Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 86

Archive 80

←

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

→

Archive 90

Order in featured lists such as Premier League Golden Glove

Hi.

As some of you may have seen there is a minor content dispute at Premier League Golden Glove regarding the order of lists in sections "Awards won by nationality" and "Awards won by club". Therefore I am asking for input from this community/project so that we can form some sort of consensus for this article and similar articles.

The main issue is wheter we should sort the list alphabetically or chronologically when teams/nationalities has the same amount of wins. To me I find alphabetically better since it will make it easier for readers to read and find their team and listing things alphabetically is more natural. The other editor says chronological, I guess because he finds it most natural and new winners should be added at the bottom.

We have both provided other featured articles to support our order, with the other editor claiming his FL trupms the other ones since it is most recent. I dont understand how one article trumps the other and have not found anythingt in FL criteria saying special order of lists so I fail to see how that matters.

Articles with alphabetical order:

1. Premier League Player of the Month (all 4 sections; "Multiple winners", "Awards won by position", "Awards won by nationaliy" and "Awards won by club". FL passed in 2010.)
2. Premier League Manager of the Month (all 4 sections; "Multiple winners", "Awards won by position", "Awards won by nationaliy" and "Awards won by club". Actually a minor miss with Italy ahead of Ireland in "Awards by nationality" but rest is alphabetically for example argentine ahead of rest with one win. Passed in 2010)

Articles with chronologal order:

1. Premier League Golden Boot (Both sections; "Awards won by nationaliy" and "Awards won by club". Most recent FL passed last month)

Articles with hybrid order:

1. Premier League Manager of the Season ("Awards won by club" is alphabetical, while "Awards won by nationaliy" is chronological. Passed in 2012)

I am sure there are more examples of both orders being used so I am asking for input in this article and similar ones (this should be the same on all articles above for a start). What do you say?

(@Bloom6132: Lets put the namecalling aside and sort this matter as humans, as I said before I do take responsibility for my part in this dispute. I am not going to tell you what to do (you do as you like) but I suggest we both stay out of this discussion and let FOOTY decide this dispute for us and what order to use. Of course you should feel free to respond to my edit if you feel like I provided false information but I tried to keep it neutral so that FOOTY can decide. Nothing good will come out of this if this becomes an other thread of us fighting).

So, What do you say? Alphabetical order or chronological order? QED237 (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that the two FLs passed in 2010 would fail FL criteria if I were to take it to WP:FLCR. I'm not planning to do that – well, not just yet. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they might fail FL criteria but not regarding the order of the lists since there are no such criteria (from what I have seen, and no link for that has been provided). Since no such criteria currently exist the time of passing as FL is irrelevant. QED237 (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry for not following my own advise to leave this section alone but I must add i keep seeing edits like this, were editors change to alphabetical order in other "lists" as it is most natural. QED237 (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the list is important as to what order things are listed in. If a specific order aids in the understanding of the topic (eg listing winners of the golden glove in date order) then not only should that order be used but it should be clear that it is being used. When a specific order doesn't aid the understanding of a topic (eg listing a summary of winners in date order) then it should not be used. Where there are no other orderings that aid the understandability of a topic then alphabetical order will aid the understanding of the topic as it is the default order that people expect. With regards to the "awards by nationality" and other summary tables being ordered by date it makes no sense to me. You are specifically taking out the date order by summarising the table and then ordering them by date.

On a separate issue I don't see the value of these summary tables to the articles in question (specifically the ones on Premier League Golden Glove) where the information that they provide is just as easily gleaned from the main table. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"[A]lphabetical order will aid the understanding of the topic" – no, it actually does not. The main question about how to sort out ties is which method makes the most sense and is the most logical. Breaking ties by sorting chronologically (with the most recent winner later) makes the most sense. It's consistent with the main table, and I honestly don't think anyone would dare change the main winners table to sort alphabetically by default, would they? Consistency is what we're seeking here, and having it sorted chronologically throughout all tables in the list is necessary. On the other hand, to be listed first solely because your team/country's name happens to start with an earlier letter in the alphabet is the worst way to organize a table – we don't sort based on pure coincidences. Sure, it may seem "natural," but it doesn't have any rhyme or reason behind it. The other most logical way would've been based on the number of runner-up places a player attained, but since stats on that matter are obscure, chronologically is the way to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

alphabetical is a default sort order that is used widespread throughout this encyclopaedia and in most reliable sources. It is also not clear what ordering the summary tables by date actually does to improve understanding when it is not clear that is the ordering being used (or even if it was clear for that matter). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"[A]lphabetical is a default sort order that is used widespread throughout this encyclopaedia and in most reliable sources" – for the first part of your statement, could you provide some examples of WP articles? It's clearly not the case with stat tables in WP:BASEBALL (all FLs), WP:NBA, etc. And the second part of your statement is completely false. These sources all break ties chronologically. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Spudgfsh has some really good arguments and I agree (as you may know from the past). To respond to Bloom6132, I think there is a difference from the sources provided. If I am not wrong they are all american (and american sources has a habbit of putting things a bit different) and also the dates are listed in that list. In the main list (with dates) it is sorted chronologically just as in our wikipedia articles, when we have the dates in the list, since it easy for reader to understand the order. But "awards by nationality" and "awards by club" are only a summary of what is stated in the list above and that summary does not have to be chronologically and what readers are most used to are alphabetically. It is just a summary and those should (in my opinion) be alpabetically sorted. QED237 (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It seriously doesn't make a difference whether the sources are from the US or not (and ESPN is an international site, as it runs ESPN.co.uk). Sports is universal, and so is the formatting. The point of the matter is that both you and Spudgfsh have failed to provide any reliable sources to convince me that sorting alphabetically is used more commonly. All I'm seeing above are nice compliments and agreement, but no evidence. Provide me with some and then we'll start talking. Until then, sorting chronologically is the way to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Neath F.C. (formerly BP Llandarcy F.C.)

This article doesn't fit naming conventions, surely........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There's already another article on Neath F.C. (under 'See also'). Information should be merged with the Neath F.C. article and this article of concern deleted. LRD NO (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Either that or this article should be renamed as Neath F.C. (1922). – PeeJay 11:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd go for a merger, too. There isn't more info than two sentences anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Fabio Possagno

Notable? --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 16:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This says it all really. Proded. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I can see he has never played above Serie D, which is not a FPL. GiantSnowman 16:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can anyone provide a reliable source that gives Fabio Possagno's appearance data for A.S.D. Portogruaro in the Lega Pro Prima Divisione? The only source I can find is Transfermarkt, which is of course not a WP:RS. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced he ever played for them. As mentioned in the thread above, his Soccerway page finds no appearances, and he isn't named on any of the teamsheets for Portogruaro (Portosummaga) in 2012/13.

Football-lineups doesn't list him.

E.g. Transfermarkt has him coming on at halftime in the playout second leg against Tritium, but Soccerway has Coppola, as do this Portogruaro-based website, crediting La Nuova Venezia and Tritium's official site.

Calcio.com (Italian weltfussball/worldfootball) has him in the squad with no appearances.

I can find nothing whatsoever after he signed for them. Not even anything saying he's crap, or injured, or homesick, or anything. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Nine images of this player have been uploaded onto Wiki Commons by the main editor of this article. All lack permission and look like copyright vios.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I live near Portogruaro and when the team was playing in Serie B and Lega Pro i usually go to the stadium Stadio Mecchia and i can say that he has not made his professional debut with Portogruaro.

Tuttocalciatori confirm it because there aren't Fabio Possagno profile on the website.

In italy he has not made his fully professional debut(just Eccellenza and Promozione), in england i don't know, Are Salisbury and Sutton fully pro?--Lglukgl (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

No, they are not. GiantSnowman 07:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if he'd played first-team football for them, which he didn't. Soccerway have squad lists for both Salisbury and Sutton United for the relevant time period, and he isn't there. In addition, Sutton Utd have a wonderfully comprehensive website. He doesn't appear in the first-team appearance stats for the last few seasons, and the only mentions of him on that site that Google can find are two unused-subs for the reserves. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Youth careers

Interesting situation with the Jack Barmby article that brings up a topic we discussed here not too long ago: this season, Barmby was on loan from Manchester United to Hartlepool United, thus indicating that his senior career had begun. However, he was released by Manchester United at the end of this season and picked up by Leicester City, who have explicitly stated that Barmby will be part of their youth/reserve team next season, indicating that his youth career is not over. We therefore have the odd situation whereby the infobox in his article shows that his youth and senior careers overlap and contain different clubs (his spell at Hartlepool United could hardly be considered part of his youth career). Opinions (@GiantSnowman:)? – PeeJay 18:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he is a youth player anymore, despite playing for a youth team. -Koppapa (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, his senior career has begun and he cannot regress. By all mean list him as a youth player on the Leicester City article, if that is what the club class him as, but his infobox should look like it does here. That is always how we have displayed it on similar examples e.g. Luke Freeman or Lauri Dalla Valle etc. GiantSnowman 18:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Snowman is right, and at close to 20 years old he isn't really a youth player anyway despite what Leicester say.--EchetusXe 12:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Football At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea, we're also doing it over at WP:TAFI. GiantSnowman 15:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A.C. Milan squad nationalities

Have a look at missing country flags at A.C. Milan First team squad removed by a script - It looks silly IMO. I know this was discussed before (probably at length), but I am unsure of the outcome.. could someone please remind me if there was consensus reached? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It was discussed at WP:MOSFLAG, no consensus to remove the flags, so feel free to restore. GiantSnowman 07:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think GiantSnowman may have grossly oversimplified things. The blanket use of flags in sporting articles is not endorsed by the guideline. Current guidelines only endorse use of flag icons where these are in line with "representative nationalities" of [sportsmen] and maybe others. GS proposed to change the guideline to remove that constraint. The discussion is still ongoing, although there seems not to be any consensus to remove that provision which prevents a free-for-all flagfest. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the editor in question has done it to numerous French and Italian club articles, and is continuing to do so this morning. This is going to take quite a lot of work to put right if anyone wants to help. Number 57 08:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a disservice to readers to (i) use flags instead of spelled-out country-names; and/or (ii) display a flag when it misleads as to national representation. Tony (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with flagcruft and fancruft in these articles is pervasive. I assert that their use is gratuitous in those cases where I removed them. This is plainly illustrated by the indiscriminate flagging of managers, presidents and physiotherapists, which are clearly a breach of MOS:FLAG. I'd also like to know why it is then necessary to plaster entire articles with mostly the same flag. If this is useful information, which I still contest, it would be less confusing for readers to see the country name apposed to the player by exception only.

Let me state more precisely the problem as I see it which is at least two-fold: The crux is the notion of "representative nationality" 1/When playing for a given club, the players NEVER represent their own countries. If anything, they are playing for the 'nation' of their adopted clubs. The players may represent their countries outside of the club's games, but that's not relevant except in the player bios. 2/And assuming that the player in AC Milan may be a Japanese national say, and flags are in use, unless you know all the players and their national squads, it's impossible to tell if the player only has that as a nationality, or is a capped international. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If this is your position, perhaps you should have continued with the discussion at WP:MOSFLAG instead of carrying on willy-nilly. It was obvious that you would continue to meet with opposition were you to continue removing flags that had stood in the articles for years, so why did you do this? – PeeJay 09:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I was going to revive that discussion over the weekend as it had stalled somewhat. There was no overall consensus but I'd say there is enough to warrant some updates to the MOS at this stage and certainly consensus that this blanket removal should be stopped until the discussion can be concluded.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I've attempted to re open the discussion to seek a conclusion here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Conclusions. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but flags for players in club articles are indeed usefull. Anyone can see the major football websites and will confirm all use flags. FkpCascais (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

How exactly are they useful? I understand in leagues where there are residency requirements, but how does that apply to other leagues? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"WP:USEFUL". ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, how are they useful? Convince me. Tony (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If you don't find them useful then that's fine - the project consensus is that they are. Please explain why their use is harmful and should be removed - please avoid using inaccurate claims of accessibility or WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning to justify it.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• The flags are useful because it gives the reader an idea of the national composition of a club's squad. This is quite an important issue in football. For example, the Football Association has recently proposed changes to the English football league system that would introduce 'B' teams into competitive football because they are concerned that the % of English players in the Premier League is too low. According to the review, headed by Dyke, only 32% of starters qualified to play for England in the 2012-13 Premier League season, compared to 69% 20 years ago. The commission's proposals set an "ambitious but realistic" target of increasing the number of English players in the Premier League to 45% by 2022. . Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

One could go for a nationality column in the squad. With text and no flags. Or use the MLS squads.-Koppapa (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The proposed removal of flags is a stupid and ridiculous idea. The flags are very useful to demonstrate the FIFA Nationalities of players for our readers/ audience. If we were to remove the flags, it would lower the quality of our articles and be a downgrade of Wikipedia as a whole. IJA (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned, the usage of flags are relevant and of use to many users. Just because some guy can't see any relevance in it doesn't mean that years of the status quo should be deem redundant under a blanket removal. If the concern is about identification of flag, the proposal by GS to tag the flags with their 3-letter code should be seriously explored, not merely discarded due to a strict personal stand. LRD NO (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Here follows a cross posting from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons for information only. The relevant discussion on flags belongs there and not here. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to apologise for the length of this treatise, as it seems I am the person who, through this compliance drive, seems to be at odds with the footballing community that I need to state my arguments firmly and comprehensively for the record.

Wikipedia's goal is to supply encyclopaedic information about each and every notable subject. We try to write concisely, provide content that is relevant and with due weight, and avoid digression and coatracking. The problem of indiscriminate and excessive use of flag icons in article space is akin to the excessive wikilinking on en:wp five years ago.

In a way, it's rather unfortunate that flags are not subject to copyright concerns that cover most other imagery because they would not be so overused. Today, I see that flag icons are being used primarily because they can, and is justified by some flimsy test of relevance notwithstanding provisions in MOS:FLAG:

"Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.

Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words."

The use of flags (or should I say "abuse") to sex up the article is mostly gratuitous and a violation of the guideline – most of the time, the flags are used in lieu of nation. Yes, accessibility is an issue, and it is a concern stated in MOSFLAG:

"The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as virtually no readers are familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details. Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, although first appearances in different sections, tables or lists in a long article may warrant a repetition of the name, especially if the occurrences are likely to be independently reached by in-article links rather than read sequentially. Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue, as it can render information difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size."

The vast majority of readers would not be able to identify more than a quarter of these flags using visual cues alone; just as many would be unable to identify all the countries by the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes. Putting both together could result in a higher pass mark.

It is acknowledged in this proposal, currently still under discussion, that the use of flags in sport is in violation of MOSFLAG, and that it should be changed because they will continue to be used "like it or not". Such an argumentation represents disruption, and is anti-consensual in that it was not won through honest intellectual discussion of the merits or otherwise of doing so, but through a fait accompli. The current scale of usage of flags, whether using an excessively liberal interpretation of the guideline, or through people simply being used to seeing them plastered everywhere (like dates were once blanket linked globally) is in defiance of MOSFLAG. That these flags may have persisted in football articles for years is about as relevant as the spam and assorted copyright violations that have also persisted for years across our encyclopaedia. But let all be reminded that local consensus can never supplant general consensus. Football is not the only project in Wikipedia, and the global recommendation is meant to balance the needs of the various constituencies and stakeholders within the encyclopaedia. The implementation of their removal of same is execution of the consensus that exists.

Without even starting to talk about players' nationalities, it is easy to find examples of overuse: there is the indiscriminate flagging of presidents, managers[1] and physiotherapists[2]. I have even seen flags used to indicate location of stadia where some international matches are played. There is also cruft like the dual citizenship – not only would such be of little utility, it adds a level of confusion that one would need to clarify with a coatrack about how/why they would represent one country and not another. I don't believe anyone has ever contested the relevance of nationality to the athlete in question, so nobody would see the problem with the use within the relevant biography. However, none of this specific use of any flag for a given player's passport nationality in club articles is of direct relevance to the club. The crux is the notion of "representative nationality" When playing for a given club, the players NEVER represent their own countries. If anything, they are playing for the 'nation' of their adopted clubs. The players may represent their countries outside of the club's games, but that's not relevant except in the player bios. Nationalities of players in a club context is thus rarely relevant in individual cases.

