Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 89

Archive 85

←

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

→

Archive 95

Club season articles and match info.

Hi,

As I have seen a lot of different information I would like to see some form of consensus on what should be shown on the matches for the club season articles. Many articles use footballbox collapsible and some dont, but no matter what is used the same info should be on articles. I have seen (on the footballboxes) information such as:

1. goals
2. yellow cards
3. red cards
4. missed penalties (during regular time, of course we should have penalty shootout misses)
5. substitutions

and probalby more I cant remember now.

What should we show? Is there any reason to show more than goalscorers? That is what we show in major competitions such as Champions League, Europa League, main World Cup article and so on. Seems like the rest is a bit unneeded to me (cards can be seen in stats section). QED237 (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Just goals for me. – PeeJay 22:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we should have tables instead of the templates. With the table, we can have headings suitable for whatever match info we decide to put in. I personally put position in the league table, points, and goal difference. I can do this because the table allows for flexibility. Kingjeff (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Just the goals and not more. Kante4 (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Are red cards not worth adding too? Have a distinct impact on the outcomes of games and are generally noteworthy. Macosal (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion both goals and red cards should be added. Red cards impact the game, yellow cards do not. Missed penalties are not that noteworthy, we also do not included other missed shots. There is only a point to list substitutions when the line-up is listed to begin with, I do not think that club season articles should include line-ups for each game though. CRwikiCA talk 14:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Red cards do not always impact the game. I've seen matches where the team whose player was sent off actually played better after the sending-off. Since red cards only affect the match outcome indirectly, I don't think they should be included. – PeeJay 21:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have has some time to think about the red cards and despite being a bit torn a think they should not be included. As said above they dont necessarily affect the match outcome and we should really only list what is most important which is the score and who scored the goals. Some articles I have seen even only list the scorers of the article-team (but I think both teams scorers should be shown). So no red cards for me. QED237 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

But cards are still major events within the match. Kingjeff (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This topic was touched on some in this discussion from January. EddieV2003 (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@EddieV2003: Thanks, I had missed that discussion. QED237 (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If you look at it we dont add cards in Champions League and other big tournaments so why do it in club season articles? And as @PeeJay2K3: says in the other discussion it is called goals1 and goals2 so why add cards there? Template documentation is for goals. When we have the extended box for big matches then we can display cards. QED237 (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Just my few pennies on these articles... This season I see a big push to have the articles in the 4 major leagues in England. All clubs at this level have a season article prior to the start of this season. To find consensus on MOS is going to be hard because some of the editors have been do these updates for several seasons and simply continue their style when the new season begins. Hence anyone who has been doing one style of scores - footballbox collapsibles (eg Carlisle United) and starts to implement table style (eg Manchester United) is going to find themselves in a probable heated edit war. Now each style has its pros and its cons. Also in the area of Transfers - there are some differences. Some add more information so that there is a continuum of following up players in the future. And some just focus on just that team that the season article is about. My jilt with these articles is that contributions start falling off for some teams when we get into the season and the articles become massively outdated to the point I believe that they should be deleted. The task force should be looking for contributors who like editing and keeping an eye on a team whether they are fans or no for the whole season. This is really work - and the volunteerism of WP at the highest level. Also I would like to direct attention at a highly intense and IMO over done club season - 2013–14 Adelaide United FC season. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, the interest seems to drop every season. That is one reason for trying to find all this consensus. Last season I regurlarly went around on all PL club season articles (and others) for update after every matchweekend (as much as I had time to) and got frustrated over the differences. If articles were about the same it would be easier to update them, now I had to see "Ohh, this article has yellow cards" and on the next "only goals here" and so on. The same everywhere would be a lot easier. I am taking this step by step atm to get more consensus and this is one step. Last year I were heavily involved in the league table template to ease the updates. A consensus here would be great. About the different ways of showing results (footballbox or not) is a later project, I have tried but there are to much difference of opinion at the mment for any consensus on that subject. QED237 (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

As a sidenote last season "results by round" was also change on all articles to "results by matchday" on all articles since there was a source for that (some article used regular table and WP:OR) so now it is the league position at the end of the day the team played everywhere (on some it was after all teams played that weekend, but there was no source for that and in England there are no rounds and a lot of postponed matches due to wheater and both cups). Consensus really helps people like me who edits a lot of different article and not just one article so a consensus on what info to display for the matches would be great. QED237 (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

when it comes to results by round/matchday for a particular club there is a source (like this [1]) which can be used. I wouldn't use it as a source for league season article though. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spudgfsh: That was the source we changed to last seasomn on the english club article and also changed "round" to "matchday" as it is what stattoo says. It is a great source for this purpose. Before some article just had a link to the league table as source which is not good enough. The league article in england does not have any table for this since it can not be sourced. QED237 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Cards are really not needed, that's why it's called goals1/2 in the footballbox. They not everytime change the outcome of a game, like a goal does... Kante4 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I would retain the cards as they do give you some insight in to the game rather than just listing goals. The issuing of a card can often lead to a goal and this can be judged by the timing of the events in the articles. There is no reason to get rid of information or not to record it. Keith D (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yellow cards can change games; often or not it alters the manager's thinking and tactics. In the Champions League bookings carry on until a certain stage of the competition, whereas in the Premier League said player could be booked for the fifth time and be ruled out of a important match. But without explanation (prose) to go with the complete fixture list, you cannot draw conclusions. Season articles for the current year are a minefield; just looking at the Arsenal one there is too much going on. Why is there a reserve squad list when the article's about the first team? Transfer spend, since when is that notable when Arsenal do all their business undisclosed? Lemonade51 (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have revised my position, I think goals are sufficient. If cards have a notable impact, then that should be discussed (and sourced) in prose. I think it will also be good overall to revise Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons, so there is a proper guideline to refer people too. CRwikiCA talk 13:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I did put this (User:Spudgfsh/sandbox/FootySeasonMOS) together the other week. I think it's a start but could do more peoples input. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have read the entire discussion and counted votes (I know consensus is not voting but you get general opinion of people) and I see a majority of people saying goals only. The arguments with the fact that the rest of things dont necessarily affect the games and that the template parameter is called "goals1" and "goals2" for a reason also weighs in advantage of goals only, even if some editors say red cards affect the game as well. If no one opposes I will call this consensus for "goals only" and add it to consensus page after the thread is archieved and also implement it on the articles I am working on. There can always be further discussions later and consensus can change but I feel a consensus has been reached for goals only in this discussion. QED237 (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to reopen it, but User:Italia2006 was inserting them to the RM article (with dashes and spaces). I added that it was said NOT to have them and he reverted back with a reason "Uh, no.". Invited him to here. So if anyone can help there? Kante4 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I don't understand why inserting card information is such a big deal. Goalscorers and cards. Otherwise the information is rather incomplete. Just having the goals seems like laziness to me. Italia2006 (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, cut me some slack given the fact that this entire discussion just took place today. Italia2006 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are cards important to a game? What does a YC change to a game? Goals are what defines a game and not more. Getting 4 RC and a win 1-0, the result is what is important, not the way it happened. At least not for us here on Wikipedia... (Discussion going on for a week now) Kante4 (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Since when are we including only information important to a game? If we did that we'd make a note of who assisted each goal in the infobox. Is what time the match was played really that important to the game? No, but we include that as well. This discussion is faulted by misuse of the term "importance". When did importance decide what we include? That seems ridiculous to me. Italia2006 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Date/Time is improtant to know when the game is/was played. Assists aren't important aswell, ONLY the goals matter in football, not something else. For someone who wants to include cards, i have yet to see a valid reason (Other than "Uh, no."). Kante4 (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Cards are game information... that's the point of these football boxes. Also, who are you to decide what's important? Again, I think just inputting goals is called laziness. It's very simple. We don't have to have a glut of information in these boxes, I think goals and cards should be the standard as per usual. I don't consider "importance" a valid reason to not include this information. Italia2006 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

First it was the Starting 11, then it was assists, and now any information besides goals. Pretty soon these football articles are gonna be skin and bone. Italia2006 (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You are the only one (or one of the few) that wants to include cards. Why is it called goals1 and goals2 in the footballboxes then? Still no reason given why it should be included... Shirts and ball are also game information and it is not included. Goals decide the winner and loser, not cards. Kante4 (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I just gave you several reasons. I'm done talking to you, give me someone else. Italia2006 (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly the answer i exptected after you can't come up with valid reasons. Just read the discussion that it should NOT be included, thanks. Kante4 (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm done with you because you're insulting. I'm not concerned with what's valid to you or not since I've never seen your name before and I edit plenty of these articles. The footballboxes we use contain information related to the match played. Importance is a relative term, one which I don't think applies to whether or not cards are included. You have to be rude and tell me that the ball and shirts are also information, which is especially insulting. Your only reason for not including the cards is because they are unimportant. To who exactly? I think cards should be included and the fact that the template name is "goals" makes no difference to me. We've been doing this for years and the standard has always been simple: goals and cards. So to sum up for you since you don't have much comprehension, the reason to include cards is because they are information related to the match. This talk of importance is arbitrary, because if we're talking about importance I don't consider what time the game was played to be all that important. Importance is relative and thus should not be a deciding factor. Italia2006 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Could not care less if you never saw me edit before and find it insulting (laughable btw) but you say it is important, myself and others say it is not. So, we opened the discussion here and opted to just put in goals. That was the consensus... Kante4 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Kante4, If "the result is what is important, not the way it happened" then why include the date and kick–off time? Does it really matter when the game was within the season? Why add stadium and city? The location of the match has no bearing on the result. You mentioned how it's called goal1 and goal2 in the football collapsible template. But that shows the inflexibility of the template. When I put a table in I usually call that the "Goalscorers and disciplined players" and when other editors, who use the exact same table, uses only goalscorers, I only use the heading as "goalscorers." I can do that because tables are flexible. The football collapsible template violates MOS:COLLAPSE. Everything hidden in the box would have to be in the prose. Kingjeff (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

So, people know when/where it happened and we are not talking about a fictionale match. I know you like wikitables more, but i don't but that's ok. This is about cards right now in the footballbox template. Kante4 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You show that it isn't a fictionale match by adding a source. Kingjeff (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The way the football collapsible template should be used would not violate MOS:COLLAPSE. If the football box is the main source of the information about the match then would violate COLLAPSE but that is the problem, it should not be the only source of information for the match. This is an encyclopaedia and it should contain prose that supports any tables or templates used. Some of the information within the template would never be included in prose or on a table but provides useful background information for the reader. that use would not violate COLLAPSE. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article should contain prose. This is supported by WP:NSEASONS and MOS:COLLAPSE. But do we really want to put the kick–off time, stadium, and attendance for every single match in the prose? Kingjeff (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Kingjeff and while I disagree in that I prefer the footballbox collapsible, you're absolutely right. Who cares what time the match was played? Very few people do, but we include it. I think the argument that because it's goals1/2 we should only input goals is incorrect. I think that to include only goals is to include too little information. And again to reiterate, the argument of "importance" is invalid here. Italia2006 (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There are three ways around the issue. You can add the hidden information in the collapsable template into the prose, you can use a template that doesn't collapse, or use a table. Kingjeff (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Who cares what time the match was played?" I was asking a rhetorical question because this is the type of information that would be tedious and unnecessary added if

You say "importance" is not valid, yet you say cards is and time/stadium is not, seems odd to me to use that argument yourself. We need more input i think and live with the result. Kante4 (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hold on here, I am not saying time/stadium is not valid, that's ridiculous. I'm saying cards are just as valid as time/stadium. That's my argument. I agree that including penalty misses, substitutions etc. are extraneous and unnecessary, but at least include yellows/reds. I think we're heading to a point where we are being too ascetic with this information. Italia2006 (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, i'm against it, but like i said, let's wait for more input from other editors before doing something. Kante4 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, absolutely. If the decision to include only goals is made a second time, then so be it, of course. Italia2006 (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep and i agree with your other points about subs and penalty misses obviously btw. Kante4 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Including subs, missed penalties and yellow cards is going to far, but including red cards which are major events just like goals without doubt should be included. Why are discussions all about season articles spread across so many different sections, surely one issue should of been dealt with at a time.Blethering Scot 15:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Blethering Scot, I think it is inconsistent to include red cards, but not yellow cards. What happens if a player is booked for a second bookable offence? Would it not look like a straight red card? Kingjeff (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Goals are the ONLY major event that decides the match, so only goals should be included. Even a team with less players can still win a game. If users want to see if there were cards, the report link can be used. Kante4 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not just make Wikipedia a collection of links? If we're going to give match details, then we should not have barebone reports. Kingjeff (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Only including goals is hardly worth its salt and you will find it impossible to enforce given the anoint of ips who insist on including yellow cards. It's easy to include two yellows making it a red as template sent off allows it to show two yellows then red. I think saying the report link shows reds is a very naive position and if we do that we might as well not bother including anything. Can you tell me what harm including red cards does. Blethering Scot 00:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the red card template has that feature. You won't be able to use it because yellow cards would be ban from the article. This is why you have to go with both cards or neither. Kingjeff (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No it's not the same at all yellow cards mean 0 in a match unless you are sent off it then becomes a notable incident, the template simply shows how you were sent off whether two yellows or a red and the time of the sending off. That is not the same as indiscriminately including all incidents. There is a big difference as ref cards are game changers as much as goals. They wouldn't be banned from any article, the consensus against was very weak and wouldn't stand up against editorial discretion on a busy article. The reasons given here are simply flawed. You will need to gain much wider consensus especially as multiple sports include red cards. I'm not seeing anywhere near a wide ranging consensus. Blethering Scot 01:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

But yellow cards would still be showing. If banned, that feature of the template would not be allowed to be used. A yellow card is a yellow card whether it's the first booking or the second booking. You would only be allowed to show a straight red. Are you saying only game changing incidents are notable? If that's the case, than not all red cards are notable. If a team is down 5–0 in the 90th minute, then they get a consolation goal, the goal could never be notable is not notable. Both, yellow cards and red cards are notable. An accumulation of yellow cards leads to a suspension. That suspension could be a game changer. Kingjeff (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

But the yellow card is not a game changer in said game, point accumulations do happen but thats what the disciplinary stats section and prose is for season changer maybe if they are an important player but not game changer. The side i follow have one of the worst disciplinary records in the Scottish league system currently and get fined every year due to number of yellow cards, but it doesn't have any effect on an individual game. A yellow card on its own is not a notable event in a game, sorry it just isn't. I can back red cards being used to the full extent of the current sent off template but not yellow cards on their own. The yellow card template is a different beast.Blethering Scot 02:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If we're talking about prose, I'm in an absolute agreement with you. But as far as match reports, there should be yellow card and red cards. I expect a match report to give details of the match. Kingjeff (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

But how much detail do you give, if you include one thing where do you stop. These are not indiscriminate lists and we have to draw the line somewhere. Personally I feel it should just be game notable incidents and I feel goals and red cards are enough. Clearly more input is needed here as it's too narrow a group to say there is any real consensus eithier way. Equally though I'm not sure what imminent harm to the encyclopedia including yellow cards on an editorial judgement basis, article to article would really cause. We do have the template after all. That's just my view though. Blethering Scot 02:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Goals, yellow cards, red cards are all notable. I would also use line–ups under certain circumstances. Kingjeff (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There are a few circumstances where red cards are notable and these should be mentioned in the prose and not just left in the football box. I have yet to hear of a situation where yellow cards are notable and as with red cards their impact and reason for notability should be mentioned in the prose of the article. I think the fields that are present in the footballbox are all notable enough if there is prose describing the match but if anything else is to be considered to be included in footballbox it needs a discussion for the inclusion of it in the template rather than using the 'goals' parameter to shoehorn in other 'non-goal' related information. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not everybody uses a template and therefore there is nothing called "goal1" and "goal2." If the kick–off time, fourth officials, and goal line assistants are notable, then why wouldn't yellow or red cards be? Kingjeff (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the original question was about the football box collapsible so was aimed at that question. Secondly, if yellow and red cards are not notable enough to be included in a template aimed specifically at recording match details why would it be considered notable to be included when a table was used instead of that template? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually the original question wasn't solely about the football box collapsible. Qed237 stated at the top, "many articles use footballbox collapsible and some dont, but no matter what is used the same info should be on articles." So, he stated what ever is being used, whether Wikitable, or any template, should have the same info/standard. I personally put league table info in the wikitable I use. I'm assuming that this would not be affected since this is covered by the Results by round template and not a footballbox template. Kingjeff (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't change my point that the football box collapsible template contains the information that the consensus agrees should be included when recording details of matches. If we agree on extra information that needs to be included then the football box needs to be updated accordingly. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 14:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that the creator of the template meant only goals for goal1 or goal2? Kingjeff (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the name gives the biggest clue but there have been numerous discussions like this one in the past where from my recollection it was to only include goals. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 09:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Cards or no cards

Trying to restart/summary the discussion here so it doesn't die. I think we all have agreed on including goals and excluding subs (include in major matches when lineups are used but not on club season article) and exluding penaltymisses (unless it is a cupmatch decided on penalties, then those misses are to be shown).

Now it is a case of three alternatives, include cards, red cards only or no cards at all.

