Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 92

Archive 85

←

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Editor making mass changes to remove F.C. and similar from clubname parameter

contributions here. I advised them to stop, and am about to suggest they come here and explain why they're doing it, but don't expect them to. If there are any admins about who might want to have a look, or anyone who might want to revert their changes (I've done a few dozen, but it's boring and I'm going to bed in a minute), it'd be appreciated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Nuked the lot with rollback. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• That hasn't stopped them, nor did a final warning, so I filed an ARV report. Am nuking each unexplained change as it happens. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• And blocked by Materialscientist. With a change every couple of minutes, and most of them making things nonsensical, I don't think we could wait, since they gave no sign of slowing or discussing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Luke. I tend to go through the motions of assuming good faith first, even when there isn't much evidence of any, which is why i started off undoing the first batch of edits with an edit summary and whatever, rather than rolling them back. By the time you got to them, it was pretty clear they had no intention of playing nicely. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Understandable; I'm a little more cynical when it comes to this sort of thing. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Intros

Greetings teammates, all hail the new year!

Doubt: what is the best way to present a player's name in the article's introduction when the subject is known by a nickname? Is it 1 - "Edson Arantes do Nascimento, commonly known as Pelé" or just 2 - "Edson Arantes do Nascimento, known as Pelé"? Or are they both correct? Methinks it's both, but of course I'm not a native English speaker... A fellow user has implied that "commonly" suggests person is known by another nickname, and I understand his reasoning.

Let the teamwork continue, thank you in advance for whatever assistance can be provided --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say "known as X" would be when that person is exclusively known by that nickname, whereas "commonly known as X" would imply that they may be known by their longer name, but really they're pretty interchangeable. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if either was used in any article. – PeeJay 00:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It is set out at WP:FULLNAME, see the sub-heading of "Pseudonyms, stage names and common names". Thanks, C679 23:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Another doubt: Osvaldo Nicolás "Nico" Fabián Gaitán or Osvaldo Nicolás Fabián "Nico" Gaitán? Based on Lionel Messi example I would choose the second option. SLBedit (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The nickname always goes after the last given name, so the second option is correct. – PeeJay 12:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Matches on wikidata

Hello. I want your opinion about having wikidata page for football games. Pls see d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Association football#Pages for matches. Xaris333 (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

2015 FFSA season

Question for someone who knows about Australian soccer - Is 2015 FFSA season OK or should it go? JMHamo (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Think it's ok. Second level league. -Koppapa (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I built that! I created that as a continuation of this article 2015 National Premier Leagues, which is all of Australia's second divisions (being such a huge country with a semi-professional second division, it saves a lot of money to have clubs in the second division not have to travel from Perth to Brisbane each week, so each state's league is the second division. Subsequently, here is a finished product (except for some small results postings). These articles are updated week by week by myself and others who also update the 2014–15 A-League article. I know it's probably quite biased of me to say, but it's notable enough in my opinion to be kept. J man708 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Florin Gardoș

There has been a slow-burn edit war going on over this article, about a Romanian international, since September 2013. Like most such wars, there are long periods of inactivity interspersed with periods of total war where one side adds content to the article, only to be reverted by the other fairly quickly. The issue concerns his ethnic origin and whether or not he has any Hungarian background and could have been selected to play for Hungary. User:Thehoboclown first added the content claiming that Gardoș is of Hungarian descent in September 2013 while a variety of users, including User:Nix2ro (who is no longer active), but mostly an unregistered user whose IP address changes daily (most recently User:2A02:2F08:82CF:FFFF:0:0:4F71:D3C1) then remove the content with edit summaries, such as "Bring his statement or from a member of his family! Not a Romanian article who was taken from your newspapers!", "Typical Hungarian manipulation, Prosport took it from their press, Gardoș might be a Romanian name easily, Raț isn't Racz, we have diacritics in Romanian", "There never were any talks of Florin playing for Hungary, that is a personal opinion, it does not belong on Wikipedia", "he is not Hungarian, his parents have Romanian names and he does not speak Hungarian at all. it is pure invention in the Hungarian press" and so on. The version preferred by Thehoboclown seems to be supported by proper citations and extracts from Hungarian websites (which I assume are properly translated). Does anyone have any advice or comments? Bikeroo (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it should be considered as edit-warring, at least not from my side. Reverting obvious vandalism – such as page or paragraph blanking without giving a valid reasoning – is not edit-warring in my opinion. I've added the info using leading Romanian sports sites (not Hungarian as stated above), and provided translation to English to avoid any possible problem. (Feel free to ask a Romanian speaker to confirm my translation or ask me if need any further details on these.)

Still, despite all my efforts, throw away accounts and IP hoppers appear time to time, removing this paragraph, giving rather blatant off-topic, unrelated and OR edit summaries, as can be seen in Bikeroo's collection. Thehoboclown (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

He is of Hungarian descent, speaks the language and was considered for a Hungarian call-up, all sourced, all within WP:BLP. No mention of ethnicity or heritage in the lead, which is against BLP, so I cant see a problem with it, but I personally would try some how to trim the section down, not info wise, just word wise. Murry1975 (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually second read I will remove the language bit, it is not helping anything. Murry1975 (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have copied this thread to the article talk page. Bikeroo (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox and places

Hi,

I am having a minor dispute with a user regarding how to add places in infobox. While I want Kitchener, Canada (city,country) he insists on Kitchener, Ontario, Canada (City, territory/area, country) (diff). I thought there is some sort of rule to only have city and country? I know this article is not about football but this applies on football articles to and any help is appreciated. QED237 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No MOS/rules as far as I'm aware, and in my experience most US/Canada articles have state/province included. GiantSnowman 13:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I have yet to see an article for American, Canadian, Australian, or Indian people without the state provided. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Minimum requirements for a Club article

Query to the gallery as to what is the minimum requirements of having a club article? The reason that I'm querying is that there is a difference in opinion in club articles when a club has reemerged after bankruptcy and/or administration. In particular in Ukraine FC Arsenal Kyiv went bankrupt, removed themselves from the Ukrainian Premier League competition and now reformed under the name of FC Arsenal-Kyiv. I believe that two articles are misleading. Firstly, FC Arsenal-Kyiv is not competing in any professional leagues. If anything the should be a merge of one article so that there is a continuum of the club. This would be similar to club articles i.e. Ascoli Picchio F.C. 1898, A.C. Siena, ACF Fiorentina, Servette FC, Leeds United FC, Coventry City F.C.. The new club also in its club information has traced its history back through 1925. History in Russian. Comments are appreciated because there is another club, FC Obolon-Brovar Kyiv which also has similarities having its original existence with FC Obolon Kyiv. Comments appreciated. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. Leeds United and Coventry City are very different cases; those clubs never actually went under, and I don't think either club ever was reformed. Certainly, they never dropped down multiple divisions due solely to financial issues. The A.C. Siena article is so devoid of anything that it isn't useful for making a judgement. Servette FC don't actually appear to have folded either. For each example you cite there of a "new" club being incorporated into the existing article, I can probably find one where it wasn't; AFC Rushden & Diamonds and 1874 Northwich F.C. are two I can immediately think of. If, as the Arsenal-Kyiv article states, that club was restarted by a fan club, then these are actually the more useful comparison, as those are both so-called "phoenix clubs", whilst the likes of Fiorentina were not. However, since FC Obolon-Brovar Kyiv appears to not be a phoenix club, then perhaps it should be integrated into the elder club's article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not 100% sure of the situation here so I could be off but in terms of a club actually going under and then reforming I suppose a similar example would be to consider Rangers F.C. If, like Rangers, the new Arsenal Kyiv retain the old club's history then I think it would make sense to have the one continuous article. However, if they are seen to be a 'phoenix club' and thus a separate entity to the old club then two articles are probably required. It's also maybe one where we need to wait and see what happens with their application to rejoin the Ukranian league.Username of a generic kind (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of useful links in google if you search ""АРСЕНАЛА Киевский"" in just 2014 and newer. Most sources seem to see it as the same club revived. I though will not touch that article, depend to much on google translate :-) -Koppapa (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Heights of players

User:Gossamers has removed referenced heights of players on the grounds that the sources are not "official". These include sources such as Goal.com and Soccerbase. If the latter is not usable, when did this happen?--Egghead06 (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Whilst official sources are always going to be preferred, I'm not aware of any consensus for this sort of thing. I don't think they quite know what they mean; here they talk about the BBC and the Guardian, neither of whom are official sources. I suspect they mean reliable source, but as far as I'm aware, Goal.com and Soccerbase are both reliable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

We use reliable, third-party sources, not ones that are 'official', whatever that means. Surely the most 'official' source is the player's own website, yet if he claims he is 8ft tall are we going to believe him? GiantSnowman 19:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a list of reliable and unreliable sources for information? I know that Transfermarkt is off-limits. Are there any others that are beyond the pale? Michael Glass (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Doubt

I reverted this edit because the player signed for the new club in 2015. Is it correct? SLBedit (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The parameter (for club years) is for the time spent at the club, not which years appearances were made in. Number 57 14:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I'm being reverted. SLBedit (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Recent call-ups" section in national football team articles

Is this supposed to be the "current club" or the "club the player played for at the time of the match"? –HTD 02:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally think that it should be the current club the player plays for. The current club holds far more importance than the club they one played for. For example lets say that a player was called up when he was a free agent, but afterwards he joins a club and because of club comittments he cannot play for the national team. Obviously the present situation is more important than the past.Inter&anthro (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As these sections should have dates for the match/es for which the player was called up, then the club should be that as at the date given, then it is static and prevents incorrect information if players move around, retire, leave clubs or go on loan. Fenix down (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I'm in favor of what Fenix said. These squad templates have dates on them. That implies that any listings such as caps, goals, club and even age, are "as of the day the match was played", not "as of today". It's a blatant misrepresentation if you'd say a footballer was playing for Team X when he was playing for Team Y when they played against Foo national team in a friendly.

Either way, if common practice had dictated that we'd use the club (and caps, goals and age) as of today, I'd acquiesce. If there's no demonstration that this truly is the case, it has to be decided upon here. –HTD 18:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Aarón Ñíguez

Is the image (not) present in his article copyrighted? Even if it is, I doubt that is why User:Creed7 is removing it from the infobox, without one word. He 1 - is a die-hard Valencia fan; 2 - writes no summaries whatsoever to explain his actions.

I reinstated the picture (speaking of copyright issues, if indeed it is copyrighted, I apologize for my actions), he immediately removed it with the habitual no-summary. Inputs please (note: said user has been personally notified of this discussion). --84.90.219.128 (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I gave this some thought and the fact that he has level 1 warnings in the past and that he removed the picture not once, but twice, made me give him a warning for removing content without explanation and also inform about edit summaries. QED237 (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Clifford Aboagye

Clifford Aboagye was deleted in the past at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifford Aboagye and then speedy deleted a couple of times as a re-creation. It appears now that this player has moved up, and the reasons for deletion no longer apply. I was hoping someone who knows football could confirm if that's the case. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the RFEF match report which shows Clifford replacing Riki at 73', with a note in the edit summary that this probably meets WP:NFOOTY, in that it was a match between two La Liga clubs, but it was a Copa del Rey fixture, not a La Liga fixture. I'm a relative newbie here, so I'll let others with more expertise make the final decision. 216.81.81.85 (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC) I didn't realize I had been logged out when I made this entry since I was logged in when I added the reference. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 08:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

A cup appearance between two teams from WP:FPL leagues tends to be considered enough to pass WP:NFOOTY. It's certainly enough to mean it can't be speedied again. Wonder if there was any useful content in the deleted versions? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at the deleted versions (there are two separate ones), there was not a lot of useful content that isn't included in the more recent version. The only possible exceptions are that he was a target for "world giants" Real Madrid and Barcelona prior to signing for Udinese, and a career statistics table (and all that included was two appearances for Granada B in 2013–14). Number 57 10:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Coaching positions in infobox

Do we actually have a policy within this WikiProject that says we shouldn't include non-manager positions in the biography infobox? I find this rather irritating, especially when some managers make their way up through the coaching ladder and there's no way of reflecting this in the infobox. Also, is it okay to mention a person's current team when they are a coach at that team? See Ricardo (footballer, born 1971) for the latest example I've come across; he is currently listed as goalkeeping coach for the Japan national team, but that entry was removed from "Current team" and his coaching history because they're not full-blown managerial roles. – PeeJay 11:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What the relevant bit of the infobox documentation says, is (my highlighting):

Please do not list positions other than team manager (such as assistant or coach positions, or director of football roles where this role is not considered managerial) unless that position is a significant part of the person's career

Which in my opinion pretty well tells us that we should include coaching etc roles if those positions are a significant part of the career. It certainly doesn't tell us we can't. And absolutely we should include their current team and role: the documentation says, quite explicitly (the word "club" encompasses "team" at this parameter),

If the player now works in a non-playing role at the club, add this after the club in brackets.

Hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Counters in players' honours

Should we use a counter when a player has won, for example, many league titles (11)? SLBedit (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not. Certainly helpful to readers. -Koppapa (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have always gone by the principle "we can count to one", so wheen there is only one win there is no need for (1), but with more than one win I would use a counter for (2), (3), (4) wins and so on. QED237 (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I would only use this for anything over 3 or 4. GiantSnowman 13:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Should we keep "(3)" in Eusébio#Honours? SLBedit (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Some will say no, some will say yes. There is no definate answer. -Koppapa (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A rule should exist for this. SLBedit (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed (1) (2) (3). SLBedit (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I never use any numbers, I can count to one or three without any problems, but I can do just the same up to 10 or 11. I see that there is no consensus about the inclusion of numbers (matter of taste, only that), as there is no consensus over the inclusion of runner-up finishes (or third, in some national team tournaments) even though MEDALS are awarded. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you think about this? Should we keep all runners-up except for Primeira Liga and La Liga? I don't think a runner-up honour is relevant if the player has already won the trophy. SLBedit (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the point, my fellow user. Runner-up is not an honour in the league, ANY league. I think there is an exception for England (medals are awarded to the second place in the Football League Championship, see José Fonte), but that's it. If you see it in any player you are editing, please remove it. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• For goodness' sake. The subject of "should we include runners-up positions" has been discussed to death, and consensus is firmly that it is something that should be included; demanding (as an anonymous IP of all things) that things be removed in disregard of that consensus, when your own statement contradicts itself, is not constructive. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed bossy, not my intention. Yes, an anonymous (but standard) IP as we stand, but I was AlwaysLearning for several years, ask the trolls why I asked my account be vanished. I meant the runner-up honours in the leagues, not in other tournaments, if it has been decided now that the leagues should also be included (heck, why not the third-place also?), then I must have been missing something, and I always tried to follow those discussions at length back in the day.

I apologize for any wrongdoing on my part, but did not know that IPs could not offer ideas at a WP:FOOTY discussion (I repeat I agree with you, it does sound like I am ordering Mr. SLB to do this or that, but it was not my intention). --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

A second position in league is still a runner-up. I ask again: should we include runners-up for every final (national cup/league cup)? SLBedit (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Probably should've guessed you were AL, so my apologies on that front (then again, I remember you still signing in the "AL here" way with IPs quite often), and I got a tad carried away with my response. The question, regardless of its exact wording, is still a perennial one, and the answer has always been "yes, unless there are so many wins that they are totally redundant" - although exactly what "too many" is has never been defined formally; it's a fluid thing dependant on local consensus. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

FIFA Club World Cup

Why this article has the template of "good article" if it has never been reviewed as a GA (just only two failed candidatures to be "featured") and have currently rated as B-Class, a minor quality scale?--201.230.80.184 (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but User:Hawaiifive0 tried to make the same change to the talk page earlier today. – PeeJay 20:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Can be deleted that template or only an administrator can do it?--201.230.80.184 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

P.D. Some have included that template in the other Wikipedias... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.80.184 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done C679 15:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Unverified and/or clearly incorrect edits by User:Grandare Grande

I noticed today that Grandare Grande (talk · contribs) is introducing imaginary kits to MLS expansion articles. I checked the user's edits and I see a lot of unverified stuff in other articles. Unfortunately, they are minor or historical clubs I know little about, so I can't say how accurate they are. Please review these edits, as well as 189.71.88.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Mosmof (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Both reverted and warned. GiantSnowman 15:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Folkestone Invicta F.C.

A whole string of new editors adding content here. Please revert to last good version and tell me who, if anyone is a vandal. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:AZ squad

We have a little controversy here. Obviously when there are two (or more) players (or coaches) with the same last name, then we add the first initial to separate them. Now as you look at the AZ squad template, you can see that there are two players with the same last name. Mattias Johansson and Aron Jóhannsson. As far as adding first initials go, I reverted User:Mattias321 edit a couple times because both last names are spelt differently. One is spelt Johansson, and the other is spelt Jóhannsson with an extra N. So based on that, my question is do you guys think we should add the first initial of their name to the template? Even if their last names are spelt differently? – Michael (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose both are spoken the same way. So it's confusing. I think adding a initial does no harm here. -Koppapa (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it adds extra and perhaps required clarity. What if you are looking for one of the players but don't know if his name has an accent or not? GiantSnowman 21:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the only claim I had was that Aron's last name was spelt Johannsson. And if you guys thought that was enough to separate the two. This had nothing to do with whether or not his last name has an accent. – Michael (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No reason for adding the first initial as they are written differently. Kante4 (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Does the club disambiguate the two players by including a first initial on their shirts or in any documents? If so, then I would say disambiguation would be appropriate here. I couldn't find anything on their website in Dutch or in English to show whether they do. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Gary Kagelmacher

Can someone please lend a hand to this guy's chart of statistics? I duly removed one entry (his 2008/09 La Liga season was doubled), but screwed up box in the process.