Playing for a national team is a huge honour and privilege reserved for the talented few, yet we see flags used in a significant quantity of articles far beyond what I believe is optimal. Flags are currently most often [ab]used to indicate players' legal nationalities and not of any country that they actually represent. Even if some of these are national squad members, there is no encyclopaedic need to create laundry lists of these cases. Much is made of the "usefulness" argument. But usefulness is determined more by pertinent analysis than the mere presence of raw data, of which this flag usage is an example. People, teams, buildings, and works are notable because they are different or stand out in some way. If they only conform to expectation, or to some mould or stereotype, this is by definition non-notable. The same would apply to the notability or uniqueness of information given. To be truly useful information and less confusing for readers, the nationality issue in an article should be mentioned as an exception and not by default.

If the notion of "representative nationality" has been followed, the implication is that the player has been capped for his/her country. But that is often fallacious: assuming for example that the player in AC Milan is a Japanese national say, and flags are in use, it's impossible to tell if the player only has that as a nationality, or is a capped international, unless you know all the players and their national squads. As this example suggest the flag indicates passport nationality, as most of the players in this squad, if not all, never played for any country team. And how this information can be useful in a club article is a mystery to me. If anything, the perverted usage of flags makes it potentially misleading of the state of affairs. In a globalised world, players are pursuing their careers abroad in increasingly large numbers. Sportsmen and women may play in countries other than the one they were born in or whose nationality they adopted, and there is really nothing significant in the possibility or likelihood that a player may be called up for play in their national teams. Talented players are much sought after in the richer leagues, such as the Premier League or Bundesliga. All clubs these days have put in various measures to manage national call-ups, including contract provisions and squad redundancies.

Some have stated the discussion within certain countries as to the mix of foreign players (too few, too many, etc) as an argument for including flags in individual club articles. I would say that the sensible way of handling it would be to include elements affecting the entire game globally in a country in Football in country or Country league articles. There, they can be referred and link to from individual club articles where there is discussion of particular relevance to the latter. Putting pretty splodges of colour into individual club or season articles is just plain lazy and indiscriminate throwing together of information without letting it create encyclopaedic value. And it isn't a substitute for explaining the implications or controversies that have been taking place. Any element affecting the overall composition of a club can be included in the form of a summary or an analysis table in the relevant club or season article. There should not be any general need to deal with individual players' nationalities within the text of any given article except for the biography on that individual. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought we were keep it brief. I scanned what you wrote and agree that the use of flags in rosters, most tournaments and other applications is simply decoration. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

TLDR. GiantSnowman 18:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow the argument that most people wouldn't recognize most of the flags. I certainly read Wikipedia articles with player lists, and I often use the flags to very quickly understand the nation of the participants. On the rare occasion I'm not familiar with a flag, I simply move the mouse over top, and there's the answer. I can't fathom why anyone would have a problem with this, and wants to remove such a useful device. Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Really, if I see a flag I do not recognize then I just simply put my cursor over the flag and there is the nation name. Why is this so complicated for anyone to understand! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

What about people viewing articles on tablets or phones who can't "mouse over"........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Simple then. Hold your finger over the flag you want to know the country of and an menu should appear with things like "Open page" or "Open page in new window" etc and that would lead you to the country which was represented by that flag. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The same problem exists for screen readers for people with sight issues. This could be alleviated by have a text description per Wikipedia:ACCESSIBILITY#Images. Hack (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Simply don't see an issue with this in terms of accessibility, clicking on the image solves all problems in terms of identification. Of more concern to me is that I cannot find any instance where consensus has been reached on this, noting GS's link above to the relevant project page, but OhConfucious has already begun attempting to have them removed. I have no strong views one way or the other, though I prefer them visually to a text description, but this is a major change in style that will affect thousands of articles. If any change is to be made the a consensus decision needs to have been reached that can be pointed too in the event of disagreement. Fenix down (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Clicking is not always an option if you have a screen reader. You need an alt attribute. Hack (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Which the icons in question have.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

2013–14 Cypriot First Division

Hi There is a slight problem with the current Cypriot season in which there seems to be no final score for the last game of the season between APOEL and AEL Limassol, the two teams are fighting for the league's title. However, the final match between them occurred on Friday 17th May, over a week ago, and on both the Cypriot FA, and UEFA website there is no answer to whom won the league, which will affect who will qualify for the two Champions League places, one in the Champions Route, the other through the League route.

I would be grateful for some suggestions on where to look for the winner.Hesky10 (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A quick Google search reveals the match was abandoned due to crowd trouble, and there are plans to have it replayed.[3] LRD NO (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A firework hit a player, so it's being replayed at a neutral ground, behind closed doors. No date announced yet, though. - 97rob (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Please add two or three sentences about it in the article. It sure would help others and the article would benefit. -Koppapa (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Stadium notability

Hi, I'm MYS77.

I have a question: other user (Lglukgl) created a page about the Passo das Emas stadium, but it was simply redirected to Luverdense.

Have the stadiums a notability guideline or we can assume the list of Fully professional leagues as a guideline? (Also in the notability page there's nothing about the stadiums).

Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 23:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello , Can somebody tell me some rules about the stadium?

Why Estádio Waldomiro Pereira is notable? Why Passo Das emas is not notable?

• Estádio Antônio Accioly :5000 capacity =NOTABLE
• Estádio Waldomiro Pereira:5000 capacity =NOTABLE
• Estádio Municipal Passo das Emas: 10000 capacity, hosted serie b matches(fully pro league)= DELETED

I don't understand the rule.--Lglukgl (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think past consensus has been that stadiums of clubs playing in a national-level league are notable. In the case of England, we have articles on stadiums of clubs all the way down to the Conference, but generally not below unless the club has played at that level previously (or in a few cases, used for another sport played at the national level, like Rugby league teams). Number 57 23:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, if we have used past consensus then we shouldn't have deleted Passo das Emas. They created an unnecessary redirect to the club's page when the stadium page already existed, because Luverdense (owner of the stadium) plays in Série B (Brazilian Second Division, fully-pro according to the list). Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 23:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I have to say, I would not have closed that AfD in that manner. Number 57 23:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Strange, isn't it? I don't know why they did it, but I don't know if revert the edits or try to create new stuff in the page is authorized. Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 00:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with early transfers

So it happens every transfer window, but users get the urge to change teams for players who have agreed to moves, but haven't officially joined their new teams yet. David Luiz, [[ Marc-André ter Stegen‎]] and Alen Halilović‎‎ are three I've edited in the last few days. Unless I'm overstepping by reverting changes, could I get help with those pages? Thanks. Mosmof (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Problems with too many navboxes

FYI, if you check this version and scroll down to the very bottom, you will notice that managerial career boxes are not appearing. this is due to the added complexity of passing the navboxes through {{navboxes}}. however, I was able to fix it by switching to {{collapse top}}/{{collapse bottom}}. it's possible we can reduce the complexity of the {{navboxes}} template (started a thread), but until that happens ... 198.102.153.1 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Central Coast Mariners FC nominated for removal of FA status

I have nominated Central Coast Mariners FC for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bencherlite^Talk 19:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Article title for top Czech football league

There is an ongoing move discussion for the Gambrinus Liga, which will cease to be called the Gambrinus liga at the end of the season (after Saturday) due to a new sponsorship deal. Discuss and your opinions are welcomed at the talk page. Thanks, C679 09:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Alberto Moreno Pérez

Hello,

The page mentioned is having too much vandalism only because of a rumour of transfer. Can someone block it, please?

Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 16:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've created a request at WP:RPP, but you can do it too. Mosmof (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 20:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal info on userpage

Hi,

I am not sure if I am going to the right place (I should probably ask an admin), but I came across Fadhil Haji Majo (talk · contribs) that added his own webpage (or at least it seems like it) to articles like Gareth Bale, Neymar, Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. Then I saw his userpage that to me is promotional and he compares himself to Messi with "strong legs and fast feets" and so on. He also links to his facebook, twitter and webpages. Is that allowed? QED237 (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"Fadhil has been compared to compatriot Lionel Messi" - wow, Messi is from Iraq, who knew?!? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Colombia national football team results (2000–19)

Isn't Colombia national football team results (2000–19) article a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Kingjeff (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If yes then so are many similar articles which exist (intriguingly all with differently formatted titles), such as England national football team results – 2000s, Scotland national football team 2000–19 results, U.S. men's soccer records (2010–19).......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I would have said that it falls under WP:NSEASONS, with the results being bundled over a longer time frame because most of the national teams do not play that many matches. There are other national team results pages which are organised year by year (see Category:2014 national football team results), but I think this is unnecessary. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

But this seems more like an "excessive listings of statistics." If we had something like a club season article for teams at the World Cup and the European Championship, then I could see how it could be included. Kingjeff (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Steven Beitashour again

An editor has changed the subject's name from Steven Beitashour to "Steven Mehrdad Beitashour" which includes his Persian name. The only source for the Persian name, Mehrdad, is an Iranian interview. I can't verify its reliability. The editor has offered three sources for the full name at Talk:Steven Beitashour: a Facebook fan page, transfermarkt (everyone's most favourite unreliable source) and one from scoresway.com. I don't know where it gets its information. A bit of assistance would be appreciated. The editor also removed a CN tag when I added it to request info and no ref was supplied. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added more sources on the talk page and a ref has now been supplied for the CN tag. To summarize my point, his Persian name is his middle name and his first name is his American name.--Bowser2500 (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 AFC Challenge Cup

Is it even necessary for all of its stages having an article? I posted there a question in the talk page but no one yet answered. I just want to say this ahead of time if maybe someone will nominate it for deletion. FairyTailRocks 05:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The AFC Challenge Cup is just a minor international tournament which will no longer exist now. There is no reason to include things like a separate group page and all that. It should just be the main page, squads page, and final page. That is all. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 AFC Challenge Cup Group A. Thanks! FairyTailRocks 03:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Footballer ethnicity categories

FYI - I have nominated the footballer by ethnicity category (Category:Association football players by ethnic or national origin) for deletion. Please contribute to the discussion here. Thanks. SFB 11:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Neftchi Baku PFK

Resolved

I was wondering around when I saw Neftchi Baku PFK graded as A-class. I'm not sure why it deserves to be graded like that since it doesn't have a GA review first or an A-class review like most WikiProjects do. Can someone take a look and/or reassess the article? Thanks! FairyTailRocks 12:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It was graded as A class a few days ago, so I've returned it to its previous grading. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

College Europa and College Cosmos the same club in Gibraltar?

The question is on the title.--FCNantes72 (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe they are the same club. Number 57 11:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Fb cl3 header navbar

Hi, in the early rounds of the CECAFA Cup, 2 points were awarded for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss. Can I use this template with the CECAFA Cup? Thanks, Matty.007 14:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

From looking at it briefly, I think you can use |wpts=2 to achieve this - 97rob (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, |wpts=2 would have to be used for {{Fb cl3 team}} - 97rob (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What's the difference? Thanks, Matty.007 14:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The difference between what? I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. - 97rob (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Between the template I was originally using, Fb cl3 header navbar, and the one you suggested, Fb cl3 team. Thanks, Matty.007 14:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh! You'll need to use both of them. The header navbar one will only create the top row of the table, whereas the team one will create the important rows of the table for the information (and where the calculation for 2 points happens). You'll then need to use {{Fb cl3 footer}} to finish the table. - 97rob (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

One major drawback though, when holding over pts it says, "three points for a win". You may consider {{fb cl header navbar}} which only says "points" as explanation. Perhaps we should even find consensus to change point explanation for {{Fb cl3 header navbar}}. QED237 (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to you both for the help. Is 1973 CECAFA Cup OK? Thanks, Matty.007 15:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll try and change the explanation so that using |wpts=two on the navbar will change the points explantaion. 1973 CECAFA Cup still calculates as three points for a win in the group stages, but the section using fb cl3 seems correct. - 97rob (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Corrected the header, using |wpts=two (in words) will change the description - 97rob (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed those. I think I fixed the group stages. Best, Matty.007 15:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

2022 Qatar World Cup bid controversies

Hi, I think that given the massive media coverage of the controversies, and the information unearthed in today's Times, a separate article should be started. Anyone else agree? Thanks, Matty.007 11:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it should be included in Qatar 2022 FIFA World Cup bid, with a bit about it in the main 2022 FIFA World Cup article. Number 57 11:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The concerns are massive, do they not warrant their own article? Thanks, Matty.007 11:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with Number 57. The main Qatar bid article isn't huge, and there's plenty of scope for another paragraph in the relevant section without it getting too big for the article. Until it does get excessive, consider the reader, who won't want to keep zipping about reading small articles when they could get a decent summary of the information in one place. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It was just that the section is half the article, and there is more in today's Sunday Times, but I'm glad I asked here first. Thanks, Matty.007 11:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What has been reported today has little to do with the World Cup bid despite the press reports suggesting so, payments were made to those voting in the FIFA elections when Mohammed bin Hammam was running against Sepp Blatter. TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you know an italian speaking Aston Villa supporter?

On italian speaking wikipedia we must writing again the article, we need a lot of help: if there is somebody speaking italian it would be fantastic.. In italian: in pratica il problema è che ci sono dei grossi problemi nel modo in cui è stata compilata la voce e se non riusciamo a risolverli la voce non può rimanere in vetrina.. We need also some help about article about Napoli's team, if you have some books about the team.. --93.64.241.68 (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

look on french Wikipedia fr:SSC Naples, you have books. About Aston Villa and Borussia, look references on english Wikipedia to complete your research. Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

thank you very much but I need books not in italian language :((.. I know it can seem curious but there is a reason.. --95.253.47.136 (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Soccer Freshman of the Year navbox

Template:Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Soccer Freshman of the Year navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of multiple college men's soccer season navboxes

Please visit the College men's soccer seasons by year multi-TfD nomination to participate. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Barry Gardiner MP

His biography [4] says that he is the son of an international footballer. A candidate may be Ian Gardiner, but the dates of death don't tally. Any ideas who this may be? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• From looking at a sports reference bio, the date of death on Barry Gardiner's bio (he was born in 1957 and was aged 8 when his father died) agrees with John Gardiner (footballer born 1911), who played for Great Britain in the 1936 Olympics. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The bits may match but there isn't a direct reference stating their relationship. Should we just take it that Barry is son of John? LRD NO (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

As you say, there is no explicit reference to Barry Gardiner's father's name. It could be that his father was John Gardiner as mentioned above, or it could be someone by a completely different name (if Gardiner was adopted, for example – he probably wasn't, and I can't be bothered to read the article to find out, but it's a possibility). Without a reference saying "Barry Gardiner is the son of Great Britain 1936 Olympic footballer John Gardiner", it wouldn't make sense to assume either way. – PeeJay 14:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Google search gives a number of results showing stories in The Herald reporting that John Gardiner was manager of the Kelvin Hall in the late 1950s / early 1960s, as stated in Barry Gardiner's bio. One of the stories (dated January 1966) reports the appointment of a successor to the late John Gardiner, which supports the other evidence that he died during 1965. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be good if you can link us to any articles supporting your claim. As it is, it isn't right to conclude that an international footballer of the same family name to be the father of Barry, add his year and cause of death based on several assumptions. And until there's a direct reference, I wouldn't edit those articles. LRD NO (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

getwestlondon.co.uk: "Mr Gardiner is no stranger to Olympic legacy as his father, Jack, was an Olympic footballer for Great Britain at the 1936 games in Berlin."

