCHD template

I've created a new template, Template:Fchd, to standardise external links to the Football Club History Database. It doesn't do a lot of formatting, but it will make it easier to change all the links when the whole site moves at the end of June. I'll start updating existing links shortly. — sjorford++ 12:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Coach nationalities

Recently there has been some discussion on the MLS Kansas City Wizards page about how to denote the nationality of a coach. Specifically the current head coach is marked with the Hungarian flag, but has played for the US and coached the US team. Above the discussion on nationality seems to state that players receive the flag for the national team they play for. Is this the same rule for coaches? Rballou 19:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd love an answer to this one. One solution would be to follow the MoS for clubs and have no flags in the info box whatsoever (hence no need for a flag next to the manager). - X201 18:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Players receive the flag from the national team they play for because that is their country of origin. Of course, this is not always the case; there are occaionally players that play for national teams outside their country of origin, but this is the exception, not the rule. Regardless, a player can only be attached with one country. On the other hand, coaches are sprayed all over the place; top coaches are not typically tied to their home country. In addition, they may jump from country to country for different jobs. Therefore, in order for the flat/country designation to offer the most useful information it would seem logical to have it indicate the home country (i.e. country of citizenship) of the coach. I guess I'm not sure how to deal with situations of dual citizenship, but I'm sure someone has a solution for that. Wnorton (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

3rd kit

Can the template be editted to incorporate a 3rd kit? Manchester City used their 3rd kit last season in the Premiership and many other teams have a 3rd kit. Obviously it would need to be optional for teams with just 2 kits. SenorKristobbal 22:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Teams with a third kit will generally use it no more than once or twice a season. I think mentioning the third kit in the text under Colours and crest should suffice, but overall I'm fairly neutral on the issue. Oldelpaso 11:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeh I think it would be better to keep the templates consistant and just mention it somewhere. Philc _T^E_C^I 11:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Oldelpaso here. This would create more consistency. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sub-articles

A lot of the biggest teams' articles are growing such that multiple pages are needed. I was thinking that each club should eventually have pages as such:

• Example F.C.
  • An overview of club history (not in full detail)
  • Club colours & badge explanation/history
  • Stadium overview
  • Honours list
  • Current squad list
  • etc.

I personally like Arsenal F.C. as an example except for the huge list of players and managers, both of which should be relegated to a sub article.

• History of Example F.C.
• Example F.C. Reserves (etc.)
  • Perhaps only for bigger clubs, but it is definitely preferable to having a large reserves section in the main article, see Liverpool F.C. Reserves
• Example F.C. statistics or Example F.C. records
  • All lists of statistics should go here
• List of Example F.C. players
• Example F.C. stadium

I was wondering whether it would be worthwhile talking about such sub-articles and deciding upon some standards for them? aLii 11:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Captains?

What is the problem with having the club captains listed after the squad? It only takes up four lines. Stop being so pedantic.

Because there already is a function that allows you to list the captains in the squad list. The optional parameter other should be used for that, that is, adding |other=captain in the player template. Anyway, if you would have read the page, you might have noticed the text on the top saying "Please discuss any changes on the talk page before editing this page". – Elisson • Talk 18:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Players vs. Current squad section

I think there should be a players section with current players and historical players being sub-sections. What does everyone else think? Kingjeff 00:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Timeline with previous league results

On the Karlsruher SC page I added a timeline of the team's previous league results, looking as follows:

Does anyone have comments on how to perhaps improve this, and are there policies against using such embedded stuff in wikipedia articles? Are there other teams that have similar timelines? eSk 13:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added two similar ones to the Boldklubben Frem page. Bagande 17:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If one of the coding wizards can make a template, that'd be awesome. I did one for Ashington A.F.C., though I wonder if there's a color scheme I should use? (Also, if your test includes a link and some non-link stuff say "Northern League Division 2", it messes up the link.) - Wmcduff (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Internationals

How about incorporating this bit into the Records section?

Internationals Number of capped players (with Spain) - 18

• First Capped Player - Pasarín
  • Debut Match -Italy 1-0 Spain (París, 25/05/1924)
• Last Capped Player - Ángel
  • Debut Match - Spain 0-1 Romania (Estadio Ramón de Carranza, Cádiz, 15/11/2006)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.69.40.37 (talk • contribs).