Are there any more to be said or how should we decide this? I know consensus is not by voting but at least we can get a view on how people are thinking and if there is a big majority in either way. Reading the discussion I get feeling that no cards is in majority but after this long discussion the opinion could have changed for some editors. QED237 (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No cards. Only goals are important and decisive for a match. Kante4 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Cards. The argument was made that we don't show cards anywhere else in articles such as the Champions League and international competition articles, which is completely false. Look at even recent articles such as 2014 UEFA Champions League Final, 2014 FIFA World Cup Final and the individual group stage and knockout stage articles. We include yellow and red cards. The issue of importance or notability is not a valid argument. What time the match was played is not at all notable yet it is included. Further more, the articles which include both goals and cards are in my opinion generally the well-done articles. It is one thing to say that we don't necessarily have to include cards, but quite another to ban their inclusion altogether. The argument that because the template says "Goals1" and "Goals2" is a farce, because in the non-collapsible football boxes which are used in the Champions League articles, the template option says specifically "Stadium" but we include both the stadium and the city. Another argument involving cards is that because they are not in the Champions League articles we should not include them in club season articles. But do you know what else is not included in Champions League articles? Appearance statistics, team statistics, prose, squad information, etc. Should we not include any of these because they're "not in the Champions League articles"? It was always my understanding that club season articles were meant to provide more detailed information than the league and Champions League season articles. Italia2006 (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I am for cards. There was a point made above that the footballbox collapsible held everything notable. If the Goalline assistants are notable, which is an option in the template, then cards would be notable. Tracking every single pass in a match isn't notable. Neither is tracking every single shot, etc. If we're not going to include cards, then lets save ourselves time and only include the final score. Kingjeff (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hold on, cards are only included in big tournaments/matches when lineups are added. And then only next to the lineups and NOT in the "normal" footballbox. And assistants aren't notable of course. Never saw that option or it's usage... Kante4 (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I was only quoting from the above discussion. Based on his standard, everything that the Football box collapsible template covers is notable. So, if attendances, assistant referees, fourth officials, and goalline assistants are notable, then why aren't yellow and red cards? Kingjeff (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Kante as far as I know you're really the only one against the use of cards. Why can't we have an MOS where the addition of cards is perfectly acceptable but not required outright? I think the exclusion of card inclusion is a spit in the face to many long serving and talented editors who have always done things that way. Italia2006 (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Cards to be shown in the season articles as they can be important to the outcome of the match and impinge on future matches if a person is suspended. Keith D (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Keith D:, I absolutely agree. Michael Ballack was suspended for the 2002 World Cup Final for an accumulation of yellow cards. Things could have been different if he was in the line–up. Kingjeff (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay, I will try and answer/respond to all arguments explained above.

1. @Italia2006: I am also against cards and Italia2006 you should read the start of argument above, when I was about to close it was around 7-2 (dont remember exactly) in favour of no cards. I took pen and paper and listed all contributors to this thread and many seemed to agree until Italia2006 and Kingjeff started flooding the discussion with a lot of text about same thing. And about long serving wikipedians getting spit in the face that is just bs, I used to liveupdate, then there was consensus now I dont live update I fight it. That is life just to move on, we cant have difference on every article.
2. @Kingjeff: All those things you talk about was removed more than a year ago. I guess no one never updated the documentation. Those things should never be included and I have never seen them be included either. Also just because someone has added them to template does not mean we should use them. We could open a new discussion about the parameters of that template if you want to.
3. @Italia2006: The first thing you said The argument was made that we don't show cards anywhere else in articles such as the Champions League and international competition articles, which is completely false NO it is completely true, you are talking about final matches and there we list everything as lineup, cards, substitutions and you name it because a final is a major event with their own article. We are talking about club season articles were there are 50 matches per season and we should absolutely not list every minor detail on such pages. Take a look at 2014–15 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round, 2014–15 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round, 2013–14 UEFA Champions League group stage, 2014 FIFA World Cup and so on I am sure you wont see a single card. Only on the subarticles with lineups (the finals and worldcup groups) have cards.
4. @Italia2006: I dont know what article you edit but I edit 2014–15 Arsenal F.C. season and many more and there I/we never and stadium and city, there is a location parameter for the city, if you are using the template incorrectly that is up to you. Also template documentation clearly uses location parameter for city and not stadium so that argument regarding to goals1 and goals2 are same as stadiuum (multiple use) is completely false.
5. @Italia2006: Notability is not an issue? Of cource it is, we should list what is most important. I think the time is important, when the match was played.
6. @Italia2006: Reagrding the last part of your first response, we are talking about what should be included in the footballbox at club season article not about statistics section.

I hope I responded to everything (I may have missed something). Happy reading. QED237 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I would also be against the use of cards. I find they clog up the box and it makes it more difficult to find the goalscorers in a game with several cards. Surely if a card was significant enough to change the game then it would be mentioned in the prose anyway. I don't see how just having the timing of it would indicate how it impacted the match. Username of a generic kind (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a reason not to use the template and use a Wikitable. Kingjeff (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Everytime someone disagrees you say that we should not use a template..but this is about adding cards on articles with footballboxes. So those responses are not needed and can be discussed elsewhere. I agree that caeds blow up the box aswell. Kante4 (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

How does the inclusion of cards make it difficult to find the goalscorers? You look for the goal symbol. And I can't help but feel that much of the hostility against the use of cards is simple laziness and perceived lack of time. I can understand cards not being required, but again I protest their banning outright. The major editors have used goals/cards for years and never had a problem. I don't understand why it is one now. Italia2006 (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

When you are used to just see the goalscorer added, it's tough to look for them when cards are included (happens/happened to me at times and still now], so it just confuses the reader. Kante4 (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes to cards. When is less ever more? Cards have a card after them, goals a ball symbol. --Egghead06 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather go for an additional optional parameter cards1= then. Mixing is no good idea. -Koppapa (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"Only goals are important and decisive for a match." - so a match where the home side has two players sent off in the first ten minutes, the opposition then scores seven goals before the home side scores a 90 minute consolation goal. Which is more decisive? The two red cards or the 90th minute goal? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with that statement Koppapa, if there is to be cards included, which I don't think is a good idea, then there should be another optional parameter for cards. If cards are to be included then it should only be red cards which I could be persuaded can have an impact on the outcome of a game. I have not heard an argument for why yellow cards have an impact on the outcome of the game. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bladeboy1889: The result, 7-1! That's what matters. Teams don't get more/less points when playing against more/less players... So, not everybody cares how that result happened. But i can live with red cards, YC have no impact. About suspensions, that can be added in the prose. Kante4 (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we end this already? I think it's become obvious by now that more users agree to the inclusion of cards than not. And for the life of me I can't understand why it is such a big deal. Kante, if you can't tell the difference between a ball symbol and a card symbol then that's your problem. Italia2006 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There are editors that put in a table that shows the total number of yellow and red cards a player has. However, some leagues don't have third–party sources to show this. Therefore, sourcing it in the match info would be required. Kingjeff (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

We're only talking about whether or not to include yellow/red cards in collapsible football boxes, nothing more. Italia2006 (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. The point is that with club season articles for clubs in some countries, the table that shows total red and yellow cards can't be sourced unless you use routine calculations from the match info. Kingjeff (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

i just dont get why yc are important to a match. Rc i understand and can live with. An no such parameter is available on that template. Italia, read the first discussion above please when talking about obvious. And right here, its not. Kante4 (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kante4:, the parameter isn't in the template because of the inflexibility of the template. It's called "goalscorers and disciplined players" in the table I use. Therefore, it's definitely in the parameter of the tables I use. Kingjeff (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are you so insistent on not having cards? Since when did it become the standard to only include information important to a match? If this is about your unwillingness to have to spend time putting in card information, I'll do it for you. I've read the entire discussion, believe me, about two or three times now. Do you realize how asinine it is to actually prohibit putting in card information? And please, enough with this notability argument. That's already been quashed because we've agreed that what time the match is played is not notable at all yet is included. Why can't we compromise and say that if you don't want to add card information, you don't have to, but if other users — users who are generally qualified and experienced editors — want to, let them. We need to end this already, because it's becoming a drawn out bureaucratic battle. Neither side it seems to me has a plurality in this situation anyway. Italia2006 (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Not too lazy, just thinking it's not needed. But like you said, it probably is the best to say it's "ok" but not required to add them. Never ending story otherwise... Kante4 (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kante4:, why don't we save ourselves time and make the final score the only notable item in match reports? We're not talking about putting every pass into the match info. Kingjeff (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't get silly now (again). I want to know the score, date/time and the scorers as a reader. Stadium is nice to see aswell, if i want to know more i check the report. But that's just my opinion... People in the first discussion put it good together for me. Kante4 (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not being silly. Eventually, this is what it will become. This time it's cards, next time it will be something else. Kingjeff (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No, i don't think so. We just should use the parameters that are given. I guess there was a reason for adding them when it was created (and no one needs those optional ones like AR or so though...). Kante4 (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

But a person using a table starts with no parameters. So, there are no "goal1" or "goal2." I think it would have had to be goal1 and goal2 if it was meant for only goals or more than just goals. So, you, who uses that as an argument, needs to think of someone who uses a table. We're talking about someone who can add anything and we should think about what is notable without any bias from a parameter that a template gives. Kingjeff (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Now again the talk about using a table, everybody else talks about the template... My argument stands, no matter what is used. But i CAN understand when a RC is added as it can be important for the result. Kante4 (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't stand. You know not everyone uses a template. The parameters in a table are inserted. The table at 2014–15 Bayern Munich season says "goalscorers and disciplined players." So, I'm going to counter–argue and say it does include cards. Kingjeff (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course my argument/opinion stands. But it's getting tired as we have to agree to disagree. We need new input from other editors or we never come to a result. Kante4 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The template says "goal1" and "goal2." The I use says "goalscorers and disciplined players." Do you not see how both points nullifies each other? Kingjeff (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I was invited by Qed237 to take part in this discussion so here are my two cents; I feel that cards have an obvious effect on the match. A red card has an obvious effect on the outcomes of most games and players who accumulate yellow cards are also suspended. Because of the fact that most cards brandished do not have that great effect on the match the argument to expel cards from templates is not a baseless argument but my personal opinion is that including disciplinary statistics helps inform the reader more on the game and therefore should be kept.Inter&anthro (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: So what now? This is dragging unnecessarily. Italia2006 (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

So, the discussion has produced that it should be included by some; others say no; and a couple have suggested that it can be included, but it's not a necessity and can be added at the editors descrestion. Kingjeff (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible to track assists under season articles? It technically is an official stat and there are many sources out there will the same assists numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.150.69 (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that there is no definition as to what constitutes an assist and that everyone has a different definition there can be no reliable source for the stat. There have been a number of discussions on the subject in the past and all of the ones I've seen have recommended not including them. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Squads

Why are squads constantly being deleted? I get that it is consensus for some reason, but it is a pretty important aspect of the season and it's pretty verifiable. I think that it should be reconsidered. I thought it was deleted due to transfer fee quotes, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickm32 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

My dream about club categorization

For many years I have been trying to have as many players as possible well categorised in all the clubs they played for and many club cats fairly complete with all players. Wouldn´t just be wanderfull to open a club category and have there all players with article that playesd in that club listed? Tonight I was again thinking about it and sudently an idea crossed my mind:

• Would it be possible to create a bot that would automatically add the club category once you add a club to players career section in the infobox? For instance, when creating an article, the bot would automatically add all club categories correspondent of the clubs you added in he career section, and also, whenever you add or remove (in case of mistake) a club from an existing player article, a bot would autmatically do the corresponding action for the category.

We all add the cats manually, however many users simply ignore cats thus making it all incomplete. The bot will certainly find difficulties such as certain minor clubs without a cat but it would be much less hard to create those rare red-link club categories than adding allways all cats manually. And, we should then probably have to confirm that all cats match club names from club article title so when you add, exemple, OFK Beograd in the career section of players infobox, the bot would automatically add the Category:OFK Beograd players to the player article. And we should agree on consistency regarding players/footballers issue, so the bot would allways have to add simple [ [Category:X players] ] (if we agree on "players") meaning that the X corresponds exactly to the club name we add in infobox.

I have no experience with bots but, would something like this be possible? Did anyone ever thought about something this? FkpCascais (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

In theory it is possible. However, clubs are frequently misnamed in the infobox (for instance simply using Leeds United rather than Leeds United A.F.C.), which would make it a lot more onerous to devise the rules for the bot. Plus there's the issue of when someone has played for a non-notable club, and we end up with a category without a parent article. Number 57 07:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Another problem I've noticed is the infobox listing a parent club when a player is signed to an affiliate club (happens frequently in Mexico), so you can wind up with a biography going into a category it doesn't really belong in. I suppose this can be fixed later, but we're certain to have some errors after the bot does its task because many infoboxes also have errors. Jogurney (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I fully understand the problems both of you mentioned but anyway, I couldn´t resist not to mention the idea here. Maybe in some years to come we may see some way to have the categories complete. Many thanks FkpCascais (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

consensus for category names

Most teams and leagues have categories containing their players, for example: Category:Torino F.C. players, Category:Atlético Madrid footballers, Category:Serie A footballers, Category:Ligue 1 players. But as you can see just from those examples there seems to be no clear consensus on the use of the term for the categorized, in some it is players and in some it is footballers.

Thoughts?

--SuperJew (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Bayern Munich, being a multi–sport club, would need the word footballers. If you use the word players, then you risk players from their basketball team being put into the same category as the football players. Kingjeff (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems a fair point, why not have then all these categories with the term footballers? --SuperJew (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I definitely don't see why the league categories would need to be inconsistent. Kingjeff (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

For league categories, we should use 'players' across the board; for club categories it depends on whether the club is multi-sport or not. Most should use 'players'. GiantSnowman 10:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, the majority of multi-sport clubs are disambiguated into their separate entities (e.g. FC Bayern Munich (basketball)), so there should be no need to be as specific as "footballers" (see, e.g. Category:Hapoel Tel Aviv F.C. players and Category:Hapoel Tel Aviv B.C. players). It would create some very awkward category names (such as "Hercules (football club) footballers"). Number 57 10:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Bayern Munich kept the FC fortheir basketball team. So, player definitely can't be used there. Kingjeff (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is at FC Bayern Munich (basketball), so an appropriate name for the category would be Category:FC Bayern Munich (basketball) players - there's no ambiguity there! Number 57 20:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not Category:FC Bayern Munich basketball players? Hack (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The FA Cup and club notability

The guidelines state: "All teams that have played in the national cup (...) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria"

A user has recently been adding stubs on dozens of small English clubs whose only claim to fame is FA Cup participation - usually no further than the first qualifying round. Technically they conform to the letter of WP:N, but I suspect that leaving the door open for thousands of village clubs was not what the guideline authors intended. In other countries, such as Spain or Italy, participation in the national cup is limited to (some) clubs in the top three or four league tiers, and there is no qualifying competition. Still elsewhere, qualification is in the form of regional cups played in the preceding season.

So it appears that the intended meaning was actually "played in the national cup IN THE ROUNDS PROPER", which would confine notability to a much narrower set of clubs (about 800 by my reckoning). WHat constitutes "rounds proper" is a matter for separate debate (in France, for example, "serious" cup games are considered to start by the round of 64, but professional clubs from level 2 and 3 are entering two rounds earlier) 46.238.126.211 (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

For info, the IP is talking about recent contributions made by Kivo..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe the intended meaning you assign to the guidance is correct. We've had many, many AfDs over the years on non-League clubs, and AFAIK pretty much every club that has played in any stage of the FA Cup, FA Trophy or FA Vase has been kept. What would be preferable is if Kivo could produce slightly better articles than the one liners they are doing at the moment. Number 57 08:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys - I do intend to expand each of the new articles I have created recently - please bear with me as there are a fair few!Kivo (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I agree that the literal interpretation is inclusivist, but am nevertheless puzzled as to what was the idea behind admitting FA Cup clubs en masse. There are an estimated 8,000 teams that took part in the competition since its beginning, and on the vast majority of them little more can be said than the locality and maybe the leagues (not necessarily notable) they played in. When you move to other countries, all hell breaks loose and there is hardly any team that is not notable, depending on how you define "national cup". This is fine for a football site like FCHD, but for Wikipedia, it just means more stubs that no one is ever going to find useful. Just my two cents (or pence). 46.238.126.211 (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

English league tables

It was mentioned previously about a possible new design/setup for the league tables this season. From what I can see, this hasn't yet been implemented for the English leagues, yet it has been here. I was wondering whether there were any problems with the English tables, or if they are likely to be implemented this year? From what I can tell, they are much less likely to be updated incorrectly, so make it much easier for the average editor (like me), who struggled with last season's setup. If we wanted, I'd probably be able to help with changing to this version, but I thought I would bring it back up in discussion here first. - 97rob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237, CRwikiCA, Spudgfsh, and Brudder Andrusha: all involved in the previous discussion. - 97rob (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, when viewing these tables in Chrome, the table is incomplete as there are cells missing in the rows that have nothing in the qualification or relegation column. Is there any way to had some function that has rowspan=8| and creates a block to complete the table for the missing rows? Number 57 15:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought that there was a consensus to implement them for the English tables like I did with the current solution. I've not had the time (or brainpower) to spend implementing them If they're not done by the end of the week I'll take a look next weekend. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I implemented this initially for {{2014–15 Eredivisie table}}. After 4 rounds (-1 game) it has not led to a single lay-out breaking edit, whereas good faith edits in the previous format easily led to lay-out breaks. Most edits can be made in the main simple lay-out, only a handful of changes could need to be made in the lay-out subtemplate (exclusively in the end of the season with cup winner(s) and qualification to European tournaments). For this reason I think it would be a good option to roll this set-up out more generally. If there is consensus to do this, I can do some of the work.
The rows are created from the table-templates that are used to build the whole table. Those are far from perfect (also note that you might not want an empty column for a subpart of the league table in which all 5 teams are outside of a position that qualify for anything). CRwikiCA talk 16:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. First I want to appologise for not implementing the new setup yet (as I promised). I have been way to busy IRL and had a lot to do as well as I have been thinking about the issues with the new setup which will happen when cup-winners go to european cups as the layout-page then needs updating. The tables are on my to do-list and I will do it when I have the time (if no one has done it before me, which I have no problem with).