Hansard: "My father was an Olympian in 1936, playing as a Scotsman for the British football team". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This one seems definitive. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The various articles cited suggest that the article on his dad should be renamed, as John doesn't seem to have been his common name....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 Toulon Tournament

Hi. The Toulon Tournament is a competition for under-20s, right? I'm a bit confused, as it seems that the English team playing is the under-21s, coached by the under-21s coach but without some of the 22-year-olds. On Wikipeda, players, such as James Ward-Prowse, have been given "caps" for the under 21s, but shouldn't that technically be for the under 20s? BBC website calls them under 20s, but the squad on Wikipedia is at England national under-21 football team, whereas IMHO the same squad should be at England national under-20 football team. What are your opinions on the matter? --Foro Reto34 (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"In terms of his squad selection for the trip, Southgate will have to lose those players in his squad born in 1992 as it's classed as an U20 competition but those born in '93 and later will still be eligible for the competition." - full article here. Thanks, C679 11:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

So, what I gather, it is technically the under-20s playing, but the bulk are from the under-21 squad. I'll put the squad at the under-20s. --Foro Reto34 (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't. The FA named an U21 squad for the tournament, and awarded U21 caps, so we do the same. We can't decide that because it's is an under-20 tournament, they should have called it an under-20 team, so we're going to call it an under-20 team and allocate the players under-20 caps instead. Wikipedia policy states we have to follow the sources: doing otherwise is called original research, and we aren't allowed to do it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Longest football game

Today I read an article on the longest-ever football game in Germany, the 153 minute long final of the 1914 German football championship and expanded the article accordingly. The source article states that it is the longest ever game in Germany. What would be the longest-ever game world wide and also per country? Could we find reliable sources to create a list of those? Does anybody know? Or is there an article already? Calistemon (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The 1920–21 Southern Football League play-off final lasted 170 minutes, as the winning goal was scored 80 minutes into extra-time. That match was a replay after a draw in the first game. Presumably it was some kind of Golden Goal situation. Number 57 12:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't think an article is needed. -Koppapa (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Booking

Being booked in a fully-pro match without being on the pitch is valid enough for creation? (Ex.: Yeray Gómez was booked in a match between Mallorca and RM Castilla, but was on the bench). Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 19:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No, because they have to actually play to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 02:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

One more thing: can you delete these redirects, please (Joselu Almeria and Roldan Sabadell)? This user created them, I've also explained to him why it's wrong. Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 02:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

According to point #5 at WP:R#KEEP, those redirects could be kept. Thanks, C679 10:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Why? The duo won't play for these teams forever. Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 15:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The redirects can be changed when the players move club. Or deleted when they retire. Number 57 15:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 19:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

My intention was create Joselu and Roldan but there are five Joselu in Europe and about Roldan my intenction was create Roldan but there is a redirect called Roldan about Roldan Santa FE. so : Roldan Sabadell because sabadell is the club of the debut Joselu Almeria becuase Almeria is the most important team in his career. --Lglukgl (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Indian team naming

So currently there is this new club in India for the Indian Super League called Kerala Blasters. Most reports have resorted to calling the team just 'Kerala Blasters'. However some reports have the name as 'Kerala Blasters FC' or 'Kerala Blasters Football Club' but the grand majority seem to be heading towards 'Kerala Blasters'. Supposedly Sachin Tendulkar, the owner of the team, said in a quote the team with FC in it. Personally I feel the official name is just 'Kerala Blasters' without FC and that those adding it are just doing so because the media and overall population believe almost every team should have some sort of FC or SC in it. That may sound harsh and ridiculous but that is my opinion at least on this. Any help would be appreciated. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sachin Tendulkar did mention it by 'Kerala Blasters FC'[5] and if the owner deems it that way, the article probably should be with the 'FC' in it, with 'Kerala Blasters' redirecting to it. LRD NO (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)@ArsenalFan700:I do not know about our naming style, but both Sachin and the Chief Minister announced it as "Kerala Blasters Football Club". Here is the video of them announcing[6] (1:05 - 1:20)00:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)···Vanischenu (mc/talk)

That is all I needed. Will change back. Sorry for all the comotion guys. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I will need an admin to change it from Kerala Blasters → Kerala Blasters FC (Not F.C. just FC). Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I just requested it.[7] Thanks···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 12:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Why should it not be Kerala Blasters F.C.? Coderzombie (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. The above discussion #FC or F.C.? does not seem to have a clear consensus either. I have self-reverted my move request[8] since more discussion is required and would not be an uncontroversial move request.···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 06:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

More violations of policies and guidelines

Apart from flags, I've also noted many cases that breach WP's policies and guidelines. I'd like now to bring the focus to the inclusion of laundry lists in club and season articles.

We've never climbed a mountain just because it's there. We include information that is notable and relevant, and just because something is verifiable or sourced to a reliable website doesn't necessarily warrant inclusion. However, I notice that football articles have morphed into magnets of just that sort of detail.

Editors have systematically included lists of all and sundry individuals involved with the club, from club officers down to vice presidents, board members, assistant managers, physiotherapists, boot boys. In the vast majority of cases, these individuals are not notable. But seems this is there just because the club's website credits them. Such would constitute indiscriminate information of little or no encyclopaedic value. Having to go around and remove this is a pain because it shouldn't be there in the first place. What's worse is having to battle with editors who fiercely resist their removal, and refuse to engage in any discussion. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree and in the case of Sarawak FA which you are questioning, many of the names are not only non-notable but unsupported by the reference given. It would also appear that User:Bangface who is adding this detail may not grasp the basis of WP:GNG based on the number of articles created and then deleted.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion of at least some club staff is certainly justified, do we need to have a debate about which ones that should be......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sarawak FA was merely an obstinate example. It is possible that Bangface may not even understand English and was following the tenor in other football articles.

  There appear to be a large number of other football club articles with such a disposition. Examples include MUFC, Real Madrid, Borussia Dortmund, Ajax, Sparta. These are some of the world's best-known clubs, with a higher proportion of notable individuals on board, and every team member is listed irrespective of their individual notability. Naturally this percentage declines as we reach the lower registers of a given country's football leagues, yet these positions are all listed – press officer, masseur, kit man etc. Should we not restrict ourselves to the "key positions" only – Chairman, Manager, Head coach? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... this is a very difficult area, because it is essentially subjective as to what are "key personnel". I agree with you entirely in terms of the Sarawak article, along with many of the other south east asian club articles. It would be useful to get @Bangface: opinion on this. I think the general approach should be that if there are notable non-playing staff associated with a club, they should be discussed in sourced prose and that extensive lists should be avoided as a matter of course, but non-intrusive lists of only key personnel are fine and are probably not worth getting too worked up about. I also think there are really two issues here, one regarding current staff and another regarding historical lists of managers. The {{famous}} tag seems to cover both of these off however, if there are no clear inclusion criteria for a list of managers in an article then this tag can be used as a warning prior to deletion to avoid listcruft. If the managers of a given club are notable as a subject in themselves they can readily be spun off into a separate list article. If there is no need for this then there is probably no need for a list of people simply because they used to manage a given club. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say anyone involved in the first-team playing staff (i.e. coaches, manager etc - plus the kit man, who is often a well-known figure at the club) are listable. What I see quite often are lists of directors, commercial managers, programme editors etc, and I don't think they are necessarily worth including. Chairman or owners are listed in the infobox, and I think that's sufficient. As for a list of managers, I think they are definitely worth including, but can be done with columns to reduce the amount of space taken up. Number 57 08:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed for head coaches and managers, but the other sundry members, doctors, masseurs, physios...?? Well-known kitman at the club doesn't mean notable. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't count the doctor and masseur as the playing staff, but coaches and physios yes (see how many in here are football club staff). As for the kit men, I meant well-known in general. Kit men are featured on the Football League Show (the highlights show for Football League games) fairly often - a recent one covered Barnsley's kit-man, who had been at the club since 1946. Number 57 09:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Manchester United article's list of staff was relatively short until quite recently, when some bright spark decided to uncomment the full list (it was commented out because we didn't want to lose the record of the info, but agreed it shouldn't be displayed). In a remarkable change of character, I didn't have the heart to revert the bright spark's changes, but now I feel I should. – PeeJay 09:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What are you trying to achieve by heading into an edit war with such contributor? While there is an overkill in a C profile wouldn't you get the same kind of response from the folks who look after the high profile clubs if started deleting because you want to be a strict policy enforcer. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a real overdose of information in those above cited examples. While some of these people are clearly important to the staff at a club and their internal culture, most of them are non-essential to a summarised history of the clubs (which is what these articles should strive to be). I think it worth having a discussion about what positions we consider worthy of note as a standard. In addition to that, it would make sense to allow that list to expand should there be notable articles for people undertaking other key jobs. I actually think Wikipedia does a poor job of covering important corporate personnel, but this really is too much. SFB 17:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Recently an editor added the Hull City chef to the article here. What next, the name of the stewards?--Egghead06 (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

An editor told me they included stuff about their club because of the cruft that was there on MUFC. So whilst we can cite WP:OSE until the cows come home, some editors clearly see the value in examples of other articles. Time for a collective consciousness to be raised and for a bit of a cleanup maybe, folks? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you would like to create some guidelines then and gain consensus because without them - nothing changes.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a series of examples to create as part of a MoS associated with this project. We can then hold those up as the guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A series of guidelines are only that. As pointed out by the editor who has been including all the so called additional information that others have been including it. And if the guidelines had already been existed, would still be worthy of a full blown edit war to uphold such a guideline. The individual has been looking after this page and plenty of credit should go to him for having it in the current well documented state. The only pointer that I would have is that there should be far more verifiable references. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(←) Based upon the Man Utd page I suggest that the following club positions should be listed as standard for all clubs:

• Owner (primary owner[s] only)
• President
• Chief Executive
• Manager
• Assistant manager
• Head coach/First-team coach
• Director of football (or similar)

Any other prominent member of staff at the club that is notable in their own right may also be listed, otherwise they should be omitted. I don't know of any non-primary/non-business sources that care to go into detail beyond this, which is a good indication that anything outside the above positions is going far beyond the remit of a general overview of the topic. SFB 20:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Brudder Andrusha, Ohconfucius, Egghead06, Number 57, and Walter Görlitz: Does anyone have any suggestions on the above? Should it be incorporated into Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs in a new section "Club officials"/"Personnel"? (Also probably worth showing the managerial history style here too). SFB 17:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No suggestions, but not sure what the difference between manager, first-team coach and the unlisted "head coach" would be. Don't forget that "soccer" teams use different terms and we would want to accommodate that somehow in the same way we accommodate "ground" and "stadium". Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It was my intention to allow listing of the various manager/coach setups that exist (I have duly noted head coach). As long as we are listing people fulfilling this role (which is a highly important one) then that should be fine. I don't think the naming differences open the door to lesser roles being listed. SFB 06:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Lglukgl

Anybody out there that masters Italian as well as English that can reach out to this guy? He does not seem to understand the WP guidelines at all, much as myself and User:MYS77 have tried to explain them to him.

Creates page after page after page of poor content and verifiability (there, MYS77 can vouch for it much better than me), some players are created because "they will be notable one day". The "pièce de resistance", creating an article that's half player name/half team name (i.e. Joselu Almeria)!

I believe this has much to do with his level of English (which i feel borders 0 with all due respect, my Hungarian or Swedish is 0 most definitely), hence i ask if a kind soul could try to collaborate with Lglukgl in his native language, because i (and MYS77, he confirmed this to me today) have run out of bullets.

P.S. Both users mentioned here have been notified of this discussion. Attentively --AL (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The guy doesn't seem to understand the rules here. I've explained to him a thousand times how WP works and he's still creating poor pages. He once told me that, for him, quantity is better than quality. That says a lot.

Also, this problem with the "future notability" is constantly occurring and the only thing I can do is try to make him understand (once again). His content is mostly incomplete, with informations missing in box and a poor (or none) storyline (I know the latter is not obligatory, but it gives to the page a bit more info).

We're running out of options (and patience) here, that's why we're writing. I'm in a deeply hope that some user here can speak Italian as good as English, that would help a lot (not only him, but us too!)

Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 01:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, the guy already had problems in the Italian WP (https://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Utenti_problematici/Lglukgl).

I'm awaiting for an answer. MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 13:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hey. I created a Danish football club. It is Hadsund BK. It would be nice if one of you would drop by. This a previously known footballer namely Ebbe Sand. Look also just past the talk page and see if it is the right template I inserted. Thanks in advance. --Søren1997 ^{(talk // contributions)} 19:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look at the article and cleaned it up as much as I can, but since I know nothing about the club, I couldn't make any more changes. What are you saying about Ebbe Sand? What relationship does he have with the club? – PeeJay 19:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I note the article is unreferenced - is it notable? Eldumpo (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey PeeJay. Ebbe Sand spielte für den Club von 1977 bis 1992. Peter Sand spielte für den Club von 1977 bis 1994. --Søren1997 ^{(talk // contributions)} 20:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You're lucky I speak a bit of German. Okay, so Ebbe Sand played for Hadsund for 15 years? I'm afraid that still doesn't establish the club's notability. – PeeJay 20:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Flags

In Asian leagues, there are qoutas for foreign players for a particular team. So we make a separate table for the foreign players in the league article like 2013–14 I-League. As per as MOS:FLAG#Use of flags for sportsperson, in many articles the flags have been removed from places like manager, captain etc. But in the MOS only, as it says, "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality", so dont you think in the foreign players table of these league articles, these flags should be present? RRD13 (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the answer is fairly obviously yes. It's a completely appropriate use. Number 57 08:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That use is appropriate, but I've noticed the use in article infoboxes and I've removed those, but not in in that article. However, why are the icons listed in "Personnel and kits" and "Managerial changes"? Also, when used in the "Season statistics", you should actually use a separate "Nation" column as has been done at 2013 Major League Soccer season. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Career totals template

Hello all. I've just been working on Scott Loach who has signed for Rotherham from the Tractor Boys today, and was about to complete the update by fixing his career totals table when I discovered what a bitch that is. Using Soccerbase etc, it's really easy to update season by season, but the totals is a nightmare. I was wondering if there was scope, or if anyone knew someone who could code up a totals line which did the maths for us? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible, is it? I don't see how a new row in the table could call values from previous rows. – PeeJay 21:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The only way I can see it happening is if a large template was set up which did the maths for us, but it would be a lot more complex than just getting a calculator out. - 97rob (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and I think consensus has previously been achieved that we should avoid such convoluted templates. – PeeJay 22:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's entirely possible to design a script that would fulfil this function. It's something I've thought about myself with medal tables. Not quite able to write it myself in javascript, but I'd certainly be able to do this in another coding format as it's not a very complex function (as long as the table isn't transcluding weird things. Maybe ask at Wikipedia:User scripts? SFB 06:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've posted at WT:User scripts#Automatic totals for a table? to see if they can do anything about this. Feel free to add some more detail to the question I've asked there if you feel it's not clear enough. If this is possible, it'd be great, I've always just assumed it wouldn't be possible on wikipedia. - 97rob (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Using Scott Loach#Career statistics as the use case, such a script would be very difficult to have work. The tables would have to have exactly the same columns all the way down and would likely be confused by colspans and rowspans. It would work well if it was a symmetrical table... The only other option is to create a series of templates that would apply certain classes to each column on each row so the script can find all the numbers it is suppose to add up. Hopefully someone else a little more adept than I comes along and offers a solution, in the meantime, I'll play with some ideas for extracting goo numbers for each row and see what I can do, but it will likely be a very slow process. This could probably be done more easily with a lua module (at least for the total column at the end of each row). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• There was a template at one time, but it was deleted at TFD for being over-complicated and difficult to use. I see no real issues with the current wikitable format. GiantSnowman 16:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• It's not exactly the perfect solution, but may be easier than using a calculator: User:V111P/js/Sum numbers. You have to use Firefox to use the script. --V111P (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Diego Costa and international career stats.

Hi, I am wondering how to show the international career stats for Diego Costa who has played for two national teams.