WP appreciates the arrangement, I thank you in advance. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Already fixed by another editor. GiantSnowman 13:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Invitation for Wikipedian Interviews

Hello Wikipedians,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgrobison (talk • contribs) 21:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Luis Suárez controversies‎

Opinions on this article welcome while I consider AFD, I am inclined to say it is non-notable and a BLP issue. GiantSnowman 10:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems like massive overkill to me. Clearly these incidents are worthy of note in the players article, but this just seems completely unnecessary. Yes Suarez has been in trouble a number of times, but beyond saying he did x and was given punishment y, I really don't think there is a need to say much more. There was reasonable coverage at the time of each incident, but this is not an ongoing subject. Fenix down (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. Number 57 11:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my suspicions, now at AFD. GiantSnowman 18:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Squad Template

I am not sure if this question was being raised before, but I have tried to search with no avail, so please forgive me if this is redundant.
I am having editing dispute with a fellow Wikipedian who refused or ignored to follow up the discussion on the issue on his talk page about how are the players being qualified to be put into the Squad Template.
Squad template in question:

In this squad template, which is in a version adhering to User:DrunkenGerman's standard, cited the Bundesliga website as a source and added in several U23 team members who were merely unused substitutes in UEFA Champions League and the Bundesliga for at most two matches this term. If they were capped, it is just for at most one match coming off the bench as substitution. However, as per bvb.de, official site of Borussia Dortmund, they were still listed as U23 players.

Unused subs: Narey, Amini, Stankovic
Subs off bench: Marouka, Gyau

User:DrunkenGerman cited that "it's not that easy to draw a line between the first team and the reserve team's squad. In modern football it's just so common that players are assigned to both teams and are dispatched to a certain team regarding lastest demand or club's ideas." and "I usually assign all officially registered players (in that case all registered players for the Bundesliga) to that respective team template."

If I do not misunderstand anything, all players are registered to the team they have contract with, in this case, Borussia Dortmund, and being allocated to respective teams by the club, in this case, Borussia Dortmund or BVBII. With this in mind, that nullifies the reason that he "assigns" the "officially registered players" to the templates as all of the players are registered as BVB players.

But even putting that aside, there are BVB players from the second team who are registered for the Champions League but have not appeared in a single match this term, for instance, Marc Hornschuh.(Reference: German Wikipedia)

With the aforementioned mindset, although he does not have a squad number and he did not appear in the matchday squad, he qualifies for User:DrunkenGerman's criteria to appear in the box, which is furthermore confusing.

But putting all aside, I believe following the squad list as per BVB.de would be more accurate as in who are the first team players for Borussia Dortmund, and making the template less crammed. I am seeking your kind opinion on this issue as I am not experienced on this issue. Thanks in advance!

Apologies for making this too long. S1028 (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Rule of thumb - if they have a first-team squad number, and have been included in a first-team match-day squad, they then should be included in the template, even if they are 'youth' or 'reserve' players. GiantSnowman 09:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks for clearing my doubts! S1028 (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Soccerbase template expansion

For all its problems, Soccerbase remains the most widely-used website for UK-based player stats. For statistics tables with in-line cites, is it worth expanding {{Soccerbase}} or even creating a new {{Soccerbase season}} to make it easier to use? Let me give you an example - http://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=60997&season_id=144 would be {{soccerbase season|id=60997|name=Jake Reeves|seasonid=144|season=2014–15|accessdate=11 January 2015}} which would display as 'Games played by Jake Reeves in 2014–15 season. Soccerbase. Retrieved on 11 January 2015' - what do you think? GiantSnowman 16:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that the proposed coding is longer than the URL it will configure to. Neutral. C679 22:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

But think of a full citation without the template, much longer. GiantSnowman 13:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against it if all the complications were in the template code rather than what editors have to type in, and if the output could be formatted like the other references in the article. For instance, the accessdate: it'd always be required, so could default to the current date in dmy format, and only need be supplied if something different were needed e.g. mdy format for US subjects. The user shouldn't have to type in the meaningless 144 for 2014–15, just the season, both for ease of use and for forward compatibility: the template should generate the url from the season. So that for default usage, the user would type

{{soccerbase season|id=60997|name=Jake Reeves|season=2014–15}}

and get

Games played by Jake Reeves in 2014/2015. Soccerbase. Centurycomm. Retrieved 11 January 2015.

which is what you'd get using {{cite web}} (sorry, I'm pedantic about including publishers, even when I have to type them myself).

And if it were turned round so the season came first, which would be logical, the playername could default to the current page name, as {{Soccerbase}} already does, there'd be just the two compulsory parameters. Have them acceptable by position as well as by name, and in the minimal default case, the user would only have to type {{soccerbase season|2014–15|60997}} cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

My only concern with having '2014–15' as a parameter is the dash, lost of people would write '2014-15' and cause the template to fail. Why not have {{soccerbase season|id=60997|name=Jake Reeves|season=144|accessdate=12 January 2015}} which would display as you have suggested? GiantSnowman 21:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Because 144 isn't a season, it's a function of the current url format of the site, which may well change in the future. We need to keep it as stable as possible for the user. I agree about the dash, which is why I created a very rough example using just the start year of the season, i.e. 2014 for 2014/15. See User:Struway2/Sandbox3, and testcases at User:Struway2/Sandbox2. It takes two compulsory parameters, |season= as above, and |id=, which can be used unnamed as 1st and 2nd parameters. Also three optional named parameters: |name= isn't necessary when the template is being used on the player's own page (it picks up the player's name from PAGENAMEBASE, so copes with disambiguated names), but it'd be needed for a player list or whatever; |accessdate= defaults to current date; and |dateformat= defaults to dmy, but can take e.g. mdy or iso if those formats are what the article uses for its accessdates (see {{date}} for acceptable formats). So for the minimal default version used on the player page, the user would just type {{soccerbase season|2014|60997}} and get a cite web out with today as accessdate.

As I say, this is very rough and ready, and in no way a finished product. I'm sure others could improve the design and coding, but the principle works well enough, and the very basic input is a lot less to type than a fully formatted citation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Very good work, just a few things - 1) can we format the template so it knows that '2014-15' = #144 on the Soccerbase URL, '2013-14' = #143 etc.? 2) is the date format required? 3) should accessdate be made a 'default' parameter? 4) can the season not display as '2014-15' as opposed to '2014/15' (not correct format)? GiantSnowman 13:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Sorry, I never saw your reply.

1. it does, although the test cases didn't demonstrate it: they do now (test cases 5 and 9);
2. no: I'd guess it might be used when the article consistently uses mdy or iso for its accessdates and the accessdate parameter isn't filled in, as in test case 5;
3. it defaults to today's date: is that not a good idea?
4. "Games played by Fred Bloggs in 2005/2006" is the format used on the Soccerbase page we're linking to, and it's what people use as the ref title, because they copy it off the page. Does the MoS have a view on reformatting year ranges within ref titles?

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Struway2: - no worries, there's no rush for this. Thanks for clarifying 1-3, regarding 4 I don't honestly know if MOS states we should tweak the ref to match our style and not the website's, though I do know (as you have corrected me for it in the past!) than when a ref has a title all in capitals it should be displayed in 'normal' writing on Wikipedia... GiantSnowman 11:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Johnny Berry

The Independent gives his full name as 'John James Berry', which is how it currently stands, however this site says he is 'Reginald John Berry' and goes into detail about how he is not John James - anyone know what's going on? GiantSnowman 09:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed this whilst creating an article for Berry's younger brother Peter & note that the englandfootballonline.com site is used on Johnny Berry's page but that the name remains as "John James". I therefore brought it to GiantSnowman's attention as I thought it might well have come up before & is (IMO) possibly a sensitive issue. Library visit next couple of days...probably. Eagleash (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hugman PFA Players Records book 1998 edition gives his full name as Reginald John, so it's hardly sensational new research by englandfootballonline. Perhaps his parents decided they didn't like Reginald after all so called him John James instead, or he didn't like it and did the same... People are often known by names that differ from how their birth was originally registered, me, for one; I didn't know my registered given name wasn't what I thought it was until age 12-ish when I wondered why it was "wrong" in the register at school. But my passport has the "commonly known as" version, not the "registered at birth" version, Mr Berry's might have been the same. There are plenty of RS for "John James".

Could reword the opening sentence to reflect both versions, somehow. Reginald John "Johnny" Berry (dates), also known as John James Berry ? WP:FULLNAME might help, though I'm not sure it does. Does @PeeJay2K3: have a view from MUFC sources? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

According to "The United Alphabet" (1994) by Garth Dykes (generally considered to be the most comprehensive and accurate book about MUFC player biographies, he was John James Berry. This is corroborated by "The Official Manchester United Players' A-Z" (2013) by Iain McCartney; since it is both an official MUFC publication and written by a respected MUFC historian, I'd say it's pretty reliable. However, "The Official Encyclopedia of Manchester United" (2011) by Ross Biddiscombe uses the name Reginald John Berry; this source has the obvious advantage of being an official publication, but I can't attest to the reliability of the author or his reputation for fact-checking. That said, it does back up the info on EnglandFootballOnline, which is pretty convincing. – PeeJay 12:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he was born 'Reginald John' and it was changed to 'John James' at a later, unknown date? GiantSnowman 12:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, but we have no evidence for that (at least, not yet). In the meantime, I'd say the best solution is the one Struway proposed above. "Reginald John "Johnny" Berry, also reported as John James Berry." – PeeJay 13:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

According to 'englandonline' (again) his death was registered as Reginald J. I believe Struway's option to be the best one. Eagleash (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it can't have been legally changed, because if it had, I'd expect the death to be registered under the new name. The death registration (as much as I can see via Findmypast) shows Reginald John Berry born 1 Jun 26 death registered Sep 94 in Surrey South-western district, which covers Farnham. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes that would be correct. Eagleash (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Honours in infobox

Hey, are those only for the national teams or also club-level titles? Because i only see them added on german players (Bayern mostly, didn't look everywhere). And i think those aren't needed to be included, only ones won for the national team. Input would be welcome. Kante4 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe these are for recording medals won in Olympic and continental athletics competitions only (e.g. the Asian Games). No club or international football-specific tournament honours (e.g. World Cup, European championships) should be included in the sections in question. Number 57 19:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I see Bundesliga, DFB-Pokal and even Supercup wins there at times. Any more opinions? Kante4 (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of these is/was the same as Number57 - Olympic medals, not winning the FA Cup. GiantSnowman 17:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Good, as i agree. I think those should be used when winning something with the national team, EC (and so on), WC, Olympic. Kante4 (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree about World Cup/Euros. The template is specifically for displaying gold, silver and bronze, which is only awarded at multi-sport championships like the Olympics. 19:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

First three places are awarded at the WC and at the EC the losing SF's get the third place honour. Not that i need them to be included, but a case could be made. Kante4 (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

So, won cups/league can be removed? Kante4 (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

add Assist stats to Football Association footballer career statistic tables

Hi Wikiproject should start to add Assist stats to Football Association footballer career statistic tables. A lot of Wikipedia users like to look at statistics but some footballer tables look a bit bland because they don't score huge amount of goals but they make lots of assists such as players like Xavi Hernandez, Andres Iniesta & Cesc Fabregas. Making goals is another key side to their game. If you add their assists stats to their career statistics tables it will improve their tables. Assists are just as important as goals. This is what an assist is an assist was awarded to the player who had given the last pass to the goalscorer.

There are plenty of reliable websites that record assist stats such as: http://www.espnfc.com/ this website records assist stats. On that website to view the leader of assists in a division just click leagues highlighted in green at the top of the page then choose a league i.e English Premier League or Spanish La Liga. Then at the left of the page fifth option down go on statistics then at the top where it says performance, top scorers, top assists go on top assists. There you can see the leaders of assists. To view the leader of assists in previous seasons just click on 2014-2015 then all the previous seasons will open just click on one of them to view it.

You can also see how many assists a player has in their career stat table at the bottom of their player profile on http://www.espnfc.com/ on this site for example just go on teams at the top of the page choose the prem then go on Chelsea then click statistics then go on top assists then click on Cesc Fabaregas's name and his player profile will open. On their career statistics table at the bottom of his player profile you can see their assist total. In the table the letter A is for Assists and G is for Goals. Also to see how many assists a player has in previous years for their club just click on 2014-2015 then all the previous seasons they have played will open just click on a season.

Hope the http://www.espnfc.com/ website helps you out.--CescFabregas4CFC (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• I will continue to oppose this perennial request. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81#Assists shows the previous discussion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Seconded - sites disagree what is and is not an assist, furthermore it is WP:NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 18:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

definitely not =) unfortunately there is not a clear definition for assist and Fifa leaves it vague, so until Fifa improves their statistics ,adding assists can't be done.

Adnan (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; it's a bit of fun in fantasy leagues etc. but cannot have a place here or there'll be requests to include tackles, passes, "yardage" etc. Eagleash (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• No. every time this question has been asked (on a number of talk pages) it has been agreed by an overwhelming consensus that there is no place for assists on these pages. to quote myself "delete on sight" => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well if the question of inclusion of assists has been asked lots of times that must mean lots of people want to add assists. If the People want them then wiki should include it.--CescFabregas4CFC (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• That's not the way consensus works, at all, and that's also a pretty poor piece of logic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, see previos discussion(s). Kante4 (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't really add much to what's been said above other than to say that I am also opposed to adding assists to players' stats tables. – PeeJay 00:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Youth honours

Should youth club honours be included? See Rui Barros history page. SLBedit (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no yes/no answer, it depends what it is. Under-11s no, FA Youth Cup or your country's equivalent yes, things in between use some common sense or discuss it at the article's talk page. I don't know enough about Portuguese football to judge whether the Campeonato Nacional de Juniores is important or not. Incidentally, it might be worth adding some references to the Barros page, it appears to have external links to 4 stats pages and a blog and no inline refs at all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's the most important U-19 title but it is never added specially when player won major titles. SLBedit (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rpo.castro: Discuss before readding content as minor edits. SLBedit (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Last time this came up, a couple of months ago, probably re the same article, I said much the same thing, and no-one else said anything at all..... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Rpo.castro will continue to contradict every other article by adding those non-notable youth club honours. He is using that unconclusive discussion as an excuse to revert me. SLBedit (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Rpo.castro was reported. SLBedit (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

If youth honours are sometimes notable enough to merit addition (I completely agree with the inclusion of the FIFA U-20 World Cup and akin), then why is the creation of a youth footballer article per se forbidden? Contradiction alert on WP rules, will all due respect to the person that created it.

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that only international competitions should be added (club and national team). @Rpo.castro: you clearly don't want to discuss so I'm going to remove the U-19 domestic honour, again. SLBedit (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: So it's your opinion, it's rule despite what the others say like Struway2 or like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 90#Punctuation in intro. So if you don't get the answer you want, ask again and again until you got with it? One discussion that since September no one said anything its "inconclusive", and this can be closed in 3 days with 3 opinions? Nice job!Rpo.castro (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You also have an opinion. I'm trying to seek concensus, you are not. The discussion you linked does not clarify anything. I don't see articles listing under-19 domestic club honours because they are not notable. Your last argument is weak because it does not work that way. SLBedit (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no consensus for youth honours being omitted: that's one thing that certainly can be drawn from this and the previous discussion. So far, SLBedit has removed them from the Rui Barros six times in the past three days, of which four removals were on 17 Jan, and Rpo.castro has replaced them five times. Some people might view that as edit warring. There has been an attempt at discussion at the article's talk page. Rpo.castro referred to this and the earlier discussion, SLPedit correctly said those discussions were inconclusive but incorrectly took that as justification for removing them again.

I'm not sure what SLBedit means by "non-notable". If they mean "not enough to make a player pass the notability guideline and qualify for a WP page", as the IP editor above seems to be implying, it's not relevant. When a player passes the notability guideline, they can have a page, and then we try and inform the reader about the player's life and career. Being born in Madrid wouldn't make someone notable, nor would coming through PSG's youth academy, nor would playing in the Segunda B, but we still include those things in a player's page. And we can also include winning the U19 title, because that's part of Mr Barros' career. We don't have to, but we can. The prose of the Barros article doesn't even include mention of his playing for Porto at youth level, let alone winning the U19 league. Can't imagine why.