Regarding the issue with rows missing the qualification column it can be solved with the rowspan, but that column is not shown at all for some of the club tables. It will have to be a future issue after the new setup is implemented, possibly solved with a new switch (I think I know how to solve it). Also in my opinion I see no problem with the grey color continuing were the qualification column is missing. QED237 (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to check what the current view on it was so I can try and implement them myself (if I get a chance), as I was away from wikipedia when the original discussion took place and wasn't sure if I'd missed anything. - 97rob (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237:: Feel free to experiment with your proposed solution to the column issue in the Eredivisie table. If that works out right away we can roll it out with all the updates instead of making a second pass around. CRwikiCA talk 23:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

As an additional point, is there a list/category of leagues that use league table templates for partial templates in club seasons? CRwikiCA talk 23:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

97rob did some of the grunt work for the Premier League table, I fixed some of the remaining issues and it seems to work as desired now. CRwikiCA talk 15:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems my Find and Replace when moving from my user pages (where I tested) to the actual template didn't work properly. - 97rob (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Great work, I will take a further look later on the idea I had. QED237 (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: If you look at the {{2014–15 Premier League table}} now was that what you had in mind when you said table is incomplete as there are cells missing in the rows that have nothing in the qualification or relegation column? I added the rowspan and I think it looks more complete now? However I have only fixed it for full table and not for the small tables on club articles because that would mean code being even more complicated and that code in the layout would have to be changed when we have a cup winner somnewhere in the middle of the table moving around.

What do the rest of the project say? Should I continue with the coding to make table "complete" for the parts as well even if it may be more complicated or leave it? And the documentation may always be updated so new editors may update the layout when needed. QED237 (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the table is complete now, when viewed in Chrome. Thanks for sorting that out. Number 57 14:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Does it also work for the sub-tables with 5 teams? I don't have Chrome, so I cannot check it. CRwikiCA talk 14:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have now looked at the eredivisie table (which dont have the fix) in three different browsers and it shows correctly in Mozilla Firefox, but incorrect in Internet Explorer and Google Chrome. What is the solution is rowspan (with empty rows) in the relegation-column and it makes the vertical line appear on the right on the table (else it is missing). It is currently not implemented on the subtable (I made an "if team=ALL" test after team positioned 6th with rowspan of length 12 until relegation starts). The reason for that is that when showing subtable for teams 2-6 (for team on pos 4) you need rowspan of length 1 to cover position 6, teams 3-7 length 2 to cover positions 6&7 and so on (max length 5). It needs a new if for every team if there should be rowspan or not. It is very easily done but then when a team wins a cup it gets complicated. Say for example team positioned 8 wins the cup, then we need rowspan of length 2 (for team=ALL) after team 6 to cover teams 6 and 7, and a new rowspan of length 9 on team 9 (also for team=ALL).

It may sound very complicated but to make it simple, when the cup winner changes position in the table after a match the length of every rowspan has to be modified (as well as we currently have to move the qual-row and update the noqr parameter at the top). I am afraid it is getting to complicated. I am trying to figure out if there is a smart way to implement a parameter like "CupWinnerPos" that can be set in main template so that everything in layout is changed automatically (the rowspans, noqr and qual-rows) but not to make layout-template to complicated. The problem in England is that it is two cups making it even more complicated. QED237 (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The number of switches involved would be extremely cumbersome at best, so we'll work with it this way. If there is a successful Lua implementation, it might be addressed in there instead. CRwikiCA talk 18:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I converted the remaining English league tables that use this format. Besides the Premier League this style is now used for: {{2014–15 Football League Championship table}}, {{2014–15 Football League One table}} and {{2014–15 Football League Two table}}. CRwikiCA talk 19:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Another side issue

Another one of my long-term bugbears is the formulaic "Relegation to" line, specifically the inconsistent use of the word "the". Sometimes it exists (like in {{2014–15 Eredivisie table}} or 2013–14 Israeli Premier League#Bottom Playoff), sometimes it doesn't (like in {{2014–15 Premier League table}}). In the latter it should probably be there, but in several others (e.g. 2014–15 Serie A#League table) it shouldn't (it isn't "the Serie B", it's simply "Serie B"). I sort of understand how it works (and I like the way it's done in the Israeli version, where the season years isn't used, but it's a link to the correct season of that division), but it's not being implemented consistently.

Can we agree that it should be done via the "|relegation=y|c=Serie B|s=2015–16" method, and that the line used simply has the lower division name, and not include the season (i.e. rather than having "Relegation to the 2015–16 Serie B", we just have "Relegation to Serie B", with "Serie B" linked to 2015–16 Serie B?) Number 57 14:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I definately agree there should be a consistency so I hope we can find consensus. The current difference is because of the use of different templates {{fb cl2 qr}} and {{fb cl3 qr}}, and the isreali table uses cl2 and the other two uses cl3. The cl2 template (suggestion of User:Number 57) I believe should be avoided as it uses other fb-templates (need to create for every competition) and previous discussions has lead to consensus to start removing/deleting a lot of those and use wikilinks if possible. The cl3 template also states in its documentation that it should be used when the link is only used in few places (the "relegation to serie B" is not needed on many places so fb template not needed in my opinion). The same result from cl2 can be achieved with cl3 (if we remove the "the" after consensus which is hard coded in to the cl3 template). QED237 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is there for to find consensus to remove the "the" in cl3 code (after consensus) and then use {{fb cl3 qr |rows=3|relegation=y|competition=[[2015–16 Serie B|Serie B]] which would render "Relegation to Serie B". Should we always use "promoted to", "qualification to" and "relegated to" instead of only using the links? It will be long text and linebreak for championsleague (I think) but might be better? QED237 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. Number 57 21:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I can agree with the points that were made here. In addition, when the year is removed from the relegation line, it should also be removed for the promotion/qualification lines. The issue that might arise in such a transition is that older tables will also have the "the" removed (and those are maybe not manually corrected). I have also noticed the wide collection of different football templates with slightly different meanings and generally poor documentation, it is almost impossible to really find out what is going on. It might be good to try to create a new master template (although it would take a while to implement) that standardizes a lot of things and makes it more user friendly. CRwikiCA talk 14:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

To remove the years everywhere would mean a template change for the qualification to CL as it currently uses cl2-template but if that is what everyone wants lets do it. And yes it will effect all tables using the template but even if the old template use the years I see no reason for "the", it would be "relegation to 2002-03 La Liga" as an example and the "the" I dont think is neeeded there. I know that the idea of a table/template created in LUA (i dont know how it works) was suggested in the future when discussions were at Village Pump (technical) at the beginnning, and yes a new master would probaly be good I just dont know how, and dont have the time. QED237 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I would be willing to give it a try in Lua, I cannot really estimate how much time I will be able to commit, so it might take quite some time to complete. I have never programmed in Lua, but have experience in a variety of other languages, so I might figure it out in the end. Along the way there will be some design choices, some cosmetic/minor ones wouldn't be an issues with changing default colours etc. I have given it a bit of thought and would think with the current shape as basis to

1. Remove the relegation/qualification/promotion column (which would also coincidentally remove some of the right line issues etc.). And then use a key-table to explain the colours (similar to 2014 FIFA World Cup group stage). (I am unsure whether the colours should be used throughout or only once qualification has been achieved with coloured bars before that.)
2. Use notes to post head-to-head results where needed, I have always found them those columns to be quite visually unpleasing. Both points would also reduce the width of the tables, which makes it more readable from a smartphone.

I can't estimate how long it would take me to get some kind of initial draft version together, but I am willing to give it a try. Implementing those two issues would greatly declutter the tables and simplify the design of the Lua-module. CRwikiCA talk 18:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@CRwikiCA:, @Number 57: To continue this discussion I have opened a discussion about changing template at Template talk:Fb cl3 qr#Change suggestion regarding wording and notified the project down below at #Fb cl3 qr template modification.

Fb cl3 qr template modification

Hi, I just want to bring attention to a discussion about a change in {{Fb cl3 qr}}, please join discussion at Template talk:Fb cl3 qr#Change suggestion regarding wording. The idea comes from section Another side issue above were we try find consensus for the league tables how info about relegation,promotion and qualification should be shown as it currently changes from table to table. This requested change is about removing the word "the" as for example the relegation column can say "relegation to THE Serie B". As I said please join the discussion as Template talk:Fb cl3 qr#Change suggestion regarding wording and if you want to contribute to how the lines should be written join WT:FOOTY#Another side issue. QED237 (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

German club names

Should the anglicized names of German cities be used in club names even if the name of the corresponding article uses the German name of the city? In the concrete case, a user repeatedly changes the name of 1860 München in infoboxes to 1860 Munich but the article itself uses the German name München. I don't see the point in using a different name for the city than the one of the article because if 1860 Munich is more common then the name of the article should be changed (see FC Bayern Munich for example which uses the English name of the city). --Jaellee (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The names used should be consistent across Wikipedia, so should match whatever title the article is at (in this case it's 1860 München, although I would question whether that is correct, so you might want to start a WP:RM - certainly the official Bundesliga site uses 1860 Munich). Number 57 22:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion whether the name of the article should be 1860 München or 1860 Munich, so I won't start in a move but I will recommend it to the other editor. But as long as the article uses München, I think that it should not be piped to 1860 Munich. --Jaellee (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) states "in cases where there is no ambiguity as to the official spelling of a club's name in English, the official name should be used. No ambiguity means that:

• The name is used on the English-language section of the club's official website
• The name has been adopted at least by a significant section of the English-language media and it is recognizable
• The name is not easily confused with other clubs' names.
  In cases where there is some ambiguity as to the official spelling of a club's name in English, the name most commonly used by the English-language media should be used." Kingjeff (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I was misunderstood: I wanted to know if I can rely on the fact that the article's name is the the one that should be used for the club. I didn't want to start a discussion whether the name of the article is correct. --Jaellee (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that's exactly the question you're asking. If a club's article name has been determined using the process Kingjeff mentioned, then I would say you can use the same name in article text. This doesn't specifically apply to just German clubs either, since we have FC Dynamo Kyiv but the city article is at Kiev. – PeeJay 11:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The club's website has no English language section. A short Google search shows that UEFA.com, Soccerway, Goal.com, and The Guardian use 1860 München and Soccerbase, ESPN FC, and the BBC use 1860 Munich, so it is difficult to say what name a significant section of the English-language media uses. The name of the article has been stable since creation eight ago, so the name of the article is probably not so bad. --Jaellee (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

B-team loans

Hello everybody.

Some anons are including that the B-TEAM are currently loaning their players to other teams (ex.: in André Gomes, says he is loaned from BENFICA B; in Denis Suárez, says he is loaned from BARCELONA B; and other pages are this way too).

As far as I know, reserve teams CAN'T loan players, as they are only a team where players are assigned, their registration rights are owned by the first team and they are loaned from there.

Am I correct?

Thanks, MYS77 ^✉ 16:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are correct; I would say that loans should be from the first team and not the 'B' club. GiantSnowman 16:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. They link to B-teams because club articles don't show loaned B-team players, others do it because they confuse B-team with club. SLBedit (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

French football B teams

Hello to all of you. I would like to point to what I think is a mistake on Wikipedia french football articles : the use of B team stats. In France, a B team for professional clubs is actually a youth side, and therefore I think the statistics for such a team should not appear on a player infobox, since it displays senior statistics. I tried to find a consensus on this use, but I didn't find any. I will use one example with the article Maxime Blanc : GiantSnowman reverted my update on the player's career (as he should, since I didn't explain why). I think the stats with Lyon B and Evian B teams should not appear in infobox, since it's no senior career. France only senior teams are first teams. I would like to know the general opinion on this subject, and find an answer to this question : Should B team statistics in France appear in infobox ? I will of course obey the general consensus if one is found. Regards, Tuttiseme (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they should - they might be 'B' teams but they play in the league system and should be included. GiantSnowman 15:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If the B team plays in the normal league system, then the stats should be in the infobox – only stats for reserve/youth competitions should be excluded. This is how it's done for players in youth teams in other countries (e.g. Leeroy Owusu, who plays for the Jong Ajax team in the Dutch second tier - his appearances for the team are in his infobox). Number 57 15:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, the same applies for leagues in Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Germany, France... GiantSnowman 16:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

B teams are always referred as such, in opposition to the first team which are often refered to as senior team. It's doesn't seem right to me to include non-senior team's stats in a senior career section. Also, what should be considered as a 'League system' competition ? These teams can't play higher than the fourth-tier, which is non-professional. Plus, there are no official sources for statistics on the competitions below the third-tier.
Finally, since I understand your points, I would like to propose one solution : we may display the B teams stats in the same fashion as the loans stats. It just seems weird to me that the stats for pro and B team should be displayed as if the player had a senior contract with both teams. I hope you can visualize my proposition and won't find it to stupid. Regards, Tuttiseme (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes these teams might only play in the CFA, at an amateur level, but that is immaterial. We include all clubs in the infobox, regardless of what level they are playing at. It is designed to provide a quick but complete overview of a player's career. GiantSnowman 07:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Order of players' introduction

There is no rule to order the introduction of a player and because of that edit wars happen.

"FULL NAME (born DATE) is a NATIONALITY footballer who plays as a POSITION for TEAM, on loan from CLUB."

or

"FULL NAME (born DATE) is a NATIONALITY footballer who plays for TEAM, on loan from CLUB, as a POSITION."

"FULL NAME (born DATE) is a NATIONALITY footballer who plays as a POSITION for TEAM, on loan from CLUB, and the COUNTRY NATIONAL TEAM."

or

"FULL NAME (born DATE) is a NATIONALITY footballer who plays for TEAM, on loan from CLUB, and the COUNTRY NATIONAL TEAM, as a POSITION."

Should POSITION appear after "plays as a"? SLBedit (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That makes no difference. -Koppapa (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, it does. I have been warned and reverted for that. SLBedit (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus, one way or the other. Any of them is fine. LRD NO (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You were probably warned for edit warring, as opposed to making a change. There is no real 'standard' and everyone has their own preferences. GiantSnowman 11:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think it depends the way the user edits. I, personally, write the second (and the fourth one when relevant). Cheerio, MYS77 ^✉ 13:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As long as all the relevant info is in there, it doesn't really matter, but I would personally go for options 1 and 3. – PeeJay 14:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What you don't need, in my opinion, is all those commas ("FULL NAME (born DATE) is a NATIONALITY footballer who plays for TEAM on loan from CLUB and the COUNTRY NATIONAL TEAM, as a POSITION" suffices 100% well). Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I think the commas around the loan club are necessary, as otherwise it would imply that FULL NAME was on loan to TEAM from COUNTRY NATIONAL TEAM as well as from CLUB. But your point about removing commas is a good one, hence why it makes sense to use the structure "FULL NAME (born DATE) is a NATIONALITY footballer who plays as as a POSITION for TEAM, on loan from CLUB, and the COUNTRY NATIONAL TEAM". – PeeJay 23:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Player honours

Should ===Club=== be used when ==Honours== only list club honours? SLBedit (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it's overkill. GiantSnowman 12:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 FIFA World Cup editnotices

Hi WikiProject Football. Am I correct in assuming that the 2014 FIFA World Cup editnotices (e.g. {{Editnotices/Page/2014 FIFA World Cup}}, {{Editnotices/Page/2014 FIFA World Cup Group B}}, {{Editnotices/Page/2014 FIFA World Cup Group B}}, etc are no longer required? If so, I'll nominate them for deletion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

These are duplicate templates. One should be moved to a more general title, instead of having it as a 2014 FIFA World Cup template. The other should be deleted. Kingjeff (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The "2014 FIFA World Cup" editnotices are all just instances of the general template {{Livescores editnotice‎}}, so I think they can all be deleted. DH85868993 (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The edit notices above were meant for the issue of livescoring during the World Cup. Since the event is over, you can safely remove them. LRD NO (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated them all for deletion. You are welcome to express your views at the deletion discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify as some users dont seem to know how editnotices work. A general editnotice, {{Livescores editnotice}}, already exists as I created before world cup after consensus at Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup and it has also been at WT:FOOTBALL (read it here). The pages above are just calling the general template in a single row/line (as a regular template call {{Livescores editnotice‎ |expiry=18:00, 23 June 2014}}) and the editnotice is then displayed on the article. The pages listed above (and in the TfD) must exist for the editnotice to appear on the articles. These pages can now be removed/deleted as tournament is over but the template itself however should not be deleted. QED237 (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Unknown player number

Should - — TBA TBC TBD and other designations be avoided when player number is unknown? SLBedit (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, leave it blank - same goes for 'Current club', do not put "free agent" if they are unattached! GiantSnowman 14:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Premier League

Members of this project might be interested in commenting on Talk:1992 Ukrainian Premier League#Requested move 27 August 2014. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong category move maybe?

In several Spanish footballers, i have seen that the category LA LIGA FOOTBALLERS has been changed to LA LIGA PLAYERS (same for all the divisions in the country, from SEGUNDA DIVISIÓN to TERCERA DIVISIÓN). However, that has not been done in all players, so some have the category as LA LIGA (or any other division) FOOTBALLERS and others as LA LIGA PLAYERS.

Not very coherent no? Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A bot is currently halfway through moving all the articles from the old category to the new, which is why some still appear in Category:La Liga footballers. See RussBot's contributions. Number 57 16:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Now why didn't i think of that? Thank you very much for the update, happy editing --84.90.219.128 (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

League table, qualification and relegation

Hi everyone. Need input and consensus regarding two issues discussed during the development of league table templates, please comment (or "vote") on the two subsections below. Sorry it was long text but please take your time and answer/comment, all input is good to find consensus. QED237 (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Qualification and relegation text

First of all it is how we should have the text on the qualification and relegation rows. Currently many league tables uses {{fb cl2 qr}} for qualification to Champions League and Europa League which relies on fb round2-templates and renders the text "20xx-yy UEFA Champions League group stage" and so on. There is a parameter called "qualification" to display "Qualification to" before the season and tournament but that is almost never used (probably because text gets to long). For relegation {{fb cl3 qr}} is used instead with the difference that it uses wikilinks as input instead of using templates for the leagues and it is often written like "Relegation to 20xx-yy Serie B" or "Relegation to Serie B".

The question is, should there be any difference? Why use "relegation to" and not "qualification to"? Should we list the season? It might be no reason to show season as we know it will be for next season, but we can link to the season in wikilink in fb cl3 qr-template. Should we use fb cl2 qr-template as it is build on other templates? We are already trying to phase out fb team templates so why not use wikilinks instead of fb round2-templates (that visually differs from season to season)?

I provide two examples of short tables with how it usually looks and how it may look, please comment.