People are free to add whatever encyclopedic info they want into the club articles, but I do not believe that "last capped player" should be included. – Elisson • T • C • 16:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither should the first capped player be added as there are always 11 first capped players. SportsAddicted | discuss 22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Current squad: wikilinking and notability

The "Current squad" section of the boilerplate has:

---

As of 33 Thranuary 3333

Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules; some limited exceptions apply. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
30	GK		Tom Templateo
31	DF		Tim Template
32	DF		Tommy Templatius (on loan to Template City FC)

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
33	MF		Tom Template senior
34	FW		Templaldo (on loan from MediaWiki AFC)
35	MF		Timmy Templaton

---

I think this has the seriously misleading implication that, if a club is sufficiently notable to have an article, than all its playes should have articles. Adding a wikilink to a nonexistant article is a declaration that you believe the relevant subject merits its own article. The result is that most articles about lowlevel clubs have a "current squad" section with 10 redlinks, and 5 links to sttubs that say nothing but "Joe Bloggs is a midfielder at Blogghamption Rangers", and are never likely to say more. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Players. I propose changing the sample to something like

---

As of 33 Thranuary 3333

Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules; some limited exceptions apply. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
30	GK		Jack G. Obscure
31	DF		Tom D. Wellknown
32	DF		Bob D. Nobody (on loan to Template City FC)

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
33	MF		Ron M. Unknown senior
34	FW		Mike F. Big-Star (on loan from MediaWiki AFC)
35	MF		George F. Amateur

---

Opinions? jnestorius^(talk) 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

For many clubs wikilinking every player is appropriate. To make the distinction, an explanatory note is probably needed, rather than attempting to make the point with player names. Oldelpaso 21:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a note. Edit it mercilessly if you think it could be worded better. Oldelpaso 22:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I propose that the standard club infobox seen at the top right-hand side of each club's ought to contain more information. I noticed the template used by the Italian-language Wikipedia, an example of which can be viewed here, and found that it contains extra information such as the club's confederation, nation and association as well as providing a space for achievements, the club's city, an address and a web address. This is much more informative than that used on the English-language Wikipedia. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I favour keeping it simple. The majority of that information is the sort of thing any half-decent lead should include anyway: Template FC are a countryish football club from Template City, currently playing in the Wikipedian League. The Club has won the Wikipedian Championship once and the Jimbo Wales Cup three times. etc. Prose is more informative than lists. A large infobox increases the temptation to fill it out at the expense of the adding to main article text, the Italian Derry article is a prime example of this IMHO. Oldelpaso 19:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Oldelpaso. We have had several discussions before where people have proposed adding new parameters to the infobox but almost all have been opposed. Check the archives at the main project talk page as well as the infobox talk page for those discussions. – Elisson • T • C • 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree also. Even without the article, the details can be all retrieved simply elsewhere. E.g. the association can be determined from league, country from association, confederation from country, etc. And keeping the template simple avoids the need for mass maintenance if a club or country moves (e.g. Australia moving from Oceania to Asian confederation). John the mackem 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nationality rules

What is the rule/guideline for listing the nationalities in the Current Squad section? I'm asking this because ten players of CA Osasuna are listed with the flag of Navarra, while they have the Spanish nationality and play under a Spanish licence. At least three of them also play for the Spain national under-21 football team. The other Basque clubs in the Primera Division, Real Sociedad and Athletic Bilbao, do not use this format. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Navarra is not a sovereign country, but a region of Spain, so you should switch them all to Spain. --Angelo 19:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Famous fans

What's the consensus on whether club articles should include such a section? One's been added to Oxford United F.C. with some dubious inclusions (such as Bill Clinton). I've asked for citations but stuff like this is hard to verify in many cases. Dave.Dunford 14:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to add a "famous supporters" section. Players, managers and coaches make a football team, not a number of alleged VIP fans. --Angelo 14:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove at sight. Unencyclopedic, and if worth including anywhere, it is in the article of the subject. – Elisson • T • C • 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Article titles - FC vs. F.C. vs. nothing

There seems to be no policy on article titles for football clubs. Some use F.C., some FC. All Premier League club articles use F.C., which is odd since none of the official web sites I visited seem to use periods. I suggest that no periods should be used. WP:NCA says "There is no consistent rule about periods—in general, avoid them, unless the preferred usage is otherwise (for example, U.S., but UK)."