When this discussion was started, I went and had a look at the article. As mentioned above, it had no references at all, and the only external links were to stats databases and one blog. So I tagged it. Since then, Rpo.castro has added a couple of references, SLBedit none. The only honours sourced were and are the ones in dispute. I do wish that people spent more time improving articles, particularly BLP articles, by writing sourced content about the player's life and career.

What needs to be discussed is whether this particular honour is important enough to Mr Barros' career to be included in his honours section. He's won a fair amount at senior level, so maybe it isn't. But it can and should, in my opinion, be included in the prose. What needs to be considered in that discussion, is what will improve Wikipedia's coverage of this particular footballer's career for the benefit of the reader, not what's important to individual editors. Thank you for listening. Struway2 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I was removing the honours, not trying to add references, hence this discussion. "He's won a fair amount at senior level, so maybe it isn't." That's the point. This discussion needs input from more users since it will affect other articles. SLBedit (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed you were. Struway2 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have to say that I concur with Struway2 here. Something like the FA Youth Cup (ie, a nationwide competition competed in by major teams), or a major continental youth championship (at national or club level) is definitely noteworthy. The Ambassador Evesham League at Under-12 level though? That wouldn't be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

They are noteworthy of cause. Though like bariios, when he has won six national leagues, the "one" youth title probably is never emntioned again. A player with no or less national honours probably should list youth honours. -Koppapa (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't really agree. The Class of 92 at Manchester United are regularly mentioned as having won the FA Youth Cup in 1992 (hence where the name came from), even for someone like David Beckham or Gary Neville, who went on to win practically everything at club level over many years. That's the most obvious one I can think of, but it's far from unheard of for these competitions to be used as a citation for "the moment Player X burst onto the scene" type things. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reinstated the honour. SLBedit (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Like Struway2 said, and I've explained previously to 84.90.219.128 (I think it was him), that should be in the article. If the right place is the honours (regarding the other honours/trophies won) or in other section that I don't know.Rpo.castro (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Expertise about historic shirt numbering needed!

See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#Numbers_in_international_football and please post there. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A league results

Hi,

After this discussion there was an AFD for "2014-15 Premier League Results" with result delete (9 votes for delete and 0 for keep, while some said redirect to 2014-15 Premier League article).

Now I simply ask, is it appropiate to take for example 2013–14 A-League results and 2014–15 A-League results. The info can be found on the teams individual article and is hardly needed. I have not looked at even older season to see if there are more. QED237 (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

An AfD for those, and any similar that you may uncover, would seem to be appropriate. C679 10:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Should be deleted. Kante4 (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd bet they will go straight back in the article again then :-) By the way, injuries in the goal-scorers box mark a real problem. A good point was made on that talk page. -Koppapa (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay I will AfD then if no one else beats me to it (dont have time now). QED237 (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudz679: @Kante4: @Koppapa: Now AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 A-League results. QED237 (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Citing Error?

I recently redid the Kerala Blasters FC page and while it was in my sandbox, whenever the reference I used in the stadium section appeared it showed up as a blank when you went to see what the reference was. I was a bit worried at first so I used a different source but came with the same problem and then once I saw the problem continue I decided to just leave it and see how it looked once I added it from the sandbox to the actually Blasters FC page and now I see a cite error notice but I don't know how? Does anyone know what is happening here. Thank you so much. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I do not immediately know why the refs. did not show up in your sandbox; they have always done so for me. I think the ref error is because the reference name "stadium problem" has not been assigned to the citation you wished it to be. (At least, I cannot spot it in the "mark-up"). I suspect it is the one earlier in the same section after the sentence about India vs W. Indies cricket, but without knowing what the ref contained, or your intent, cannot be sure. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It was their at first. I got rid of it to see if anything would change and to see if I can narrow down the problem from there. Even with me stating that it is "stadium problem" it appears as a cite error. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it. – PeeJay 06:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! The page is perfect now! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability of Irish Leagues

I was wondering what leagues (outside of the two League of Ireland ones) are considered to confer notability on clubs in the Republic. I think playing in the top division of the Leinster Senior League might confer notability, But I'm not sure about any others. Thanks.YoungIreland (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@YoungIreland: Notability for football players is described in WP:NFOOTBALL and mainly to be considered a notable footballer they have to have played in a fully proffesional football league listed in WP:FPL. Currently no Irish League is listed as fully proffessional, so for a player that has only played in Irish leagues is not notable unless there is something specific that makes them pass WP:GNG. QED237 (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@YoungIreland: And now I realise you might be talking about clubs not players. For clubs there is no specific guideline but it should pass WP:GNG. In general I think clubs that has played/is playing in a proffessional league is considered notable. QED237 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@YoungIreland and Qed237: I believe WP:FOOTYN can be used to determine club notability. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

FOOTYN is only an essay, not an official policy/guideline, though it is widely established because what it says is pretty much spot-on. WP:ORG and of course WP:GNG would apply here as well. GiantSnowman 10:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Egor Filipenko

This Belarusian footballer, recently signed by Málaga, has several versions of his own name in the article due to transliteration of Belarusian and Russian I presume.

• Article title: Egor Filipenko (Russian transliteration)
• Full name in infobox: Yahor (Vsevolodavich) Filipenka (Belarusian)
• Full name in lead: Yahor (Usevaladavich) Filipenko (Bastardised transliteration of both)

Can anybody here help, or should we call in the help of an expert? '''tAD''' (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The name displayed in the infobox should match the article name, and so should the introduction name as far as possible. If the article name is 'incorrect' then a case should be made at WP:RM. GiantSnowman 13:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The truth is I don't know what the right name should be (Belarusian or Russian) '''tAD''' (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well let's look at English-language sources - 1 for Yahor against 3 for Egor (NB last link is Dutch) - so I would go with that. GiantSnowman 19:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

We have Belarus players playing in the Ukrainian Leagues and the names are always the transliterated Belarus equivalent. After all they do have their own language... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Totally missed this discussion... I'm from Belarus, so I think I know a thing or two on the subject. 1) Yes, we have Belarusian language, but pretty much no one uses it in daily life. Belarus is 95% Russian-speaking country. 2) Player's proper Belarusian name would be Yahor (Usevaladavich) Filipenka, but, since here at Wikipedia we're supposed to use the most commonly referred to name, I would leave a Russian version, Egor (Vsevolodovich) Filipenko. 3) (Re: other player from Belarus) When I create new articles for Belarusian players, I always use Russian names due to #1 and #2 (unless it helps to disambiguate from other persons). However, a lot of players on Wikipedia were created by other people who used Belarusian spelling and I don't touch their names (so that I don't accidentally end up in edit war). -BlameRuiner (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Caps for the abandoned match

Hello everyone. For the abandoned match Serbia v Albania (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying) an admin. User:GiantSnowman told me on my talk page that caps are not awarded for the abandoned matches (see discussion). Now I have some problems with some users to convince them for this issue. Lately User:Lindi29 has added caps at one of the players part of the abandoned match Serbia v Albania (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying), Taulant Xhaka, pretending that the Uefa website counts these caps (see edit). Two of the biggest sources for national teams doesn't even count this abandoned match (Taulant Xhaka | National Football Teams) (Taulant Xhaka profile - EU-Football.info) . I have discussed long with the user. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I edit with a reliable and offical source who is in charge for this matches and decides if the game counts or not,for this match he is saying that Uefa is pretending but if we see Uefa has count the game and the caps to,but he is telling the opposite and making false statement against me and the Uefa website.And we are editors we disscus this thing on the talk page and reach a consenus not being convinced by an editor who wants only to edit the page by himself and reach decision only by himself.Thank You Lindi29 (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd too go with the UEFA source here. Snowman didn't really source his claim. Also why wouldn't it count? The match was played, he had appeared a third time for Albania after the kick-off. After that it was abandoned. -Koppapa (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if attitudes have changed since the initial incident. At the time, I would have (and possibly did, I vaguely remember a discussion somewhere) with @GiantSnowman: that caps weren't being awarded. However, the Albanian Federation profile of Mr Xhaka gives him 3 caps (click on 'Totali'), one of which is in the abandoned match (click on 'Ndeshjet kombetare'). And the Serbian Federation are also counting that match in players' caps totals now: see e.g. Nemanja Matic. National-football-teams.com has always gone its own way, and I don't know anything about eu-football.info at all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't tend to always trust FA official sites, they sometimes 'award' caps when they shouldn't. Any idea what FIFA's take on the matter is? GiantSnowman 10:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The match is listed on the FIFA website, so it's a FIFA match. To be honest, I don't think it's up to us to dig. If both national associations are awarding caps, and in the absence of any clear declaration by FIFA that caps shall not be awarded, then so be it. We run the risk of OR if we start preferring the personal opinion of the editor of NFT or of whoever updates eu-football as to what caps should be awarded. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Struway2:, it's true that the match is listed on the FIFA website and as a forfeited 3–0, but there all matches doesn't have any report. If you click there at Overview this match doesn't appear, see Albania national football team / Recent results and forthcoming fixtures / 2014 to see recent matches: is vs. Denmark on 11 October and three days later on 14 October is the abandoned match vs serbia, then comes vs. France on 14 November ((compare Overview (Fifa website) with fixtures 2014 of Albania). To be more clear, its true that Fifa listed the abandoned match but did Fifa listed caps for the players. Also, the national teams sources NFT and Eu-football.info have not listed the match since this match doesn't award caps to the players which they add to their profiles (their intention). Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, the FIFA website only does reports and team-sheets for FIFA-tournament matches, which for senior teams is basically the World Cup. They don't do reports or team-sheets for confederation-tournament or friendly matches. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Struway2:, I know, but how about the Overview which doesn't appear the abandoned match Serbia v Albania and what should we do definitively, should we count caps of the abandoned match Serbia v Albania or not? Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I would count the caps, yes. Both associations have awarded caps, UEFA count it as an appearance, and FIFA list it in the results archive (you have to fill in the Time Range every time for previous years' matches). I don't see what else we can do. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

National football team results by year

I never noticed before but there are a few articles of this nature about. Netherlands seem to have quite few, for example. There are results by decade, like England, which make sense. Shouldn't these year by year articles be removed / merged?--EchetusXe 14:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

They should. Have you seen them, many different formats. And look at Netherlands national football team results. :-) What an article. -Koppapa (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Decade is sufficient, it should not be individual years - not nearly enough going on to justify that! GiantSnowman 09:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

2014–15 Football League Cup

This article's formatting is inconsistent. In its list of results, the winners are in bold while the losers aren't. However, the bracketed number of the division of the losers is sometimes bold, sometimes not.

In addition, with the semi-finals being two-legged, who is bolded? In the case of a draw like between Liverpool and Chelsea, is it nobody? With Spurs and Sheff Utd, would Spurs be in bold for the first leg, and if Sheff Utd bold if they win the second leg? And if the second leg is a draw, are Spurs bolded there because they advance to the final?

'''tAD''' (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Best thing is probably not to bold anything in two way ties. But it doesn't really matter. -Koppapa (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Detail about youth career

Is the amount of info on Ben Pearson's youth career too much? It may be disproportionate to the amount of info on his senior career, but it's all sourced and relevant, IMO. – PeeJay 12:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The content simply isn't notable. Content about youth careers, friendlies and reserve matches isn't deemed notable as it isn't fully professional. You said "if the information exists, it warrants reporting". I don't deny that the information exists, but it isn't notable information. Information could exist about Pearson going on a family holiday to Blackpool, but that isn't notable either. This information does exist, but only on manutd.com and it seems rather WP:ROUTINE. This information doesn't exist in independent third party sources. This article is massive for someone who has only made one appearance in a Fully professional league. If it weren't for this one appearance, this article would be nominated for deletion because he wouldn't be deemed notable. The only notable thing he has done so far in his career is play for Barnsley. Everything prior to this should be background information and his name, age ect. I think you've created a great article, but a lot of the content isn't notable. Regards IJA (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with IJA, the only thing notable by encyclopedic standards in their pro appearance, while everything is well written and cited, it is not criteria for an article. Murry1975 (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's adequately sourced, then who are we to say it's too much? GiantSnowman 16:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Being "too much" isn't the issue here, notability is. I think it is adequately referenced, but independent reliable third party sources are preferred. The vast bulk of references are routine club match reports from non-notable youth games. IJA (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

His youth career may not have been notable enough to make him eligible for a Wikipedia article, but it's certainly a notable part of his life and integral to the build-up to his professional debut. – PeeJay 16:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's no problem with including coverage of a player's youth career, to illustrate their development. A footballer becomes notable when they play in a fully professional league or senior international, and then we write about their whole life and career, not just the FPL/senior international bits. And that coverage is bound to be a bit disproportionate at the very start of a player's senior career.

But I do think this one's OTT: if his senior career were to be covered in such minute detail, the page size would go off the scale, and if his senior career isn't going to be covered in such minute detail, his youth career shouldn't be either. Thing is, it reads like a stats dump in sentence form: how many games he played for each MUFC youth team each season out of how many possible, how many minutes in selected games, who he came on for, who came on for him. Playing 69 minutes and being replaced by Andreas Pereira in a random Manchester Senior Cup tie against Oldham isn't that much different from the family holiday in Blackpool.

What it could usefully tell the reader is something about what position(s) he's played in, what he does in a match. The lead says he's a midfielder, which is a very moveable feast; surely someone at some time must have passed comment on what sort of midfielder he is, his style, his strengths and weaknesses... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes and I have no issue with his youth career, I think it is important and we should mention it. But what I don't think is notable is mentioning scores of youth matches, semi-notable friendly cup results and substitutions in youth matches. It is an entire section which lacks reliable, independent, third-party sources, this is most likely because there isn't any as it lacks notability.

I think it certainly needs trimming down a lot. This is an encyclopaedia, if we were to go a bit more in detail on his youth career, it would be short of a chapter in a biography in a book on him when this is meant to be an article in an encyclopaedia on him. IJA (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is excessive. There is nothing extraordinary about this player's youth career so five sentences should more than suffice rather than five paragraphs. It is common sense. I don't see the point in removing it just yet but if he is still playing professional football in five years time then it will need to go otherwise the article would either be too long or overbalanced in favour of his youth career.--EchetusXe 14:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It may not be extraordinary, but how much of a player's career is? If he's still playing professionally in five years, I'd say the next five years should be covered in a similar level of detail to that which I've already written. That would prevent any balance issues between youth and senior. – PeeJay 12:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say his international career is more notable than his youth career. He has 18 England youth caps across five different age gaps and yet his club youth career is twice the size of his international career. So the article is already unbalanced.--EchetusXe 21:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989)

Was this title chosen to distinguish it from all the other articles about matches in which Sutton United beat Coventry 2-1? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Of the five articles currently in Category:FA Cup matches, three have the year and four have the score. I say the naming format for all of these should simply be Home club X–X Away Club. GiantSnowman 20:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, and strongly so. Newcastle United 0-1 Crystal Palace could just as easily refer to the 1994 Premier League match as the 1907 FA Cup match. Likewise, Norwich City lost 1-0 at home to Luton Town in 1921, 1983, 1991, 1996, and 2013. Sure, those matches are non-notable, but that doesn't make things any less ambiguous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Article titles are meant to disambiguate from other articles; there aren't any other articles on games with the Newcastle United 0-1 Crystal Palace scoreline, are they, so the year is OTT. GiantSnowman 13:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Links to other language Wiki's

Hi, is it okay that a link is directed to another language of Wikipedia? As an example, a user made this edit, where the player, Jorge Gotor, doesnt have an article in EN-wiki but have one in ES-wiki. Should it be reverted or leave as it is? MbahGondrong (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of it being specifically against policy. The ISL is in the WP:FPL list, and he does appear to have played in that league, so it may be best to simply do a rough translation of the Spanish article here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• The only risk with that, however, is that having inter-wikilinks instead of redlinks will hinder the creation of an English-language version. GiantSnowman 12:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• He actually havent played in ISL since he is a new player, and previously he played in Iraq and Segunda B division in Spain, thus making him not notable. MbahGondrong (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• My apologies; I guess that is what happens when I trust a foreign article's stats box! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think then it should be not linked as it could hinder the making of English version if he became notable in the future. How is it done in other cases, if theres any? Havent seen this before actually. MbahGondrong (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There is Template:ill for such cases when an intewiki articles exists but no internal one: Jorge Gotor Blas for red articles, Isaac Chansa for blue articles. // Smartskaft (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Got it, thanks for the replies! MbahGondrong (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Chelsea 2–4 Bradford City