Alternative 1 (usual)

{{Fb cl header}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=1 |t=Team A   |w=28|d=5 |l=5 |gf=86|ga=43|bc=#D0F0C0|champion=yes}}
{{Fb cl2 qr |rows=2 |s=2014–15 |c=UCL |r=GS}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=2 |t=Team B   |w=23|d=9 |l=6 |gf=66|ga=34|bc=#D0F0C0}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=3 |t=Team C   |w=22|d=9 |l=7 |gf=75|ga=39|bc=#E8FFD8}}
{{Fb cl2 qr |rows=1 |s=2014–15 |c=UCL |r=QR3}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=4 |t=Team D   |w=21|d=10|l=7 |gf=72|ga=37|bc=#BBEBFF}}
{{Fb cl2 qr |rows=1 |s=2014–15 |c=UEL |r=PO}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=5 |t=Team E   |w=21|d=9 |l=8 |gf=66|ga=46}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=2|competition=}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=6 |t=Team F   |w=16|d=15|l=7 |gf=55|ga=40}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=7 |t=Team H   |w=6 |d=10|l=22|gf=43|ga=73|bc=#FFCCCC}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=2 |relegation=y |competition=[[2013–14 Football League Championship]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=8 |t=Team I   |w=4 |d=13|l=21|gf=30|ga=60|bc=#FFCCCC|relegated=yes}}
{{Fb cl footer |season_over=yes |date=May 2013}}

Alternative 2 (use qual/rel, fb cl3 template and link to season but not show it)

{{Fb cl header}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=1 |t=Team A   |w=28|d=5 |l=5 |gf=86|ga=43|bc=#D0F0C0|champion=yes}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=2 |qualification=y |competition=[[2014–15 UEFA Champions League#Group stage|UEFA Champions League group stage]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=2 |t=Team B   |w=23|d=9 |l=6 |gf=66|ga=34|bc=#D0F0C0}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=3 |t=Team C   |w=22|d=9 |l=7 |gf=75|ga=39|bc=#E8FFD8}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=1 |qualification=y |competition=[[2014–15 UEFA Champions League#Third qualifying round|UEFA Champions League third qualifying round]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=4 |t=Team D   |w=21|d=10|l=7 |gf=72|ga=37|bc=#BBEBFF}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=1 |qualification=y |competition=[[2014–15 UEFA Europa League#Play-off round|UEFA Europa League play-off round]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=5 |t=Team E   |w=21|d=9 |l=8 |gf=66|ga=46}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=2|competition=}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=6 |t=Team F   |w=16|d=15|l=7 |gf=55|ga=40}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=7 |t=Team H   |w=6 |d=10|l=22|gf=43|ga=73|bc=#FFCCCC}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=2 |relegation=y |competition=[[2013–14 Football League Championship|Football League Championship]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=8 |t=Team I   |w=4 |d=13|l=21|gf=30|ga=60|bc=#FFCCCC|relegated=yes}}
{{Fb cl footer |season_over=yes |date=May 2013}}

What do you think? QED237 (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments qualification and relegation text

• I would suggest depreciating the fb round templates. This would mean using Alt 2. CRwikiCA talk 00:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• I also support the second version, although in the example given above, "the" needs to be added (i.e. "to the Football League Championship". Number 57 11:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: I can understand that you want "the", but that text is hardcoded in the template and if we have "the" in the template it would be "relegated to the Serie B" for Italy, which is incorrect, than it should only be "relegated to Serie B". QED237 (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Since it is a wikilink, the piped version can be the Football League. EddieV2003 (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If that's possible, then that's what should be used. We can't have a blanket yes or no choice with regards to the inclusion of "the", as it's used in some cases but not others. If that's not possible at present, then the coding needs to be changed somehow - it's not acceptable to have incorrect grammar just because of how something's coded. Number 57 17:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Relegated/promoted and qualified

The other issue is when a team is both relegated and won a cup and qualify for Europe (like Wigan did a few years back). Then it was solved by wiki-coding that part of the table manually instead of template to show two rows in the qulaification/relegation column (harder to implement in new league tables but visually better?). The second solution is to have relegation color on the team, qualification color in the column and then have a note. I provide two examples for this two alternatives as well.

Alternative 1 (used on Premier League article when wigan won cup and was relegated)

{{fb cl header}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=16|t=Team A         |w=11|d=8 |l=19|gf=45|ga=68}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=17|t=Team B                   |w=9 |d=12|l=17|gf=41|ga=54}}
|- style="background:#fcc;"
|rowspan="2"|18
|rowspan="2" style="text-align:left"|Team C '''(R)'''
|rowspan="2"|38
|rowspan="2"|9
|rowspan="2"|9
|rowspan="2"|20
|rowspan="2"|47
|rowspan="2"|73
|rowspan="2"|–26
|rowspan="2"|'''36'''
|style="text-align:center; font-size:92.5%; background:#97deff;"|[[2013–14 UEFA Europa League group stage]] <sup>2</sup>
|-
|style="text-align:center; font-size:92.5%; background:#fcc;"|{{nowrap|Relegation to the [[2013–14 Football League Championship]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=19|t=Team D                           |w=6 |d=10|l=22|gf=43|ga=73|bc=#FFCCCC|relegated=yes}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=2 |competition=Relegation to the [[2013–14 Football League Championship]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=20|t=Team E   |w=4 |d=13|l=21|gf=30|ga=60|bc=#FFCCCC|relegated=yes}}
{{Fb cl footer|season_over=yes|nt=
<sup>1</sup>Team C qualified for the [[2013–14 UEFA Europa League group stage]] by winning the [[2012–13 FA Cup]].
|date=May 2013}}

Alternative 2 (with only one row)

{{Fb cl header}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=16|t=Team A         |w=11|d=8 |l=19|gf=45|ga=68}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=17|t=Team B         |w=9 |d=12|l=17|gf=41|ga=54}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=18|t=Team C         |w=9 |d=9 |l=20|gf=47|ga=73|bc=#FFCCCC|relegated=yes}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=1|competition=[[2013–14 UEFA Europa League group stage|EL group stage]] and [[2013–14 Football League Championship|relegation]]|bc=#97DEFF; |nt=1}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=19|t=Team D         |w=6 |d=10|l=22|gf=43|ga=73|bc=#FFCCCC|relegated=yes}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=2 |relegation=y |competition=[[2013–14 Football League Championship|Football League Championship]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=20|t=Team E         |w=4 |d=13|l=21|gf=30|ga=60|bc=#FFCCCC|relegated=yes}}
{{Fb cl footer|season_over=yes|nt=
<sup>1</sup>Team C qualified for the [[2013–14 UEFA Europa League group stage]] by winning the [[2012–13 FA Cup]] and was relegated to the Championship due to their 18th place league position.
|date=May 2013}}

Which should we use? QED237 (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments relegation and promotion

• I would select Alt 2, possibly with a different wording, because the table looks more regular. CRwikiCA talk 00:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• I also support the second version (with the same comments about the missing "the"). Number 57 11:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Qualification to and relegation to seem redundant in that row. So, i'd go for the second one. Definately get rid of the fb-template version. I though like to include the year. With calendar year 2014 seasons it is not obvious if if qualifies to European 2014/15 or 2015/15 season, but that's no big deal. -Koppapa (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Koppapa: I am sorry for my bad English, could you please clarify what you mean? Is it only on that row (with both qualification and relegation) you dont want "qualification to" and "relegation to" or is it in the entire table/all rows? Do you want year everywhere (even if table/column gets wide) such as "Qualfication to 2014-15 UEFA Champions League group stage"? QED237 (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be ok to not use it (qualification to/relegation to) anywhere. Just the competition. -Koppapa (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Name of people ?

Hello. What is the name of this man during Chelsea-Paris in april 2014 ? (Thank you Chelsea to win versus Paris. Demba Ba legend. Drogba, Azpi & Rémi children of Marseille.) --Guiggz (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• His name is Peter Bonetti. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I know John Terry for example but not this old legend of Chelsea and that's why I ask here. So, thank you & I can add the category "Peter Bonetti" on the picture. --Guiggz (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Cheers mon ami. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

AaB or Aalborg BK

Minor dispute regarding use of team name, so seeking comment here for input from other football-people (instead of DRN or something). I have one idea and PeeJay2K3 an other.

The team is Danish team AaB Fodbold and we think differently if it should be piped to AaB or Aalborg BK. One argument is that "Aalborg BK" is more recognisable to English readers and the other is that the team calls themselves AaB (hence article name). According to the team article both names are okay. A google search (at least for me, does it change if you live on different places?) for "AaB" results in 12,1 million hits and "Aalborg BK" results in 1,7 million hits. QED237 (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You're bound to get more hits for a simple combination of letters like "AaB", as I don't think Google is able to discern context. Basically, I see three options: "AaB", "Aalborg" or "Aalborg BK". Since English sources are relatively split over which one is preferred, it really doesn't matter which we use as long as we're consistent. However, I would recommend "Aalborg BK" as it is the most recognisable name for English-speaking readers. – PeeJay 15:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should be consistent all over wikipedia. I went to the clubs main article ant has a look at the team stats/honours and opened a new tab for all of their season in Europe and the page for their league. In the season articles for their domestic league they are written in the text as "AaB", but they are "Aalborg BK in the league table (probably because the table uses fb team-template and has not been updated to use wikilinks so editors dont know how to change team name in table) In Champions League and Europa League some older seasons have "Aalborg BK". one season had both "AaB" and "Aalborg" (without BK, that was only time for that alternative and the newer seasons had only AaB (consistent). It seemed to me like AaB was most commonly used, but I might be biased. If needed we can make a thourogh research. QED237 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I almost always see them referred to as AaB, for what it's worth. Number 57 17:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

In Germany Aalborg BK is used exclusively. Nobody would understand AaB. -Koppapa (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that would be more relevant to the German Wikipedia article though? Number 57 19:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Youth careers

Just wondering what people's thoughts are on how far back "Youth career" should count. I ask because I just read an article about Simon Davies on the BBC, which states that he started as a kid at Solva AFC, a club in Pembrokeshire League Division Two. This is already mentioned in the article, but his youth career starts at Wrexham in the infobox.

He's also now signed up to play for Solva again, albeit only on an occasional basis, so should this be added to the infobox too? Number 57 20:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I am in favour of having the infoboxes as complete as possible, including non-notable clubs if necessary. But I remember some discussions a few years ago where some users disagreed and defended adding only notable clubs. FkpCascais (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Champions League tables

Hi, I have tried to ask about the Champions League tables at Talk:2014–15 UEFA Champions League without any response. I know that the group stage tables (and the fixtures belonging to table) has been in templates in the past and I have made such templates for Champions Hockey league recently and I can easily make new ones for CL and EL this season. They would look exactly the same as current t.able only that it is template instead. The positive side I believe is that you edit one template that is used on many articles (all team have the table and also main cl/el article as well as group stage article). Instead of editing all those article you can make one edit to the template (six edits in one). Also it is easier to spot vandalism as you need to watch the template and not all of the individual team articles and vandals may not even edit a template in the first place (of they dont know how). The negative side is that template is not needed after season/group stage ends but then it can be susbsituted and deleted. What do you think? QED237 (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

They should be in templates. The templates can be deleted after the group stage. Kingjeff (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I recommend doing something similar to the way the guys at WP:NFL work, i.e. embedding a regular wikitable in a template. To see what I'm talking about, have a look at Template:2014 NFC North standings. There's no need to make the table out of templates, just put it in the "Template:" namespace so that it can be transcluded onto multiple pages. It doesn't even have to be subst'ed afterwards, provided we create new ones each year with the season in the page title, e.g. Template:2014–15 UEFA Champions League group A table. – PeeJay 22:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, great. Soon it is finished. Should a redirect with the "wrong dash" be created as well, pointing to correct template page? QED237 (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with using such templates. I do not see the need to remove those per se after the season is over. Why not make a redirect for the - instead of –, so people don't accidentally create an already existing table. CRwikiCA talk 00:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as a quick question what name should we have for the template? I saw suggestion from PeeJay2K3 above and it seemed very reasonable, then I saw current UEFA Euro 2016 with names {{UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group B}} and so on. They dont have the name "table" (it also has the fixtures) and the "g" in group is capitalized. Looking at 2014 FIFA World Cup I see both like {{2014 FIFA World Cup Group E table}}, with big "G" and table but for qualifying {{2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group A}}. We should try and be consistent. Capitalized "g/G" seems common but "table" or not? QED237 (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether to go for a capital G either, but I recommend that the title be as descriptive as possible, and that means including the word "table" or "standings" (I'd probably go for "table"). – PeeJay 15:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agrre it should be descriptive, but in this case it is fixtures as well as the pure table (which I guess is why the other examples I provided dont have "table"). In cases were it is table only I always use table, such as {{2014–15 Premier League table}}. QED237 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Created and now in use with names {{2014–15 UEFA Champions League Group A}}, {{2014–15 UEFA Champions League Group B}} ... and {{2014–15 UEFA Europa League Group A}}, {{2014–15 UEFA Europa League Group B}} ... and so on. Inserted at CL and EL articles and I will look at club articles later to insert template. QED237 (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Color key

Since this template can be used on club season articles, how do we do with the colorkey for the table? I saw 2014 Malmö FF season has the key and I believe the key is good on all articles to explain the colors. However this colorkey changes during the tournament (at least it has in the past) when new colors are needed. At beginning of tournament (and after it is finished) there is one color for advancing to "CL knockout stage" and one color for advancing to "EL knockout stage", but during tournament two colors are added, one for team is "eliminated" and one for "team can not go to CL but has chance of third place and EL".

As this colorkey may be useful (I think it is) to explain all colors for the table should it be a template to, or perhaps incorporated in standings table somehow? Since they key will change, adding it to all articles will not make sure they are updated when colors expand, so thats why I am wondering about template. QED237 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a good point and a reason to discuss the colour schemes more broadly. There is a difference in the way league tables and group tables are formatted. League tables always have the relevant colours and denote qualification etc. by boldface letters next to the club name. Group table on the other hand use a solid line and use colour only to indicate qualification. I do not see why there should be formatting differences like that between league and group tables. As for the specifics of the key, it can be a separate template which lists all the different colours that would be used throughout the season. CRwikiCA talk 18:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the difference between tables is a discussion we should take separate from this, but personally I dont have a problem with the difference. QED237 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@CRwikiCA: Regarding this key for the group tables (that will change during group stage) are you saying it should be a separate template? QED237 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Test template created at User:Qed237/sandbox2 and is ready for use. QED237 (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

When it is a template, it can be inserted on all relevant articles without the need to copy/paste. I would be okay with including a red eliminated bar as well while the group is ongoing to indicate team that are eliminated from contention. Including that in the legend, and having no team in red, would mean no one is eliminated yet.
The issue I have with the different formats of group and league table is that one page, typically a club-season article, can have a league table (with one format) and a group table (with the other format). We can hold that discussion for now, until a Lua implementation would be ready to incorporate the results from such a discussion. CRwikiCA talk 22:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Templates {{2014–15 UEFA Champions League group stage key}} and {{2014–15 UEFA Europa League group stage key}} is now created and is inserted on champions league and europa league articles. I will go through all clubs later and insert key and table. QED237 (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

First use of goal nets

I read in the latest edition of When Saturday Comes that the first proper football match to feature goal nets was a league match between Bolton and Nottingham Forest on 1 January 1891, and thought I might add this to the Pike's Lane article (where I assumed it was scored). However, when I researched it a bit more to confirm the venue, I found this book, which gives the date of the match as 1 January 1890.

The problem with both is that Bolton and Forest were not in the same division in either season - Forest were still in the Football Alliance until 1892, whilst Bolton were in the Football League. It doesn't appear to have been an FA Cup match either.

Can anyone else help me get to the bottom of this mystery? It would be a nice fact to add to the Pike Lane article - it was also the first ground where a both a Football League goal and Football League hat-trick were scored for the first time. Number 57 22:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I seem to remember there's something about the first use of nets in Keith Warsop's book "The Early FA Cup Finals and the Southern Amateurs" but I don't have it to hand at the moment - I'll try to remember to dig it later. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

We have an article on John Alexander Brodie, who patented the idea. There was an earlier trial in a match in Stanley Park, Liverpool, around Christmas 1890, see e.g. [2], [3]. And then the match Bolton v Forest, 1 January 1891, at Pike's Lane, was used as a further trial, but it was a friendly, not a competitive game. The Nottingham Evening Post of 3 January says:

"During the match between Notts. Forest and the Bolton Wanderers on Thursday, Mr. Brodie, of Liverpool, was allowed try his patent netting arrangement with the object of saving disputes as to whether the ball passed through the required goal space. Netting extended from the posts at a slight angle backwards for about one and a half yards, while another net was fastened to the bar and drawn backwards like roof. By this arrangement the goal resembled an open box, and it was certain that the ball could only pass through the allotted space. The plan is certainly effective and simple, but the nets had better be so arranged that the ball striking those at the side cannot rebound into play. The nets should be used on a ground where there is plenty of room behind the goal, whereas there is very little to spare at Bolton."

Nets were used in the North v. South international trial at Nottingham Forest's Town Ground on 12 January, which appears to be recognised as the first official use: see the links above, and [4]. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for that - I've just realised that when I wrote Town Ground (Nottingham), I included the goal net issue. An additional claim is that the WSC article gives the "first player to hit the back of the net" accolade to Bolton player Dave "Di" Jones, whilst the Brown book above gives it to Fred Geary (not currently mentioned in his article). Are we agreed that the Town Ground/Geary claim is perhaps the stronger as it was an official match? Number 57 09:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd give it to Town Ground/Geary, but qualify with "in an official match". I'd definitely add mention of an early trial of goal nets to the Pike's Lane article, and perhaps add the goal as an interesting incident to Di Jones's page. I'm disappointed with WSC: they clearly don't do much in the way of fact-checking if they've let through a claim that Bolton v Forest in 1891 was a League match. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your comments about WSC. Maybe someone should write a letter for next month's edition! Number 57 10:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to note the use of "the Bolton Wanderers" in that report, something which if we heard it today we'd probably regard as a horrendously misinformed Americanism ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Step 7 clubs

Hi all. I have recently been creating articles for notable clubs in my local area (South Yorkshire) and improving the page - Sheffield and Hallamshire County Senior Football League.