With one national team we do something like (note it is made up numbers in all tables):

Spain national team
Year	Apps	Goals
2010	1	2
2011	4	1
2012	10	5
2013	12	3
2014	8	3
Total	35	14

For two national teams we can either just list them above eachother...

Brazil national team
Year	Apps	Goals
2010	1	2
2011	4	1
2012	10	5
Brazil Total	15	8
Spain national team
Year	Apps	Goals
2013	12	3
2014	8	3
Spain Total	20	6
International Total
Total	35	14

... or make it look like club statistics. What is the best? QED237 (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I would list them separately and not stacked up, since there is no relevance in tallying up the caps/goals for two national teams. LRD NO (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no such thing as an "international total", list the Brazil and Spain stats separately. GiantSnowman 11:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

template:2014–15 Football League Championship table

Can someone take a look at {{2014–15 Football League Championship table}}. It's not producing the table slices properly but I can't work out why.

see

{{2014–15 Football League Championship table|team=NOR}}

cheers => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. It took me a while (was staring at main template) but there were two rows missing in {{2014–15 Football League Championship table/p}} (redirected from {{FLCH14}}. I think everything should be okay now. QED237 (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Season N F.C. season

Hi, how far down the tier with this do we go? Could I create a 2014-15 Kingstonian F.C. season article if I wanted? Thanks, Matty.007 12:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 12:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems more US centric. Would such an article as I suggested meet those requirements ("A national championship season at a lower collegiate level might be notable")? Thanks, Matty.007 12:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I recall, there is consensus that anything below national level is not article-worthy. There is a bit of debate about national but non-professional levels (e.g. the Conference). Personally I would say that there shouldn't be season articles for any clubs in non-fully professional leagues. Therefore your Kingstonian article would not be suitable. Number 57 12:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Thanks, Matty.007 12:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

FC or F.C.?

So, that's probably been debated ad infinitum. Question is, was there any consensus on either, such that an article like Home United FC has been and should be redirected? LRD NO (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Declunk it in the modern way, please: FC. And redirect from F.C., I suppose. Tony (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It is case by case basis. English clubs (for example Hull City A.F.C., Arsenal F.C., Chelsea F.C.) always uses the dots themselves in team names, but the spanish teams (Sevilla FC, FC Barcelona and so on) does not do that. Without looking at the team provided, I cant say the case for that team, but it depends on the team. QED237 (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• It makes for a huge mess. I don't mind nor care which way it goes, and I only today moved a few (perhaps erroneously) based on the convention adopted by the editors of the English and French clubs. We really ought to harmonise these once and for all - meaning if we are to do this, we should do it also for Arsenal F.C. and Paris Saint-Germain F.C... -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should do away with the dots altogether. Most media outlets these days give acronyms and initialisms without any punctuation separating the letters, and some don't even capitalise every letter if the abbreviation can be said as a word rather than pronouncing every individual letter (e.g. Uefa, Fifa, Ukip). Obviously that last example doesn't apply here, but if we can write titles without dots (e.g. Mr, Mrs, Dr, Prof, etc.), I'm sure we can do away with the dots in "FC", regardless of what the clubs themselves do. Plus it makes for less headaches when ending a sentence with "Tommy Template signed for Fooland F.C..". – PeeJay 09:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Australian clubs are just "FC", with no dots, because in general the letters don't actually stand for "Football Club". They don't stand for anything. The "football club" suffix was already claimed in too many parts of the country by Australian football clubs, or rugby league clubs. The FC is therefore merely an affectation to make them sound a bit like the English clubs they dream of emulating. A bit like adding the word "United" when there is no history of separation. HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not really true, FC can only mean Football Club in this context. It is an abbreviation and technically abbreviations in English should have dots. However, some clubs use them and some clubs don't. Some users use them and some don't. This has been discussed regularly and at length and I am unaware of any consensus one way or the other. Certainly it seems that it would be impossible to gain a global consensus. I would suggest that if someone creates an article for Foo FC then it should stay as Foo FC, if they create Foo F.C. then it should stay as that. If someone moves an article from one to another then it should stay where it was moved unless an edit war occurs. No move like this would affect any understanding of the article and all editors should be looking first and foremost to expand content rather than debate such minutiae. There are thousands of club stubs and hundreds of club articles written like fan pages. Why not try to get an article to an acceptable standard and then decide whether there should be dots in the title? Fenix down (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well said! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There's not much point in claiming that FC means and is an abbreviation for "football club" in a place where "football" means "Australian Rules football", and just about everyone in town calls the round ball game "soccer". HiLo48 (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Would just like to clear this one up. FC does very much does stand for Football Club in Australia. Many clubs used to be "SC" before the name officially changed to football in Australia. It makes sense for the official names of teams to reflect the official name of the sport they play. In fact, a quick search reveals countless examples of the FC being referred to as "Football Club", often by the clubs themselves. Macosal (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You won't get consensus one way or another. Take it on an individiual basis, reflecting what the club or the most reputable source in each case does. What about non-FC prefixes and suffixes? Take the two biggest Spanish clubs: with no country consistency you are surely fighting a losing battle – official Real Madrid sources use "C.F."[9][10] whereas official Barcelona sources don't inititalise FC.[11][12]. I think this must be WP:PERENNIAL and time to let it lie and get on with the articles themselves. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

As I say, this is why we should make a decision one way or the other ourselves. In my opinion, the inconsistency brought about by the clubs themselves not being able to agree on a format makes our articles look a bit silly. This should be part of our manual of style, and I think we should agree not to use the dots as it simply cuts down on a lot of the problems that including the dots brings. – PeeJay 13:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should not use the dots, as although there are mixed sources, consistency between articles is important, and writing "Foo F.C.." at the end of a sentence seems wrong, as mentioned above. - 97rob (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Just on that point, you don't add an additional full stop/period at the end of a sentence; that's just rules of punctuation. Or see MOS:CONSECUTIVE: Where a proper noun that includes terminal punctuation ends a sentence, do not add a second terminal punctuation mark. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how we can reasonably apply rules such as ENGVAR or RETAIN to the articles' naming. What Struway2 and Tony say tends to sway me toward the arguments in favour of "FC" universally. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with PeeJay, we should solve this incosistency ourselfs and drop the dots. Its really not a big deal and it wan´t make any harm, and we could allways do it wit the fact that in vast majority of cases media and other souces don´t use them. For instance, all Serbian clubs are named FK despite F.K. being the official and formal form, and no one ever even questioned that here on wp simply because the FK formula is almost always preferred by the media and sources. FkpCascais (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

At the end of the day, there are much bigger problems to fix. However, I would be concerned about the creep. Do we then remove all apostrophes from shop retailers too to be consistent, like Waterstones did. Why not make it McDonalds and Sainsburys? It isn't just about ambiguity and ease but what is gramatically correct. I'd be inclined to not make up our own rules but follow the names of official entities where possible. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

All well and good suggesting just getting rid of them, but still don't see any consensus as usual on this extremely minor point. FkpCascias's point exposes the much wider issue, even if it were possible to gain consensus over "FC/F.C." I am not sure that resolves other abbreviations such as FK, AS, AFC and the multitude of additional abbreviations here. People will note that the algerian, as just one example clubs do not have dots, but the UK teams here do. Either decision will create a massive amount of work for a minor presentational change and the fact that clear consensus has never been achieved suggests to me we are just inviting pointless edit wars. Is it really not possible for people to let sleeping dogs lie here? Fenix down (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure it's a lot of work, but is a task that is easily automated. Once it has been decided to adopt a uniform naming system, the work could be done by bot. It was done systematically when "Fußball" was dropped for all German football articles this time last year. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not thtat important. For this reason we have redirects. -Koppapa (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally always thought it should be just FC, however the change would have to be placed in our manual of style clearly, as a much bigger mix of FC and F.C. would be dreadfully inconsistent.Blethering Scot 21:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the dots. As well as being the more common way of how clubs seem to write their names (on their badges or stadiums for instance), it also allows us to identify the subtle differences in names – in AFC Wimbledon, the AFC doesn't stand for anything, so it's not got the full stops. A.F.C. Sudbury does stand for something. If we removed the dots from English clubs, that subtlety would be lost. Number 57 21:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that anything would be lost. Whether or not the FC/AFC stands for anything can be indicated by the opening sentence of the respective articles, it doesn't necessarily have to be indicated by the article title. – PeeJay 22:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• While I'm a fan of consistency in general, and consistency in titles is one of our core naming WP:CRITERIA, the fact that clubs refer to themselves differently, combined with WP:COMMONNAME, means there can never be complete consistency in this area anyway. And while club prefixes and suffixes often make good WP:NATURAL disambiguation, we should also keep WP:CONCISE in mind and omit them entirely if not commonly used or needed for disambiguation, e.g., Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Red Star Belgrade

Could we get a few eyes on Red Star Belgrade for MoS, layout and other issues please? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Melbourne City Football Club or Melbourne City FC

Please refer to this discussion about whether the fullname parameter of the {{Infobox football club}} template should be Melbourne City Football Club or Melbourne City FC where this is confusion about how this parameter should be used (e.g., whether to use a full legal name and, if so, what this means, e.g., a business name, company/association name, trade mark, etc.). Please feel free to join the discussion there. —sroc 💬 01:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

BFC Viktoria 1889

This Berlin based club doesn't exist anymore in this kind. The article itself also gives a hint "The merger will go ahead on 01/07/2013 and the new club will be called FC Viktoria 1889 Berlin Lichterfelde-Templehof e.V.". The new club qualified for the German Cup. I'm not exactly skilled in merging club articles... Thanks! -Lemmy- (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to merge the articles. It can be a standalone article on the old club, with a new article on the new club (unless the merger is with a completely non-notable entity, in which case I would just do a move do the new name). Number 57 08:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@-Lemmy-: - so BFC Viktoria 1889 and Lichterfelder FC have merged to form a new club called FC Viktoria 1889 Berlin? If the new club notable? If so create a new article on it; if not, there is no need to rename either article, just update them to confirm they are now defunct and have merged into a new, non-notable team. GiantSnowman 12:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The new club is called "FC Viktoria 1889 Berlin" as can also be seen on the German Wikipedia. Jared Preston (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks to be notable, given the league it will play in - I'll create a stub later, unless someone beats me to it... GiantSnowman 12:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 18:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Snowman -Lemmy- (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Live scores, the next step?

{{Livescores editnotice}} Would anyone like to comment? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Where is it to be used? At the top of pages or at the match template? I think it's overkill, and it won't stop live editing anyway. Also in my view it looks rude to article viewers. -Koppapa (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus at the discussion here to take further steps or to develop or use such aggressive notices. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It was requested at Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup to inform editors to not live update. That is why I put a lot of effort to it to make it short but informative. However, the wording and overall look of the editnotice can be changed. QED237 (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

To clarify it is an edit notice that will only be shown after pressing "edit" above the edit window so it would not be seen when viewing the article. QED237 (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok thanks for the explanation. -Koppapa (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact remains that no consensus was reached that live score updates should be actively reverted, nor that warnings or blocks should be dished out to anyone making such edits, in fact the underlying consensus was that while live editing is not to be encouraged, such aggressive responses should be discouraged.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that the WP:FOOTY consensus stands but there was no consensus to add it to "What wikipedia is not". There were many votes for "support" and a few against it and the people against it were arguing against a few of "supporters", so no consensus was found there. QED237 (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

From my understanding of the discussions which took place about live scores, there was a clear consensus that wikipedia doesn't want editors to add scores during the match. If this is the case, surely steps should be taken to ensure editors are aware of the current consensus. If they then ignore this, and are given warnings on their talk page, then by continuing they're deliberately going against an agreed policy without first bringing it up for discussion. If this happens, why wouldn't further warnings/blocks be used, in the same was as going against any other agreed policy. Also, if they continue to add live scores, there's a good chance they could also be seen as edit warring. - 97rob (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

But live scores were not added to "What wikipedia is not" because consensus to do so was not reached. The template above disingenuously implies that it is included there and then links to something in the WP:SNOOKER MOS. I have no issue with some sort of note asking people not to update live scores but there is no reason to couch it in such threatening language with immediate talks of bans.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Then please go to the template talk and suggest changes, as I said it is not set in stone we can change the visual part of the notice a bit. QED237 (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

We definitly need this.Blethering Scot 16:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Any more comments or is it time to put it to use at 2014 FIFA World Cup (as a start) and then perhaps more articles? Feel free to comment both here and at the template talk. All constructive suggestions on the template and how it visually should look is appreciated both here and at the template talk. General comments as well. QED237 (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The template is based on an incorrect claim and should be amended before it goes anywhere near any articles as I've already pointed out and you have failed to address. WP MOS does not state that live updates should not be entered as the template claims, and the link provided is for a mention in WP:Snooker MOS, so to make such a broad claim in inaccurate and all of that text should be removed. The template would be better as a friendly notice, politely asking users not to make such updates as per WP:Football consensus without immediately resorting to threats - as per the concerns raised when this was discussed at the MOS in the first place. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bladeboy1889: Yes I have failed to see any constructive suggestions to change the template. As I said several times you are more than welcome to discuss the wording here or at the template talkpage and come with suggestions instead of just saying it is bad. QED237 (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

And also this has not been discussed at MOS before, as you said it has. Also with 6-7 editors commenting the template you are the only one opposing. QED237 (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it has been discussed at 'What Wikipedia is not' as well you know becuase you contributed. I don't see how much clearer I need to be but here goes: ::::"Do NOT add livescores or live updates, Wikipedia is not for livescoring and live updates per Wikipedia guideline WP:LIVESCORES." This is not true. The request to add "wikipidia is not a scoreboard" to the MOS did not happen as no consensus was achived. Therefore to claim "Wikipedia is not for livescoring and live updates per Wikipedia guideline WP:LIVESCORES." is a misrepresentation of consensus. And I'll repeat for the third time - the link included in the template is to an item in the Snooker MOS but the implication is that it is a Wikipedia wide consensus which it is not, therefore it is misleading. On that basis that whole first sentence should be removed. As for the rest of the text, it could be worded better to assume good faith and nurture editors rather than being phrased like a formal warning with threats of bans. Also there is no reason to make it red, or have the large warning symbol (usually used with final warning notices), livescores isn't a word and the title shouldn't be all in capitals as that implies shouting and is again overly agressive.

So a preferable text would be:

"The current consensus at at WikiProject Football is not to update statistics or scores while a match is in progress (with the relevant links to the discussion). Please wait until the match(es) has (have) finished before making any updates to help avoid duplicate information or errors from being published. If you are interested in helping develop football articles then you can find more information at WP:Football." With a background of orange/yellow and a less dramatic icon. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all "What wikipedia is not" is not MOS it is policy page so I still stand for what I said, "this has not been discussed at MOS before". Secondly, thank you for finally giving a contructive suggestion how it may look, reason for changing picture and so on. I believe we have to be firm and short to get people to listen, but I hear what you are saying. I have made changes to sandbox and will ping everyone interested so we can come to agreement. QED237 (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bladeboy1889:, @Walter Görlitz:, @Koppapa:, @Blethering Scot:, @97rob:: I have now updated {{Livescores editnotice/sandbox}}, with difference to current version is to be seen at {{Livescores editnotice/testcases}}. Please voice your opinions. The changes is made on request from Bladeboy1889 above. I changed

1. the icon beacuse it was to "threatning", there are many icons on wiki so suggest others if you have better idea.
2. the color beacuse red is for blocking and final warnings, however I dont totally agree. It was pink (not red) and easy to read black text on that pink background. It gets a bit worse to read black on orange but it fullfills contrasts at WP:COLOR.
3. The text to make it less threatning, now it should be a lot better. I did not add last row saying they are welcome to footy if they like to contribute to football because I think three rows is enough, too long and people dont read.
4. The header is not caps since it could be shouting (just wanted to draw attention to note).