Obviously I am biased, and obviously WP:RECENT applies, but given the amount of media coverage and the language being used by many commentators/journalists this is likely to merits its own article soon. Sandbox created here - any input would be appreciated. GiantSnowman 17:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think one or two sentences at FA_Cup#Giant-killers would be enough. Level 1 loses to Level 3, i mean that happens once or twice each year in Germany. -Koppapa (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no evidence as yet that this match will acquire any more significance than many other past giant-killings. I'm old enough to remember the 1983-84 season when Man U, the reigning FA Cup holders, were knocked out by Third Division Bournemouth, but who outside Bournemouth remembers that now? Wait and see if this result starts to appear on lists of the greatest ever FA Cup shocks before giving it its own article......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The BBC as recently as 2014 [1] reported on it. Redknapp mentions it in his book a few years back. It's notable as a significant giant killing.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I remember Manchester United drawing to then-non-league Exeter 10 years ago, and I'm not from either place. Then again, I remember Birmingham taking Newcastle United to pieces and winning 5-1 in a replay during the 06/07 season... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure if this means anything but a friend of mine in Sweden says it made all the back pages there today, how many English cup games can do that? GiantSnowman 20:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it'd be notable enough for mention amidst the relative clubs historical matter (i.e. within their "seasons" if they have one) but it's otherwise really just another cup game. If the game itself was notable prior to the result - then the dramatic nature of the game would warrant additional expansion - but even then the notable nature of the event would be the game, not the result. I personally believe 2001 Germany v England football match is a little overblown by the same criteria. Koncorde (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not inclined to see this particular game as notable yet. Tier 1 versus tier 3 losses aren't exactly uncommon; although if Chelsea were still unbeaten, then this probably would be. The 5 v 1 England match is very notable though, so I can't see what your complaint is there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

So tier 1 vs tier 3 losses aren't notable, but two international teams playing each other (which they typically do every few years) and one coming out as a winner is notable? In truth - it's a notable high point for Svens biography, it's worth noting for that tournament qualification, but aside from the slightly abnormal score it's not particularly notable in and of itself other than the overblown proportion of dedication the victory received. Germany 10 years later won 4-1 in a far more notable game as part of the World Cup, and then 4-0 over Argentina. It's overblown in the context of results that matter. Also, Chelsea losing a game is not, by itself, notable. If this was the only game that they lost all season then it would still not be in and of itself particularly notable other than as a note against both Chelsea and Bradford within their respective seasons. Bear in mind - the coverage of this result has been no greater, or smaller, than any other result. This is far from the goal that saved Carlisle (Jimmy Glass) which received disproportionate levels of coverage for the context. Koncorde (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think you're somewhat misrepresenting things. England's 5-1 victory over Germany has never really stopped getting coverage; it got a boatload in 2011, and even as part of the coverage about Steven Gerrard's international retirement last year, the FA (yes, I know that's a primary source) had a whole piece dedicated to Gerrard's view of that match here. The score is far from the only notable thing; it was only the second competitive international England had beaten Germany in since 1966, for example, and it was specifically viewed as being "revenge" for the loss at the Old Wembley. Every single time England face Germany, the match is mentioned again, often in the same breath as the World Cup Final. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting, I'm stating quote clearly that a volume of press is not equal to a quality of support. Again, context. The response to the game was overblown by the national media, the quantity of superlatives from a largely tabloid press does not make a pressing argument for notability...the absence of English press articles about our subsequent crushing defeat to Germany in a game that actually mattered is telling. For significance, Beckhams tackle on Simeone, is significantly more notable but doesn't get its own article. Koncorde (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• GiantSnowman, English football is vastly popular in Sweden. Even my local paper has an online article on Arsenal's victory against Brighton tonight. So I wouldn't call that a rarity. I think the match deserves a mention in the two club's season articles and perhaps at FA_Cup#Giant-killers as someone already suggested.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd go with "not yet". It might well become genuinely notable, but it's too soon to tell: what gets on the back pages the next day isn't indicative of continued coverage. We need more than a match report and a bit of shock horror to justify an article. Mind you, I rather fancy writing one about the 57/58 FA Cup when Darlington gave Chelsea (1955 League champions, still top flight top half) a seeing to (Chelsea thought the Darlo officials were taking the proverbial when they had tickets for a potential replay printed and brought them down to the original match at Stamford Bridge, but Darlo went 3–0 up before Chelsea pulled it back, took it to a replay at Feethams, massive absenteeism in the town, local licensing magistrates allowed a two-hour extension, and Darlo won 4–1. Tabloid press had a field day the next morning, film coverage available on British Pathé). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The last time something like this came up a bunch orf articles were deleted but Manchester United's stayed. A little bias maybe. The Bayern v Norwich was is good, though.Cptnono (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Odaine Demar

Hello football experts: I found this page in AfC space. Is this a notable player? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Colouring system for tables and national end-of-season playoff positions

I feel as though the current colouring system has an issue or two.

My first problem is that while teams listed in green are in line for spots in their continental Champions League positions, blue/purple seems to be used for secondary continental championships like the UEFA Cup (example), AFC Cup (example) and CAF Confederation Cup (example). With these colours having already been associated with continental championships, I believe that national end-of-season finals positions should be in yellow, which avoids all forms of ambiguity. Subsequently the A-League hasn't had this issue until a few days ago where the new table templates have been implemented and subsequently, QED237 has reverted the edits I've made to make the colours conform with previous seasons and has altered them to show the end-of-season finals as blue, which I feel will become confusing to readers coming directly from other articles where blue is used as an continental colour. I would like a consensus to be reached, as the A-League is one of the only leagues that contain a finals series like this.

My second issue is that I feel as though the new colours are extremely difficult to see, as they are too pale. As someone with a form of vision impairment, I find myself really struggling to see these new colours. The table and colouring system I've created below is honestly so much easier for me to read.

Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Qualification or relegation
1	A	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Qualification to 2015–16 Champions League
2	B	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3	C	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
4	D	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Qualification to 2015–16 Champions League play-off round
5	E	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Qualification to 2015–16 Continental Cup
6	F	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Qualification to 2015–16 Continental Cup play-off round
7	G	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Qualification to 2015 Finals Series
8	H	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
9	I	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Qualification to 2015–16 Continental Cup play-off round
10	J	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Qualification to 2015 Finals Series
11	K	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
12	L	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
13	M	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Qualification to 2015–16 Continental Cup qualifying round
14	N	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
15	O	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
16	P	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
17	Q	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Qualification to 2015 Relegation play-offs
18	R	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Relegation to 2015–16 Second Division
19	S	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
20	T	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

First match(es) will be played: 1 February 2015. Source:

In the above table, I've used darker colours for the Group Stage qualifiers and lighter versions of the same colours for the Play-off qualifiers. I've also added yellow for the national Finals series positions. I feel that these colours are by far the best way to deal with my own personal vision impairment and are much easier for readers to understand and follow than the current pale system. J man708 (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. In my view, the yellow and blue colour stand out and makes it harder to read. The "normally" used colours are fine as they are. Kante4 (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The idea is to make them stand out, though. That's the point. The other pale colours are way too difficult to see. J man708 (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

To add some information to this discussion the color scheme was decided with consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 90#Standard colours (colors) for season articles and the consensus was to use the colors to that table and not depending on competition. This is why {{2014–15 Football League Championship table}} has blue color for qualification playoffs (green is direct promotion) despite the fact that {{2014–15 Premier League table}} uses blue for their secondary competition UEFA Europa League. This is also the way it has always been done on all leagues I have followed so I do not know why it should be any difference for Australia why they should skip blue and only use green and yellow (as secondary color), makes no sence to me. Also note WP:COLOR for contrasts. QED237 (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Ping those being involved in table conversion @CRwikiCA: @Equineducklings: @Jkudlick: @Arbero: @Brudder Andrusha: QED237 (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I know where you're coming from in suggesting that the tables should have green used primarily, then blue for whatever is the next highest comp, then yellow. However, I feel as though it makes much more sense to have each colour correspond with a particular style of competition (for top flight competitions), just like how red always signifies relegation. Why is relegation deemed important enough to have its own colour, but not Champions League qualification? If the colours MUST be used in this order, why not use blue or yellow for relegation?

Once teams from the A-League are able to qualify for the AFC Cup (or an equivalent competition), I assume that they would be blue and yellow would inturn be used for the A-League finals series. Would the colours for the 2014-15 season be retroactively changed? J man708 (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There are two distinct issues here, first the actual colouring scheme and second what competitions should use what colours. If you have a new colour suggestion, could you format it in the four-level format of the discussion that QED linked to, so it would be easier to compare? With regard to the second point, I do not exactly understand what you are proposing, the type of competitions one can qualify for differs per competition, but Champion League is always the highest option in top flight leagues and will therefore be green. I do not know the specifics of the A-League and what the Finals Series entail, but a split line indicating this play-off status could be more appropriate or alternatively phrasing it as in 2014–15_ASB_Premiership#League_table could be the way to go, the year and federation do not need to be included unless exclusion would create ambiguity. @Qed237: For some reason I do not get your pings on this and other recent discussions, so I don't know what exactly is going on with that. CRwikiCA talk 19:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand that the types of competitions that one can qualify for differs per comp. What I'm suggesting is that instead of utilising a colouring system of which Green is used for Champions League places, followed by Blue to be used for whatever the next highest qualifiers receive, I'm suggesting that they are positioned in a way that the secondary continental club championships like the Europa League, AFC Cup and the CAF Confederation Cup solely use blue in the first divisions and that yellow is kept for tertiary comps (mainly within the national arena like finals series and stuff).

I cannot stress enough how much clearer these colours come out to me, rather than the paler colours used before. (Funnily enough, I find the original purple colour to be WAAAAAAY too dark in contrast, so I've lightened it up by returning it to a more blue-like colour of blue.

Level	Green	Blue	Yellow	Red	Black
Level 1	ACE1AF	ACE5EE	FFFFA0	FFCCCC	CCCCCC
Level 2	D0F0C0	BBEBFF	FFFFB0	FFE6E6	E6E6E6
Level 3	E8FFD8	CCF3FF	FFFFD0	FFF3F3	F3F3F3
Level 4	EFFFEF	D9FCFF	FFFFE6	FFF9F9	F9F9F9
White	White	White	White	White	White

Also, what actually annoys me a touch is the fact that @Qed237: himself has recently made changes to previous seasons of the Premier League which incorporate the blue colour for the Intertoto Cup, (while confusingly keeping a different blue for the Europa League, too) rather than a colour that is unique, such as yellow? I don't understand how I can't utilise yellow as a secondary colour (as it has apparently been voted to be a tertiary colour), however a second usage of blue is completely acceptable?

If we're stating that this competition is different to the Europa League, then surely it needs to be its own unique colour, too? If not, why not make the Champions League, Europa League/UEFA Cup and Intertoto Cup all different forms of green, seeing as they're all ran by UEFA? J man708 (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Just bumping this, in order to keep it from being archived for a little bit longer. J man708 (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been away from Wikipedia for a bit, but you proposal for the colour scheme would be acceptable to me, although I would like some input from other as well. With regard to the competitions, in my view you want to rank the importance of results within each league, because of the diversity between leagues, it is probably not feasible to have a rule set that is different than primary, secondary and tertiary type of qualification. CRwikiCA talk 17:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've utilised the Champions League Green/Continental Cup Blue/Play-off Series Yellow system when I made the table for Australia's national league, for the 1986 season. Because of this, I've kept with the yellow colour for the finals/play-off series for continuity, throughout Australia's seasons.

As for the colouring system, I really cannot stress enough how much better I find this way. I feel as though the current blue to be waaaaaaaay too dark. :( J man708 (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Struway2, Qed237, Jkudlick, and Koppapa: you have been involved in these kinds of discussions before. What is your opinion about this discussion now a different colour alternative is presented? CRwikiCA talk 19:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel this color scheme is acceptable. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Because of my non-standard vision, I don't have the feeling for the "meaning" of colours that others might have, and there are ranges of colour where I don't see the differentiation that others do. As long as the contrast between wikilink colours and the background meets accessibility standards and there's a clear line between the different wordings in the Qualif/Relegation column, it'll do for me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care. The yellow is fine also. So, no problem for me dropping blue for yellow in top league, if it's not a 2nd continental cup. I would however no start changing thousands of pages over this. But when you wanna do it for Australia, ok.-Koppapa (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

First I put both current and proposed new colors next to eachother for comparison.

Current colors

Level	Green	Blue	Yellow	Red	Black
Level 1	CCFFCC	CCCCFF	FFFFCC	FFCCCC	CCCCCC
Level 2	E6FFE6	E6E6FF	FFFFE6	FFE6E6	E6E6E6
Level 3	F3FFF3	F3F3FF	FFFFF3	FFF3F3	F3F3F3
Level 4	F9FFF9	F9F9FF	FFFFF9	FFF9F9	F9F9F9
White	White	White	White	White	White

Proposed colors

Level	Green	Blue	Yellow	Red	Black
Level 1	ACE1AF	ACE5EE	FFFFA0	FFCCCC	CCCCCC
Level 2	D0F0C0	BBEBFF	FFFFB0	FFE6E6	E6E6E6
Level 3	E8FFD8	CCF3FF	FFFFD0	FFF3F3	F3F3F3
Level 4	EFFFEF	D9FCFF	FFFFE6	FFF9F9	F9F9F9
White	White	White	White	White	White

I do not completely like the new proposed colors. First of all the hexcode seems taken almost randomly while in the current colorscheme is some thought behind with the intensity of the color being halved in every step with cc->e6->f3->f9, it is easy simple to remember and (at least to me) good looking and verified contrasts. This is also very similar to what has been used on the majority of league tables around wikipedia (apperently australia has lived their own life). Also I find it funny that you say "the blue is to dark" in the current solution, then look at the green in the proposed solution, that is way darker than the current green and should be too dark if you go by that argument. And in the proposed solution blue level1 and blue2 is way too similar, there must be a bigger difference between the two levels.

Regarding the use of yellow colors I dont see why there should be a difference in australia compared to the approx 200 other league tables that uses green-blue. Why change all those to go by australia instead? Also we can not have specific colors for each competition there are way too many competitions for that. I dont see why we cant do the same as we always has, green is the best that league can qualify or and blue is the second best instead of changing colors everywhere depending on competition. QED237 (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many have seen this, but I demonstrated two days ago to J man708 on his talk page how the 2014–15 A-League table would like, and I think this is what he meant with his previous messages above:

Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Qualification
1	Perth Glory	13	10	2	1	24	13	+11	32	Qualification to 2016 AFC Champions League group stage
2	Wellington Phoenix	14	9	1	4	28	14	+14	28	Qualification to 2015 A-League Finals series
3	Melbourne Victory	13	7	4	2	26	14	+12	25	Qualification to 2016 AFC Champions League qualifying play-off
4	Adelaide United	13	7	2	4	20	13	+7	23	Qualification to 2015 A-League Finals series
5	Sydney FC	14	4	7	3	15	15	0	19
6	Melbourne City	13	4	4	5	20	24	−4	16
7	Brisbane Roar	13	3	3	7	14	19	−5	12
8	Central Coast Mariners	14	2	6	6	12	21	−9	12
9	Newcastle Jets	14	1	5	8	12	28	−16	8
10	Western Sydney Wanderers	11	0	4	7	6	16	−10	4

Updated to match(es) played on 4 January 2015. Source: A-League
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) goal difference; 3) number of goals scored.
Notes:

Personally, me and J man like it; I think the colour is bright, especially with the yellow for the Finals series spots and the green for the play-off spot – the group stage may be a bit darker for other readers/editors, but it works to me. However, I'm not sure what any of you other fellow Wikipedians think about it, but feel free to leave your opinion on it. Arbero (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I get the CC-E6-F3-F9 idea. I didn't utilise a hexcode editor or whatever was previously used, I just went with tried and tested colours. The reason why I suggested a much darker green than blue is because that is the best possible qualification for the premier continental competition. The current system uses a blue/purple colour that is significantly more eye-catching as a shade than the green, which I don't think should be the case at all. This is why I've suggested a much lighter shade of blue. I would actually appreciate if you could help me out in creating a better table utilising this half colour step process (otherwise I'll give it a go in a few days). But I still stand by my initial idea that the blue/purple is much darker. It would almost make sense for that to be the Champions League colour, with the current green to be used for a secondary comp, simply because its progressively less eye-catching (Obviously this isn't what I'm proposing!)