Under club notability rules here, I have been able to create articles for Frecheville Community Association F.C., Houghton Main F.C., Swallownest Miners Welfare F.C., Wombwell Main F.C., South Kirkby Colliery F.C., Thorpe Hesley F.C., Denaby United F.C. and Kiveton Park F.C. as those clubs have played in the FA Cup in the past. None of the other clubs in the league however would be eligible to have an article under those rules.

However I have found another page here which states that clubs playing at step 7 (Premier Division of the County Senior League) might well be eligible to have an article if it is a well sourced one.

Does that mean I can create articles for those clubs currently at step 7 if I can find enough sources etc...? (Everest F.C., Joker F.C., Jubilee Sports F.C., Millmoor Juniors F.C., Oughtibridge War Memorial F.C., Swinton Athletic F.C. and Wickersley F.C.) How about those that have previously played at step 7 but no longer do? (Davy F.C., High Green Villa F.C., Caribbean Sports F.C. etc...)

Thought I'd ask here before wasting my time creating them and then seeing them deleted! Kivo (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Anything that passes WP:GNG can have an article. However, I'd imagine it would be rather difficult to find enough material for the clubs in question, and I can't think of any articles on step 7 clubs that have ever survived an AfD on the GNG basis. The only clubs I'm aware of in England that have articles for reasons other than the FA Cup/Vase/Trophy participation are Wallsend Boys Club and Senrab F.C., both of which are notable for producing silly amounts of professional footballers rather than playing at level 7. Number 57 15:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with the above comment, but clarify local news match / result reporting and the like, though undoubtedly reasonably widespread would not really help towards GNG as current consensus would be that this would fall under the category of WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fenix down (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Am I wrong here? (Indian Super League)

I just need to know if I am wrong here. The Indian Super League has so far managed to have reports come out of many papers that we would usually deem reliable like Sky Sports or the Times of India. However, lately I have seen examples of these sources just being wrong... like plain wrong. When Sky Sports reported that Peter Reid had signed as head coach of Mumbai City FC they actually said Mumbai FC which lead to confusion over who he signed for. Meanwhile, the Times of India had reported that both Robert Pirès and Fredrik Ljungberg will be signed as marquees for Goa and Mumbai City respectively. This lead to many edits on the ISL, Goa, and Mumbai City page in which people added those two players... a few days later then the same exact paper said that an unknown player were being looked at by Goa and that Nicolas Anelka had signed with Mumbai City... there was no report that Fredrick would not be signed... just that, magically, Anelka will sign.

Now, both the Indian Super League, FC Goa, and Mumbai City FC have their own facebook and twitter pages, as do all the other ISL teams and these pages are regularly updated. The Indian Super League also has a website and they do update the news section with big news all the time so after seeing the mistakes made by the Times of India and Sky Sports I decided that the best course of action was to do what we do with Major League Soccer and player articles on transfers, which is just wait till official confirmation is given. I have however already been criticized off wikipedia for that so I am wondering, am I wrong in wanting to wait for official confirmation from the league and teams before added the edit? I think I am justified. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You're not wrong. Waiting for official confirmation of transfers has been standard practice for some time, and just in the MLS. It may not strictly be in line with policy, but it is common sense when you consider how much transfer speculation is out there, even in otherwise reputable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean "not" just in the MLS? Britmax (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for catching that. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A transfer may fail at various stages and for various reasons, like it did with Loïc Rémy and his proposed move to Liverpool. So an agreed fee, discussion of personal terms or pending medical is not conclusive nor sufficient for encyclopedic standards. Nor is wikipedia a crystal ball. Considering that most of the media tend to jump in on transfer news prematurely, official confirmation from the club(s) or associations should be used as definitive proof that the payer has signed the legally-binding contract. LRD 00:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! Okay, so I shall wait till these things are officially confirmed. I shall also inform the other regular Indian football editors. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Assist statistics in career tables

I seem to recall that there were discussions about this in the past and the conclusion that assists should not be included in Career statistics tables (as they are hard/impossible to source?). What is the consensus today? For example in the case of James Troisi#Career statistics should I delete the assists columns? --SuperJew (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Get rid. Where can you source them? Sure, some leagues keep assists recorded but most leagues don't at all and sometimes places like goal.com will show assist stats but they will be wrong (listing assists for certain games instead of all games). There is no reason to add assists. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No assists, no red/yellow cards. Just games and goals. GiantSnowman 08:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 Indian Super League fixtures

Do I need to explain why I am bringing this to the attention of WP:Football? So, should we bring this to AfD or PROD or is this fine. Keep in mind that while this league is short-term for now the league is expected to expand as the years go on to eventually be a proper length league. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever future may hold for ISL, for now the league remains a short-duration tournament with 8 teams and 60-odd fixtures. While it's typical to not include fixtures in a league season page, Indian Super League is far from a full-fledged league at this stage. If it indeed turns into a full season league, we can stop having fixtures page. This being a short tournament, it probably won't include team wise pages either, so that way it makes sense having a fixture page as well. Coderzombie (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We can create team pages if we want... and we should. Other than the length, this league is basically the same as the Premier League in terms of things that you would find on a Premier League team season article. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely delete. Regardless of the future of the league, we don't need a page listing every single fixture in minute detail. International competitions like the Champions League are different in that respect as they garner a lot more interest than a league in a single country, which, IMO, should never have individual {{footballbox}} templates for each game. – PeeJay 10:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Game of reverting at FIFA World Cup records

This is just the latest one of a whole series of edits, spanning over a couple of months, by a username and several IP addresses geolocating to Iran that stubbornly list West Germany as a World Cup debutant in 1954, which is contradictory to the generally accepted statistical conventions which regard West Germany to be the inheritor of pre-war Germany. What measures could be taken against that? --Theurgist (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You might want to seek page protection in this case. LRD 02:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think page protection will do in this case. Page protection is usually applied for short terms, and the reverting game has now lasted for months already. It would be counterproductive to give IPs a long-term prohibition from editing any part of the page if the likelihood is that the problem will be back whenever it is lifted. --Theurgist (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

When semi-protected several times you can ask for indefinate semi-protection, or if you want "pending changes"-protection. QED237 (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Orlando City Soccer Club

The usage of Orlando City Soccer Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Orlando City Soccer Club (2015) -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Same club with two articles. SLBedit (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Long name

Harrisburg City Islanders should be displayed as City Islanders in infoboxes. SLBedit (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Why? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, why? We don't shorten Wolverhampton Wanderers to just Wolverhampton or Wolves, so why would we do it for Harrisburg City Islanders? – PeeJay 00:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The club is referred to as City Islanders in its article. SLBedit (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still don't see your point. Wolverhampton Wanderers are consistently referred to as "Wolves" in their article, but we still don't shorten their name in player infoboxes. I think what we have here is a similar case to most American sports teams, where the team may be referred to either by their nickname or the city name in lieu of the full team name. – PeeJay 19:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Fran O'Leary

The article is up for deletion here. Is there a consensus about assistant coaches in fully professional league who have never played in a fully professional league? He played what he calls a "decent level in Ireland," but I doubt that it is fully professional. Kingjeff (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Cornwall

Rokko1994 (talk · contribs) has been going through changing lots of players' nationalities to Cornwall. Why does the {{fs player}} template even support the Cornish flag when Cornish is not a nationality............? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd imagine it supports anything that has {{country data}}. Number 57 21:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Plus based on this, I'd say he's just a vandal. Number 57 21:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Logos

Hey, User:Berni2k is creating and importing banners with logos that are placed into articles. I think the logos are not really needed in articles like the 2014–15 Bundesliga and think that was also the consensus, or? Kante4 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Many of them (but not all) are non-free images that should only be used on the club articles, so they definitely shouldn't be used in articles like this. Number 57 15:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't see them. SLBedit (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Another editor and myself removed them, that's why. Kante4 (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The templates should be listed for deletion since there is no use for them (copyright issues as 57 mentioned). LRD 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No use? There was a single use why I did all this work, file names. I agree there is no need to place them everywhere but the templates are of great use if you do mot want to look up all the different file names. plz keep my work, and do not delete the template I will add docs later and add them to the temp lists, thx. You could help create team template pages for the open source team logos. Berni2k (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The images are in violation of the copyright policy so they should not be added to articles outside their main club page (infobox). Since that is the case, there is no use for the templates themselves. LRD 15:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The templates won't be used like LRD said, so no need for having them. Kante4 (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I only used team logos which were uploaded to wikimedia for my template data pages, how can be non-free? You can still use my templates for free banners/logos (not only sport), the flags templates would be a bad place to link them ... Berni2k (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

To sum it up I think wikipedia misses an easy way to post all the free banners/logos available on wikimedia in wikipedia pages. Mainly because these images have bad filenames like: My-picture-5.svg. I wanted to let them out of their cages and bring them to use for everyone with an easy template syntax like the country flags one. So this it commonly not wanted by all of the admins? If yes I will stop my work of course, with some sad face :( Berni2k (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not all logos uploaded to wikimedia are copyright-free, and those including football club logos/crests should not be used outside the club page infobox. That's why football kit images/templates do not contain club crests, manufacturer and sponsor logos either. Outside of copyright policy, those images add no value to the articles and logo clutter only serves to distract from content. LRD 16:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated the templates for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Banner. Thank you. LRD 16:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Results

user:LRD just destroyed my table 2014-15_Bundesliga#Results_by_Matchday without posting any reason, may I change it back now or am I then as bad as him? Not only me thinks this table is useful. But I will not put any more work in it and the templates behind it because LRD will just put it up for deletion anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berni2k (talk • contribs) 06:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Berni2k (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Which specific template are you taking about, since there are too many listed at TfD to follow. And the reasons behind the TfD nominations are sufficiently explained here and here. LRD 06:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed the TfD tags for the four templates so that they may display properly. If those templates did not violate any copyright policy, they would be removed from the TfD nominations. LRD 06:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The nominations have been removed from TfD since they do not fall under the category of copyvios. I'll leave it to others to decide if the tables are useful. LRD 06:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Major League Soccer

For some reason, MLS decided it would be a good idea to release the 2015 season's logo two months before the end of the 2014 season. I think it's going to cause problems as people will replace the current logo with next season's ahead of time. It's already happened once. Can the article be semi-protected? TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories / WP guidelines

1 - What do you people think of the new category CATALONIA INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALLERS? Methinks it's a little far fetched, especially because of the word "interNATIONal", Catalonia is not a nation

2 - Yes my friend User:GiantSnowman, i know you are only enforcing the rules, and more power to you for that, but in the case of honours and/or international goals the rules need to be changed in my opinion, i know the current status quo says both have to be directly sourced, but maybe it could be changed. I found mind-boggling when, last year, the storyline said Jordi Alba had scored in the UEFA Euro 2012 Final and you removed both the int'l goal and the honour, something needs to be adjusted i think.

Kind regards to all (that matter), happy editing --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

We have a page called Catalonia national football team and the statistics of those players is listed under the international heading in the infobox, just as for Kosovo, the Basque Country or any other non-registered national team. The argument that it is not a nation is not valid, as neither are England, Wales, or for at least the next 12 hours Scotland. This category is no different really to the category for MLS All-Star players - players who have been selected to a notable representative team. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Confusion in naming of championships

• South American Under-15 Football Championship – this is OK
• South American Under-17 Football Championship – this is OK
• South American Youth Championship – "Football" is missing
• South American Under-17 Women's Championship – "Football" is missing
• South American U-20 Women's Championship – "Football" is missing, and also, why "U" ?
  

What can we do with it? Maiō T. (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We could move. -Koppapa (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Can it be this way?
South American Youth Championship → South American Youth Football Championship
South American Under-17 Women's Championship → South American Under-17 Women's Football Championship
South American U-20 Women's Championship → South American Under-20 Women's Football Championship
Maiō T. (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok. -Koppapa (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Maiō T. (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei Flag

The Chinese Taipei football flag is not displaying. I can't edit the flag template to at least replace the football flag with the standard Chinese Taipei flag.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#TPE/ROC national team discussion.EddieV2003 (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

More obsolete editnotices

Hi WikiProject Football. FYI, I've nominated another batch of obsolete editnotices for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sturt Lions FC

Hello all, is Sturt Lions FC notable and why? My PROD was contested and I just want to know if I should take this to AfD? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the club isn't playing, or have played, in a fully professional league. Have the club ever played in a national cup (simmilar to FA-cup for England)? If yes, then the club is notable. If not, the next question should be if the club could be notable because of WP:GNG. It is a win-win to try AfD. If the article is notable, it would most likely be added references to prove the notability, and the article is improved. If the club isn't relevant, an article that shouldn't be there, is removed. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The club did play in the qualifying rounds of the FFA Cup this year, so it does qualify. However, this is the first season of the FFA Cup, so if hadn't been for it starting this year, it wouldn't have met that criteria. Nevertheless, I think playing in the third tier in Australia is probably sufficient to achieve notability. Number 57 22:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as a general clarification: playing in qualifying rounds = "playing in the national cup"? Have seen this interpreted both ways in various places. Macosal (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, per precedent of numerous AfDs on English clubs that have only played in the qualifying rounds. Number 57 13:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

So are deleted articles such as this incorrectly decided given that the club played in the 2014 FFA Cup Qualifying Rounds? Macosal (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Number 57 14:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

As a person who grew up in the town where this club plays, what you really need to do is really do is get some references about this club. Back in the in 1950s when Dutch immigrants formed this club did play in competitions of the state federation. I see a lot of club from England that compete in Level 7 or lower that have entries. Are they also notable? Probably not but they exist. To give the club credence and a reason to have an entry I think could help by having some references. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

UEFA Europa League goalscorers' names

Please someone can change these two players' articles' names so that they include all accents and diacritics? You can confirm the names at the Spanish and Romanian Wikipedias respectively.

• Ricardo Rodriguez to Ricardo Rodríguez
• Claudiu Keserü to Claudiu Keșerü

Thank you for your attention.2.82.98.73 (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Number 57 12:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. 82.155.24.104 (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox information

I keep re-addeding FC Barcelona to Rubén Miño and Sergi Gómez's infobox as they both played cup games for the club, although it shows as 0 (0). Also, I changed Sergi Roberto's date from 2011 to 2010, as his debut was in a cup game in 2010.

An IP user keeps reverting without commenting. Just checking this is correct protocol before I try to get the pages protected. Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 10:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're correct in both cases. Even if a player makes zero appearances (at all) for a club, it should still be in the infobox. Number 57 10:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 11:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Zeroes should be used. SLBedit (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

List of football clubs in Germany by major honours won

Should this be deleted? List of football clubs in Germany by major honours won Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

What would be the reason for deletion? Kingjeff (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems like WP:OR to me... how do I verify the info? JMHamo (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say delete. No source at all. I am also thinking about template at the bottom only consisting of redlinks (2 or 3 blue) to same type of pages. QED237 (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this subject isn't discussed in German media. -Koppapa (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This kind of subject is here for example Football records in France#Total titles won (1918–present), Football records in Germany#Most successful clubs overall (1902–present) or Football records in England#Total titles won (1871–present). The template is Template:Association football records. For references, you have the work of an rsssf user Domestic National Rankings by Raúl Torre [5]

I think each country add or don't add trophies. Koppapa says they don't add in Germany but in France we add trophies. For example, we say Olympique de Marseille is the greatest football club because we have won 28 domestic trophies. When we won the 2012 League Cup, newspapers said l'OM is the first football club to have 30 trophies (28 domestic + an UEFA Champion's League and an Intertoto Cup).

These new lists & Total titles won sections have same contents. Delete lists, don't delete sections. --Guiggz (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about {{Football clubs listed by honours won}} with almost only redlinks. QED237 (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

(Yes, I understood you speak about it. Me, I just want to show the template who reffers to the Total titles won sections).

I just want to say, we have twice same contents. So, if you delete List of football clubs in Germany by major honours won for reasons : Original research & no source, it's logical to also delete the Most successful clubs overall (1902–present) section in Football records in Germany for same reasons. That's why I said this kind of subject (add trophies and make a ranking) it's not WP:OR because we have a work of an rsssf user.