Also, according to WP:COMMONNAME, articles should be named with the common name used, unless disambiguation is needed, so I propose that "FC" (or similar abbreviation) be left out when unnecessary.

Examples

Article title	Move to	Reason
Arsenal F.C.	Arsenal FC	Remove periods, need to disambiguate from Arsenal
A.C. Siena	AC Siena	Remove periods, need to disambiguate from Siena
Blackburn Rovers F.C.	Blackburn Rovers	No disambiguation necessary - there are no other (notable) Blackburn Rovers
SV Werder Bremen	Werder Bremen	No disambiguation necessary
U.C. Sampdoria	Sampdoria	No disambiguation necessary
Brøndby IF	-	No change needed

Comments? - PatrikR 01:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of dots has come up a a few times before (check the archives of WT:WPF e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive7#Naming_Policy_of_Club.27s_article), IIRC the general opinion is that it would make sense to do so, but the question is how. It involves a huge amount of work and gives only a marginal benefit. The only rational way would be to use a bot.

The suffixes are used so as to keep consistency, otherwise there would be a hotchpotch of usage. It is not necessarily obvious whether or not disambiguation is required for a given club. Oldelpaso 10:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Wow, all that discussion and half a year later nothing has happened. Sure there would be some work to do, but "many hands make light work". — PatrikR 13:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To make it short, keep the FC, UC, IF, SV etc, but REMOVE THE DOTS IN NAMES FOR NORWEGIAN CLUBS. Punkmorten 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Suffixes are fine, but I really do see no valid reason to use F.C. when the common usage of it is FC. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Your idea is good. However, I would not prefer the idea about nothing. My idea is full name is to show the official name to the others. KyleRGiggs 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I might agree only in removing dots where possible, but surely not in completely removing any abbreviation: indeed they are fully part of the club name. --Angelo 04:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMMONNAME. The full name should of course be mentioned in the article, but the title should be the common name. For example, we have Bono, not Paul David Hewson, and United Kingdom, not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. - PatrikR 00:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as F.C. for English clubs as this appears to be the most common usage where any suffix is used - fchd 18:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any proof of that? Here are a few yahoo comparisons: (google doesn't work because it ignores the periods) "liverpool fc" - 2,670,000 hits, "liverpool f.c." - 174,000; "blackburn rovers fc" - 134,000, "blackburn rovers f.c." - 2,170; "ac milan" - 9,530,000, "a.c. milan" - 424,000

I think it's pretty clear that F.C. is certainly not the most common usage. - PatrikR 00:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Piles and piles of football programmes in my possession - after going through a couple of hundred before posting that last comment, I reckon in these F.C. or A.F.C. is two to three times more common than FC or AFC - fchd 05:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an issue of presentation and style issue rather than one of nomenclature or regional dialects, IMO. The general rule on Wikipedia is to not use periods in initialisms and acronyms regardless of whether British or otherwise (e.g. FA Cup, FIFA World Player of the Year. I think for consistency's sake it should be applied to football clubs' names as well. So I say change to FC or equivalent. Qwghlm 15:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I found this little gem thanks to the split nature of F.C. and FC: Llaneros F.C. and Llaneros FC. --MicroX (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

King's Park F.C.

Hi. I am needing a bit of advise on updateing the King's Park F.C., King's Park were once a Scottish Second Division club pre World War 2. They closed down after there ground was destroyed. I would like to include a info box on there page but I am unsure of what information to include as they no longer exsist. Here is my first attempt at the box :

King's Park

Full name	King's Park F.C.
Founded	1921 - 1945
Ground	Forthbank (Destroyed)

I would also like to include the pictures of there strips but I'm not sure how to create the strips. Gorillamusic 10:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Current squad flag

Can someobody please make a rule for what kind of a flag should be used in this section. Many Kurds change the Iraqi flags to ethnic flags (Kurdistan flag), for example with Arbil FC. Chaldean 17:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What city names to use?