@Qed237:, I'm not suggesting this just for Australia, but any other country that has/had at any point in time qualification to a Champions League, Continental Cup and National Finals/Playoffs series. The current reckoning seems to be that blue must be used for the second highest comp available to the country. By that same reasoning, if Australia were to be banned from FIFA Club comps for a few seasons, the national finals qualification spots would have to change to green, to show that as the highest competition each club can qualify for. That seems poorly thought out and hard for the average reader to understand, especially if it were something that had happened a few seasons ago, in an article with less sources and information available. (Fun Fact - Australia was actually banned from FIFA in the 1960's)

Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Qualification
1	Perth Glory	13	10	2	1	24	13	+11	32	Qualification to 2016 AFC Champions League group stage
2	Wellington Phoenix	14	9	1	4	28	14	+14	28	Qualification to 2015 A-League Finals series
3	Melbourne Victory	13	7	4	2	26	14	+12	25	Qualification to 2016 AFC Champions League qualifying play-off
4	Adelaide United	13	7	2	4	20	13	+7	23	Qualification to 2015 A-League Finals series
5	Sydney FC	14	4	7	3	15	15	0	19
6	Melbourne City	13	4	4	5	20	24	−4	16
7	Brisbane Roar	13	3	3	7	14	19	−5	12
8	Central Coast Mariners	14	2	6	6	12	21	−9	12
9	Newcastle Jets	14	1	5	8	12	28	−16	8
10	Western Sydney Wanderers	11	0	4	7	6	16	−10	4

Updated to match(es) played on 4 January 2015. Source: A-League
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) goal difference; 3) number of goals scored.
Notes:

The above is the same table that @Arbero: showed, but as it currently looks with the purple colouring. Surely I'm not the only person who thinks this colour is too dark and takes the attention away from the green, which should be the darkest, boldest and most eye-catching colour. J man708 (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am working on new colors to try and satisfy everyone, it will be some testing. To be honest I can understand the darkness of the blue/purple issue. However I still dont agree on the usage of yellow color, we cant always agree on everything unfortunately. QED237 (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

And also I must say in the table from @Arbero: I think the yellow stands out to much compared to the green color. QED237 (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

And I also see your view that blue should be utilised as a secondary colour, with yellow being a tertiary. I'm sure we'll find a compromise that works for all. Again, my big issue is continuity. The 1986 National Soccer League season had a team qualify for the Club Championship (as League Champions) and also for the Cup Winners' Cup (as winners of the NSL Cup), so I guess we can agree that Green and Blue are to be used for these comps, with Yellow as a play-off/finals series colour. I just think it would look a little stupid having the seasons before and after that containing blue rows for the finals competitors. I think we're doing really well to get a compromise happening here. :)

J man708 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the table I posted, I have to say that @Qed237: has a point. So, what other colours do any of you here have in mind then? I don't have any suggestions myself, since I'm not experienced when it comes to colours, so I'll let any of you others here have the first say. Arbero (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be a Herculean task to satisfy everybody with a colour scheme Qed237, I am looking forward to what you can come up with. Having consistency across Wikipedia is important, but that should not by itself trump article series consistency either. That being sad, it is not unambiguously clear what the best evil is this case. I would be tempted to say that perpetual colour-consistency throughout years for a league is nearly impossible when the competitions teams can qualify for are changing every few seasons. I think the first thing to do is the new colouring scheme, then the other issue might more easily fall into place. CRwikiCA talk 16:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Qed, as I thought there is no one else who wants new system but you. Old colours were very good and old boxes too. Now there is no logic and I don't know who sould I write to about it. If you really want to leave the things like they are just delete green color from boxes where countries haven't qualified yet. It is really confusing. In the past green in the box meant that country is in a knockout stage and now the colour means nothing and people have to search if there are some letter or not. Why did you change everything in a first place, everything was fine. My suggestion is - LET IT BE AS IT IS NOW but ADD THE GREEN BACKGROUND ONLY WHEN THE TEAM ADVANCED TO NEXT ROUND. User:TigerTatoo 13:56, 18 January 2015

TigerTatoo, your proposal does not unify all football tables, nor does it comply with the Manual of Style. CRwikiCA talk 15:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

TigerTatoo, your ignorance amuses me. If you fail to see the consensus I linked to initiated by another editor were all other editors supported then there is no reason for us to continue talking to you. There has been several discussion (of which I have been involved that is true) but I am far from the only one which is seen in discussions, the "voting" and alsohe fact that several users has updated articles with this new format. Do yopu really think all of this changes would have gone through if I were the only one wanting them? If you refuse to see fact there is no reason for us to keep talking and nothing good will come out of it and I will not waste my time anymore. QED237 (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You saw that most people on the discussion sites were against changing these tables, you (editors) really have to remember that you are doing it for people not for yourself, when during discussion 15 people from 20 hate new changes I think that it means that something is wrong with them and editors should think what to do to improve. I found a consensus to leave everything as it is now except the thing that gree background should appeared AFTER teams qualify not before the 1st match and would like to ask - is it possible to introduce something like this? I am sorry for my nerves, we - people who are against new system - are accustomed that when you see green it means that the country qualified so again - is there a possibility to leave everything as it is but gree color (which could be added instead of letters or with letters)? And it unifies all tables - just add color as it was in the past not from the beginning.

User:TigerTatoo 10:56, 24 January 2015

This guy gets it. The first half of his last comment sums it up perfectly for me. "..you (editors) really have to remember that you are doing it for people not for yourself..." - 100% agree. Don't make this a contest. It has to be easily understandable for the reader, not for the benefit of the editor. I would say that 99% of the editors on Wikipedia don't come onto the WikiProject pages and keep hitting refresh in order to see every vote possible.

The "consensus" you mention was voted on by THREE VOTERS (@CRwikiCA:, @Qed237:, @Jkudlick:) Two more users (@Equineducklings: and @Koppapa:) gave comments or asked questions, but did not give an answer . How is that possibly a consensus? There are thousands of Football Editors on Wikipedia and you've only listed a vote involving three editors as a "consensus".

QED237, you mentioned "Do you really think all of this changes would have gone through if I were the only one wanting them?", but it seems as though these changes have been created by three people and that is being justified to revert people's changes who discuss otherwise! - J man708 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

While we're at it, why are all the qualifiers being listed as qualifying for the "Champions League" rather than the "2014-15 Champions League"? I realise that the words "Champions League" direct to the correct year, but when did this get voted in as the norm? Can I be linked the consensus to that vote? Or was this another subtle change that was just created when the new table templates came in? - J man708 (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@J man708: You have to learn how to count and read if you only see three votes. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 91#Implementation proposal there is SIX VOTES FOR SUPPORT and zero votes for oppose and it is also only the final step in confirming consensus already formed in earlier discussions. The naming and not showing years and association has also been discussed several times and can be read at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 91#Comments. You should look through the archives and look at discussions for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 91#Implementation of Lua-module for table building. This all started at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121#Displaying a part of the table where editors looked for ways to display only parts of a table which we do at club season articles, this is easiest done by have table templates based on modules and was the starting point for a year long work of this with several users involved. QED237 (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want more information you can read at

• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121#Displaying a part of the table (Initiated the discussions which lead to use of lots of switches making it hard for editors to update tables [ see this diff] so instead a module was developed as suggested in this thread)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season/Table conversion (and corresponding talkpage, and you can see in edithistory several editor involved in updating the tables and participating in this module)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 88#League table templates, new version
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 89#English league tables
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 89#League table, qualification and relegation
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 89#Table harmonization
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 90#Standard colours (colors) for season articles
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 90#Request for comment about football tables
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 91#Implementation of Lua-module for table building (main section of discussions in my previous edit)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 91#Congratulations (someone came to complain but like module)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 91#2014-15 Football Conference (just how to solve deduction issue)

There may be more I have missed (I just to a quick look through latest archieves) but for everyone who is interested there is a lot of information to read. @J man708: and @TigerTatoo: happy reading. QED237 (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• • • So my question again: is it possibile to leave everything as it is now but add green color after someone qualify not before matches? User:TigerTatoo 17:41, 25 January 2015

I made mention of the one link you gave before, which DOES include three voters to carry a consensus. "You have to learn how to count and read if you only see three votes." Really, dude? I counted to three off of the information you gave me! I'd honestly rather have manners than be able to count. This comment in quotations is extremely unnecessary, as is the snide addition at the end of your post stating "happy reading". Straight out, this wasn't necessary. It's not helpful on the topic. @Qed237:, I made an inclusive reply to all my issues at the bottom of this section. - J man708 (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@J man708: There was a discussion to not include years, confederation, age and gender in the text for qualified/promoted/relegated text, unless it is needed to avoid ambiguity to the reader (it still links to the correct article with all those included). Phrasing those statements is one of the things that had not been discussed in as much depth as others, so any suggestion how to phrase that clearer would always be welcome. Let us not pretend it was a limited drive to incorporate these changes, as a matter of fact it was a long process with many discussions, eventually leading to the current consensus that unifies all football tables, rather than the patchwork it was before. It also solved several Manual of Style issues that existed with the old table structures. CRwikiCA talk 15:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In my life I teach children with special needs (disabled) and I really have to compare them to editors of these websides! I asked twice the same question and no one respond. Amazing because when I asked it on different webside they told me to write here so I wrote and there is a silence. As I can see you don't care about people and their thoughts you only do what is good for you. Congrats! You have just stole football sites for yourself, for your pleasures. It is sad that a few people can decide about things and many of us are silenced. Unbelivable :/ User:TigerTatoo 20:53, 26 January 2015

@TigerTatoo: In multiple locations people have asked you what kind of changes in wording you would suggest to clarify things, yet you haven't answered that question. Also note that you are now stating things deep in an old discussion, so people don't typically read it (especially when the discussion goes on below). If you have any real, concrete suggestions, then feel free to start a new thread with a concrete suggestion and without personal attacks. CRwikiCA talk 20:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

His idea is only coloring teams, when the group stage is finished. Leave the rest as it is now. -Koppapa (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Unbelivable!!!! Again as Koppapa wrote - my idea/proposition/request/question was/is - can we just add green color after team qualifies not before any match, because when it is from the beginning the box is confusing because old users are accustomed that when it is green it means it is through? User:TigerTatoo 23:30, 26 January 2015

@TigerTatoo: Well maybe, we got tired of your rant and abusive language and stopped reading majority of your commets (I know I did). Writing in "anger mode" as you do with big shouting text, insults and excessive use of exclamation marks makes people not wanting to listen and I seriously doubt you are some sort of teacher or whatever you said you were based on your writing, sounds more like a child. However as User:CRwikiCA said this discussion is way to long for new readers and people have stopped reading it as it is old and long. Now we have an other table related consensus/discussion to take care of so might I suggest taking a week or two of, calm down and lets finish the color discussion first and then open a new discussion for your proposal. This new discussion started in a neutral manner without strong wording and insult with information of how it is currently and what you propose. Also may I inform you that the module is used also for league table which has always had colors entire season and not only towards the end so "it is from the beginning the box is confusing because old users are accustomed that when it is green it means it is through" is not entirely true, you have to think about every table and the effect of changes. QED237 (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"you have to think about every table and the effect of changes" - why didn't you think about it many years ago when there were different tables and why did u change it into to league not chnage the league into the World Cup system? God, listening to this bullsh*t is so painfull :/ So I finish all kind of talking with 2 of u and will write a complaint to Wikipedia because it isn't fair that few people change everything like they want. Burocracy isn't my fairytale so I will not wait for any discussion, moreover - first you wrote "open a new discussion for your proposal" after which there are words that realization of my request isn't possible because everything has to be as you decided... Dude, start doing something with ur real life and stop thinking only about yourself and your life may be brighter and more real not only Internet philosophy. + cheap texts that I am not a teacher because GURU QED is so adult that others are like children are boooring. Hope the Wiki Project will find people who care about readers. User:TigerTatoo 01:02, 27 January 2015

@TigerTatoo: I was only trying to help so as said before please drop the agressive tone and be WP:CIVIL. As I said "might I suggest taking a week or two of, calm down and lets finish the color discussion first", it was only a suggestion. It is your right to open a new discussion whenever you want so if you want to do it now, then do so. As there also is an other discussion I fear there will not be much response (like it has not been much response from others here) which is why I suggested the wait. The reason for my "league table note" is because I believe it should be included in the new discussion as to why it is used now, before proposing the change. I was just trying to help you since this current discussion has gotten way to long and no editor not involved in it most likely stopped reading so I suggested new discussion so once again stop being so aggressive and unpolite or I fear no one will help you. QED237 (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237:, surely you can't take the moral high ground here and ask him to be WP:CIVIL, when only days earlier you yourself mentioned "You have to learn how to count and read if you only see three votes." to myself (especially when you completely ignored me bringing it up, rather than taking the initiative to perhaps make amends?) @TigerTatoo:, I get where you're coming from but generally international tables have far less clutter than club competitions. If you have a look at the 2015_Africa_Cup_of_Nations#Group_stage as opposed to the 2015_AFC_Asian_Cup#Group_stage, the bold lettering system is used until the knock out stages are underway, when they are removed as they are no longer needed due to the completion of the group stage. Unless I'm mistaken, I do believe that this is also the case with comps like the English Premier League, however I'm not 100%. If you wish, feel free to suggest an amendment to what currently takes place and whomever reads it and holds an opinion will happily share their thoughts with you on it. I do have to agree with QED, this conversation is way too long now for anyone who hasn't already been involved initially from the outset to join. - J man708 (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

New color standard

Making a separate thread for the colors to see if we can agree on something or if current consensus stands (what color to use and when will be next step).

I have made a few new suggestions below and I will explain each alternative below the color tables.

Alternative 1 Level Green Blue Yellow Red Black Level 1 CCFFCC CCCCFF FFFFCC FFCCCC CCCCCC Level 2 E6FFE6 E6E6FF FFFFE6 FFE6E6 E6E6E6 Level 3 F3FFF3 F3F3FF FFFFF3 FFF3F3 F3F3F3 Level 4 F9FFF9 F9F9FF FFFFF9 FFF9F9 F9F9F9 White White White White White White	Alternative 2 Level Green Blue Yellow Red Black Level 1 ACE1AF ACE5EE FFFFA0 FFCCCC CCCCCC Level 2 D0F0C0 BBEBFF FFFFB0 FFE6E6 E6E6E6 Level 3 E8FFD8 CCF3FF FFFFD0 FFF3F3 F3F3F3 Level 4 EFFFEF D9FCFF FFFFE6 FFF9F9 F9F9F9 White White White White White White
Alternative 3 Level Green Blue Yellow Red Black Level 1 BBF3BB BBF3FF FFFFBB FFBBBB BBBBBB Level 2 DDF9DD DDF9FF FFFFDD FFDDDD DDDDDD Level 3 EEFCEE EEFCFF FFFFEE FFEEEE EEEEEE Level 4 F6FFF6 F6FFFF FFFFF6 FFF6F6 F6F6F6 White White White White White White	Alternative 4 Level Green Blue Yellow Red Black Level 1 BBF3BB BBF3FF FFFFBB FFBBBB BBBBBB Level 2 CCF9CC CCF9FF FFFFCC FFCCCC CCCCCC Level 3 DDFCDD DDFCFF FFFFDD FFDDDD DDDDDD Level 4 EEFFEE EEFFFF FFFFEE FFEEEE EEEEEE White White White White White White
Alternative 5 Level Green Blue Yellow Red Black Level 1 99EE99 99EEFF FFFF99 FF9999 999999 Level 2 CCF6CC CCF6FF FFFFCC FFCCCC CCCCCC Level 3 E6FBE6 E6FBFF FFFFE6 FFE6E6 E6E6E6 Level 4 F3FFF3 F3FFFF FFFFF3 FFF3F3 F3F3F3 White White White White White White	Alternative 6 Level Green Blue Yellow Red Black Level 1 99EE99 99EEFF FFFF99 FF9999 999999 Level 2 B6F6B6 B6F6FF FFFFB6 FFB6B6 B6B6B6 Level 3 CCFBCC CCFBFF FFFFCC FFCCCC CCCCCC Level 4 E6FFE6 E6FFFF FFFFE6 FFE6E6 E6E6E6 White White White White White White

• Alternative 1 – Current consensus with the green (ccffcc) used on many places such as footballbox collapsible and others. Standard green. All coloring code follows a "easy to remember" pattern.
• Alternative 2 – Proposed colors above by User:J man708 with blue that is not so dark and purple, while green is darker and used in some earlier leagues (although not tournaments which is also use for the colors and Module:Sports table)
• Alternative 3 – Alternative based on alternative 1, but slightly brighter (BB instead of CC) and modifikation to make blue/purple more blue and green a little darker since that wasthought behind alternative 2.
• Alternative 4 – Almost same as alternative 3, but with a more uniform difference between color levels. In alternative 3 the biggest difference is between level 1 and level 2 (most commonly used) while this alternative have about the same difference between all levels.
• Alternative 5 – Same theory as alternative 3 and also builds on current colorscheme but is much brighter as the propesd new colors in alternative 2 was brighter than current consensus in alternative 1.
• Alternative 6 – Almost same as alternative 5, but with a more uniform difference between color levels. In alternative 5 the biggest difference is between level 1 and level 2 (most commonly used) while this alternative have about the same difference between all levels.

Examples of league tables where all these alternatives has been tested can be seen at User:Qed237/sandbox2.

Let me know what you think about these suggestions. Also note that more alternative can be tested and things can change if needed. Perhaps BB should be CC in alternative 3 and 4 to get closer to standard green? Maybe alternative 5 and 6 is to bright, but alternative 3 and 4 is to light so we should find midway between them? All comments appreciated.

I have not tested every color contrast but I think they would be okay. I know from previous discussions "wikipedia is not a crayonbox" and we should not have to bright colors, the most important is the text in column next to the table to explain what the rows mean, but it is up to everyone to decide what colors are the best.