As I said please comment, I would like to have it finished to the matches on thursday. QED237 (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

My first thought on seeing it was that the background seemed too bright, so a slightly duller one might be better, although a bright background would draw attention to the notice. I would also suggest removing the plural part of the notice, so it reads ...while the match is in progress, wait until the match has finished... because I think it reads slightly better that way, and once a match has finished then there's not really a problem with editors adding information - 97rob (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my points on board - in terms of the colour I was thinking more of one of the usual pastel colours (eg #FFFFCC) which will work better for accessibility purposes.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having an article-specific, one-off edit notice about 'live updates' for the duration of the tournament if that is the consensus on the article talk page. GiantSnowman 15:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with live scoring, at least not in football. It we were speaking of basketball, it would be another thing, but in football, there aren't that many events that are reflected in the {{football box}}. In the 2012 London Olympics, the scores were kept pretty much live, and I don't think that was a big problem – or was it? The difference though is that the football boxes were kept in "game templates" (see Category:2012 Summer Olympics football game reference templates), which were included in the "Football at the 2012 ..." and the "Foo at the 2012 ..." articles, so updates were only needed in one place. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I did previously push for the matches to be included in templates such as this (e.g. {{Template:2014 FIFA World Cup Match A1}}, but my suggestions were turned down. It does make it a lot more work to add scores when they're located on a different page, so I'm not entirely in support of those templates any more. Also, it's not just {{football box}} which is used. There's also the section which will be added below that (see 2010 FIFA World Cup Group A for an example), which includes many more details such as substitutions and yellow/red cards. - 97rob (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point with the more details below stuff. But I'm not sure about the "a lot more work" stuff. Did you mean that it is more work with templates? I actually think it's less work, but that depends partly on how many articles transclude them. In the case of the 2012 Olympics, each "game reference template" is transcluded from four articles. Editing those four articles instead of one template is obviously more work. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

By more work, I meant having to go to click through to each template can be annoying, but having said that, the templates could be used on the main world cup article, the group article plus the articles for the national team's results (e.g. England national football team results – 2000s#2014), so I'm divided on this one. - 97rob (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@97rob:, @HandsomeFella:. I like templates and edit them a lot myself (working especially with league table template), but at the time I found no use for having the foitball boxes (matches) as templates since the info would be very different on the involving pages (only score on one and matchinfo on the other). However I did not consider all of the national teams article so perhaps it is not a bad idea anyway? The group tables however is a different thing the tables are used on all of the articles and are easilt made as templates. QED237 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Hi, sorry for my bad english but what do you mean by "one-off" above? I made template (instead of having same code everywhere and I saw other edit-notice templates) of the notice because there was interest to have it on the main article as well as the subarticles (group articles) which also holds the score and the same template can be used on all those pages. Also there were many semi-protection requests and protection of this year UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League (8 articles in total) so I see use for it there as well if we find consensus on those article talkpages (when the problem occurs). QED237 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Does everyone think the template, seen at {{Livescores editnotice/sandbox}}, is okay and ready for use on FIFA World Cup (as requested at the talk) or is there more to be fixed? QED237 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm split between wanting to move the matches to templates and not, so if no-one really comes in with a strong opinion on it, we may as well leave it as it is now. In terms of the template, I can't see any reason not to add it to the World Cup article (and related group articles), so go for it. - 97rob (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for this. As for the template, fine except for the middle sentence. The English is a bit clunky. I would change "not to live update" to not to update while a match is in progress or similar.--Egghead06 (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Egghead06: I wanted to keep the consensus at one row not making information to long. I changed ...live scores and moreover there is also consensus not to live update any other statistics to ...live scores and also a consensus to not update any statistics while a match is in progress., does that sound okay/better? QED237 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

MY english is not as it used to, should it be to not or not to? In both consensus on second row? QED237 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to. --Egghead06 (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"One-off" means it should not be put into widespread useage - yet. GiantSnowman 09:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well the World Cup articles can serve as a sort of trial then, where we can see what sort of response they get on the talk page, and if it actually help stop the live scores at all! - 97rob (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say we can use on all of the World Cup articles (and not just main articles), after the discussion on main talk. The group articles and table templates can all be subject of live updates. QED237 (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Tonight I will request it to be put up at the article so any final thoughts? It can now been seen at {{Livescores editnotice/sandbox}}. If being used on many articles in the future I would believe it being template-protected. QED237 (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Club name after name change in player infoboxes

Hi folks. I noticed all the Melbourne City players who were at the club last season when it was still Melbourne Heart had their infoboxes altered so it said they were two separate clubs (e.g., see infobox of Patrick Kisnorbo - separate entry for Melbourne Heart & Melbourne City). I went and changed this so it just had one entry under the name "Melbourne City", as I thought this was protocol for when a club changes names (e.g. Roger Espinoza and Kei Kamara - both at Sporting KC before and after the name change from Kansas City Wizards, their infoboxes just have one entry under "Sporting Kansas City"). However all my edits were reverted by User:Simione001 for the reason "Melbourne City FC only came into existence this year. You shouldn't be changing the infobox of their players to indicate that they have been playing for City before the club even existed." Are they correct on this, or is what I did right? — Limabeans (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This shows why I hate Infoboxes. People insist on trying to squeeze complex info into a simplistic format. Maybe we could write Melbourne Heart/Melbourne City as one entry in the list. HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be my approach too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct to remove Heart from the infobox. You can't say that Mate Dugandzic has been playing for Melbourne City since 2011. For me it's like trying to wipe away Melb Heart from history like they never existed, of course I don't think that's right. For me i can't see any problem with leaving it the way it is. It's more clearer this way for the reader.Simione001 (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of my suggestion, which doesn't remove Heart, but shows both names, old and new, as one entry? HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It's OK but the only problem i have with that is aesthetic. It looks terrible and makes the infobox very wide. Also it doesn't conform with any other pages that i've ever seen. Frankly i'd prefer to just have City listed in the infobox than to do that.Simione001 (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Or you could have them as separate entries, and add a footnote indicating the name change undergone by Heart to City and the month/year or season it happened. LRD NO (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This could work.Simione001 (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

How about as the same entity using the more recent name, but with a footnote. Here's a few examples of that being used at Mike Magee and Jeff Parke, for the club MetroStars / New York Red Bulls. — Limabeans (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this would be my pick. I think it works well.Simione001 (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If it's a simple name change, then I don't see the problem with current players having only "City" in the infobox. However, if it's a new club, then there should be a split. Number 57 08:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your right, it is basically the same club with a different name but the previous name is also important.Simione001 (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It's important to the club article, but for a player infobox, I don't see the point in having the club listed under two separate names. For players at other clubs that have changed names during their time there, we have used the more recent name in the infobox. See, for example, Chris Day, who was at Stevenage Borough when they became Stevenage. Number 57 08:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Simione001 on one point. The previous name is also important. Since the name change was announced on Friday there's been an excited, frantic rash of changes, many seemingly using a form of Newspeak, as if the old name never existed. The new name is obviously important to the marketers, and some excited fans, but we should be presenting a truthful history, not just what things are now. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously it should be clear in the club article, and perhaps even mentioned in the prose in the player article that the club had a different name at the time of the signing, but the infobox is not for recording history in this way. Number 57 08:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Have I mentioned before that I hate Infoboxes? They seem doomed to hold nothing more than simple, misleading subsets of reality. Not very encyclopaedic at all. The club has played zero games under its new name. No player has yet played a game under the new name. It really is nonsensical to omit the name every player with the club has played every game under so far. That's just doing too much for the marketers, and isn't just ignoring history; it's ignoring reality. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not ignoring reality though. It's still the same entity, just under a different name. I used to work for a firm that changed name whilst I was working there. I don't have two sections in my CV (or even mention the former name). I also disagree that this is unencylopedic. Number 57 08:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll bet you didn't change your CV to include only the new name two days after the name change, and expect potential employers to know what you meant. And you ignored my point about no games played under the new name. HiLo48 (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't have to update my CV at the time, so I can't really comment on that. But anyway, I didn't ignore your point specifically, I just thought I was being clear that the new club name should be used whatever the circumstances. However recent the change, or whether any games have been played under the new name is irrelevant, because it's not a new/different entity. Number 57 11:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

John Glover (footballer) has "Small Heath/Birmingham" in his infobox and I don't think it looks awful.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Chris Day's article (mentioned above) uses Stevenage (no Borough) for the whole of his time there, which to me is misleading....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The infobox/article should reflect the name of the club that the person was playing for at the time; if the same club simply changes name then we should use the current name. Former players should have 'Melbourne Heart', current and future players should have 'Melbourne City'. GiantSnowman 11:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with GS thats exactly how it should be done, simply done with a wikilink.Blethering Scot 18:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless I've misread it, that suggests that if a club changes its name, players with the club at the time should have their articles amended to only use the new name, is that what you're endorsing? So if Chelsea changed their name tomorrow to Fulham Rovers, John Terry's article should be changed to say that he made his professional debut in 1998 for Fulham Rovers, won the Premier League in 2005 with Fulham Rovers, etc. Sorry, but that would be ridiculous. The name used in the prose should absolutely be the name in use at the time. Remember the to-do a while back over an editor who wanted to amend List of FA Cup finals to show only the clubs' current names? Everyone shouted him down at the time, and I don't see this as a different argument......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

What GiantSnowman suggests appears to be the exact same solution we had to this problem at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league a few years ago and it's been a total non-issue ever since. As far as the infobox goes the name of the club at the time the player plays his last game is the name that should appear there. Simple. As for article text though, obviously the contemporaneous name should be used.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Chris, you've mis-read what I said - "The infobox/article should reflect the name of the club that the person was playing for at the time" - so he made his professional debut for 'Chelsea' (the club name at that time) but won the 2017 Champions League with 'Fulham Rovers' (the club name at that time). The infobox would show 'Fulham Rovers' in that particular example. GiantSnowman 09:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I personally am a fan of listing both. Because you want to make it clear that they played for the team while it was called X and played for them while it was called Y. That is how I have seen it dealt with in other sports. If people are concerned that that gives the impression of two franchises then I would do something like "Melbourne Heart/City" If I read an infobox that only read one I would get the impression that he only played for the team while it was called that. Names are a big deal in sport. Even if they are the same club a name change is a major thing. -DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with those who say only the new name should be used. The same has been done in many cases, for example those who played at Queensland Roar/Brisbane Roar. To list the two as separate entities to me would imply that they were separate clubs, which they are definitely not. The current system of footnoting the former name is a bit awkward. Moreover, the "two" clubs will share the same single statistics in all reports on Wikipedia and in the wider world - this would make it confusing if players did not do the same. Statistically, Melbourne Heart FC is Melbourne City FC and as such a statistical listing should reflect that. Macosal (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Players who have played in the FA Cup

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question, but can anyone confirm, if a player has played for a league club in the FA Cup, does that make them eligible for an article?? Stew jones (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think yes, but there is no consensus on the matter as several people disagree. Articles that meet this criteria have been both kept and deleted at AfD. Number 57 21:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think both clubs would need to be playing in the FL (or any fully pro league) for the player to be considered notable. But there's also WP:GNG to consider. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

What about somebody like Sam Ashton, he played one FA Cup game for Bolton Wanderers, but has an article. Just for the record I am in the camp of these articles existing, as I believe playing a professional game for a professional team should warrant an article Stew jones (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If you play in a cup game for a team from a WP:FPL against another team also from FPL then I would say you are notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to apply some common sense here because often times fully-pro clubs will use reserve players in a cup tournament to rest their regular squad, and one of these reserves that makes one or two cup appearances, even against another club that plays in a FPL, might never play again for the club (Sam Ashton is an example, although that article appears to satisfy the GNG regardless). In the past, games in the early rounds of the US Open Cup between fully-pro clubs barely registered any coverage (this has changed in recent years) and I've tried finding coverage for matches between fully-pro sides in similar cup competitions (e.g., KNVB Cup) with little success. Jogurney (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As with all other articles, GNG trumps NFOOTBALL. Some kid who got 15 minutes in the first round of the FA Cup but then disappears into obscurity would not be notable if they failed GNG. GiantSnowman 15:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think it makes sense to assume notability in NFOOTBALL for cup matches between clubs in FPLs (except perhaps the final few rounds - maybe beginning at the quarter-finals). I can think of dozens of examples of early round cup matches that have not been taken seriously by a club in a FPL. Jogurney (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Table

Hi, in the 1997–98 season at User:Matty.007/sandbox/List of Kingstonian F.C. seasons, I can't get Leworthy's goals to format such as at my guide, List of Margate F.C. seasons. Please can someone fix this? Thanks, Matty.007 18:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, and no different to the Margate one. Number 57 19:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The number of goals he scored is in the refs column rather than top scorer and I don't know how to fix it. Thanks, Matty.007 19:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

On my browser it's in the correct column. Number 57 19:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Same here, I'm on latest IE. GiantSnowman 19:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, looking on IE it works, must just be Firefox for some reason. Thank you! Number 57: the reason I put the Ryman League is that is what the source says, when they get promoted, they got moved up a league: I think they merged at a later date. Thanks, Matty.007 19:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ryman is the sponsored name for Isthmian. It's the same league! Number 57 22:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine in Chrome. EddieV2003 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Referencing honours

Recently the "Honours" section of Mathew Ryan was deleted entirely on the grounds that it was unreferenced. Is this the appropriate action? Very few players have any references in their honours sections, let alone every honour being referenced - it would seem excessive to delete these all? Macosal (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I would tag the section with {{BLP unsourced section}}. The links support the information but not that the player was on the clubs that earned the honours, although that's supported above and it's easily shown but not WP:SYNTHESIS. However, I haven't seen referenced honours sections, even on GA articles.

@GiantSnowman:, would you like to apply that same logic to other player articles such as Cristiano Ronaldo#Honours (which at least has some references), Lionel Messi#Honours and Franck Ribéry#Honours? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Individual honours should always be followed by a reference. It is that much necessary for club honours. But I think that untill a player has played in a cup final, the cup honour should not be added. RRD13 (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Almost all of Ryan's honours were actually for player/team/keeper of the year-type things. I'd expect those to be referenced..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The honours section should be fully and explicitly referenced as per WP:V and WP:BLP. GiantSnowman 09:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

My question is not whether honours sections should be referenced but whether deletion is/was appropriate response to unreferenced honours sections. Macosal (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP, you should be able to answer your own question. GiantSnowman 15:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

So is it time to delete Cristiano Ronaldo#Honours, Lionel Messi#Honours, Franck Ribéry#Honours, Ryan Giggs#Honours, Bastian Schweinsteiger#Honours, Steven Gerrard#Honours etc etc? Macosal (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Further, a policy of immediate deletion of all unreferenced material seems unproductive. The existence of {{BLP unsourced section}} suggests that this template should at least be used for some time before deletion and gives users a chance to reference material rather than having to remove it. Also {{BLP unsourced section}} states that contentious material will be immediately removed; which honours very rarely are, I would suggest. Macosal (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

My view exactly, if inj doubt delete, if probably true just tag the section. In the meantime all awards are sourced. -Koppapa (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

GiantSnowman has again removed the club honours section from Mathew Ryan. How are we supposed to reference club honours? Additionally, I have found no other article where the club honours section is referenced, even on feature articles.--2nyte (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

How do you reference? A reliable source which explicitly states that Ryan won X, Y or Z. If you cannot verify the information about a living person, then it should not be included - that is basic, basic stuff. GiantSnowman 08:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added the references to the two honours that were deleted. There are some valid points raised though. If we are to go strictly by the rules and delete any unreferenced honours, a huge numbers of players, including big names listed by User:Macosal should be deleted as well. It would perhaps be wiser to tag the section with a {{BLP unsourced section}} template as suggested by User:Walter Görlitz, which would bring to attention the need to reference or risk deletion. Not all players will have an article stating 'so-and-so has won this title' so it won't be as easy as finding an article with the proper name-referencing. In the case of Ryan, going by his career stats he had played enough matches in the respective seasons to undoubtedly have his honours listed. LRD NO (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the references. As for your wider point, I would like to draw everyone's attention, again, to WP:BLP - "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." A player being a squad member of a team that wins a trophy does not necessarily mean that that specific player got a winner's medal. GiantSnowman 11:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