There is not much consensus on what city names to use for the main articles (i.e. not the ones that redirect) on football clubs. For example, the article about FC Spartak from Moscow is located at FC Spartak Moscow, but the article about FC Dynamo from Kiev is located at FC Dynamo Kyiv, or the article about FC Dinamo from Bucharest is located at FC Dinamo Bucureşti.

I propose using the English names of the cities on the main articles on the clubs. Why? I understand that it would not be a good idea to translate the actual name of the club into English (along with all those FC's, FK's, and CF's to indicate that it's a football club), but the city it comes from should be in English, since this is an English Wikipedia. FK Crvena Zvezda should be located at that page, not at page named FC Red Star.

Why I decided to post this message is because some club articles use English city names (like Spartak Moscow above), and some use native language names. If the city name is different in English, it should be used instead of native language city name.

Artyx^{T C} 10:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Sports teams and also the talk page of FC Dynamo Kyiv for the recent move discussion. This is a big issue and should most likely take place at the naming conventions page. Woodym555 10:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Different "club squad" version

Recently on the page of A.S. Roma, one or two anon users changed the club squad table to make it look like this. This was then reverted to the previous version, more similar to the one proposed in this project. As I already pointed out at the article's talk page, there may be both advantages and disadvantages to the "different" table. I just wanted you guys to have a look at it as it may be of your interest (or at least to comment). Thanks, Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 06:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki has to move on from the old list. Bring on the new one. The A-League has been using it for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucrab (talk • contribs) 00:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Surely "Template FC plays their home matches on..." is ungrammatical. 77.103.171.131 (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Using bold in notable players sections

Does the to be avoided section about not using bold on international players in the current squad section also apply to using it on lists of notable former players?. Kosack (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Northern Irish clubs

There has been a campaign by a small number of certain editors (mainly User:Vintagekits and User:BigDunc) to remove the term "Northern Irish" from the encyclopaedia, claiming that it is "not neutral". I am unaware of any consensus having been established to support this view and a recent discussion at Talk:Northern Ireland concluded that "Northern Irish" was an acceptable demonym for Northern Ireland.

According to the WP Football Clubs Manual of Style, articles about football clubs should begin by saying "Template FC is a Templatonian football club located in Template City...". Accordingly, articles about Northern Irish football clubs have always said "Template FC is a Northern Irish football club ...".

Recently, however, edits have been made to change this. No consensus has been sought or achieved for these edits. Attempts to revert the edits under WP:BRD have been met with re-reverts. The editor in question is determined to make the edits and willing to edit-war to impose the edits. Hence I come here seeking assistance. Is it possible for anyone to intervene in some way, or perhaps facilitate a centralised discussion here?

Here are recent edits:

BigDunc at Ballymena BigDunc at Cliftonville BigDunc at Coleraine 1 BigDunc at COleraine 2 BigDunc at Dungannon 1 BigDunc at Dungannon 2 BigDunc at Crusaders 1 BigDunc at Crusaders 2 BigDunc at Crusaders 3 Vintagekits at Glenavon BigDunc at Glenavon 1 BigDunc at Glenavon 2 BigDunc at Glentoran 1 BigDunc at Glentoran 2 BigDunc at Institute 1 BigDunc at Institute 2 BigDunc at Lisburn Distillery BigDunc at Newry 1 BigDunc at Newry 2 BigDunc at Portadown 1 BigDunc at Portadown 2 BigDunc at Portadown 3 BigDunc at Linfield 1 BigDunc at Linfield 2

Here are some sources for "Northern Irish" being used as a demonym for Northern Irish football clubs:

• UEFA.
• When Saturday Comes "Northern Irish champions Glentoran"
• RTÉ
• Breakingnews.ie
• Irish Football Association

Mooretwin (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And here is a UEFA one for of Northern Ireland refering to Glentoran. BigDunc 22:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll get lots of sources for "of England", "of France", "of Germany", too, but the manual of style is to use demonyms ("English", "French", "German". Mooretwin (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to this, but note that Vintagekits' opposition to the demonym "Northern Irish" never had any consensus and edit warring in that regard is a large part of the reason that he jumped before he was pushed in retiring rather than being banned from the community. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Guidance on date to change league a promoted/relegated club play in?