So what do you say? QED237 (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Struway2, CRwikiCA, Jkudlick, Koppapa, J man708, and Arbero: you have been involved in discussions before so please comment. QED237 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Dude! Amazing work! These alternatives that you've put up are absolutely amazing! I think Alternative 5 is the best choice. It's easiest to see, Levels 3 and 4 are still bright enough to notice and the first two levels are bold enough to stand out. I think that one looks absolutely awesome! Alternative 4 is also very easy to see, the more that I look at it, the more I can imagine that one being utilised. Much the same as Alt 6. I really cannot thank you enough for doing this, @Qed237:! This really goes above and beyond! :D

TL;DR - Alt 5, followed by Alt 4 and Alt 6, thanks Qed237! -- J man708 (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Good work on this. To me, the Level 4 colors in #3 and #5 are almost too light to be distinguishable from white, but like J man708, I really like #4 and #6. My top three are #6, #4, #2. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Alt 4 would be my first choice followed by alt 6 if something were done to the 999999 for black level one as it seems too close to the font color. The blue levels in alt 2 do not seem to separate enough for me to really tell the difference between levels. EddieV2003 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Not bad at all. I would go in this order – alternative #4, #3 and #6. The fourth option is the most clearest for me. The #3 and #6 look decent, but the level 3 colour on the #3 looks a bit too light, as well as the level 3 colour on #6. Arbero (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arbero: level 3 color on #6 is the brightest so not sure why you think it is too light? On #3 and #5 however level 3 is a bit lighter due to the fact the we have a bigger difference between the first levels. On #4 and #6 level 3 is more color because there is less difffernce between levels (so it may be hard for readers to see differences). QED237 (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for reminding me, QED and it should brightest of course. I mixed the two words up. My mistake. Arbero (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

In my eyes Alt 4 strikes the right balance between contrast and brightness, so my vote goes to that. Good work on making this extensive comparison! CRwikiCA talk 18:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Summarizing the opinions (in order of choice):

User	Opinion
J man708	5, 4, 6
Jkudlick	6, 4, 2
EddieV2003	4, 6
Arbero	4, 3, 6
CRwikiCA	4
Asturkian	2

All multi-choice opinions include 4 (2x first, 2x second) and 6 (1x first, 1x second, 2x third), it seems that even excluding my opinion that option 4 is the favorite. No one has voted for the current alternative (number 1). For this reason I will update the module (and maybe some other football templates) to use Alt 4. If this discussion continues and a different consensus would form, I would happily change it again. CRwikiCA talk 15:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed an unwanted side effect of this - The results tables have also changed colour and look a little weird. :P

Plus, it mentions that wins are in purple, and that's most certainly light blue. Hahaha. J man708 (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@J man708: The word purple neeed to be change but it is all an effect of the change you proposed (maybe you should have thought of that). The consensus is to use level1 green for wins, level1 yellow for draw and level1 red for losses in general cases (for example look at footballbox collapsible at 2014–15 Arsenal F.C. season#Matches how weird they look) and in results boxes it is level1 red and blue for wins and level1 yellow for draw. QED237 (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@J man708: as I forgot signature QED237 (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I realise that was probably the case, but I've always thought that green would make more sense there. Hahaha. Are they stuck being blue or could another consensus be reached to change that specifically to the same green tone that is used for the Champions League spots? J man708 (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's possible to vote yet, I vote for the alternative 2. Asturkian (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@J man708: Colour in those results boxes most likely violates MOS:COLOR anyway, using Module:Sports results would solve this.CRwikiCA talk 16:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Asturkian: I added your opinion to the overview table. CRwikiCA talk 16:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the delayed reply, guys! Sorta had a few things to do here and there.

Okay, so... I know it's stupid to change my choice here, but I do honestly think that Alternative 2 is the best option. These colours were utilised not that long ago by the English Premier League (prior to the newer table templates coming into use). As much as the EPL pages have been edited to conform with this new style, there are literally thousands of older pages which don't and don't get that much web traffic. To upgrade all of these pages to conform to one set of rules would truly be as @CRwikiCA: described it a "herculean task". If we could make the current colouring system replicate the old system used, I feel that would create less ambiguity. Feel free to hate me for flip flopping on this one. :P J man708 (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@J man708: I wholeheartedly disagree with you. We should pick the best colour combination going forward, and not stick to a suboptimal standard just because one league has used that for four years. If you note, there is no full consistency going back in the EPL seasons. We should aim to have everything converted to the new style for this season and onwards, so there is as much consistency going forward. If individuals want to go back to older seasons, then that would be great. But I do not agree that things cannot be improved going forward, because no one though about it before. CRwikiCA talk 15:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Colour coding in tables

Back to the original topic mentioned! Let's disambiguate those colours! My suggestion is for Green for Continental Championships, Blue for Continental Cups, Yellow for National Finals/Play-offs series.
"My first problem is that while teams listed in green are in line for spots in their continental Champions League positions, blue/purple seems to be used for secondary continental championships like the UEFA Cup (example), AFC Cup (example) and CAF Confederation Cup (example). With these colours having already been associated with continental championships, I believe that national end-of-season finals positions should be in yellow, which avoids all forms of ambiguity..."
I still really strongly support this idea. To quote @CRwikiCA: "I do not agree that things cannot be improved going forward, because no one though about it before." There's no standard for this. No one has thought about this. Let's discuss it. =)
- J man708 (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@J man708: I am placing this discussion in a new section to keep the overview easier. @Qed237, Kante4, and Arbero: You have commented about the use of colour coding in the above discussion as well. The current consensus statement is as follows: "Green should be used for the top-level positive event (promotion, champions league, qualification, advancing to next round), blue for the second-level positive events (promotion play-offs when direct promotion exists, play-offs when direct qualification exist, secondary continental tournament), red for bottom-level negative events (relegation) and yellow for other level events (e.g. pre-1999 European football with European Cup [green], Cup Winners Cup [blue], UEFA Cup [yellow]). In addition, lower level colours should be used when teams qualify for different rounds (with lower levels corresponding to entry in lower rounds [green1 first, then green2, etc].) Black should be used when teams do not play a full season and their results are expunged or void. This consensus exists to have a uniform table appearance across Wikipedia." This is a very generic phrasing that in my opinion is very useful, note for example that Europe had three continental cups until 1999, so those cases should be fitting in the general formulation as well. The general idea is that this way of phrasing leads to three positive end-of-season events, green for the best case, blue for second best and yellow for third best regardless of the actual tournaments involved (e.g. for second tier leagues green is promotion and blue is promotion play-offs). In light of this, what exact way of phrasing the colour coding would you suggest, so it remains valid in general? If on the other hand, you are merely looking for an exception for the A-league, then that would be a different discussion altogether. CRwikiCA talk 17:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't see a reason to change anything. Green/Blue/Red is the way to go. Kante4 (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much to say either, we should just stick to the colours we decided on in the previous discussion. Arbero (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the wall of text. I've tried indenting it to make it easier to read!

I wish it were as simple as creating an exception for the A-League, believe me. Unfortunately, this cannot be the case. New Zealand is another country that utilises a finals series, with a direct birth into the O-League, unless I'm mistaken I believe that the MLS does too? Utilising blue as a colour for national finals series' is ambiguous, though... I understand that it is simple to keep with a green/blue/yellow system and I'm not suggesting a change that directly affects the major European leagues. My proposal keeps these as they are (to my knowledge there isn't a European league that has end of season finals [unless it were like Andorra or San Marino or something]). My proposal keeps with this and doesn't effect the major European pages at all, as every major European league has an entry into the Champions League (green) and three into the Europa League (blue). This would not change whatsoever. The only change I'm suggesting is that all the major national finals positions should be coloured yellow, regardless of whether blue is utilised.

A major issue that my proposal would disambiguate is with the Australian league in 1986, the Champion entered into the 1987 OFC Club Championship (green) and the 1986 NSL Cup champion entered into the 1987 OFC Cup Winners Cup (blue). The competition that year also had a finals series take place, which by all accounts should be coloured yellow. I think we can all agree that this is the case.

The current standard suggests for the 1999 season, Australia once again had a club enter the OFC Club Championship (green), with no entrant into a Continental Cup, and the national finals series (blue). This right here is the ambiguity. I feel as though it is confusing that the finalists in 1986 must be coloured yellow, yet in 1999 they must be coloured blue for the same competition.

Subsequently the 2012–13 Hong Kong First Division League, just like the 1986 Australian League page (under the current colour code) contains a Champions League spot (green), a Continental Cup spot (blue) and several finals positions (yellow). If Australian teams start entering the AFC Cup in the near future, or the ASEAN Super League, then these qualifiers will be shown in blue and will subsequently push the finals colours back down to yellow. This is all too difficult to keep track of, in my opinion. Creating a rule wherein national finalist (who don't qualify for higher tournaments) appear in their a colour of their own to me makes complete sense. I'm not suggesting this has to be yellow. The only reason why I utilised yellow for the A-League is because I knew that blue has had prior use and thus, should be reserved for usage for a higher competition. - J man708 (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@J man708: Your argument is based on top-level leagues only. The thing is, that the current description also works perfectly fine for national team tables and lower divisions. You reference the MLS, for which the tables were set-up by @Jkudlick:. Although there are a limited number of countries that have a knockout phase to determine the champion, a lot of other countries have some kind of play-off structure to determine entrants to continental football and/or promotion/relegation. As far as you comments, you do not seem to care about the actual colour, but be interested in reducing ambiguity (especially for the A-league). The real question then becomes what is less ambiguous: a) having colours actually refer to how "valuable" a place is relatively compared to all tables, or b) giving colours are particular meaning for first-level leagues (but not consistent with national team tables and lower division tables). Because of the text, readers can see what a team places for, so I don't think having second-tier continental cups in blue on some pages and national finals series blue on other articles would lead to a lot of confusion. Whether a missing blue colour would lead to confusion I cannot claim either. I do, however, think that having one clear standard for all tables is preferential to a different guideline depending on the level of the league. Fact of the matter is that what positions qualify for what varies a lot, both from country to country as within league from year to year. What would for example happen if the A-league discontinues the finals series and enters clubs into three different international tournaments? CRwikiCA talk 18:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, but I don't believe that this is a one-size-fits-all system. Here's my proof that it's not.

Why is it that red MUST be utilised for relegation spots in both the English Premier League and the Wessex Football League and yet something as high up as a Continental Cup cannot get its own colour? I assume the answer is that it's the highest league that they can qualify for? (I'm not at all questioning relegation being red, btw)

Right, how about this? In 2012, Sanfreece Hiroshima directly qualified for the FIFA Club World Cup by being champions of the host country. Shouldn't this then be in green, with the other Champions League qualifiers in blue? What about the 2012-13 Moroccan League? We should surely keep Raja Casablanca as green, change FAR Rabat to blue and make the two Continental Cup qualifiers yellow? The current system still maintains flaws. Having the Moroccan and Japanese leagues change colours year by year is ambiguous. As it does with the old Australian Leagues, just on a less important scale. - J man708 (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting point about the examples for Club World Cup qualification. But because the champion qualifies for two tournaments for those seasons alone, it seems right to break the colouring pattern with different seasons and indeed have green for WC/CL, blue for CL alone and yellow for the second tier cup. Then it would be immediately obvious that something funky is going on for that season. Having the green→blue→yellow order allows for greater flexibility with all the different rules than trying to have a fixed colour for a certain competition, what would you do world wide for first division leagues with fixed colours from the set (club world cup, continental cup level 1 [now CL], continental cup level 2, continental cup level 3, national play-offs)? That is five options, yet mostly only three will be used at the same time. CRwikiCA talk 21:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

For competitions like the Club World Cup, simply because only one team per year qualifies directly for this via a national championship, I feel as though this is good enough to create an exception to the rule and quite possibly colour them yet another colour. I know it sounds dumb initially, but think about it. It would only be one more colour, not a series of five, as it is only one single club worldwide per year that gains this bonus entry. (I suppose if you want to be technical we could mention that they nowadays get entered into the playoff against the OFC Champion in a Qualifying Round, as opposed to where they used to enter in the group stages in earlier competitions).

Here's a run down of affected competitions, with the "host" league mentioned first:

1998 Brazilian League - Corinthians qualified for the 2000 FIFA Club World Cup Group Stage.

1999–2000 Spanish League - Deportivo La Coruna qualified for the 2001 FIFA Club World Cup Group Stage (cancelled).

No host club entered - 2005 FIFA Club World Cup

No host club entered - 2006 FIFA Club World Cup

CHANGES NOT NEEDED - 2005–06 Iranian League - Urawa Red Diamonds qualified for the Quarter Finals by winning the 2007 AFC Champions League, allowing Sepahan as Runners Up to qualify for the 2007 FIFA Club World Cup Qualification Playoff in the host spot.

CHANGES NOT NEEDED - 2006–07 Australian League - Gamba Osaka qualified for the Quarter Finals by winning the 2008 AFC Champions League, allowing Adelaide United as Runners Up to qualify for the 2008 FIFA Club World Cup Qualification Playoff in the host spot.

2008–09 UAE League - Al-Ahli qualified for the 2009 FIFA Club World Cup Qualification Playoff.

2009–10 UAE League - Al-Wahda qualified for the 2010 FIFA Club World Cup Qualification Playoff.

2011 Japanese League - Kashiwa Reysol qualified for the 2011 FIFA Club World Cup Qualification Playoff.

2012 Japanese League - Sanfrecce Hiroshima qualified for the 2012 FIFA Club World Cup Qualification Playoff.

2013 Moroccan League - Raja Casablanca qualified for the 2013 FIFA Club World Cup Qualification Playoff.

2014 Moroccan League - Moghreb Tetouan qualified for the 2014 FIFA Club World Cup Qualification Playoff.

If anything, perhaps we should dust off that old #CCFFFF purple colour that was utilsed before, for this dozen or so exceptions. I don't believe that changing the shade of purple is necessary however, as utilising a light purple colour at the very top of a league, followed by dark green, light green, then dark blue and then light blue could contrast far too weirdly. Just one special purple colour per year, in a stock standard Purple 1 shade. Ideally, I would suggest that this single unicorn-rare entry into the Club World Cup Group Stage be Purple 1, Champions League entries and promotions stay Green 1-4, Continental Cup/International District Competition (example) entries should uniformly be Blue 1-4 (and should be reserved for such competitions in seasons when they don't take place), And all tertiary competitions and national finals series should be yellow. This doesn't change a great deal, but what it does is creates a rule in an area where it is currently ambiguous. - J man708 (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No other color needed I think. Just change the text under qualification and leave the standard green. -Koppapa (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

But that doesn't change the issue at hand, nor does it answer the question about finals series being standardised in yellow? - J man708 (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

While we're at it, why are all the qualifiers being listed as qualifying for the "Champions League" rather than the "2014-15 Champions League"? I realise that the words "Champions League" direct to the correct year, but when did this get voted in as the norm, or was this another subtle change that was just created when the new table templates came in? - J man708 (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your coloredit as there is no new consensus in this discussion to use the yellow color as @CRwikiCA:, @Koppapa:, @Kante4:, @Arbero: and now me has all said there is no need to change current consensus and you are the only one to wanting the change. If you kepp changing and modifying table without consensus this will be considered disruptive edit against consensus. QED237 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@J man708: Please also read consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 91#Implementation of Lua-module for table building where 6 editors voted support and zero opposed so it is definately consensus, and it has been discussed for over a year after initially being discussed as a few of truncate tables at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121#Displaying a part of the table (in december 2013). The consensus about removing years and how to display info is read in archive 91 and the comments subsection Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 91#Comments. QED237 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I dont see why you should remove "final series" for top two teams as they obviously will play there. In that case you might as well remove it for teams 3-6 as well, it makes no sense to only show it for some teams but not the others. 15:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)QED237 (talk)

The wording (2014-15 Champions League/Champions League) I stand corrected upon, however I disagree that such a change should've been made. I think it creates more ambiguity, not less. @Qed237:, I ask you for a minute to take a step back and see it from the perspective of someone who doesn't frequent the WikiProject Football pages waiting for a new vote to be administered. Look at it perhaps from the perspective of the far greater number of people who come on and edit when their team wins a match, or when their favourite player scores his 20th goal of the season. Wikipedia has always embraced these users (you need look no further than the billions of IP edits that it has). It's designed to be just that. It's designed to be easy for readers and familiar and easy to learn from the perspective of editors. Do you see how this... These consensus based changes... Could be seen as completely ridiculous that on the matter of constructing football tables alone, three major revisions have been created upon it all in the last three months? (Qualification wording, colour systems and the templates themselves). Can you not fathom that yes, as much as these changes have been voted upon, they've been voted upon in an area surveyed by a very small portion of the editors involved in the whole greater process? Can you not see that people are going to think these changes are difficult to comprehend, as now we have leagues that aren't the English, Spanish, German or Italian leagues tables changing look on a year by year basis? Again, Wikipedia is for the readers, not for the bureaucrats. It's for ease of access of information. These continuous template changes aren't making it easier!

"If you kepp changing and modifying table without consensus this will be considered disruptive edit against consensus" - I understand this to be the case, but I've edited these pages in a way that makes it clearer. I'm not changing each individual article to make disruptive edits, nor am I altering each individual table to be a different colour. Believe it or not, as someone with vision impairment, I'm genuinely making what I see as an improvement. I feel as though you're seeing this as not being the case, however. I also feel as though we're getting off of the topic. We've reached compromise on the colours themselves. I believe that we can also reach them fairly easily here aswell. I also feel as though we're getting too off topic here discussing the logistics of the problems, and not actually reaching an agreement, so here goes.