While there are grey areas regarding players with a couple of appearances and some player honours are debatable, Ryan in this case had played in ~90% of league games in both trophy-winning seasons and is clearly a first-team player. It would be more appropriate to add an 'unsourced' template here than to remove the honours. Cheers. LRD NO (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the eligibility rules for every single country/competition. Adding an 'unsourced' tag does little more than state "here is a problem, let's do nothing about it." GiantSnowman 11:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Further, as I stated above, the linked articles do reference the fact that the team honours were earned and the article should reference that the player was on the team when the honour was earned so I believe that should suffice. Again, you need to apply this evenly to all footy player articles, not simply a few you don't know enough about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Disagree strongly that 'unsourced' or 'citation needed' tags simply state "here is a problem, let's do nothing about it". I've come across a few in football related articles, and DID do something about it (found and added references). Simply deleting material that is unsourced but uncontentious (and not obvious nonsense), without giving editors the opportunity the find references, is tantamount to vandalism.ShugSty (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that it's disruptive editing, but not not vandalism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems this same issue has again cropped up, this time re Fernandão and again re GiantSnowman. Unfortunately I'm unaware of how the system works but the general opinion here appears to be that the "unsourced" tag should be used? If anything, it seems like the user has a personal problem with the "unsourced" tag, which 1. should be brought up on the relevant talk page and 2. does not give a user the right to bypass what remains a valid part of the editing system. Can we aim for a consensus here to avoid the removal of potentially thousands of honours sections without giving editors a chance to source what are uncontroversial sections? Macosal (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Macosal: - You cannot re-add the challenged material with a tag - it needs tagging before. You really need to read/learn WP:BLP before editing any more articles as this stuff is really fucking important:

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

as well as Jimbo:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

GiantSnowman 11:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Re these points - the honours you are removing are NOT contentious at all. I would not characterise them as "'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information". It's valid information, and it certainly isn't "negative information". In fact, most of the honours you are removing can be sourced from other references on their pages. The only reason most honours are unsourced, I would suggest, is that by convention they have not ever been sourced on even the most notable footballers' pages, which may have led to misconception in the Wikipedia community. Macosal (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Has somebody (me) challenged and removed them? Yes. Then they are contentious. If you actually read the quotes I have provided above, the fact they are not negative is irrelevant. Yes, negative information is targeted more often/in a harsher manner, but that does not mean we should allow unsourced positive information to remain. Would you like to see "John Smith has a massive willy" on an article? GiantSnowman 12:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If you challenging these sections qualifies them as "contentious", then we are in a ridiculous "Catch 22" situation. If any material you specifically question is contentious, then any material that any one person questions is similarly contentious, and the concept of "contentious" material becomes meaningless entirely. This concept is touched on at Wikipedia:Contentious, actually, and is not the suggested interpretation. And yes obviously positive material is not exempt, but it is to be treated less harshly - whereas your reaction would seem to be the harshest possible response.Macosal (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:Contentious is an essay drafted by one editor 3 years ago and not touched since. If you are that concerned feel free to take the matter to WP:BLPN. GiantSnowman 12:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's play the ball not the man here. If one person deciding something is contentious is sufficient to determine that something is contentious, the whole concept of removing contentious material becomes irrelevant - and clearly not what the concept of contentious information is attempting to define. Macosal (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

To try and clarify things and open the discussion back up in the hope of achieving consensus: I have two main issues with the direct deletion of unreferenced honours sections, both of which can be found at WP:V#Responsibility for providing citations:

1. "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." - this is being given little or no consideration if honours are deleted without hesitation on every occaision.

2. "If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." - many of the honours which are being deleted are easily verifiable, and as such deletion is out of line with WP:Preserve

Further to these, WP:V#Responsibility for providing citations states "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable". It would seem that this is being given little weight when many of the honours deleted can doubtlessly be supported by easily accessible reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macosal (talk • contribs) 14:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If the honours are so easy to reference, then do it. GiantSnowman 14:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Walter is right though. Snowman, Franck Ribéry#Honours needs deleting until there are sources. -Koppapa (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to be collaborative - we invite contributions from anyone who has something to offer, and editors with more knowledge/experience/inclination can build on articles and bring them in line with Wikipedia's rules. This applies to references too, and this why the citation needed tags exist: by all means remove genuinely contentious stuff, but whatever that article says, rules about biographies are meant to prevent against libel and slander, which saying someone got a Football League Cup runners-up medal in 2007 will never be. To remove this sort of content damages articles on a needlessly precise point of principle. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Don't remove material just because you don't know it. Tag it instead. The only conditions under which material should be removed are if it's libellous or otherwise detrimental to the subject, to someone associated with the subject ((see WP:BLP) or if it's clearly not possible. In other words, if you have a player whose article clearly shows that they have played in Greece their entire life, and the honours section shows that they won the FA Cup and Copa America, then it's clearly wrong. But if it shows that they won the some trophy in the Greek league and there's nothing in the prose of the article to support this, then it should be tagged, but not removed. This is my understanding based on editing guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

And again, I would consider removing such material because you don't know about it as disruptive to the highest degree and the epitome of non-cooperative editing. GiantSnowman might want to read pillars three and four of Wikipedia:Five pillars again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Concur with the above two users. As it stands, there are very valid points that have failed to be addressed and articles are being affected detrimentally when more sense could and should have been used. LRD NO (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: if you feel my editing is " disruptive to the highest degree and the epitome of non-cooperative editing" then I would invite you to report me, although I would say that your argument of "editor removed unreferenced content about a living person" will not get very far. I am abiding by WP:BLP, nothing more and nothing less. I also don't have a clue how this is "non-cooperative editing"...? I've already suggested you raise the matter at BLPN, that has not yet been done as far as I'm aware. GiantSnowman 09:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The key is in the word 'contentious', and the onus is on you to explain why this sort of content is contentious. The essay linked to above may say that it's the decision of the (any) editor, but it's a decision that must be backed up with reasoning. You can't cite the essay on its own, that's not reason enough, it's circular logic. So why is this material contentious? You, presumably, understand why the tighter rules around BLPs exist, so where do you think a list of players' honours fits into this? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't cite that essay - Macosal did. I have cited WP:BLP numerous times, that is my reasoning for removing the material. It doesn't really matterwhat the content actually is, if it's unreferenced material about a BLP then editors are able to challenge it and remove it on sight. GiantSnowman 10:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, but WP:BLP says 'Contentious' material should be removed. So, what do you think is contentious about this sort of material? You may be able to delete this sort of material, but do you think it's helpful? Do you understand why the rules about referencing biographies exist? Rules are important, but they shouldn't be blindly followed - if you don't understand why they exist you'll end up misusing them. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"Contentious" is any material which could be challenged / the subject of dispute in an article - can we agree on that? For me that extends to all unreferenced material. GiantSnowman 11:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that WP:BLP backs you up here - the section on removing contentious material has a hatnote link to WP:Libel, and uses the word "defamatory", neither of which come even close to the sort of content we're talking about. That's the kind of "challenge" the BLP rules are meant to protect against - for lesser challenges, like this, the tags are much more appropriate. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel like I'm repeating msyelf here (maybe because I am?!) but BLP is about all material, not just that which is negative. GiantSnowman 12:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It is clearly against the principles of WP:Preserve to delete all this information. Further, WP:BLP clearly makes a distinction, stating that it is specifically contentious material which should be deleted immediately without waiting for discussion. To remove this concept of contentious information and to apply it to all information is to ignore a core concept of WP:BLP. Macosal (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And this material is contentious because it has been questioned and challenged, has it not? GiantSnowman 13:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In order for it to be contentiius enough to be deleted, it needs to be potentially libellous or defamatory (to someone). The BLP article states this, and it's - quite clearly - the reason why the stricter rules exist. For lesser disputes this one, there are tags. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

BLP may be about all material, but the guidance to remove material is clearly about that which is contentious, which - in its own words - relates to that which is potentially defamatory or libellous. That is why these rules apply to BLP, and removing non-contentious material does not serve this purpose at all, and hurts the article and the colloborative nature of Wikipedia. If you're going to enforce this rule you need to understand what they're for, and if you understand what it's for, then you'll know that it doesn't apply to uncontroversial statements like a player's honours. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, BLP and 'contentious' content applies to all material, not just that which is negative or defamatory. Quoting from BLP (yet again!) - "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs)

But, again, the section on removing content clearly takes "contentious" to mean potentially libellous or defamatory (for which something doeasn't have to be negative to be). This is clearly the reason we have this particular rule; clearly the reason that BLPs are special. If you don't think it's about libel and defamation - why do you think BLPs have particular rules? Why do you think removing this content is helpful? It needs to be more than you're allowed to (although I'm not sure WP:BLP even says that), it has to be justifible in terms of protecting Wikipedia (which it's not), protecting the subject (again, it's not), or improving the article (when a tag would be much more appropriate), otherwise it's just blindly following a rule without considering what it's for. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPREMOVE, which you have quoted from, opens with "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced." Nowhere does it specifically specify that "contentious" only means "defamatory" - unless I am missing something? GiantSnowman 14:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the prominent hatnote linking to libel for one, and the reference to defamatory material for another. The wider article makes it clear why the rules for BLPs are tighter - it's about protecting the subject, and about protecting Wikipedia for legal action. Those are the reasons why those guidelines exist at all, and why BLPs are singled out - why else do you think there would be? Therefore, anything that doesn't threaten either of these things can be considered uncontentious; or, at least, no more contentious than material on a non-BLP, and treated as such. Then the question is: would removing this material help the article?, and I think the answer is no. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not that reason has helped so far, but it's clear that a number of editors disagree with your interpretation of BLP and so, consensus is that you stop removing the material. I don't know if consensus is that you tag it, but that would be my advice. Please don't forget that several of the editors are very experienced and view the removal of this information as unproductive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the third time I've said this - raise the matter at WP:BLPN. Please don't forget that I am also a very experienced editor... GiantSnowman 16:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There you go. -Koppapa (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So you would rather argue than accept that you may be wrong? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, this needs discussion from more than a few editors who clearly have ants in their pants about this. GiantSnowman 17:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's a cheap, personal shot, never the sign of the strongest argument. Look, it all comes down to one question, really, which you haven't answered: why do you think Wikipedia has stricter rules for BLPs, compared with other articles? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a cheap shot at all - nobody has yet advanced any solid argument other than "it's not libel so it can't be harmful" and "other articles have unreferenced honours." I haven't answered the question because I have not been asked it. But to answer - because it has so many more real-life implications. GiantSnowman 17:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So what would those implications be, in the case of players' honours? What's the potential harm, there? It has to be distinct and more significant than the kind of harm that can be caused by general articles, and would have to be greater than the harm caused by removing information because it's not complete, and by potentially dissuading editors to this collaborative website. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Because of the large numbers of lazy journalists that roam these streets, and because of past instances of so-called 'non-contentious' content which has resulted in embarrassing episodes like this. GiantSnowman 18:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

An innoccuous error like that could equally be made on any non-BLP: in that example, no harm is done to Brand, nor is it to Wikipedia; the fault, morally, and legally is with the journalists for their own sloppy research. In that case - assuming it wasn't vandalism - an unrefrerenced tag would be sufficient, and if the researcher ignores that, then it's even more their fault. The BLP rules aren't meant to protect lazy journalists (there will always be unreferenced material on Wikipedia), but the subjects, and beyond that, Wikipedia itself. It's meant to restrict rumours and gossip that can spread. It doesn't have to be accusations of affairs or match-fixing - statements about wages or a player's playing style could cover it - but whether or not someone won the Belgian Cup doesn't cut it. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you're not reading the arguments if you think the only arguments are "it's not libel so it can't be harmful" and "other articles have unreferenced honours". In fact, I stated that they are referenced. The subject is known to have been a member of club x during season y and that's referenced. There's a link to that season's results, which are referenced. So you do have references, but they don't use ref tags. I suppose you missed that one. Also my argument that you incorrectly simplified to "other articles have unreferenced honours" is not to support you saying having "unreferenced honours in other articles is OK", but to encourage you to get to work removing the others and to stop the duplicity of singling out some players over others.

However, the fact that it's not liable should be enough, and the consensus opinion that you stop this behaviour should also be enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You're making the silly mistake of assuming that Player X won Award Y just because he was a member of the team that won it. There are numerous, strict eligibility criteria; in the Premier League, for example, it's a minimum of 10 appearances. Other leagues/countries have different rules, and some even have limits on the number of medals that can be given out. Unless there is an explicit source stating Player X has a winner's medal, nothing else will do I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 19:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It's five, not ten. And by your rationale, can you remove the 2012–13 honours from all Man Utd players until you can find a list of the recipients of the 40 medals? LRD NO (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it's 10, as my source from the league itself says! And yes, the honours should be removed unless there is an explicit source confirming they won the league medal. GiantSnowman 09:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it is 5 as stated in the official handbook (page 97). Certainly before deletion, contentious or not, a short attempt to find the relevant sources is more appropriate, as this is often simpler, does not remove information and stated at WP:Preserve. Macosal (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So in a completely hypothetical situation - over 38 games, 14 players a game (11 starters and 3 subs), that is a possible 83 players who can make 5 appearances. Do 83 players (plus however many staff) get a medal in that situation? LRD NO said only 40 medals are given out each year...? GiantSnowman 13:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm unclear why that is a question that needs to be answered (being both highly absurd and off-topic) and given that it has never happened, its hard for me to say what would happen. Either way it isn't a practical issue - Manchester City, for example had only 21 players who played 5 or more games this season. I'm sure if it did occur, there would be a lot of publicity about what would happen to the medals and the players etc etc. Macosal (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it's certainly not off-topic - it was a deliberately ludicrous example to demonstrate to you that you cannot simply assume that a player has won a winner's medal (and the subsequent honour), either because a) he was a squad member and/or b) he played X amount of games that season. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify claims, not guesswork and assumptions. GiantSnowman 14:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd bet most reliable sources go by squad gets the title. They don't worry about medals. -Koppapa (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We are off topic here in the sense that this does not represent the many of cases of deletion. At least this scenario presents a claim (if, in my opinion, tenuous) to being debatable. How is it controversial that Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain was in the PFA Team of the Year for the Football League One in 2010–11 or that Jordi Alba scored against Italy in the UEFA Euro 2012 Final (both being examples of deletions you have performed)? It does not seem that you are applying any consideration to the material itself, rather than going by a process of "this section has no references and therefore must be deleted".Macosal (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, we're not, because the fundamental debate here is about removing unreferenced material from BLPs. I do it, in line with policy and good practice; you don't like it for some reason. GiantSnowman 15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Good practice would be to attempt referencing before deletion as per WP:Burden Macosal (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, we have now truly 'Jumped the Shark'! ShugSty (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The "some reason(s)" why deleting this content is a bad idea have been stated repeatedly, and by several people, and you (for the avoidance of doubt: GiantSnowman) have completely failed to address these. You've completely failed to demonstrate that this is good practice - all you've said are variations of "because it says so" (it doesn't) and "because I can". You've shown a lack of understanding of the policy, of the subject (criteria for winners' medals are extremely rare outside the UK), and of Wikipedia itself. It seems like you have no interest in making Wikipedia an informative and collaborative place, merely in blindly enforcing rules, and it's this attitude that leads you to misuse these rules so much, to the detriment of Wikipedia. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Funny how the regulars at BLPN seem to have a different opinion to you and are supporting my edits... GiantSnowman 17:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There appear to be two editors outside of this discussion on there, one who agrees with you, one who doesn't. Even the agreement is a suggestion of commenting out the material, a compromise that - I don't think is ideal - but is far more constructive than straight removal. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