Hello all,

Does anyone know of any established guidance on the date on which date to change the league that a promoted or relegated club play in in infoboxes and templates at the bottom of the page, for clubs in those league systems that have promotion/relegation? It currently looks like that's handled on a club-by-club basis according to consensus reached by a club's regular editors. The template here for the infobox under the league items reads along the lines of "the league the club currently plays in or will play in", which backs up the argument that it's up to the consensus of a club's editors.

For instance, for Hull City A.F.C., to which I have in the past regularly contributed and have recently started doing so again, the consensus on the talk page is to change the status on the official end of the season. Regular football contributor Struway2 is of the opinion, and I agree, that a good guideline would be to wait until the official status changes as reported by the leagues themselves and in major news outlets.

If there's no other existing guidance I've missed anywhere, perhaps we might incorporate this guidance into the club template, or discuss alternatives. Thanks, Northumbrian (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Regular contributor Keith D has pointed out this archived discussion from several years ago. I'll go ahead and include some guidance recommending that a club's league change on 1 July in the applicable discussion pages for affected English club and league infobox and templates, until and unless consensus here dictates otherwise. Northumbrian (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Need suggestion for Indonesian football clubs names

Many traditional club names in Indonesia use (I'd say inappropriate) acronyms which are then become common. For instance: Persatuan Sepak Bola Indonesia Jakarta as Persija Jakarta. The word Persatuan Sepak Bola Indonesia is comparable to Football Club (F.C) in English. Therefore, as common in other countries, the name should be abbreviated into PSI Jakarta or P.S. Jakarta instead of Persija Jakarta (in which the word Jakarta is duplicated here). The problem is, the term Persija is the commonly accepted name for the club, instead of other names. I couldn't find similar case in other countries for this. Most of the clubs in Indonesia use this kind of acronym. What's your suggestion for this w.r.t English WP? Thanks! Guybrush1979 (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nationality of chairman

Sheffield Wednesday F.C. are in the process of being taken over by Milan Mandaric. The deal isn't complete yet, but I'm not willing to fight the battle of whether the article should change immediately or not.

MM is of Serbian birth, but has lived in the US for nearly 40 years; he's a US citizen.

An editor added him to the Chairman and directors section of the article, and used a Serbian flag icon. I changed it to USA, and was reverted.

Are there any precedents here? Should the Chairman and directors section even exist? Should flag icons be used there?

Advice welcome! -- BPMullins | Talk 19:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

History of Template FC

Are there any guidelines, templates or examplary articles for a History of Template FC page? U+003F^? 11:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966), History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present), History of Bradford City A.F.C., History of Gillingham F.C., History of Ipswich Town F.C., History of Norwich City F.C. and History of Stoke City F.C. are all featured articles. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Al-Shorta Sport Club

The article Al-Shorta Baghdad has been proposed to be renamed and moved to Al-Shorta SC (Baghdad). You can see that on the talk page. Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Generl query about history section

There is a discuss going on at Talk:Rangers F.C. regarding changing the name of the lastest section to basically just liquidation, but as far as am aware and a few others it should include the manager name to so in this case McCoist, and whatever else consensus choose.