The major issues I now see are:

• The inclusion of the Finals series as something listed as what the Champions League spot winners obtain. I know that mentioning this here can be seen to make sense, but to me it creates unneccessary clutter. I feel as though this could be listed as a small piece of text under the table itself, perhaps with a star or something else to signify this. There are tournaments wherein the Champions League spot winners also qualify for. Several of these are Arabic International Club Championships. More often than not, these are not listed, as the Champions League spots take precedence. Especially within the A-League, the teams involved in the A-League automatically qualify for the FFA Cup's Round of 32. What makes this less important than the finals series and sees one warrant a mention upon the league table and not the other?
• The colouring system for things like Champions Leagues, Continental Cups and Finals series positions being defined, rather than it being utilised on a green/blue/yellow basis. I do understand the point of view that in a season wherein CL qualification isn't possible that the Cup berth should be coloured green, I feel as though this creates a huge amount of ambiguity. I feel as though the current set up has been created with the larger European style in mind, doesn't fit what is required by the Australian, New Zealand, some Asian leagues and possibly some North/South American leagues. I'm suggesting that for leagues that utilise finals series for the clubs that yellow is to be used, regardless of whether Champions League qualification, Continental Cup qualification or anything else is available.
• A colouring system to be set up for the teams who win national championships and directly qualify for the Club World Cup. I feel if the previous dot point gets administered, this issue will far under that category.

These aren't huge changes at all, and end out affecting a very small number of articles, however I strongly feel as though this makes it a huge improvement for continuity purposes.

PS: Qed, what's your take on what I mentioned above about the Club World Cup positions? - J man708 (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@J man708: Just to reply to your points here. I created a footnote instead to indicate that CL qualifiers also participate in the Finals series, you might want to finetune the text. Here you can see one of the advantages of the Module structure, it gives editors easy access to advanced formatting options that were not available before. (And unlike the template structure, it is really hard to break the syntax in a way that ruins the appearance of the table.) I understand that the wholesale change is a big one, but the idea is to unite everything and give users access to a very powerful tool to create tables. Despite some of the minor issues you encounter, I hope as a whole that you think the Module is a big step forward into easier editing and more accessible options for table creation. Because of the scope of the changes WT:FOOTY was and still is the most appropriate place to discuss these changes. Before the implementation of this, there were different standards for league tables and group tables, this switch was a way to address all issues at once, because it seems better to have one big change rather than a lot of minor changes dragged out over many years. Many editors have responded very positively on these changes, even the quiet ones, they saw them being used and spread them far and wide. I think the footnote solution would address your first dot-point. The third point is more of a subsidiary of the second, so I will not address it for now. You second point is the most contentious, and you seem to be the only one on board with that. You created a nice scheme for first-division leagues, although not completely fool-proof. The fact of the manner is, however, that tables are also used for lower division leagues and national team competitions. How would you propose an unambiguous scheme for all these different styles of competitions? CRwikiCA talk 15:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@CRwikiCA:The Module structure I totally see the benefits of. I was initially skeptical, but have grown to see the advantages of (including the footnote structure, as you mentioned before).

Okay, the way the colour scheme could work for Second Divisions could be as follows (I'm going to use the 2013–14 Football League Championship as an example:

The same Green #1 colour to be utilised for direct promotions (Leicester and Burnley).

For teams who finish in the Championship Playoff series (Derby, QPR, Wigan and The Gulls). It would create less ambiguity if Yellow #1 were used for teams who qualify for these playoffs, however I could also see an argument for using Green #2 for these spots, as these positions are to an extent lesser versions of the Green #1 positions. (Which would you say makes more sense with this proposal?)

Blue #1 would be saved for the rare occasion wherein a Championship team wins something akin to the FA Cup or League Cup and qualifies for the Europa League by virtue of this title win. (Just out of curiosity, which colour would be utilised if this were to happen right now?)

As always, Red #1 would be used for relegation (Doncaster, Barnsley and Yeovil), with Red #2 to be used for relegation playoffs and other similar situations.

The national team competitions probably wouldn't need to be changed. This system still runs in a Green/Blue/Yellow pattern, just with some tweaks here and there to create a general rule for the club competitions. - J man708 (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@J man708: So to summarize your points you would propose the following (I am just omitting the club world cup here, because it is rare):

Type	Green	Blue	Yellow	Red	Black
National club Top flight	Champions League/Copa Libertadores Top in country green1, lighter green for earlier rounds	Second continental tournament Top in country blue1, lighter blue for earlier rounds	Tertiary continental tournament National play-offs/post-league play	Relegation and relegation play-offs Lighter colours depending on rounds	Teams does not play a full season and/or their results are expunged or void
National club Lower divisions	Direct promotion	Reserved for cup wins (qualification for continental tournament)	Promotion play-offs	Relegation and relegation play-offs Lighter colours depending on rounds	Teams does not play a full season and/or their results are expunged or void
International club	Direct to next round	Secondary result (play-off or lower tournament)	Tertiary result (play-off or lower tournament)	Relegation (if applicable)	Teams does not play a full season and/or their results are expunged or void
National teams	Direct to next round	Secondary result (e.g. play-off)	Tertiary result	Relegation (if applicable)	Teams does not play a full season and/or their results are expunged or void

Is this summary accurate? CRwikiCA talk 18:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much, dude. Yeah. Kudos @CRwikiCA: =) - J man708 (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There might be some merit in using that structure. But I have the feeling I'm leaving a scenario out with that table... CRwikiCA talk 18:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you're still thinking of a competition like the Intertoto Cup? That would come under the tertiary competition colours. :P

It looks like you've covered it all, CR - J man708 (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I will start a new thread to propose this scheme, so it's easier to follow. CRwikiCA talk 19:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Unofficial matches

Hi,

This has probably been discussed before but I cant find a good discussion. This week Sweden met Finland in a friendly match and usually these matches count in statistics, but now the teams agreed before match not to count it towards FIFA ranking and the match was an "unofficial friendly" not recognizerd by FIFA. It is not listed under Sweden matches at FIFA seen here like match a few days earlier against Cote'd'ivore was (as they never agreed on haveing match as unofficial).

Now I ask should stats from this match and similar matches count? I removed match from the players individual articles, but it got re-added from an other editor and on the Sweden national football team the stats has been re-added both on players and on stats against neighboor country Finland. In my opinion the stats dont count as the match dont count, but then we come to the issue that for players like Anders Svensson the swedish association coutn all matches including inofficial ones towards his swedish appearance record.

Just want to here opinions about this. QED237 (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mattias321: @Reckless182: have been involved in discussion at User talk:Mattias321#Räknas A-landskamper även under inofficiella landskamper? (mostly in swedish) so I ping them to this discussion. QED237 (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that a non-FIFA match should nonetheless count for a player if it's recognized as official by the respective national federation, but only if it is done explicitly. -BlameRuiner (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with BlameRuiner, if a match is recognized as official by the respective national federation it should be included. But is still think that it should be shown that it's non-FIFA. What about something like this? 1999–20030000 Sweden 0000 148 00 (21)

Footnotes

FIFA is still the official and how Swedish FA count the matches is a note in the margin for the football community. I would say footnotes, but with FIFA-matches as standard and different FA:s own counting as footnotes. // Smartskaft (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Albanian origin

We seem to have a new editor going around article inserting "of Albanian origin" on footballers. I know that editors doing this has been blocked before because of this agenda driven pushing and this new editor certainly seem to have referencing experience (possible sock?). I cant remember name however of other editors doing this. What do w think about edits like this saying "Anelka's maternal grandfather was of Albanian origin"? QED237 (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Was about to start a topic as User:Baby12359 added that Modric was of Albanian origin... (Don't get why Albanian/Macedonian people are so intent for adding stuff like that. No offense to those nations/people but curious.) Kante4 (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello there I'm Albanian and @Qed237: know me, I'm a regular editor there. This happened to us because we are such of nationalists compatriots because we have a long story, albanian descents are everywhere as you can know they are also playing for the Albania national football team, such as Mërgim Mavraj which was born in Germany but from foreign parents from Istok, Kosovo and he accepted to play for us (Albania) just for being of Albanian descent. Since Ottoman Empire which ruled the Balkan region during the 16th and 17th centuries, years 1299–1923, including also our modern day territory, Albanians mostly moved away and today they are known as Arbëreshë, are an ethnic and linguistic Albanian minority community living in southern Italy, especially the regions of Apulia, Basilicata, Molise, Calabria and Sicily, where they settled in Southern Italy in the 15th to 18th centuries AD in several waves of migrations, following the death of the Albanian national hero George Kastrioti Skanderbeg and the gradual conquest of Albania and throughout the Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman Turks. By standing here, the La Liga side Villarreal CF player Matteo Musacchio is also an Arbëresh as you can see at Personal life and his surname "translated" as "Muzaka", a surname which holds an fellow Albanian national player Gjergji "Muzaka".

As for the discussion I think it's not bad to add these "origins addition" but only not to include that at the WP:OPENPARA. Greetings, was a pleasure to share with you the history of my country which I'm proud to be. Thank you Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If a RS confirms X is of Y origin, we should mention that somewhere. However no source = no info. GiantSnowman 11:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

But what can and cannot be included in regarding origins? Like the case presented by Qed237 "Anelka's maternal grandfather was of Albanian origin"? And if we have a source for each relative until 4th or 5th generation, sould those be included?Rpo.castro (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If the content is covered by reliable sources, then yes we can report that. Most other (i.e. non-football) biographies do. GiantSnowman 13:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful if we could see the wording of the sources. The links are to Google books pages with no preview, and appear to be academic works. I'm not entirely comfortable with claims like "famous footballer Anelka is of Affrican and Albanian origin" being apparently cited to an academic work, and also (which hasn't been done in this case as far as I'm aware, but certainly has in the past) with descent or ethnicity claims being made just on the basis of the subject's or their recent ancestor's surname. Perhaps the editor might add a transcription of the relevant few sentences of the source(s), with full citation details (book title, author, chapter heading, page number(s), isbn, etc) to the various talk pages, as per WP:NONENG.

Personally, I'm not sure of the relevance to the subjects of their possibly very distant ancestors being from a particular part of the world. Anelka's maternal grandfather being Albanian would indeed be relevant, but if it's that grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather, it strikes me as undue weight. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Has now started into a small editwar at Sergio Ramos. QED237 (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Struway2's comment about "relevance" etc. - it's not, so it definitely shouldn't be in the opening paragraph. However it's more than suitable to include in an 'Early life' or 'Personal life' section, if adequately sourced by reliable sources, as applies to all BLPs! If we don't know what the sources say, and therefore can't verify the information, you are free to challenge and remove it and it should NOT be re-added as it is contentious information about a living person. GiantSnowman 16:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Could somebody please look at Sergio Ramos, he even says himself that's it's not confirmed!! Sergio Ramos Diff JMHamo (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

See this discussion. -Koppapa (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup, same bs as before. He made a sign after scoring a goal and people are like "OMG, OMG he's from our country!". Kante4 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biar122. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked as sock. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit request

I want to get Steve Zakuani to FA but te prose need another set of eyes. Is anyone particularly skilled at cleaning up sometme sloppy writing? It isn't terribly long and you would be awesome for the help.Cptnono (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As it is already a Good Article the writing should be of a good standard already. Maybe a proof reader experienced with FA articles would be helpful?--EchetusXe 21:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Input needed prior to release of new module for Template:Round[##]

I have built a new module in Lua: Module:RoundN. The intent to replace the following templates:

• {{Round16}}
• {{Round8}}
• {{Round4}}
• {{Round2}}

The main benefits of replacing the templates are A) Standardization of appearances/parameters and B) Lua code runs faster than MediaWiki template code which helps keep server costs down. I invite you all to look at the documentation page of the new module. There are new features not available in the original templates which have parameter names colored in blue on the Doc page. Since the module is not yet widely released, we can make changes to these new parameters without worrying about backwards compatibility. Also, please keep an eye out for any parameters or features in the above templates that are not covered by the module which I may have missed or any display bugs. You can begin using module on a limited number of pages to test it out. For example, you can edit {{2002_FIFA_World_Cup_knockout_stage_bracket}} and replace {{Round16| with {{#invoke:RoundN|main|columns=4| and seeing if all the overall look is the same. Round16 and Round8 should look nearly identical to the original templates, though Round4 and Round2 will look more compact than the originals. While I can certainly program it to have extra spacing, I do not see why such would be necessary. Please let me know if you disagree. All suggestions are welcome. —CodeHydro 15:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the fact I have IE9 on this workstation (there are IT reasons my workplace still uses IE9), but the documentation section on RD## overlaps the rest of the documentation below. I looked at {{2002 FIFA World Cup knockout stage bracket}}, and I couldn't see any differences, so visually there is no inconsistency. I'll play with it in my sandbox to really get a feel for it (and I'll look at the documentation using a real browser). — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Apparently IE9 and below ignores CSS overflow when position is set to absolute... I'll on it in a bit. Right now I have another project —CodeHydro 14:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Jkudlick: I think I've come up with a workaround. How does the doc page look now? Do the RD headings look right? —CodeHydro 01:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Everything looks good now. I like how you kept the data pattern the same as the old template for maximum compatibility and ease of conversion. Kudos! — Jkudlick ^tc_s 07:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codehydro: I am only seeing this thread now, but it looks very good in my eyes. An initial minor point is that you should probably replace BASEPAGENAME with RoundN in the Usage part of the documentation. I am using the promotion play-offs of the 2013–14_Eerste_Divisie as an example to see how that would go (implementation test) and have several suggestions:

1. It would be wider applicable if it could also run multi-leg results (possible alternating per round, because some finals are a one-match affair when the rest of is a home-and-away knockout format)
2. The |skipmatch= works well, you still need to use empty ||| though in the module, it would be easier if that would be handled automatically by the module.
3. In some applications the format might not play all the way to a final, so it could be beneficial to be able to omit rounds on the right side of the bracket.

Overall it looks very well, I think the minor suggestions would make the module even more versatile all around. Keep up the good work! CRwikiCA talk 16:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• @CRwikiCA: Thanks for the input! I've turned your bullet points into numbers and responded accordingly:

1. Not sure what you mean by 'home-and-away'. (I don't actually know much about sports. Took on this project because nobody else volunteered). Are you saying you'd like additional score boxes in a single match??
2. Regarding the empty |||, did you know about |omit_blanks= (see doc) or are you asking for something else? Empty ||| are not skipped over by default for backwards compatibility.
3. I'm guessing you're referring to the round title box (i.e. gray thing with the word 'Final' in it)? That should be fairly easy to add, though it'll have to wait a few days because I'm in the middle of reorganizing the code to implement a new feature which may blow your sock off ;) —CodeHydro 21:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codehydro: I'll reply in order as well

1. See my implementation test for an example, also note 2013–14 UEFA Champions League#Bracket where all games except the final are two legs. Tennis (e.g. 2014 US Open – Men's Singles) has even more options. So being able to alter the number of "score boxes" would make it more generally applicable.
2. I didn't catch that one. That works. :)
3. Yes, indeed, that's what I mean.

It looks good, but doing a couple extra things would give it even more general use. I have some experience creating modules, so if you would have any technical questions, feel free to ask me. CRwikiCA talk 21:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Just postponing the auto-archive of this conversation to allow additional comments from other editors at various articles. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codehydro: I like this, great work! I have a few points.

1. As User:CRwikiCA said it would be great if two-legged-matches also could be implemented as many tournaments has that and Champions League for example uses {{CLBracket}} and it would be good to use this module completely and get rid of those templates. Soem may use 2-leg matches all the way and some dont have 2 legs in final.
2. I am not sure if this can be used at 2013–14 Campionato Sammarinese di Calcio#Play-offs which is played as Double-elimination tournament (you can look at thier own bracket here). If it can be used in that tournament it is a real bonus. As I said, I like it.
3. I think there could be a minor space between the matches, as it is today when you have text above matches it gets to tight. It is only my opinion, not sure what others think, but to have a match and the some space between that match and the text related to the next match would be great. Currently there is some speca when there is no text but with the text it gets tight. QED237 (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codehydro: I just saw that in the documentation when you have "Second round" in red I cant see the bottom of the boxes and when scrolling round get on top of round like a shadow (hard to explain). This happens in Google Chrome but not in Internet Explorer, because in chrome there is a linebreak so second is on one row and round on the other. QED237 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• @CRwikiCA and Qed237: Thanks again for you input. I don't really have time to explain, but I think the following testcases will speak for themselves:

Module_talk:RoundN/testcases/4

Module_talk:RoundN/testcases/5 (2014 US Open – Men's Singles)

Module_talk:RoundN/testcases/6 (2013–14 Campionato Sammarinese di Calcio#Play-offs)

I think I got everything you guys wanted... Is there any suggestion that I missed? I will have to update the doc later when I find the time, though if you guys figure it out from looking at these examples alone, then I'd really appreciate any help writing the doc! —CodeHydro 23:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• PS: Testcase 5 and 6 are missing info. Don't put them in articles. I did a quick pattern-replace to make testcase 5 and simply treated the first seed as the date/location param and removed the the second seed; main thing about testcase 5 is speed; Module:TeamBracket takes 1.3 seconds to process all the tables on 2014 US Open; Module:RoundN takes 0.3 seconds. And forgot to make a testcase for |final_RDs_excluded=# of columns to exclude... out of time, bye now —CodeHydro 23:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codehydro: I like your improvements and they do seem to address the issues well, I also successfully implemented it for my earlier testcase. Obviously new things inevitable come up as well. My comments are as follows:

• I don't think incorporating the seeding in this manner works, because only the first-named player can have a seed then. I am not involved in tennis articles, so I don't know how people want to resolve that a smaller or bracketed number in front or behind the player name would probably work though.
• You use the sum option to switch between two-leg and single game options and suppress the second and sum box when only one entry is given. These kinds of brackets are often updated during tournaments, so the first game has played, yet the second game is still in the future. The problem is that when a user adds only one of the two legs as result the module will automatically take it as a single game and show one box only.