I think WP:OR is not the good reason to delete {{Football clubs listed by honours won}} and the specific articles. I think the good reason is just : twice same contents, so stay the older (Total titles won sections), delete the newest (these specifics articles). --Guiggz (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

List of football clubs in Germany by major honours won isn't WP:OR because the information is a summary, probably other WP articles, and appears to be correct. I've tagged the article for lack of sources and citations. I'm not sure {{Football clubs listed by honours won}} is much use or has much potential. GnGn (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

But who says what to include? Why not include List of East German football champions, or the Fuji-Cup which had more prestige than the official super cup some years. It doesn't even match the only RSSSF source because international competitions were added. -Koppapa (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Flags should be removed. SLBedit (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Inactive player in current squad

Michel is listed in Benfica squad but he is not registered to play in any competition be it national or international. Should the player be removed from the squad or not? SLBedit (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think you could care less about my opinion, but he should stay in the squad, only without a number. Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Is he still contracted to the club? Is that confirmed by reliable sources? If so he should remain listed, as the IP says without a squad number. GiantSnowman 19:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• He is. SLBedit (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• "Is that confirmed by reliable sources?" No, but there isn't any reliable source proving that is out of the club. SLBedit (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Then leave him in, until there is a source confirming he has left can be found. GiantSnowman 19:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Kevin-Prince Boateng

Hello, could anyone have look at Boateng's article? I'm worried about Mesling (talk · contribs)'s edits. A lot of his edits are okay, but some of his edits are not backed up by the references he adds, for example the claim that "Boateng is in possession of by purchasing for himself 2 biological Caucasoid male designer babies". I've removed the stuff but he re-added it and I don't want to start an edit war. I've warned him on his talk page about other additions of factual errors like the "Indictments" section when Mesling claimed that Boateng sabotaged brakes and engines of 13 vehicles and that he had to pay a "bribe" to the judiciary panel and that he faced prison time when the available sources say that he broke the outer mirrors of the cars, demolished a motorbike and had to pay a fine for this. --Jaellee (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries, have removed any factual errors from Boateng's article: "Boateng is in possession of by purchasing for himself 2 biological Caucasoid male designer babies". Prevented edit war. Received and read warning on talk page from Jaellee. --Mesling (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I don't understand why these errors have been added in the first place. As this has happened repeatedly, I don't believe in editing mistakes anymore. --Jaellee (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And whatis with the overlinking?. Every third word is linked in that article: sexy, legend, son, car, strength, footspeed, etc... I was reverted though and don't bother with that article anymore. -Koppapa (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some of it. The Attributes section was pretty much copyvio-ed from its cited source, and the amusing bit was that one lifted sentence referred to Kaká, who was also discussed in the source, and not to Boateng. I've removed anything from the Personal section that wasn't reliably sourced, which was most of it, and the long unencyclopedic list of what he spent his money on. Unfortunately I'm not about much tomorrow, but if the editor starts restoring anything copied from its source, or anything contentious e.g. family stuff, money, possessions, not explicitly verifiable from a reliable cited source i.e. not blogs and gossip columns, they're violating the WP:COPYVIO rules or the WP:BLP policy, and reverting such violations isn't edit-warring. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Karim Bellarabi

This source claims Bellarabi has a Moroccan mother and a Ghanaian father. This source claims Bellarabi has a German mother and a Moroccan father. Any idea which is correct? GiantSnowman 19:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Rheinische Post also writes that his mother is Moroccan and father Ghanaian (Nun will[…] der Sohn einer Marokkanerin und eines Ghanaers…). Bild (to be taken with a pinch of salt), says his mother is German, father Moroccan, and step-father Ghanaian. Bundesliga.de as well as Der Tagesspiegel also support the Moroccan mother and Ghanaian father theory, but the Süddeutsche Zeitung says the same as Bild. Very strange! Jared Preston (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Most sources seem to state he has a Moroccan mother/Ghanaian father theory, so we'll go with that, thanks. GiantSnowman 07:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ziggy Gordon

Soccerbase, and therefore our article, say that Gordon has 99 appearances for Hamilton Academical. The club say he has 100. Any idea who is right? GiantSnowman 19:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

He's not the only Hamilton player whose appearances don't seem to match the club's own totals. After their match on 13 September, the club said on twitter that as well as being Gordon's 100th appearance, it was a 127th appearance for Grant Gillespie, but according to Soccerway (which includes cup appearances not recorded on Soccerbase), he only made his 127th appearance today. A Well Fan (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that both totals are different by one suggests they might be counting one match which other sources do not. Is there any obscure county cup-type competition which they might be counting as a first team game but nobody else does.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Former Benfica player in the 1910's and 1920's name

Please someone can change Jesus Munõz Crespo's name to Jesus Muñoz Crespo? The tilde is wrongly placed above the letter O instead of the letter N. Thank you for your attention. 82.155.24.104 (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

An error is produced when I try to move it. SLBedit (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems logic to use ñ but other websites also use õ. SLBedit (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but as it is such an old player from the first quarter of the 20th century that virtually anyone still living remembers him, it is pretty believable those sites just did "copy paste" of the Wikipedia name without questioning this orthographic error. The Replicator (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I have found a blog post (in Portuguese) by Benfica historian Alberto Miguéns in which he uses "õ". But he could have also copy/pasted it. :) SLBedit (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

But if you look closely at it, in the next line it is written Jesus Muñoz Crespo in bold font. Mind-boggling, isn't it? Anyway, I find hard to believe Munõz is the correct form as I never ever saw it and it gives an extremely awkward pronunciation. The Replicator (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I did the change myself. I figured out how to do it. The Replicator (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've also never seen "nõz". SLBedit (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Overuse of prose again

Hi, again. After discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 88#2014–15 Arsenal F.C. season we decided that the prose added form a user was not good for various reasons. It was very long text and consisted of very much detail not relevant to the article and full of point of view material and so on.

Now the editor has moved along to Arsenal players instead with same types of edits and not notable/too much content for example this diff were entire match summary is given for in a player article mentioning players of other team and so on. In previous edeit on same article he adds content like Arsenal seemed to dominate the early proceedings, and Welbeck had his chance after 11 minutes when David Silva's backpass only offered up a perfect through ball. and Welbeck dragged a wonderful chance wide from inside the area after clever play by Arsenal's Player of the Year Aaron Ramsey, and I believe we are not supposed to add every detail to the articles and who says it was "wonderful" (clear POV), it is not a blogg it is a encyclopedia.

Also a habbit of adding a lot of quotations like You learn from playing and training every day with players of this quality,” he said when hearing about his call-up. “It's fantastic for me and I'm gaining confidence game by game. It's with the help from everyone at the club and the players and staff who have welcomed me. That's helped me settle in so quickly." which I dont think is particularly notable.

This editor dont seem to like me so thought I should look here for comments befor reverting him to much. QED237 (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The amount of unnecessary detail added by that user is insane. For example: "With Arsenal attacking fluidly, moments later a Kieran Gibbs shot was turned into his own net by Aly Cissokho" - why on earth would that need to be in the article on Danny Welbeck?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I've already warned editors at the Arsenal season article for introducing it, it's full of POV and peacock words and is simply not needed. GiantSnowman 12:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Chelsea First team squad section on 2014–15 season article

Hello all, In the past I have removed this Chelsea First team squad section from the Chelsea 2014–15 season article because it violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, specifically Position(s), Games Played and Goals Scored, but it keeps getting re-added. Who says definitively that Nathan Ake plays LB/CB/DM? How can I get all games and goals without adding up from various places? It shouldn't be included.

The source given does not go in to this level of detail, so there is no way of knowing how accurate it is (and don't mention the Captain/Vice Captain icon...) I have started a discussion on the Talk page. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Shane Long

Hello, does anyone know where I can find a source for Shane Long's Cork City stats? The infobox lists him with two appearances from 2004 to 2005 but there's no reference in the article to support them. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

1 appearance in 2005 according to this. I can't find anything for 2004. GiantSnowman 17:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the article prose, he made 2 appearances in 2005 - one Cup, one league (both referenced). I'll update the infobox accordingly. GiantSnowman 17:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Vitória de Guimarães B

Infobox uses "Vitória Guimarães" for main team and "Vitória de Guimarães B" for reserve team. Let's change it to Vitória Guimarães" B? SLBedit (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The Replicator (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else agrees? SLBedit (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems like an uncontroversial move, to match a parent article - be WP:BOLD and do it. GiantSnowman 11:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done SLBedit (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Runner up medals in club honours section

Should they be included or not? I believe they should - for example runner-up in a national cup competition. @Rupert1904: [Rupert1904 disagrees], stating that "Runners-up medals are included for international competitions but not club competitions"... GiantSnowman 08:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that they should be included.--EchetusXe 12:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: then maybe you should go to every footballer who only has the medals they won in their honours section and include the runners up. My edits were not silly and I was cleaning up the page. Go to footballers' pages like Frank Lampard, Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Andrea Pirlo, etc the runners-up medals are not included. Furthermore go to the pages of clubs that have won many trophies, like Basel, so for instance Bayern Munich, Juventus, etc, runners up medals are not included in those pages. I was simply cleaning up the page to make it align and conform with these football pages. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is perhaps one of the weakest arguments around...! GiantSnowman 08:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

For the last time, I am not invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS! I am invoking Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs#Honours, where it says that after a large number of trophies, you do not need to include runners-up medals. Just as with the players I have cited above and their clubs, you can see that my argument is valid and holds up.Rupert1904 (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

What is a "large" number of "major" honours? Does that apply to this player? The MOS clearly states that it should be "Achievements of the club including wins and second places" - so why are you removing runner-up places? GiantSnowman 15:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rupert1904: - I'll repeat, what is a "large" number of "major" honours, as the MOS now says? Why are you ignoring the element of that phrase which says "it may be appropriate to omit"? GiantSnowman 15:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, you have to be able to make a conscious decision about what consists a "large number." I did not create the format, I am simply going by what previous Wikipedia editors have decided. Clearly if a player has no medals or one or two then runners-up medals should be included. But at the time of writing this, Gaston Sauro has at least five major club honours and so the runners-up medals from the Swiss Cup do not need to be counted.Rupert1904 (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Further input welcome, this is turning into a LAME editwar... GiantSnowman 15:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Rupert continues to remove this referenced honour, contrary to the very MOS he is using to back up his disruptive edits!!! GiantSnowman 15:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We had this discussion before and it was agreed that runner-up is notible. I will have to search the Archive to find the consensus. JMHamo (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not contradicting myself. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs#Honours, it clearly states "For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." This is also used with footballers. Thus since, Gaston Sauro has multiple trophies, I do not believe we need to include the runners-up medals from the Swiss Cup. Furthermore GiantSnowman continues to remove this sentence from WikiProject so that he wins this "LAME editwar". GiantSnowman needs to stop vandalizing wiki project and my edits and I hope others agree.Rupert1904 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, it says may be appropriate. Secondly, what is a "a large number of major trophies"? How are you defining that? Seems like personal preference to me. I think that line needs to be removed from the MOS, it's far too vague. Thirdly please don't make false accusations of vandalism, by doing so you simply negate your own position. GiantSnowman 15:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Clearly if a player has no medals or one or two then runners-up medals should be included. But at the time of writing this, Gaston Sauro has at least five major club honours and so the runners-up medals from the Swiss Cup do not need to be counted. And I did not make false accusations of vandalism. All people have to do is go to the View History pages of the wikiproject page that I referenced and the history of this page to see that you deleted the template for honours sections for clubs and you have also deleted my comments on here.Rupert1904 (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, you haven't defined what "major" is, and the 'five' mark is your personal preference, not that of the community. Please post diffs of me deleting your talk page posts, or else retract your accusations. GiantSnowman 15:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Major has been defined by others in the past. For instance, Premier League Asia Trophy isn't a major trophy and shouldn't be included. And if we are talking about personal preferences over community, your edits on it clearly show a personal preference. Because it is your opinion, you chose to revert my edits and include the runners-up medals even though their is no consensus for what you did. And I will not retract my accusations. Because they are not accusations. You deleted a sentence from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs#Honours so that it would convey your opinions instead of the general consensus and I had to revert it. Go to the "View History" page of this talk section, you reverted one of my posts and I had to re-post it.Rupert1904 (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Saying "major has been defined by others in the past" is such a cop out - I am asking you now please. I re-added the runner-up honour per a) consensus here (so far every editor has supported its inclusion) and b) per the MOS which states "Achievements of the club including wins and second places." I'll also repeat my request for an actual diff of me deleting your talk page post please. Here's 1 and 2 of you deleting my posts...! GiantSnowman 15:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a cop out. I just gave you a reference for a trophy that is not a major trophy. Furthermore, one person is not a consensus so don't say "every" editor. I ask that you visit the pages of Real Madrid and Manchester City players that were part of their clubs' run to their domestic cup finals in 2013. Since these players have multiple trophies, the runners-up medal they received for reaching their respective cup finals are not included in their honours sections. Likewise the same should be done in Gaston Sauro's honours section and other footballers with multiple trophies. That is the consensus decided upon by the wiki community and not me or you.Rupert1904 (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Again you are repeating WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - I don't care what other articles are like, that is irrelevant - and especially if they are wrong. When I say "every editor" I am being 100% accurate - two editors other than me and you have contributed to this discussion so far and they both have said that runner-up medals should be included. If that is the consensus then the MOS needs to be changed to reflect that, not the other way around. There is no support at all for your removal of 'minor' and/or 'runner-up' honours. GiantSnowman 16:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the edit that I had to re-add because you deleted it. 1 and here is where you deleted the sentence so that it conformed to your opinion, 2.Rupert1904 (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There is support for my argument so don't say you don't care what other articles are like. They are completely relevant, so if they are wrong, you should go and change all of them instead of wasting everyone's time to try and win this "LAME editwar." How can you say they are irrelevant? They are completely relevant for this discussion and you disregard them because they don't agree with your opinion.Rupert1904 (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is this support for your argument? Based on this discussion it is currently 3-1 against you i.e. there is clear consensus to include runner-up honours. Have you even read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?! Oh and those diffs don't actually show any edits...? GiantSnowman 16:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I previously wrote on your talk page that I had discussions with others. Your friends above even stated that they didn't know the consensus and would check the archives to see what it is. So don't try to claim that you have a consensus. And once again, you are forgetting to remember that pesky sentence that you hate that supports my argument so I will include this diff again and maybe you will remember that you deleted the sentence and maybe you can look at the history page of it and see that you deleted it because it didn't adhere to your opinions. 1Rupert1904 (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Rupert1904 and I spoke on this subject some time ago. I said then that as far as I knew, there was no consensus, that many people felt strongly that coming second wasn't an honour, others felt strongly that it was, and others felt that although coming second was an honour, for players with large numbers of winners' medals, including runners-ups as well might be too much detail. This was and probably still is my personal view, although I think there'd have to be a lot of winners' medals to justify leaving out runners-ups. Mr Sauro only has five, so personally I don't see the need to remove the runners-ups.

Daresay it was me that made the comparison with the longstanding and, as far as I was aware, well-accepted wording at the club page MoS. I didn't suggest it applied to players, nor do I think it particularly constructive to boldly remove it mid-editwar. The point of the advice (and the comparison) is to remind editors that if the article they're working on is getting overwhelmed by lists of trophies won and lost, they may use their discretion to exclude the losses. The same advice can be taken with players. If the number of wins is overwhelming the article, then leave out the runners-up. Five isn't overwhelming.

This discussion isn't particularly edifying, and I'd advise you both to leave it and the article alone for a bit.

On another tack, what does overwhelm honours sections is a long list of "individual" honours without any context as to what they are or why they're worth including. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say if you won a league or cup twice, no need to mention second places. Media will go for he is a two time winner of xxx' instead of mentioning his number of runner-up finishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koppapa (talk • contribs)

Why not? Runner-ups are still mentioned by media, see this for a recent example which includes both runner-up awards and 'minor' trophies! GiantSnowman 16:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your level headed input Struway2 and Koppapa and think you both are correct on the matter. Let's hope cooler heads prevail now. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You think they are correct because they support your view - well actually Struway doesn't, seeing as Sauro's honours section is certainly not overwhelmed. GiantSnowman 17:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Calm down GS. You throw in one reference about a little-known footballer. Check out this obituary by UEFA on Eusebio's recent death. The first sentence is that he won the European Cup in 1962, won the Ballon d'Or and also mentions that he helped his side to the semi-finals of the World Cup in 1966. And if you can recall, I said that for international level competitios, runners-up medals or Third and Fourth place at a major tournament like the World Cup were okay to include. Furthermore it only mentions that he was a beaten finalist in the 1968 final in the last section of the article and it is much of an after thought as it is referring to him showing sportsmanship to an opposing player. And I appreciate Struway's input because he is actually shedding constructive light onto the conversation instead of attacking everything I say and degrading my arguments as second class, which you seem to love to do.Rupert1904 (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore here is an obituary article from the BBC regarding the death of Alfredo di Stefano this summer. You can see that they mention about how he won straight five European Cups immediately after informing us about his death. Then if you scroll down further through the article, the writer even included a table with all the honours that di Stefano won and they did not include the runners up medals.Rupert1904 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Eusebio - runner-ups mentioned (sorry it's DM). Di Stefano - runner-ups mentioned. Furthermore are you really comparing the achievements of those greats with Sauro's honours? Show some perspective please. GiantSnowman 17:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I can argue the same thing on the opposite end of the spectrum as you included a reference to a Scottish player that about 99% of football fans and wikipedia editors have never heard of. And yes it's the DM, exactly, which isn't a very reputable publication. But it even includes a table with all of Eusebio's honours, about midway through the article just under the picture of the "A Bola" headline after his death. And this table, like Di Stefano's on the BBC, doesn't include the runners up medals he received at club level for Benfica. And the BBC article that I put up to show di Stefano's honors, which you just used also, refers to the runners up medals he received as a manager NOT as a player. That is a completely different discussion and irrelevant to his playing career honors, as you seem to disregard the honours table above that section in the article. No one is arguing that you can't mention the runners-up titles in the body of a wikipedia profile for a footballer but when a player has won multiple championships it is redundant and unnecessary to include runners up medals. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

But Sauro hasn't won a heap of trophies, so why do you insist on removing the runner-ups? And how many is too many i.e. when should runner-ups be removed? GiantSnowman 17:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a set in stone number, have you read anything on the football template or what Struway replied? It's not just when the footballer hits three trophies or thirty three that you stop including runners up trophies. It's on a case by case basis and I decided to remove them because he has won multiple trophies at the club level and felt that it was redundant to include the runners up medals because of what has been stated before on wikiproject and the guidelines for how to include trophies. Why is it that you attack me for removing his runners-up sections but do not attack other editors for removing runners up medals from other players?Rupert1904 (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, yet again. Have you read it yet? I'm also not attacking you. You say it is redundant in this article - I disagree, as do numerous other editors (EchetusXe and JMHamo). Why do you insist on repeatedly removing it? GiantSnowman 18:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You tend to disregard parts that don't agree with your opinion. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS clearly states "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." In regards to this, I am using it correctly, to streamline the honours section of Sauro and make it adhere and be consistent with the honours sections of other footballers with multiple trophies. And multiple people have agreed with me and disagreed with you, so there is no consensus for your opinion. And yes you have repeatedly attacked me in the last month, first over Esteban Cambiasso, accusing me of adding in large sections without references (when I in fact was adding in references sentence by sentence) and now this with Sauro. What is your problem with me. Clearly editors have disagreed with you but still that is not enough for you. You have to try to smash me and make everything I say sound incompetent, silly and second class. Please I ask you to calm down again if you want to discuss this properly.Rupert1904 (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes; we get this article right/the MOS cleaned up and then use that on the other articles, and not the other way around. You state that "multiple people" have agreed with you - who? Reverting a few of your edits which do not meet policy and/or guidelines is not an attack. Where have I tried to "smash" you? I don't even know what that means. GiantSnowman 18:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