One editor has said "I fully support this edit" and one has said "That is an incorrect conclusion for BLPs. Unreferenced material can and should be deleted." Both seem to support my viewpoint...? GiantSnowman 18:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, 2–1, my mistake. Not an overwhelming consensus, particularly when the contributors from this thread are factored in. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to score points/goals, I'm simply trying to say that BLP expert/regulars are agreeing with me. Perhaps that should be telling you something? GiantSnowman 18:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really, no, I prefer to take the arguments on their merits rather than be swayed by an appeal to authority. Wikipedia is meant to be governed by consensus - which we don't have here - and new perspectives are important in finding that. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. If we don't have consensus, then let's all get on with editing. You edit your way and I'll edit my way and we can both be happy. GiantSnowman 18:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This section is crazy long so I won't read it all, but just speaking on personal experience and seeing similar discussions in the past. Removing contentious material has usually been said to be material that is potentially libelous, defamatory, otherwise detrimental to the BLP. I know that WP:BLP in particular calls out that that is what is meant by contentious. Something like whether or not they won an award is not likely to be any of those things. I would also suggest for something as minor as statistics or awards, the person wanting to delete the material has a small burden to atleast try to source it before just removing it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"the person wanting to delete the material has a small burden to at least try to source it before just removing it" - I couldn't agree more. The editor in question has made a huge positive contribution to football articles in Wikipedia, but appears to have a narrow-minded, borderline obsessive, approach to this matter. FFS - we have seveal paragraphs here arguing over what contentious means (without any hint of irony either!)ShugSty (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Not that I feel the need to defend my editing, but I do reference honours e.g. here and here. GiantSnowman 18:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you do or do not do. I was talking in generalities. -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I cannot understand why any editor would not want to see honours referenced. We would require refs for appearances and goals, why not honours. Is finding good refs such a chore? Personally I find it one of the more rewarding aspects of editing to know what I write can be backed up.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is against referencing here, if you had followed the discussion. LRD NO (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it is not a matter of being against referencing, its against removing non-contentious information without trying to reference it. Ideally yes, they would all have references. The debate seems to be whether or not they should be removed wholesale if they lack a reference immediately. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, much as I expected my point was missed. If people made it a personal rule to reference, there would be no need for petulant and laborious discussions such as this. If you doubt something by definition it is contentious, so try to reference it. If you can't find a reference then remove it. How hard is that?--Egghead06 (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Entirely agree. Unfortunately there seems to be an opinion that "all unreferenced material is contentious" (not considering doubt) and that there is no need or reason to find a reference rather than deleting... Macosal (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I notice how you are conveniently ignoring the diffs (two here, one at BLPN) of me referencing honours... GiantSnowman 12:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, good work - are saying you are no longer going to remove material which is uncontroversial and easy to cite? Macosal (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm saying I do not remove all unreferenced material as you have falsely claimed and claimed again. GiantSnowman 12:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that's what it seemed like I was saying. I was just quoting your comment "all unreferenced material is contentious". Macosal (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

...and how does me referencing it change that fact? GiantSnowman 12:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say you "delete all unreferenced material"? Quote me. Macosal (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Your opening statement of "it would seem excessive to delete these all"? GiantSnowman 12:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

i.e. before the three edits you would like to draw my attention to? And that was a general policy question, I did not accuse anyone of doing it. Macosal (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well no, it clearly was about me, seeing as your original post was also about me removing honours from the Mathew Ryan article. GiantSnowman 13:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I meant more, "if we delete one, would there be any reason why someone shouldn't/couldn't delete these all/would this be appropriate?" But again, this was before the edits you wish to draw my attention to in any case. Macosal (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record the outcome of the other thread has been the establishment of User:Macosal/BLP, where sections for deletion will be tagged and listed for one month before deletion. People should feel more than welcome to help out. Macosal (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

John Neeskens

Is John Neeskens the son of Johan Neeskens or not? I've seen claims and counter-claims.

For

• http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2014/05/14/colorado-rapids-sign-20-year-old-defender-john-neeskens-son-dutch-great-joha
• http://www.coloradorapids.com/news/2014/05/rapids-sign-defender-john-neeskens

Against

• http://www.sportamerika.nl/mls/zoon-neeskens-tekent-bij-colorado-rapids
• http://www.vi.nl/nieuws/Neeskens-verschaft-duidelijkheid-over-nageslacht.htm

TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a weird one! On the one hand a) Johan had no obvious connection to the US when Jon was born, and b) has no clear connection to the matronymic name Ramirez. On the other, his club and his league say so, although there's not quite a direct quote John linking him to Johan, and mistakes can happen. NL Wikipdia says no, FWIW. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The Independent wrote in October 1993, a month before John was born, that Johan had three children with his Swiss wife. It doesn't mention that they were expecting a fourth, but seeing as they (the couple) were based in Europe, it also seems unlikely that they would give birth to a child in the United States all of a sudden. So it doesn't seem like they're in any way related. Jared Preston (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd trust the Dutch sources over the American ones tbh, VI is especially highly regarded. GiantSnowman 14:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Alberto Manuel Domínguez Rivas

Can someone delete this page? Again, this user created a player who isn't a fully-pro footballer. According to Soccerway, he played a match for Deportivo de La Coruña's first team, but this never happened. According to BDFutbol (a much more reliable source, he only played for the reserve team). See here to confirm. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 22:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis

The following individuals who are in the scope of this project are showing to be alive on the English wiki, but deceased on another language wiki:

1. Aleksandr Chumakov: ru:Умершие в 2012 году
2. Antonio Flores (footballer): de:Gestorben 2001
3. Antonio Montico: it:Morti nel 2013
4. Antonio Valencia (Bolivian footballer): fr:Date de décès inconnue (XXe siècle)
5. Arnošt Kreuz: fr:Date de décès inconnue (XXe siècle)
6. Baba Laouissi: fr:Décès en 2012
7. Carlos Blanco (footballer): de:Gestorben 2011 / fr:Date de décès inconnue (XXe siècle) / it:Morti nel 2011
8. Enzo Cozzolini: it:Morti nel 1962
9. Franco Frasi: it:Morti nel 2009
10. Fritz Morf: pl:Zmarli w 2011
11. José Bustamante (footballer born 1921): fr:Date de décès inconnue (XXe siècle)
12. Karl Giesser: fr:Décès en 2010 / ru:Умершие в 2010 году
13. Narciso López (footballer): de:Gestorben 1988 / fr:Décès en 1988
14. Petar Manola: it:Morti nel 2004 / ru:Персоналии, чья дата смерти не установлена
15. Peter Kracke: de:Gestorben 1998
16. Raúl Arellano: de:Gestorben 1997 / fr:Décès en 1997
17. Ramiro Navarro: de:Gestorben 2008
18. Rolf Holmström: sv:Avlidna 2012
19. Samuel Cuburu: de:Gestorben im 20. oder 21. Jahrhundert
20. Sergio Bravo: fr:Date de décès inconnue (XXe siècle)
21. Takeo Takahashi (footballer): fa:درگذشتگان ۲۰۱۰ (میلادی)
22. Vladimiro Tarnawsky: ru:Персоналии, чья дата смерти не установлена
23. Vyacheslav Kuznetsov (footballer): ru:Умершие в 2011 году

Please help to find reliable sources to confirm if these individuals are alive or dead, or correct any mis-categorization on the relevant foreign-language article(s). Please see WP:LIVINGDEAD for more info and raise any issues on the talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Referring to WP:LIVESCORES

I've noticed that there are comments in articles like 2014 FIFA World Cup Group A that refer to WP:LIVESCORES. WP:LIVESCORES is a section of a snooker-specific page, and refers to a discussion that apparently only had 3 participants. I don't think it is appropriate for a page related to soccer to refer to that section. It also seems wrong for a generic-sounding redirect like "WP:LIVESCORES" to link to a page just about snooker, but maybe that is a discussion for another place. Anyway, if this wikiproject also has a consensus that live scoring isn't appropriate (which seems to be the case), then I think there should be a page or section written specifically about live scores on soccer pages (e.g., WP:FOOTY/LIVESCORES). Also, while I'm writing this, I thought I would mention that I personally think live scoring on Wikipedia is fine, and also think that WP:NOTNEWS doesn't have any relevance to the discussion. WP:NOTNEWS says that if news sources just report routine information like scores, that isn't enough to make a subject notable. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't suggest that articles shouldn't be kept up to date with the latest information, instead only saying that the latest information should be treated similarly to other information. If a soccer-specific page like WP:FOOTY/LIVESCORES is written, I would encourage it not to refer to WP:NOTNEWS as justification, as that seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Calathan (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

See #Live scores, the next step? - a discussion above. Number 57 21:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I had only read part of that discussion since it seemed to just be about the wording and usage of that template, but I see now that the issue of referring to a snooker page is also brought up there. It looks like the template refers to the relevant discussion, but I still think it might be better to have a page like WP:FOOTY/LIVESCORES that refers to the past discussion, rather than just referring to the past discussion directly (though just referring to the past discussion on WT:FOOTY is definitely better than referring to a snooker page). Calathan (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, linking to WP:LIVESCORES is not the best thing, it is a bad habbit of mine as I was told way back that it also applies here. To have a MOS or something linking to consensus here at FOOTY as described in comments above would be much better (just as snooker have). Especially wjen undoing live edits it is good to have a short link to write in edit summary. In longer text on talkpages it is easier to link to correct discussion/consensus on footy, but not in edit summaries. QED237 (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Discussion on no Livescores as Policy was not passed. Threats by reversion from admins is considered worse. For more on this discussion see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 47. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No it did not pass on general wikipedia but there is still clear consensus on FOOTY just as there is on snooker as WP:LIVESCORES refer to and football related articles should not have livescoring. QED237 (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOOTY does not dictate terms for the whole of WP. The word is *should* and it is clearly not for you to solely decide. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No it does not dictate whole wikipedia but applies on football related articles. QED237 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. As shown in the discussion Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 47 - WP:FOOTY is a subset and policy decisions are inclusive to all areas of WP. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop being angry because I reverted you now and move on, no need to keep atttacking my talkpage and here. Live with it and stop live updating. Nothing good will come out of keeping this discussion alive at the moment as you seem to angry. Have a nice day. QED237 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

As you said I'll update how I wish and you don't dictate policy, Mr Wikipoliceman. Cheers. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It was not passed as policy for all of Wikipedia at NOT, but it is consensus in several projects, particularly for football articles. The notice in no way imply that it is policy. The notice does not threaten editors. The notice simply requests cooperation. My attempt at NOT was to make it policy, and there were a few who objected there, but that does not mean we have to change our consensus opinion that it is not constructive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

So true, there is consensus and it should be followed. All I did was revert according to consensus, no need to get angry and attack talkpage. QED237 (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is implemented by admins on WP to harass editors and not in line with those who set policy in WP. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sub groups or projects cannot impose selective restrictions on policy. For consistency across WP editors must not face different restrictions. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. You don't understand WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POLICY. Editors do not face restrictions, simply a request to follow consensus. If they ignore that request, they may find themselves in an edit war and blocked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ryan Burge

I forget where the right place to report this is but there is an edit war developing at Ryan Burge. I believe the IP is Ryan Burge himself but since the "war" started his version of events have been reported so are now sourced.--EchetusXe 09:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for 10 days. However, I think it would definitely be worth readding the Argus sentence/reference. Number 57 10:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I have changed the last sentence to "Despite these reports, Burge left the club May 2014." with both sources in there. It would make sense that he chose to leave seen as the club were reportedly in contract negotiations with him but hey.--EchetusXe 11:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

2013–14 Iran Pro League

In Asian leagues, since there are qoutas for foreign players, we always make a foreign players table in the league article, like the one I created in 2013–14 Iran Pro League. But for the past few days, some editors and IPs are removing this table and claiming that this table should not be present as it was not there in the previous league articles, whether is it mandatory to put such tables and others. Please drop in your suggestions, I mean whether this table should be kept, removed etc. RRD13 (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I remember articles of La Liga club once had that section but i don't remember or read any previous discussion. Matthew_hk tc 09:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

2013–14 A-League has a foreign players table as well. I think the table should be kept, but with one condition: the table should be kept IF (a big if) the league restricts the number of foreign players. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 15:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep it with a reference. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

At that pages you said, most of the notable players are foreign, but in Iran, few foreign players have been playing! Also, Iran Pro League pages are updated and in European-style but pages you said, is not updated daily. GTVM92 (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Incoming WP:LAME request

Sorry to burden everyone with this WP:LAME argument, but since the discussion at Talk:James Wilson (footballer born 1995) isn't getting anywhere, which of these is preferable:

1. "James Antony Wilson is an English footballer who plays for Manchester United, as a striker";
2. "James Antony Wilson is an English footballer who plays for Manchester United as a striker"; or,
3. "James Antony Wilson is an English footballer who plays as a striker for Manchester United"?

I won't bore you with which one I think is better because a) you can see it at the article talk page, and b) it really doesn't matter what I think, but can someone please help settle this debate? – PeeJay 22:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read the entire discussion but in my opinon the extra comma is not needed and it should be second or third alternative. If I try and remember how other articles are written and what seems right I would say second option, but third is okay as well. QED237 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Comma is definitely superflous so not 1. I think 2 flows slightly better than 3. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I tend to write in the style of number 2. No need for the comma in any case. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I apologise to User:Blethering Scot and accept option 2 as the wording for the article. I still maintain that option 3 sounds better to me, but I guess it's much of a muchness now. – PeeJay 22:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think option 2 and 3 are pretty much 50/50.--EchetusXe 22:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, where has option 2 come from because Ive been hounded into the fact that apparently option 2 has to have the comma.Blethering Scot 22:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, apparently I was wrong, and I apologised. – PeeJay 22:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

And the reason I included it is because that is the option that the IPs who edited the article seemed to prefer. – PeeJay 23:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Well in that case i would say option 2.Blethering Scot 23:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

1 or 2 - I personally prefer a comma, I know others don't, but I think we can agree that club should come before position. I'd also add "professional" in there as as that is his claim to notability i.e. "James Antony Wilson is an English professional footballer who plays for Manchester United as a striker." GiantSnowman 15:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

3. Easier to amend when he no longer plays for Man U but will (probably) still be a striker.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That was part of my point as well, Egghead. He will (probably) always be a striker, just like his name will (probably) always be James Anthony Wilson and he will always have been born on 1 December 1995. It makes more sense to me to put all the unchangeable info together. – PeeJay 16:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Jonathan de Guzmán

Talk:Jonathan de Guzmán#Free-kick specialist? It's not clear if the subject is or isn't but there's a statement on the article that claims this. Guidance and discussion would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore EPL Fan Club League

I have nominated the article and its associated page(s) as AfD as it does not seem to meet notability as per WP:FOOTY. Any input would be appreciated. LRD NO (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Football match lineup SVGs

I noticed the other day that lineup SVGs seems to sometimes stick out from the end of the written lineups, leaving a gap before the man of the match/assistant referees section. I had a look at the code, and I've found a possible solution to this. It would need to be implemented on a wide range of articles, so I've brought it here, rather than just staying with the previous discussion which can be found at Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup Group A#Lineup svgs. I've placed a copy of a current usage, as well as my proposal (which can probably be tidied up slightly more if we're going to use it), at User:97rob/FootballMatchSVGs. - 97rob (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to reiterate my position from the other talk page, I really like this suggestion. It means the kits line up with the squad lists for a start, plus it's a better use of space. I recommend this be rolled out not just in the 2014 World Cup articles, but all across Wikipedia. – PeeJay 17:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Just adding that on the example I've done, the SVG is aligned to the bottom, vertically, I think. This could possibly be changed to center alignment, which might be better if there's a really long squad list shown. - 97rob (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on criteria of transfer done deal

Which criteria for the transfer deal is done? I once warned by someone for 3RR due to "edit war" on some players that completed the medical but not sign anything (or vice versa could happen, such as Aly Cissokho) Would transfer windows alleged not yet open is a criteria to say the transfer is not completely done, such as in Cesc Fàbregas. (it is difference from transfer done AFTER the deadline).