So teh question is should the manager name be part of the section name within the history section???Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why the section should have to include the manager's name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The section title should summarise the content of the section. There's nothing that says the section title has to include the name of the manager. – PeeJay 19:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless the manager has played a major part of an era of the club's history (Bill Shankly at Liverpool and Matt Busby at Man Ure spring to mind), then I would definitely say no. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 20:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree - unless the manager essentially defines the era, there is no reason for his name to be in the section title. I don't believe the defining feature of the last few years at Rangers has been its being "the Ally McCoist era".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Average Attendance

I've been trying to find a discussion regarding the reporting of "Average Attendance" figures for MLS clubs. Some clubs just have a horrible bullet point list (New England Revolution), others have integrated the list into the running team record table (FC Dallas), while others don't have one at all (Seattle Sounders). Has there been a conversation about why this is included (or isn't included?) I've noticed that the Sounders articles has been featured, probably indicating it would be an appropriate model to work from. If we can't remove them and add them to something more appropriate, like a stadium article, then might we standardize their appearance? At the very least, maybe we can take the FC Dallas approach? Alex (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Honours section

The honours section was modified because it failed MOS:BOLD. The old way was:

• Premier Template League:
  • Winners (3): 3330–31, 3331–32, 3332–33
  • Runners-up (3): 3327–28, 3328–29, 3329–30

• Template Cup:
  • Runners-up (3): 3330–31, 3331–32, 3332–33

The new way implemented:

Template F.C. honours

Honour	No.	Years
Premier Template League	3	3330–31, 3331–32, 3332–33
Template Cup	3	3330–31, 3331–32, 3332–33

Does WP:FOOTY agree that this is a good way to display this information? I have seen this table being used over at Liverpool without reverts. --MicroX (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the old way tbh, although minus the number of trophies in brackets. Number 57 20:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

FIFA Eligibility Rules

I know this is going to sound silly, but can we get confirmation that "FIFA eligibility rules" means what nation the team is eligible to play for under FIFA first and foremost, and not "the last national team the player has played for, even if he is not eligible?" There are certain people here who seem to believe that "FIFA eligibility rules" means the latter, so that players who are no longer eligible to play for a country (because, in that case, he had relinquished eligibility in favor of another country) still have their previous country's flag. What if that player has lost or denounced citizenship? What if the country no longer exists or is recognized by FIFA? If the rule is "last country played for," it should so state. If it says "FIFA eligibility," then it is not hard for that to mean precisely that, at least for people who are eligible for selection for only one country at present time.

UEFA Club Co-efficient option in Infobox

I'd like to propose a new section in the Infobox section for Clubs: the UEFA Club co-efficient and associated UEFA ranking. This type of information can be reliably obtained from UEFA [1] and I think it would improve the readability of articles for European football teams. BananaLanguage (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think many people will understand what the coefficient is for or if it is relevant to the reader. --MicroX (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Format of Club badge/logo image

I've been making the assumption that badges/logos should be in .png or .svg format. .gif and .jpg only if there is no other choice. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Arsenal kits

Hi, I don't really know where to post this because I've never really used talk pages before. But I have a request for the Arsenal kits on wikipedia. Can somebody improve them please? Because I don't know how. Arsenal is one of the biggest clubs in the world so they're kits should be very accurate. The home shirt should not have a white line down the side and should have darker red hoops, the shorts are missing the red blocks on the insides of the shorts at the bottom, and the socks are missing the gold line at the top. The away kit is the wrong colour, it should be gold (something like #D2B55B or #D4AF37), and the away shorts are missing the gold line down the side as well as the golden blocks on the insides of the shorts at the bottom, meanwhile the away socks are missing the gold line at the top. The third kit socks are missing the gold line at the top as well. If anyone can correct them that would be great thanks

Thanks to whoever improved these kits, they look a lot better now. All that's missing now is the gold line on the top of the socks on all three kits, and the darker red hoops on the home shirt, as well as the navy blue line under the sleeves and the navy blue flap at the bottom of the shirt on the gold away kit. Hashim-afc (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A club anthem

Sometimes football clubs have an anthem, the information for the club's anthem, where would place them? (according for the sections that are exposed in the project page) Thanks! --Políticaydeporte (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

To be Avoided

I am confused and i need further clarification about the under listed information from the main page: my opinion is that if we agreed as per the this information that players that have played international games should not be bolded. And it was also stated that All players at Bacelona FC should be Bolded. I therefore stand confused because all players in Bacelona FC being a top team must have played international games for their national teams, hence they must not be bolded per the statement Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

;Bolding of internationals Per consensus on WT:WPF players who have played international games should not be bolded. This is for several reasons.

1. For teams such as FC Barcelona almost every player will be bolded.