In this tab, Struway2 and Koppapa, have both said that runners up medals don't always need to be included. Koppapa was fully against it and Struway said that when a player or a club has won many honors and the section becomes congested that runners-up medals don't need to be included. Obviously as I have tried to explain to you, there isn't an exaxt number of trophies that determine when runners-up medals are included or are not included but it should be determined on a case by case basis. And you didn't revert any edits that didn't meet guidelines or policy, you just blindly deleted sections without references (which were written by other editors and not by me) and I was adding in references and asked you to restore the section. You initially refused to do this and accused me of being a bad editor who doesn't include references. And then you called me a silly editor who edits based on an "assumed community consensus" when in fact it seems that you are the one who is editing and reverting sections based on an assumed community consensus. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about the Sauro article only (for now) - which Struway doesn't specifically express an opinion about says should include the runner-up medals! Is the Sauro section "congested", to use your term? No, not even nearly! It's easily readable with the TWO runner-up honours included! Re:Cambiasso - I never called you a "bad editor", I didn't call you anything. All that happened was that I told you not to add unreferenced content about a living person, in line with WP:BLP policy. Re:Sauro - I didn't call you silly, I said your edits were silly; that is a major difference. GiantSnowman 18:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Struway did, actually, quite explicitly: "I think there'd have to be a lot of winners' medals to justify leaving out runners-ups. Mr Sauro only has five, so personally I don't see the need to remove the runners-ups" and "Five isn't overwhelming". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly what Struway said, "for players with large numbers of winners' medals, including runners-ups as well might be too much detail. This was and probably still is my personal view." He was the one who first used the word "congested", so it is not my term. He obviously stated that he does not believe that the Sauro's honors section is congested and made a good argument for why the runners-up medals should be included so I respect and honor his opinion and input. Because of this I will restore the runners up for now, until if and when he wins more titles. But I kindly ask you @GiantSnowman: to NEVER contact me again on here or I will report you. All you do is bully me and intimidate me into changing my edits. And you don't need to tell me about WP:BLP policy and adding unreferenced content because clearly I add references to the edits I make. Lastly to reference the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that you have brought up against me again and again, here is another example to support the guidelines and my argument. James Milner and Samir Nasri's club honours section are certainly not congested or overcrowded but neither section mentions that the players finished as a runner up in the FA Cup or Premier League in 2013. So by my silly edits I am just trying to adhere to a community consensus on the issue. Again I used the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that you used against me and remind you that it states: "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." Rupert1904 (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Struway has just said above that "I think there'd have to be a lot of winners' medals to justify leaving out runners-ups. Mr Sauro only has five, so personally I don't see the need to remove the runners-ups" and "Five isn't overwhelming" - there is clear consensus here that runner-up awards should be included in the Sauro article. Do you disagree or not? I will re-add them at some point later today, after you have had chance to review this post - and if you remove them again, contrary to community consensus, then I will report you. GiantSnowman 11:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit - I've just seen that you have already re-added the runner-up honours to the Sauro article, thank you for that. I assure you this is nothing personal/maclicious as you assume; hopefully we can move on and work co-operatively and constructively in future. GiantSnowman 11:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

S.L. Benfica

User:Stalko added colours to wikitables to match the colours of templates (removing Kit link) but I find it very distractive. What do you think? SLBedit (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Link can be added back but i have no problem with that edit. Kante4 (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Link was removed to prevent blue color from appearing (doesn't look good). SLBedit (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of color in tables

Is there a consensus regarding the use of color in tables for Footy articles? More specifically: How much color is too much? I've come across a number of tables, particularly on national team articles, where the table is so loaded with color (and bold text) I find it difficult to read the table. See the examples below from the Brazil national football team and the Costa Rica national football team pages. There are many more like these. Barryjjoyce (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Copa América
Year	Round	Position	Go	W	D*	L	GS	GA
1975	Third place	3rd	6	5	0	1	16	4
1979	Third place	3rd	6	2	2	2	10	9
1983	Runners-up	2nd	8	2	4	2	8	4
1987	Group stage	5th	2	1	0	1	5	4
1989	Champions	1st	7	5	2	0	11	1
1991	Runners-up	2nd	7	4	1	2	12	8
1993	Quarter-finals	5th	4	1	2	1	6	4
1995	Runners-up	2nd	6	4	2	0	10	3
1997	Champions	1st	6	6	0	0	22	3
1999	Champions	1st	6	6	0	0	17	2
2001	Quarter-finals	6th	4	2	0	2	5	4
2004	Champions	1st	6	3	2	1	13	6
2007	Champions	1st	6	4	1	1	15	5
2011	Quarter-finals	8th	4	1	3	0	6	4
2015	TBD
Total	5 titles	14/14	78	46	19	13	156	61

CCCF Championship record
Year	Round	Position	Pld	W	D*	L	GF	GA
1941	Champions	1st / 5 teams	4	4	0	0	23	5
1943	Third Place	3rd / 4 teams	6	3	0	3	20	15
1946	Champions	1st / 6 teams	5	4	0	1	24	6
1948	Champions	1st / 5 teams	8	5	1	2	25	11
1951	Runners-up	2nd / 3 teams	4	2	1	1	13	5
1953	Champions	1st / 7 teams	6	6	0	0	19	2
1955	Champions	1st / 7 teams	6	6	0	0	19	4
1957	Did Not Enter
1960	Champions	1st / 5 teams	5	3	2	0	14	4
1961	Champions	1st / 9 teams	7	7	0	0	32	4
Total	7 Titles	9/10	51	40	4	7	191	56

As long as the colours are explained in a key, I'd say they're okay. Not sure why the header and footer rows in the right table are in bright red though. – PeeJay 07:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia-wide consensus, otherwise known as MoS, is at MOS:COLOR. A pertinent bit reads

Even for readers with unimpaired color vision, excessive background shading of table entries impedes readability and recognition of Wikilinks. Background color should be used only as a supplementary visual cue, and should be subtle (consider using lighter, less-dominant pastel hues) rather than a glaring spotlight.

There's nothing wrong with using colour in the way that table does (apart from the decorative red-and-white header/footer) – the "meaning" of the colours is already given in the wording in the Round column, so there's no need for an external key – but the specific colours used are too strong. Personally, I don't find the wikilinks easy to read on several of those background colours. And the bolding is inappropriate: see MOS:BOLD.

The tiny text in the RH table position column is smaller than the minimum permitted by MOS:FONTSIZE, as well as being completely unnecessary: the wording "1st of 5" at normal font size is readable, MoS-compliant, and takes up less width than 1st / 5 teams with small applied as used in the RH table. As demonstrated below. In my experience, the footy project doesn't take much notice of certain aspects of the MoS... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Year	Round	Position
1941	Champions	1st / 5 teams
1941	Champions	1st of 5

if background colouring causes accessibility issues, you can always use border colouring instead

Year	Round	Position
1941	Champions	1st
1942	Runners-up	2nd

Frietjes (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Line up and sub in club season articles

I know that in the past we have discussed Starting XI and that it has been consensus to remove it, because player positions changes during matches and are WP:OR. Now I have a question about 2014–15 Swindon Town F.C. season#Matchday squads which is a section that list the entire squad for each match (in wikitables) this for league, fa cup, league cup and league trophy. Section is completely unsourced (but the info can be from matchreports?) and I wonder if it is notable? QED237 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I see positions in the Starting XI as the positions that the player started in the match, not any subsequent that they might have play and if it's sourced, then I don't think it's OR. Also, this paticular table isn't well designed. To start with, I wouldn't include the substitutes that remain on the bench. Kingjeff (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Far too much detail, get rid. And at the same time, get rid of the section listing all their penalties this season, there really is no need for that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That article is a complete mess. This is an encyclopaedia, not a Swindon Town fan site... JMHamo (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I struggle to see what the problem is here. Someone is enthusiastic enough to want to include as much about the current season as they can. It doesn't mean all club season articles have to be like this. Yes it has some formatting issues but surely such enthusiasm should be encouraged and not dismissed?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That article is a huge mess. Too many (useless or/and empty) tables. Lineups should NOT be included. Kante4 (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

An absolute mess. The very reason that WP:NOTSTATS exists, definitely agree with the calls to get rid. Fenix down (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Clear consensus here - I have removed. GiantSnowman 12:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

While we're talking about that article. is the U18's section notable? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say no, remove U18. QED237 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I was only trying to contribute and maintain the page. Sure more experience is required by myself but I don't think it's a 'mess', far from it. I've done exactly the same for three seasons without revision requests. There was little need for the blunt criticisms listed above especially when so many of these pages go for months without updates. Regards. STFCFAN 19:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Everyone involved in maintaining season articles appreciates help from new and enthusiastic editors. There has been a number of discussions over what is considered notable and what falls foul of WP:NOTSTATS (the latest one being here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 89#Club season articles and match info). Editors who deal with these articles can get a little frustrated that the same discussions happen over and over again. Generally we've been unable to resolve this issue despite many attempts (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 88#New MOS needed for club seasons

A few bits of advice for you. On the project page there is a list of featured articles and good articles (WP:FOOTY#Featured content) which are worth a read to see what is considered a good article and what information is included. Even though they are structured differently, you'll find that all of the good articles include text to explain the season and not just raw statistics. That should be the aim for all of these articles. I'd also take a look at these, all of which are good articles.

• 2002–03 Arsenal F.C. season
• 2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season
• 2011–12 York City F.C. season
• 2006–07 Bristol Rovers F.C. season

=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

S.L. Benfica in European football

To avoid an edit war, I open this discussion. User SLBedit, a Benfica fan, has cancelled my previous edition claiming that "Benfica is the most successful Portuguese team in UEFA competitions" also citing alleged first places in the UEFA ranking achieved by the team in the 1960s. Whereas football success is measured exclusively in tems of titles won or "honours", Benfica is second behind Porto, which in Europe has won 7 titles (5 more than Benfica). In addition, that historical info about UEFA ranking is irrelevant having been officially introduced in 1979 and since then, no Portuguese team was ranked 1st. If you were to consider the UEFA ranking in an encyclopedia, at least have to do it from when it was introduced, not on alleged measurements made by another. I will appreciate the views of another Project Football users.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The most successful in terms of ranking; ranking is not irrelevant. They have more 5 trophies but they have the same number of European Cup/UEFA Champions League. Yes and I am a Benfica fan but facts are facts and you are removing them. To me it seems like you are a Porto fan. It should be fixed now. If you are Juventus fan then you share something with Porto fans: shame of (proven) corruption in football. SLBedit (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@SLBedit: There's no need to be offensive to someone because a football club they may or may not support has been guilty of corruption. I suggest you withdraw (cross out) that remark.

We have the same thing regularly come up about the Intercontinental Cup (see above thread for latest) or similar competitions, the IC Fairs Cup, whatever. Unfortunately, people sometimes let their allegiances get the better of their encyclopedia-writing. In an encyclopedia, we should be writing "Benfica has/have taken part in European competition since xxx. It has/they have won xxx European Cups and xxx Cup Winners Cups" or whatever it is. Without all this "my dad's bigger than football club's better than your football club" crap. If the sources say that Benfica or whoever were ranked in a certain position in a certain year, then say that, but produce clear, unambiguous, sources, and don't try and choose a particular source, or way of viewing that source, to draw unwarranted and often unencyclopedic conclusions. It's called original research and synthesis, and we don't do it. Those pages currently linked in the opening paragraph don't verify the facts they come after: or maybe they do if you search the entire sites they link to, but the reader shouldn't have to.

Rant over, I think. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dantetheperuvian, a Juventus fan, deleted a reference about Juventus being eliminated at home by Benfica in Europa League. SLBedit (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Struway. In Europe "honest" Benfica has only won 2 European Cups half a century ago and, since them, absolutely nothing else. Numerous club's lost in European finals not count when it comes to be "successful", which is based on titles won. FC Porto (I'm not a fan, nay, Portuguese football does not interest me mostly, but in an Encyclopedia we must be realistic and talk based exclusively on proven facts, not in rumours) also won the same two European Cups, won two Europa Leagues (in prestige is second just after CL) 1 Super Cup and 2 Intercontinental Cups and in all of them is the only Portuguese club to do so. It is obvious which of the two is more successful in Europe and this is not Benfica in the same way you can not say that Porto is the most successful in Portuguese football (which is different from the UEFA competitions) when obviously in that category Benfica has more titles.

The UEFA ranking was introduced in 1979 and since then only Spanish, English, Italian, Dutch and French teams have occupied the 1st place at least once. Now, if in an encyclopedia account the Jerome Fauregas' original work (And who the hell is he?), Here an administrator explicitly stated.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Two consecutive European Cup titles against Barcelona and Real Madrid, doesn't make it easier to win. That's like saying Eusébio wasn't so great because it was "easier back then". Who the hell was Juventus and Porto in that period? Nothing. Why hasn't Juventus won any title since 1996? Juventus has the exact same number of lost European Cup finals as Benfica! European Supercup didn't exist when Benfica was at the top of European football, and it's a irrelevant trophy nowadays. Porto is also the only Portuguese club to have been punished for corruption in football, see Apito Dourado. Benfica have more finals than Porto, Benfica has a better ranking than Porto, overall Benfica is better than Porto in Europe. Your so great Juventus has been punished by corruption in football, just like Porto (fact). If your Juventus is so great then why Benfica prevented them from playing the 2014 Europa League final in their own stadium (against ten-man)?! SLBedit (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Everything you want, but a team that only has 2 European trophies (like Aberdeen) can not be more successful than one that has 7 (like Manchester United), This is an incontestable fact. If you fuck, complain to UEFA.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You insulted me. SLBedit (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You were reported in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. SLBedit (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You were also reported for edit warring in Intercontinental Cup (football). SLBedit (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Why did you add the name "Jerome Fauregas" to the article? A "Google search" shows no results. Why did you add original research and then called him a John Doe? You are contradicting yourself! SLBedit (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's "Jérôme Faugeras". SLBedit (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment, updating of examples

I had started a discussion regarding the updating of examples in the quality scale table but had somehow forgotten about it. The relevant discussion is here. Opinions and suggestions are welcome. Thank you. LRD 00:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Control IP edits

Please, anyone control this IP edits mostly in Intercontinental Cup (football) and ‎European association football club records, deleting sourcered info, saying stupid things like "the Intercontinental Cup not organized by UEFA, so not count".--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The latter article is strange with all the Big five or big six records. -Koppapa (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, all that information on the "Big 5" / 6/10, et al leagues should be deleted for obvious POV. A European record involves the entire eurozone, not true mole leagues, which also is not official.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP is right. The trophy was organised by Toyota, that's why it was called Toyota Cup. SLBedit (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You say that only because Benfica lost both. UEFA officially organized from 1960-2004.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You are the one saying that. Toyota organised the trophy at least once, in 2004. SLBedit (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In what way was the competition organised by Toyota? They merely sponsored it. The competition was actually co-organised by UEFA and CONMEBOL for the winners of their continental tournaments. – PeeJay 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Toyota can be the sponsor but in no way organize such an event, wow at another view of it... Kante4 (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

S.L. Benfica B footballers

Me and Threeohsix think B-team players that never played for main squad should be moved to their own category: [[Category:S.L. Benfica B footballers]]. What do you think? SLBedit (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

[[Category:S.L. Benfica B players]]  Done

Manager honours

Should honours also be attributed to an interim coach/manager? SLBedit (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes; if they were manager when the club won an honour, and that is supported by reliable sources, them being a 'caretaker' manager is irrelevant. GiantSnowman 18:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if the 'caretaker' wins 10 league matches? SLBedit (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, the permanence of their position is irrelevant. They either won the honour (as supported by RS) or they didn't. GiantSnowman 08:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the "permanence" I'm questioning the merit.: interim wins 29 matches, new manager wins 1 one. Who gets the credit? Both or only the new manager? SLBedit (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Is winning one or 29 games an honour? An achievement yes, but an honour?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No. SLBedit (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Professional footballer

Should every "known" professional footballer display "professional footballer" or simply "footballer"? SLBedit (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say professional should be used, to differentiate them from semi-pro and amateur players. Number 57 17:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Lots of articles about Premier League players don't use "professional". SLBedit (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

So? Lots of articles aren't formatted or written correctly. Number 57 07:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Being a 'professional footballer' is their primary claim to notability, and it is important that the lede shows that. Likewise if they are an 'international footblaller'. GiantSnowman 08:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Known" footballer, like we know he/she is professional, or known like notable according to wikipedia criterias? There are a lot of articles about non-professional footballers in leagues today recognized as fully professional, like Tippeligaen and Allsvenskan. Grrahnbahr (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. SLBedit (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo don't use "professional". SLBedit (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Added. SLBedit (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Clay Cross Town F.C. & Handsworth F.C.

I have recently been improving the articles for the Central Midlands Football League and the Sheffield & Hallamshire County Senior Football League, including creating pages for those member clubs notable enough to have one (those that have participated in the FA Cup, Trophy or Vase).

When I came across Clay Cross Town FC I initially thought they were non-notable as they were formed in 1989 (as Parkhouse FC - changing to Clay Cross Town in 2012) and have never played in any of the afore-mentioned competitions.

However, I today discovered that in the 1890s, 1910s and 1920s, another team called Clay Cross Town had competed in the FA Cup. So I created an article (stub) for them here.

There are a couple of dilemmas here.

Firstly, could I now separate the article in two to effectively create two sub-articles (as I have done here for Handsworth F.C.), or would the current Clay Cross Town F.C.'s non-notability even preclude them from having half an article?

Secondly, if articles such as Handsworth F.C. (where separate clubs that shared the same name also share a Wikipedia page) are frowned upon, what is the correct course of action?

In the case of Handsworth, both clubs were notable, but obviously you can't have two articles with an identical name. People that share a name often include their year of birth to differentiate them (i.e. Ted Thorpe (footballer born 1898)) - should the correct course of action be to create two articles for the Handsworth clubs and include the year of formation to differentiate them?