In Serie A i knew the date the contract filed to the league office (which the date on official transfer list on the web) usually had a time tag with the club announcement (usually earlier)

While in Premier League the transfer windows starts at the end of last season ( Season – the period commencing on the date of the first League Match on the fixture list of the League’s first team competition and ending on the date of the last)

To sum up, how to avoid unnecessary edit war on transfer? Matthew_hk tc 05:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If a player's contract with the club has actually ended, they can be removed. If a player's contract with the club has actually begun, they can be added. In England contracts do not usually end/run until 30 June. GiantSnowman 08:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the point for the contract begun and the contract usually end on 30 June or 31 December. But how about player that not offered any contract extension, or announced he will leave the club as free agent? (difference from negotiating) or he already sign a new contract which effective on 1 July, the day he officially release as free agent? Matthew_hk tc 09:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The window, in England at least, appears to have changed [13] and agree that it depends when the player's previous contract ends. I suppose it also depends on whether the player officially appears on the new club's roster after signing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If a player is contracted with Club X until 30 June, and his new contract with Club Y starts on 1 July, then the relevant articles should not be updated until those dates have passed. When we last had this debate a few weeks ago @Struway2: was able to find a source confirming the 30 June date in England, IIRC. GiantSnowman 14:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. When signing a player on free agent it must be 30 June. @GiantSnowman: and all others: Does that mean Bacary Sagna must be fixed? He is leaving Arsenal as free agent an sign for manchester city. QED237 (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If a player signs for another club on a free transfer because his contract is due to expire at the end of June, then yes, that transfer is not complete until 30 June. However, if a player was already without a club, having been released by his last team, he is free to join any club at any time, unconstrained by transfer windows. Obviously, that last bit doesn't include players who are due to be released at the end of their current contracts. – PeeJay 22:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Arsenal has always tried to sign a longer contract with him so he was not released as far as I know. QED237 (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Arsenal may have tried to sign him to a longer contract, but they failed. Therefore he is technically going to be "released" at the end of his current deal on 30 June, allowing him to join Man City for free. – PeeJay 23:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Yes, but my point is that he is not City player now as article says. QED237 (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Correct. – PeeJay 23:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

English contracts end on 30 June, but when do Spanish ones or German ones. This is the issue I raised the last time, its in the English rules for instance but there was nothing in the Scottish ones when i checked. We need to be consistent to what we can prove and source and at the moment were english centric with transfers.Blethering Scot 23:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Contract could be start at June, few days before 1 July. However in Ciro Immobile case which alleged sold on 2 June, the transfer haven't done because Juventus had no rights to sell nor negotiate without the consent of Torino, which the co-ownership was not resolve until 18 June 2014. (Or German transfer windows haven't start is another reason his contract starts on 1 July) Italian transfer windows for domestic transfer is opened in June, which had a long history of fraud to raise last minute profit for the financial year. Matthew_hk tc 18:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Infobox football biography

Davykamanzi (talk · contribs) has been making changes to {{Infobox football biography}}, I have reverted and ask that they actually explain how these changes will impact our articles, please join in the discussion at Template talk:Infobox3cols#Big problem. GiantSnowman 18:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Templates appeared

These are not even used on the World Cup articvle, are they? -Koppapa (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No not at all, an over-enthustiatic editor wanted to use templates to everything but he was turned down after discussions and templates are unused. QED237 (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Does someone with time on their hands want to WP:TFD them please? GiantSnowman 21:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That would've been me. Probably should've come to a discussion first. I'll try and go through them if I get a chance. - 97rob (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

We have all (almost) done that, I know I have. Just learn from it and move on, rather go once to much to talkpage. Unfortunately I dont have time atm to go to tfd. QED237 (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I've requested that TTObot adds the deletion template to all the match templates. I'll work through the rest of the steps as well once that's been done. - 97rob (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century

Can you please participate to this debate here ? --Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V is pushing his "height should only be listed in cm" POV again.

For those who remember the last few interactions, Gibson Flying V changed the height parameter on Julian de Guzman from m to cm. I reverted and opened a discussion at Talk:Julian de Guzman#1.70 m = 170 cm. Would any admins care to support a topic ban? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I am definitely INVOLVED here. I suggest you raise the issue at AN, and check the AN/ANI archives for past discussions where this user's conduct has been raised before. IIRC during the {{height}} template RFC they said they would not introduce 'cm' into footballer articles... GiantSnowman 11:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

How to make field diagram

Hi, is there a guide how to make field diagram showing the starting lineups, such as this [14]? How do people make these?--2nyte (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I create mine using Inkscape, which can be downloaded for free. Once you've done this, there's a blank diagram somwhere, or you can use one such as the one above as a starting point. From there, you can use the program to edit player names, shirt colours and change player positions. I can probably add more detail about specific parts of that if you need. - 97rob (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Mistake with Euro 2016 qualifiers

Hi there...just noticed on the Euro 2016 qualifying page that the South American national team Chile are listed in Pot 2.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Euro_2016_qualifiers#Seeding

Just thought it was best to bring it to someones attention. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwmb1980 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed Croatia, not Chile. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Directors, chairmen and investors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Category:Association football chairmen and investors mixes two things, and therefore has two parents: Category:Association football executives and Category:Sports owners. It seems to me that it would be better to separate these.

Also, the members of Category:Directors of football clubs in England are mostly named "XXX F.C. directors and chairmen". Chairmen are always directors, so this is unnecessarily long; it would be sufficient to name the category "directors", i.e. omit "chairmen".

I therefore suggest that the football categories be split to "investors" and "directors".

This was floated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_12#Category:Middlesbrough_F.C._chairmen_and_executives but needs a central discussion here. – Fayenatic London 22:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support - seems sensible. GiantSnowman 11:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support in principle. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support in principle as presented. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mexico national football team

An editor keeps reverting superfluous material into the Mexico national football team article. I have raised the issue there in a couple of discussion topics (please see [15]). Feel free to contribute at Talk:Mexico national football team. The nature of the issue revolves around two topics: (1) Is the 2012 Olympic victory of Mexico's youth squad relevant to the article about the senior side, (2) Is there a source that supports the idea that there are only three major international football tournaments, and that these are the World Cup, the Olympics, and the Confederations Cup? Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 21:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Müller‎‎ article needs some adult supervision

An IP-shifting anon is reverting referenced material and it needs some additional editors watching. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Should the 2014 Cup Final have its own article?

I have redirected it, but have been reverted. Some outside input is welcome. Oh, I should probably clarify that I'm talking about the 2014 Faroe Islands Cup Final ;-) Fram (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

DOn't think it is needed. Just add the line-ups to the main article. -Koppapa (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The final match receives a lot of coverage and in past years, particularly 2010, it has had its own article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

o rly? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 12:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No evidence of independent notability, merge and redirect to the parent article. GiantSnowman 12:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Zijad Švrakić

Dear football experts: Here's an AfC submission that is up for review right now. Is this a notable football person? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Subject would notable simply through his international caps, but I very much doubt the images were taken by the author! Jared Preston (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a little more investigation than a glance at the infobox is required. How about sources! Definitely suspect. There was no Bosnia team in 1992 (even the unofficial All Stars team was in 93 and he wasn't in that). Nor is he present in an 80s Yugoslav matches. This fails WP:V. His name appears unlinked as a former manager of Al Jahra SC (although the years don't match up) and Al-Salmiya SC.[16] The translation of one source seems to indicate he was a player (at Sarajevo). However, he did not seem to play at Galatasaray.[17][18] A Metin Yildiz[19][20] did, but they are not the same person. Given all this, and that it is a WP:BLP I'm going to reject it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. I feel this person is notable (if evidence can be found to say that Zijad Svrakic and Ziya Yildiz are the same person), for example have a look at TFF, however the article/career has been massively over-exaggerated and puffed-up. GiantSnowman 16:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the WP:RS lesson - I was just showing it isn't verifiable in any sources. "Zijad Švrakić ili Ziya Yildiz (zvijezda), kako ga zovu u Turskoj, spada u grupu igrača koji su prošli put od trnja do zvijezda."[21] seems to link the players; however, why does this make him notable? There is no assertion of international representation and, whilst there is indication he has coached/played at some clubs, nothing verifiable is a not fully professional leagues. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The TFF link I have already provided states he played for Karşıyaka in 1993–94, and the club played in the Süper Lig at that time, so he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, agreed. In fact it appears he also gets hits as Ziya Yýldýz[22] I now think this is just embelished truth that needs fixing before mainspaced. This seems to add credence to an early national Bosnia team that was actually just the club team: "In February 1993, Muzurovic's FK Sarajevo played the Croatian club Hajduk Split in the first game of a world tour that would eventually comprise 54 matches across 17 countries, from Austria to Saudi Arabia to Indonesia. The players had an audience with Pope John Paul II at the Vatican, and after beating Iran's national team 3-1 in Tehran, they met with President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani." That may account for the mistaken Bosnia in the infobox - definitely not FIFA official (nor is the ECO Cup[23][24]) so shouldn't be there. Still nothing on Yugoslavia... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Švrakić played for FK Sarajevo in the fully-pro Yugoslav First League during the 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1985–86 seasons - you can pick the "YU Fudbal Almanah" (Yugoslav football almanac) for the relevant season on this page to confirm. Unfortunately, that website appears to only reproduce the statistics from the printed almanacs and probably is a copyright violation of Tempo's original published work (which is not published online). Maybe we can cite the published work, but use the information that is online at that site? Jogurney (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all who helped out with this. I have added a comment to the page pointing to this discussion. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century (request)

IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century

IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I created an article under the name of IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century, we can see an example of this page in my draft page here. However the user GiantSnowman proposed that it be deleted and merged with the article IFFHS, we can see the deletion debate here. So after the sudden removal of the page, I was surprise but I respected the decision and I decided as agreed to merge (add) what it was removed in the IFFHS page. But I was surprise for the second time because the same user GiantSnowman removed it !!, we can see his act here. IFFHS is a notable organisation and it contributions are agreed by all the international institutions so what this notable organisation published about IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century is normally agreed in Wikipedia. We can see the second debate about this deletion in the IFFHS article's talk page here. Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You can participate in the debate here. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Soccer or football in Canada and the US?

Lugnuthemvar (talk · contribs) has been edit warring on several North American articles using association football rather than piping as [[association football|soccer]], and doing it badly I might add. Could someone please review the edits and possibly offer some advice? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

quit crying. it's not like i erased the US/Canadian term for football. I added it after the proper term. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not crying, I'm asking for sanity and I'm fixing what you have broken. You have more than 1000 other articles to fix where "association football" is piped to "soccer". another thousand or so where "football (soccer)" is used and more than 10000 where "association football" is piped to "football". Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that Djsasso‎ is assisting and using WP:ENGVAR. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Another non-notable player

Hi,

Alper Tursun isn't notable enough to have a page in here. Also, the page is so poor that if it wasn't here it wouldn't be any great loss.

Can someone delete it? Thanks, MYS77 ^✉ 00:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Football squad player/doc

An editor has been making changes to the football squad template documentation today, mostly in relation to the flags debate, which I have disputed. It would be good to have some third party input to review whether those changes are consistent with the outcome (or lack of one) of the debate. Thanks, Number 57 11:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: you know that there is an ongoing discussion to this matter, why would you then choose to make such edits? GiantSnowman 11:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied elsewhere to this wikiproject canvassing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Blizzard (magazine)

The football magazine The Blizzard (magazine) article has been nominated for deletion. An editor has removed over 50,000 characters from the article and nominated it for deletion. Surely we can keep it? TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's only a PROD, you can remove it if you want... GiantSnowman 12:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't; it looks pretty non-notable to me, even with the extra 50,000 characters. In fact, I've added {{prod-2}} to the page. Feel free to remove it if you want, but my personal opinion is that you shouldn't. – PeeJay 12:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Have contested the PROD. Not overly familiar with media notability but this seems notable to me. Article is also an old one and needs a rewrite, not a delete--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move for Estádio do Maracanã

See Talk:Estádio do Maracanã#Requested move to Maracanã Stadium June 2014 for a requested move for Estádio do Maracanã to Maracanã Stadium. Heymid (contribs) 17:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Football At Wikimania 2014 (updated version)

Pleas note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Is anybody here interested in progressing this? GiantSnowman 19:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Queries

Hi, I have a couple of questions:

• Is Soccerbase a reliable source?
• Is National football teams.com a reliable source?
• Are honours referenced inline? I have no problem if the prose mentions he won them with a RS, then it is in the list later on, but if it isn't mentioned in the prose? I couldn't make head nor tail of the outcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_86#Referencing_honours.

Thanks, Matty.007 18:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Both Soccerbase and NFT are considered RS (NFT more so than Soccerbase, which is known to be prone to mistakes, some glaring), and yes honours should be referenced directly in-line per WP:BLP and WP:V. GiantSnowman 18:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Soccerbase is in general RS, because it's published by a reputable media organisation, but as GS says, it's error-prone and needs to be handled with care. I don't remember ever seeing NFT confirmed as RS, but it might be. It's also error-prone and needs handling with care. As to the specific links, their reliability depends on what you're using them to verify (as does the reliability of any source). What do you want to use them for? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Reviewing Talk:Tomáš Rosický/GA1. Thanks, Matty.007 18:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Re your note about the fee at the bottom of the GA review: the fee was undisclosed, and I wouldn't consider Soccerbase RS for fees, but it was generally reported as £6.8m, see e.g. [25], [26], [27]. You could suggest the nominator include that explicitly ("signed ... for an undisclosed fee,[refs] widely reported as £6.8m.[refs]") but if they don't want to include speculation, I would't push it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I cannot believe my eyes

Someone has been moving, through a bot and seemingly without discussion, the category ASSOCIAÇÃO ACADÉMICA DE COIMBRA PLAYERS to...COIMBRA ACADEMIC ASSOCIATION PLAYERS, 200% wrong move, ACADÉMICA DE COIMBRA PLAYERS would be acceptable, but not this...

It would be like changing REAL BETIS FOOTBALLERS to ROYAL BETIS FOOTBALLERS or, even "better", REAL SOCIEDAD FOOTBALLERS to ROYAL SOCIETY FOOTBALLERS. If the move is finally (and duly!) aborted and the ACADÉMICA DE COIMBRA possibility is embraced, please move also the manager category, which also was "hit" with the new title COIMBRA ACADEMIC ASSOCIATION MANAGERS.

Attentively --AL (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems the category was listed at WP:CFDS and not opposed. Sadly for me, this just illustrates how badly CFDS functions - uncontroversial moves are opposed because some editors fail to understand (or simply disagree with) the accepted naming format that they are being moved to match, and controversial ones like this go unopposed. I suggest that you list it again at CFDS with rationale WP:C2D (as the parent article is at Associação Académica de Coimbra – O.A.F.). Presumably someone thought the parent article was Coimbra Academic Association (which is not the football club). Number 57 22:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

PS, you can see the nomination here. As suspected, someone got the wrong parent article. Number 57 22:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Strangely enough, i am Portuguese and never thought about the students' union "case". But the move is still totally wrong. --AL (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Number57 - I've requested speedy moves to revert the changes. Jogurney (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks as well Jogurney, nice teamwork from us all! --AL (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Georgian league

Is the Georgian Premier League not a fully professional league? Came here through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgi Gvelesiani, I was sure it was (since the article says it is a professional league), and it seems a bit off that players that have played in the Europa League are considered non-notable. Thanks – filelakeshoe (t / c) 07:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Professional and fully professional are not necessarily the same thing - some people claim a league is professional when any payment is made (even though we'd normally class that as semi-pro). I would be surprised if it was fully professional given that almost half the clubs in the league have attendances of below 500. Also, you have to consider that clubs from every league in Europe (including Andorra, the Faroes etc) can play in the Europa league, so I don't think appearances confer notability (just as appearances for non-League players in the FA Cup don't). Number 57 07:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a matter for WT:FPL. With no reliable sources to verify the "fully-professional" nature of the league, it cannot be included. GiantSnowman 11:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)