The only parallel I can think of for clubs would be the two Ashford Town's, one in Kent, the other in Middlesex, that had their county origin added to their Wikipedia article title to differentiate them - but obviously that would be possible for Handsworth or Clay Cross as they come from the same county.

A long winded post but I hope you see where I'm coming from! Kivo (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is to any help, but you could check out the article about Bootle F.C., as well. Grrahnbahr (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's two dfferent clubs, with the same name and from the same location, and both are notable, then I would use year of formation as a disambiguator e.g. Snowman F.C. (1899) and Snowman F.C. (1947). GiantSnowman 07:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

When the new isn't notable, i'd just add a sentence to end the lead like. "There also is a club of the same not aflicated with this one playing in the xy league. -Koppapa (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)"

De facto world champions

I pointed discussion here.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Rules, regulations and copyright

Hi,

I have a simple question regarding copyright rules. In competition there is often rules and format explained in a document, and I wonder how we should handle that? I always try to not copy material, but in these cases list of tiebreakers are what they are so should the wordings be changed or should they be exactly as they are in the document/source? QED237 (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Doubt it matters. If in doubt change wording, but not meaning. -Koppapa (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree. If you are unsure about copyright, paraphrase without changing the meaning. -- Jkudlick (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Table harmonization

Currently 20+ different templates exist to build tables for both leagues and groups. To build one such table, at least three distinct templates are currently needed. There has been a current drive to extend the display possibilities of such tables, which includes highlighting a team on its season page in a smaller part of the table. This can all be setup centrally from one Lua-module. For this reason I have started to create such a Lua module to eventually replace the complex template structure that currently exists.
Currently it seems that the formatting for both group tables and league tables has evolved independently. Creating a Lua-module is the ideal moment to harmonize the appearance of these tables. Note that both a league table and a group table can exist on the same page, for example on club season articles that participate in both the domestic league and a continental cup. The current format is generally as follows (scroll sideways to see everything):

	During season	After season is over
Group table	Pos Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts Qualification 1 Czech Republic 10 7 1 2 19 14 +5 22 Qualify for final tournament — 2–1 0–2 2–1 2–1 1–1 2 Iceland 10 6 2 2 17 6 +11 20 2–1 — 3–0 2–0 0–0 2–2 3 Turkey 10 5 3 2 14 9 +5 18 1–2 1–0 — 3–0 3–1 1–1 4 Netherlands 10 4 1 5 17 14 +3 13 2–3 0–1 1–1 — 3–1 6–0 5 Kazakhstan 10 1 2 7 7 18 −11 5 2–4 0–3 0–1 1–2 — 0–0 6 Latvia 10 0 5 5 6 19 −13 5 1–2 0–3 1–1 0–2 0–1 — Source: UEFA Rules for classification: Qualification tiebreakers Notes:	Pos Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts Qualification 1 Belgium 10 8 2 0 18 4 +14 26 Qualification to 2014 FIFA World Cup — 1–1 2–1 2–0 1–1 1–0 2 Croatia 10 5 2 3 12 9 +3 17 Advance to second round 1–2 — 2–0 0–1 2–0 1–0 3 Serbia 10 4 2 4 18 11 +7 14 0–3 1–1 — 2–0 6–1 5–1 4 Scotland 10 3 2 5 8 12 −4 11 0–2 2–0 0–0 — 1–2 1–1 5 Wales 10 3 1 6 9 20 −11 10 0–2 1–2 0–3 2–1 — 1–0 6 Macedonia 10 2 1 7 7 16 −9 7 0–2 1–2 1–0 1–2 2–1 — Source:
League table	Pos Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts Promotion, qualification or relegation 1 Heart of Midlothian (C, P) 36 29 4 3 96 26 +70 91 Promotion to the Premiership 2 Hibernian 36 21 7 8 70 32 +38 70 Qualification for the Premiership play-off semi-final 3 Rangers 36 19 10 7 69 39 +30 67 Qualification for the Premiership play-off quarter-final 4 Queen of the South 36 17 9 10 58 41 +17 60 5 Falkirk 36 14 11 11 48 48 0 53 6 Raith Rovers 36 12 7 17 42 65 −23 43 7 Dumbarton 36 9 7 20 36 79 −43 34 8 Livingston 36 8 8 20 41 53 −12 27 9 Alloa Athletic (O) 36 6 9 21 34 56 −22 27 Qualification for the Championship play-offs 10 Cowdenbeath (R) 36 7 4 25 31 86 −55 25 Relegation to League One Source: Soccerway Rules for classification: 1) Points; 2) Goal difference; 3) Number of goals scored (C) Champions; (O) Play-off winners; (P) Promoted; (R) Relegated Notes:	Pos Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts Promotion, qualification or relegation 1 Dundee (C, P) 36 21 6 9 54 26 +28 69 Promotion to the Premiership 2 Hamilton Academical (O, P) 36 19 10 7 68 41 +27 67 Qualification for the Premiership play-off semi-final 3 Falkirk 36 19 9 8 59 33 +26 66 Qualification for the Premiership play-off quarter-final 4 Queen of the South 36 16 7 13 53 39 +14 55 5 Dumbarton 36 15 6 15 65 64 +1 51 6 Livingston 36 13 7 16 51 56 −5 46 7 Raith Rovers 36 11 9 16 48 61 −13 42 8 Alloa Athletic 36 11 7 18 34 51 −17 40 9 Cowdenbeath (O) 36 11 7 18 50 72 −22 40 Qualification for the Championship play-offs 10 Greenock Morton (R) 36 6 8 22 32 71 −39 26 Relegation to League One Source: Soccerway Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) goal difference; 3) number of goals scored. (C) Champions; (O) Play-off winners; (P) Promoted; (R) Relegated

Where colour can indicate either that qualification has been achieved (group table) or that it merely indicates what happens with that position (league table). (In the first case this is accompanied by a legend explaining the colours.) This disparity can be confusing to casual readers on Wikipedia. This led me to the following sub questions for one central table format, which I will list below. What are your opinions about this? Just to ping some people that have previously been involved in table discussion (@Qed237, 97rob, Spudgfsh, Brudder Andrusha, and Number 57:). CRwikiCA talk 16:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Q1: Legend or inline

There are two options here to explain the colours: Legend, use a legend/ key above/below/next to table to explain tables (as in current group tables) or Inline to have it listed inline next to the position in a separate qualification/promotion/relegation column in the table (current league table format).

• Inline. I think the legend is pointless if we have the meaning spelt out in the rows. Number 57 17:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Both. I think both sorts of tables (group and league) dont have to be the same. When it is a league table with up to 20-24 teams the table gets long and "thin" and the extra column is good as width and explanation. When it is a group however it is often maximum 6 teams and then table gets short and wide with the extra column and it may look weird with a group stage table with one extra column on first team and not on the others. Maybe that is just me being conservative, but I think the current solution for the different types works and it is what the readers are used to watching. The coding may be worse but a parameter like league=yes when using the league format could work? QED237 (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: I understand conservatism, but it is also best to keep novice readers in mind and not the regulars that have become used to differences. Also note that {{2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONMEBOL}} and {{2014–15 Scottish Championship table}} have the same number of teams but are a group table and league table respectively. Does it make sense to you to have two different meanings associated with colours in different tables on a single page? CRwikiCA talk 17:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@CRwikiCA: Looking at discussion below at #Use of color in tables there is a very valid argument about the colors that MOS:COLOR say

Even for readers with unimpaired color vision, excessive background shading of table entries impedes readability and recognition of Wikilinks. Background color should be used only as a supplementary visual cue, and should be subtle (consider using lighter, less-dominant pastel hues) rather than a glaring spotlight.

Depending on how you interprete that section but I would say that we should have the light colors we are currently having and use the inline version to explain the colors since the background should be supplementary visual cue . QED237 (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

But on the other hand many group stage tables have different colors in table to explain "team eliminated", "team can reach playoff but not first place" and so on and in those cases the borders with different background colors work very well. QED237 (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Qed237, so you would say inline as long as the different scenarios can be implemented properly? For eliminated teams you can use the bold E (you don't need red anymore then), for further round/qualification, you could use the A and Q respectively. For your explicit example of "team can reach play-off but not first place", no E means it is not eliminated, I think that would be sufficiently clear (instead of green/blue/yellow/red it becomes green with Q/blue with A/white or blue with no E/white with E). CRwikiCA talk 15:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Q2: When to colour

What should be used to indicate the qualification/promotion/relegation status? Border, use a border when position is not ensured and colour only when a certain stage is achieved (current group table format), or Letters, always use colour and indicate qualification status with bold letters (current league table format).

• I don't have a problem with row colouring being used all through the season/qualification campaign and then the lettering when it's confirmed. Number 57 17:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• As per my comment above I like how it is now with group tables in one way and league tables the other way for variuos reasons, but I am always bit conservative. QED237 (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Q3: Classification rules or not

Should the table or key explicitly explain (or link to) the classification rules/tiebreaker rules? Yes or No

• Yes, as it's not immediately clear otherwise. Number 57 17:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, but perhaps a parameter for when not to include it. They are in most cases very useful and should be explained, especially under league tables, but when a tournament with many group tables listed together it could be good to have alternative to not list under every table as same information wil be repeated everytime. Then the rules and tiebreakers are often already listed in a special section in that article. QED237 (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

How about having a wikilink to that section anyway (so in effect not repeating the whole story for every table, but still including a wikilink as an easy referral for lazy readers). CRwikiCA talk 15:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@CRwikiCA: That might be a goood idea, I am all for at least testing that to see how it looks. QED237 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Other comments

Does anyone else have any comments with regard to this? CRwikiCA talk 23:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I raised this question in the 2014 CONCACAF Women's Championship talk page, but I think a global consensus is necessary. Should teams be listed alphabetically prior to the start of a tournament or season? My belief is that if a particular order of teams is announced (e.g. the groups drawn for FIFA World Cups) then we should not change that order in Wikipedia articles before the tournament starts, especially since the draws usually determine the order of matches, and all official publications will list the teams in that order. However, for league competitions (e.g. Premier League), listing teams alphabetically prior to the start of the season is fine because there isn't a specific order of matches each year. -- Jkudlick (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Club season MOS (second attempt)

After my previous attempt to produce a new MOS for club seasons petered out in a discussion on layout (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 88#New MOS needed for club seasons) and that there are still discussions as to what should be included I thought I'd try again. This time though I thought it would be better to only include the information which should be included and put it into a form which doesn't discuss layout. The theory being that layout can and will differ but the detail which we want to include/exclude will be the same.

This starting point is a straw man of purely my own opinions (based on some WP:GA and previous discussions). If anyone wants to comment it is here User:Spudgfsh/sandbox/FootySeasonMOS2 => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see either tables or the Football box template replace the Football box collapsible template. Kingjeff (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Didn't I see a discussion recently which said yellow/red cards could be included at the editor's discretion? --Egghead06 (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

probably, if that is the consensus feel free to change it. As I said, it's only a straw man to get the discussion on what should be included rather than how it is to be displayed. once we have agreed the detail we could include examples. Is this a concept people can work with though? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

We should not include red/yellow cards - what reliable sources are being used? GiantSnowman 12:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Soccerway records both.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...still seems like overkill to me. GiantSnowman 12:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

My opinion, too. But there are some editors edithunting with adding cards... Kante4 (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I took it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 89#Club season articles and match info. and it continued at subsection Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 89#Cards or no cards. At first there was a big majority for not including cards but then two editors opposed "strongly" and refused to agree with same two editors answering everyone who wanted to remove cards so I finally gave up. I could always count the amounts of editors for and against to see what the general view is but not sure there is consensus. But perhaps we should open new discussion for it. I think you know my opinion, not to include it and sources often miss one or more cards now and then. QED237 (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Further discussions do not hurt, especially if there was no concrete consensus. GiantSnowman 15:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Like QED, i just got tired of that discussion. My point about removing them still stands. Kante4 (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Egghead06, you definitely did see a discussion where a couple editors said yellow/red cards could be included at the editor's discretion. The editors that oppose yellow cards have argued that the footballbox collapsible template states "goals" where you enter the goals, yellow cards, etc. But there is no legitimacy to the argument since you can create a table with whatever column headings you want which can include the cards. Kingjeff (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Kingjeff I dont think you read the entire discussion either, to blind of your own view. That was just one of the arguments. Mostly it was about notability as yellow cards dont influence the game and there were other arguments. And I really dont like your pushing of the tables all the time, the first editor clearly stated This time though I thought it would be better to only include the information which should be included and put it into a form which doesn't discuss layout, and in your first edit you started again about layout and your tables and continue in second edit as well. Leave it for know and discuss the content. QED237 (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Qed237I have. A couple were against, then, as Egghead06 stated, that they said it would be okay to be "included at the editor's discretion." I was only confirming that what he was questioning was true. If you check my first comment in this discussion, you will see that I stated "tables or the Football box template replace the Football box collapsible template." I see an option there. They only thing being pushed in that comment is the change from the Football box collapsible template. As far as the second statement where I bring up tables, I was only showing the redundancy of the argument. The template states "goals" and the table I use in Bayern Munich's club season article says "goalscorers and disciplined players." So, both arguments canceled each other. But since you brought up tables, I do think they should be used simply because they are more flexible and can be accommodating to what we would want to show. I don't mind keeping the discussion to the general format of the club season article. Since, you don't really want to go into match info, what other parts of a club season article do you want to discuss? Kingjeff (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Kingjeff I would like to see either tables or the Football box template replace the Football box collapsible template is definately a comment on layout (which is not for this thread) and not on the content itself and I know you take every opportunity you can to push for the table (like in your most recent edit, why?) and I am tired of it. I am willing to discuss ALL CONTENT but in this discussion CONTENT NOT LAYOUT (sorry for shouting but Kingjeff dont seem to get what I am saying). QED237 (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Qed237As I said before, the comment was about replacing the footballbox collapsible. I said either "tables or the Football box template." I do believe I responded to another editor here about content. How about we talk about how we present club squads? In the 2014–15 Real Madrid C.F. season article, a squad section that has info that really has nothing to do with the current season and there is a statistics section that again shows the squad along with current season statistics. It's redundant to show two templates with squads in them. Kingjeff (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Would suggest if this was never intended to be a discussion on content, it might have been better not to have headings in the the example such as to be included and not to be included. That directs focus on content!--Egghead06 (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Egghead06, the discussion is about content, not layout. QED237 (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there any agreement that the principle of the 'content only' club season MOS is the way forward even if the content of my first draft doesn't currently completely cover the consensus? If we can agree on the principle we can then have a constructive discussion of the detail of what should be included. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

RB Leipzig

I'm done reverting this "attempted murder" case. German sourced don't support that. Even if, does it need a own section at the club's article? User is clearly a RB supporter. -Koppapa (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

And an SPA at that. Even if it was perfectly sourced, it's routine football-related violence/unpleasantness, and is really not worth including in the article. Number 57 21:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Player infobox full name parameter

Some time ago, I suggested at the infobox talk page that the |fullname= parameter should be made to wrap, so that people didn't have to put linebreaks into the likes of Charlie Oatway (and rather less extreme examples). Some people agreed, but it got archived before anything was done about it. I revived the topic last week, but I'm not technically competent to do (or even understand, probably) what the reviewing admin said was required. If someone competent in templatey stuff could have a look at Template:Infobox football biography#Wrapping fullname parameter and do what's requireded, or explain in simple terms what needs doing, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest using {{Allow wrap}} (which I've just implemented on the Oatway article) - however, I'm not sure how to build this into the template - if there are only a very few people who this affects, perhaps it only needs to be used as a subtemplate on those articles? Number 57 14:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that: wasn't aware of its existence, and thanks for trying to fiddle with the sandbox. I was having a go in userspace, and was getting there (slowly), but Redrose64 has now made a change to the infobox sandbox, and I've added it to an example at Template:Infobox football biography/testcases#Wrapping full name. Looks good to me, but if people could consider having a look at it from their browsers to see if the name wraps OK for them and hasn't messed anything else up, it'd be appreciated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems to work in Chrome. Number 57 16:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Shoulda said, it's OK for me in Firefox and in IE11. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, works for me (IE) - and good idea! GiantSnowman 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Also OK on what their owner believes to be the latest versions of Firefox for Android and the WP Android app. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Y This has now been implemented, so there's now no need to include explicit linebreaks in |fullname=. And I've amended the template documentation. Oatway and Beausejour have been fixed, but if anyone knows of any others with linebreaks in, they can now be removed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Table template for Tippeligaen

An IP editor keeps including the 4th place in the Template:2014 Tippeligaen table as "2015–16 UEFA Europa League First qualifying round", which I think is the wrong thing to do.

The situation is this: Norway has three Europa League posisions, one of which goes to the cup winner. However, the cup final will be played between Molde and Odd, currently 1st and 2nd in the league. If Molde wins the double, the Europa League spots goes to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th team in the league, even if Odd ends up in 5th or worse. If Molde wins the league and Odd wins the cup, Odd will get one of the spots in the Europa League, and the other two spots will go to the two best placed teams in the league. If Odd somehow ends up in 5th or worse, which is still possible, the 4th placed team will **not** get a place in the Europa Leauge. So I think it's wrong to color the table like the IP editor wants to. Cashewnøtt (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree you are right. Until it's confirmed that Odd will finish in the top four (which could actually be in the next round of matches if their points lead over 5th-placed Lillestrøm is extended to 13 points or more), the colours shouldn't be used. I will semi-protect the template. Number 57 08:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, the actual status of the league is as I put. If you wait that Odd will be definitively in the 4th minimum why you put the color for the other as it is not confirmed that they get the spot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.255.127.169 (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is confirmed that whichever club finishing in those positions will qualify for the Europa League. The same is true for colouring the relegation zones. Number 57 10:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with comments above. The top three teams will qualify but it is not for sure the fourth placed team will so for now it should not be anything there. QED237 (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Season club articles question

Which clubs can have a season article? What´s the criterium? FkpCascais (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's generally agreed to be those that complete in a fully-professional league - that's certainly how recent AfDs have gone. Number 57 14:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

or passes WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)