Overall it is looking better and better every time, but because of the variety in potential uses, I would foresee some other bringing in some additional suggestions as well. CRwikiCA talk 19:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• @CRwikiCA: To show a sum box when the future games have not yet been played, type a non-number as a placeholder for the future score:

	date
	A	1	tbd	—
	B	1	tbd	—

I really need to find the time to document all this. Also note, RoundN will not be supporting seeds. That's TeamBracket's job (RoundN, while faster, is not intended to replace it) —CodeHydro 19:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codehydro: Great quick turnaround. I replaced the - with an em dash, because I think it's more pleasing (and in line with other things). Using place holder text works fine in my opinion. I personally don't care about seeds and if I did I wouldn't give them a table square, but include them in the name/team field. Great work! Documentation is a lady dog, but it is a need. I am backlogged with writing my own documentation as well. CRwikiCA talk 19:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codehydro: Looks good, especially with the 2014 US Open Testcase. I do have a question, and sorry if this has been answered, but... Will this version/a slightly modified version of this Template contain an area for seeds to be inputted round by round for both contestants, or will it just show the higher of the two seeds? (Nishikori's Semi Final vs Djokovic only shows Djokovic's seed, but Nishikori's Seed is shown in the Final) - J man708 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• @J man708: This module will not be supporting seeds. For seeds, use Module:TeamBracket. RoundN is intended to replace templates like Template:Round16 which never used seeds. While it's hardly a challenge to add them, my thinking is that adding a check for seeds is more of a performance drag than helpful since there is already a module that supports them. As much as I want to make accommodate every possible need, the fact is that too many features will slow down the module. Slow module = more servers resources used = more ad campaigns for donations = less pleasant wiki and slower page loads. (@CRwikiCA: more food for thought since you also mentioned seeds) —CodeHydro 16:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't use seeds, but it seems esthetically more pleasing to include them as numbers in the name field rather then as separate cell. For example one of these:

Kei Nishikori [10] 3 3 3     Marin Čilić [14] 6 6 6

Kei Nishikori10 3 3 3     Marin Čilić14 6 6 6

10 Kei Nishikori 3 3 3     14 Marin Čilić 6 6 6

That seems to be more in line with what you see one websites and tv. I don't think it is necessarily the best thing to create forks in modules, it would cause problems down the road when there is multiple competing modules with slightly different formatting etc. CRwikiCA talk 21:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I came up with an idea how to add seeds with no impact at all on processing speed.. behold {{RDseed}}:

  	10 Kei Nishikori			3	3	3
  	14 Marin Čilić			6	6	6

  It's a CSS hack that basically stuffs a div in front of the teambox, but who cares? RoundN main certainly can't tell the difference :P Performance will be sub-optimal for seed-users, but it shouldn't be horrible. (Based on my estimates, even with the extra transclusions, seeding RoundN in this manner is still faster than TeamBracket.) In any case, I think it's a fair price to pay so that this module can run at full speed for the majority of its users. —CodeHydro 01:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The two-legged option is nice. But, where did i go wrong here trying to recreate the UWCL bracket: User:Koppapa/sandbox#Bracket. Two legs except final. -Koppapa (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Koppapa: You're doing nothing wrong. I failed to anticipate empty score boxes when the +sum switch is used. I have a fix but it will take me some time to do a few tests before I put it online. Giv eme 30 minutes, tops. —CodeHydro 17:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's fixed. How would you set the unplayed final to one leg? Is that possible yet? -Koppapa (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Koppapa: I see you already figured it out in your sandbox. While adding nbsp is inelegant, it avoids the unnecessary complexity of an additional parameter. Good job! —CodeHydro 15:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codehydro: Looking at this current revision at User:Koppapa sandbox I see that there is only one match at the top match for the quarterfinals, when first match is added and second is blank. How can we do to still show second match and total? Is it possible?. QED237 (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codehydro: What if you would move the RDSeed to a module (or submodule) instead? CRwikiCA talk 15:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@CRwikiCA: RDseed actually invokes a function of RoundN and draws its default styles directly from RoundN. I thought about making it a separate module, but figured that it'd have to require('Module:RoundN') to get the styles anyhow, which would be slower than simply adding it as a function that main never calls. —CodeHydro 15:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Idea before we go into Beta

Okay folks, we're almost ready for Beta, but I need some opinions about an idea that may affect some of the live pages that use this module. (Hopefully testers have been remembering to keep a list of their Alpha pages!)

Currently, for backwards compatibility with the original templates, |bold_winner= and |omit_blanks= need to explicitly set and |3rdplace= must yes to show it for Round2/Round4 and no to hide it for Round8 and above. Yet, looking at the alpha tests so far, there doesn't appear to much nostalgia for manual bolding or empty param placeholders for skipped matches (shocking, right?).

Thus there are a couple of ways to make RoundN even easier to use. As you may know, there are shortcut functions; for example, instead of #invoke:RoundN|main|columns=3 you can use #invoke:RoundN|N8. We can:

1. Have templates that call the N# functions set |bold_winner=high and |omit_blanks=yes by default and, if |3rdplace= is omitted, set the module to automatically display or hide 3rd place depending only whether or not the parameters beyond the final contain text or are empty, respectively. Pre-module templates will continue to call main for backwards compatibility (and 3rd will continue to be hidden for Round2/4 even if they contain data when 3rdplace isn't set). This path will affect only alpha pages that use the N# functions that have not set those params explicitly.
2. Alternatively old templates will be converted to RoundN using, for example, #invoke:RoundN|quirks_mode|columns=, which would handle backwards compatibility while new templates that use main/N# function will have these new default behaviors (may be slightly more efficient in terms of processing speed as new templates won't waste time on backwards compat checks). This path will affect all alpha pages that do not explicitly set those params.

Thoughts? Love it, hate it? #1 or #2? Yes for #1 but no to auto 3rd? —CodeHydro 15:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the default value of parameters should be independent from the number of rounds. It is not okay to show third place automatically in some cases, but not in other cases. It doesn't really matter to me what the default values are, as long as they are logical and consistent. CRwikiCA talk 15:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:CRwikiCA, the default values should be consistent no matter how many rounds there are. Other then that it does not really matter that much to me, but I would not display 3rd place match automatically as in many tournaments I see it is not used (it is like deciding who is best loser). QED237 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't have Nx and the long call have different outputs. That complicates things. JUst convert the old ones. SO that would be option 2. -Koppapa (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I also agree, third places shouldn't default as "yes". It's easy enough to edit them back on, though, especially if it is listed as "no" in the template. Kudos on getting auto bolding to work for things like numbers in brackets for drawn matches with penalty shootouts. I don't think you're gonna have anyone miss manual bolding. Fuck manual bolding. - J man708 (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

NFT.com caps

If you take the example of Javier Balboa, how many caps does he have for his country, 14 or 16 (please see here http://www.national-football-teams.com/player/23180/Javier_Balboa.html)? I thought we were not supposed to count the NON-FIFA appearances, at all.

I am sorry if I missed any previous threads about this, thanks for all the possible assistance --84.90.219.128 (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

14; the other 2 are unofficial. GiantSnowman 17:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

English Championship Table - Possible Source Change?

All I do is look after the page of my team, Fulham, and that usually means hitting the "save" button with the updates as soon as the final whistle is blown (usually!). However, I have a small annoyance with Template:2014–15 Football League Championship table. The source must match up with the content, that much is clear on any page. For that reason, because the BBC is slower than a Red Bull Racing F1 car down the straights, I propose changing this source to this page from Sky Sports, which updates much quicker (by about 10 minutes) than the BBC's. Spa-Franks (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Guess there is no harm using two sources. Both allthough are only current links, with next season, they won't have the correct content anymore. See see outdated links at the previous season. A link to a page like soccerway, which links to the year, might be best. -Koppapa (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I wont oppose to that change, but User:Koppapa has a good point. If I can I try and use a source with a link that will also work for more years after the league has finished. QED237 (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Stick /2014 on the end and it will work forever. For example, this shows last year's. Spa-Franks (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

European Super League (association football)

Is not an original research to delete?--190.232.83.60 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The concept has been put forward numerous times, as stated in the article. I don't see the article as original research, just very short.--EchetusXe 23:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In the mind of European Champion Clubs' Cup fathers, was not a European Cup but a European Super League. Due to the lack of proper transports and high economic costs, the project was changed to the ECC Cup. I will improve the article with this information, once I get the book back (Noites Europeias - Uma História das Competições Europeias de Clubes (1897-2013) [European Nights - A Story about European Club Competitions (1897-2013)], ISBN 9789892041162).Rpo.castro (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Croix Iris

This French fourth-tier club pass notability an article now, they are in the last 16 of the 2014–15 Coupe de France. However, that article lists them under several names, as do reputable sources.

• Official website - I.C. Croix, Iris Club de Croix Football

• FFF profile - Croix Football Iris Club

What should we title this article? '''tAD''' (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it be titled with whatever the organization calls itself - Iris Club de Croix Football. There has been other discussion regarding titles of club articles, but I believe the consensus has been that we use the name which the organization calls itself as the article title, and other names can be used as redirects. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yakubu Aiyegbeni's age

I just saw this edit made to Yakubu Aiyegbeni and it doesn't seem right. Does anybody have another source for his age? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

FIFA and others have 1982. GiantSnowman 19:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This dates back to a story without foundation that did the rounds whilst he was at Pompey that his real age was somewhat higher than specified. The same thing has affected other African professionals over the years, notably Kanu. Grunners (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Manuel Sarabia

• Manuel Sarabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would someone please work out what to do with recent edits at the above—this edit by a single-edit user made an enormous number of changes, some of which (like changing the first name from "Manu" to "Manuel") are correct, but there is no way that many changes could be warranted. Possibly earlier edits were junk? Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: err no that edit was just vandalism, compare the article before (about a real-life, highly notable Spanish player and manager] to the article after (he has suddenly become Mexican and gained a career in MLS?! hoax alert!) GiantSnowman 08:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It certainly looked weird, thanks for fixing. It was the change from "Manu" that made me unsure, and I wondered if the edit was an attempt to correct earlier vandalism. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Overlinking

When you link a WP article once in a given storyline, if you do it again it's considered overlinking am I not correct? At least two users in Pablo Aimar say it's OK to wikilink an article again if it's at the start of a sub-section.

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Turns out you're right, though I'm not sure why you didn't just refer me to WP:OVERLINK. Starting a discussion seems wholly unnecessary. Mosmof (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, although there are exceptions but they don't apply to sections. SLBedit (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Lee Chung-Yong

Anybody know for certain whether Lee's name should have a capital "Y" or not? His page title has lower-case but the page itself is haphazardly upper & lower case. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• The answer is that it possibly should be capitalized, but reliable sources conflict. Here, the BBC use lower case. However, Crystal Palace and ESPN FC use the uppercase form. Sky Sports can't make their minds up what form to use. And FIFA don't even include the dash! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems like we should follow WP:NCKO if there's a conflict among reliable sources. Here's the relevant guideline.

Koreans variously spell two-syllable given names as a joined word or separated by a hyphen or a space, with the second syllable occasionally capitalized. If there is no personal preference, and no established English spelling, hyphenate the syllables, with only the first syllable capitalized (e.g., Hong Gil-dong).

I'd go with "Lee Chung-yong" if English sources can't agree. Mosmof (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Lower case Y seems best. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Info mix-up?

According to West Ham's official profile, Adrián (footballer) played on loan for CD Alcalá and CD Utrera. I browsed the Spanish web and found no reference of him representing said clubs, but I found a match report of March 2008 (when he supposedly was with Alcalá) with him still "put" at Real Betis B.

This brings to mind a similar incident when Adrián López Rodríguez signed for Wigan Athletic, and the club's site "presented" him as an under-21 international when he was not such, there was a confusion between him and Adrián López Álvarez.

I tried to discuss this situation with a fellow user that his a West Ham fan, received no reply so far. Any additional thoughts? Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Footballbox collapsible template, display alternatives for venues

Me and Qed237 have recently discussed the praxis regarding whether to show (Venue, City) in the Template:Football box collapsible or simply (City). From what I can see, some competition articles display (Venue, City), see for example 2014–15 FA Cup, 2014–15 Scottish Cup and 2014–15 KNVB Cup for some examples. However there are many other examples of where only (City) is displayed in both competition articles and club season articles. I believe in consistency across Wikipedia to ensure that readers are not confused so I think it would be of benefit to agree on which of these alternatives should be praxis. Thoughts on this? --Reckless182 (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

To add this difference is because in some articles city is added to |stadium= and on some other articles |location= is also used. This leads to two different situations:

1. |stadium=Emirates Stadium, London (on articles mentioned by User:Reckless182)
2. |stadium=Emirates stadium together with |location=London (on many club season articles like 2014–15 Arsenal F.C. season and some others).

On the first alternative both stadium and city is shown while on the second it is only city (with stadium shown when opening entire view). I would also like some consistency across wikipedia regarding this. Also the template documentation shows with location parameter being used which is why I personally has preferred using that parameter, why else would it exist? But as I said consistency is top priority. QED237 (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be best to show both venue and city – I've seen a few articles (like this) where only the city is listed, and it just looks pointless – you end up with a strapline of something like "Burnley 2–1 Newcastle United", then simply "Burnley" listed as the location, which is totally redundant in the vast majority of cases. Number 57 15:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with N57 that it should be both venue and city. GiantSnowman 15:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that sometimes matches are played abroad (especially international matches) so when Sweden met Finland in United Arab Emirates, both city and country was listed and when Arsenal played in US it was "Harrison, New Jersey, USA". If we were do display both stadium and location together then the info may get way to long, and city only (without country) could be too little, saying Sweden-Finland and just city name, readers may think that city is in sweden (when match played in UAE). QED237 (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

In the Arsenal example, "New Jersey" would be superfluous. But I'd rather have consistency in naming the stadiums which very occasionally results in longer descriptive name than one where we simply say "Burnley... Burnley". Number 57 21:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I know new Jersey sounds unneeded but actually I have been reverted before when doing such edits as according to some guidlines and higher level discussions American and Canadian states should be listed. QED237 (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This still leaves the question why the |location= parameter was implemented at all in the template. Was there any kind of discussion regarding this when the template was created? Personally I can see the benefit of avoiding cluttering by hiding the stadium in the collapsed box, the stadium name can still be found easily with one click. For me it seems a bit overkill to link both stadium name and city in for example a season article where you would have to display it about 15 times or more. However for the reasons of clarity and to avoid confusion I can still see why including both city and venue is preferable to some. Especially in club season articles and competitions in which there are several clubs from the same city as in Arsenal's case.--Reckless182 (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps that can just be deprecated, then the location bit won't show up (if you don't enter location, then the stadium name jumps into the uncollapsed bit at the top). Number 57 10:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57, GiantSnowman, and Reckless182: so do you think we should display "Red Bull Arena, Harrisson, New Jersey, USA" at 2014–15 Arsenal F.C. season#Pre-season and friendlies since you want both Stadium and City (and with City you also need country when played in an other country). This to me seems to long. Also in my example is says "arena" but that is not always the case, some readers may believe first info is a place and not arena name because it is together with other city info. QED237 (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear above. I was expressing my understanding for both alternatives, but I personally would prefer to display only city and hide the rest in the collapsed box. When it comes to international matches we should include country and in the case of USA and Canada the state as well (due multiple places with the same name in different states).--Reckless182 (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Reckless182: I believe you were not unclear, I was, started by writing to the other two to see their opinion on the long text and then I thought I ping you too as you were also involved in discussion. Did not mean you were preffering the stadium+city alternative. I understand both sides to, but try and bring up arguments for both sides (currently the "city"-only side).QED237 (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

In the example above, I don't see why we can't just have "Red Bull Arena, Harrisson". If the whole location has to be spelled out, I still think that's preferable to having just the name of the town. Number 57 08:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: I understand that that, but as i said above when match is played on neutral ground like for example Sweden–Finland in " Mohammed Bin Zayed Stadium, Abu Dhabi" editors may think Abu Dhabi is in Sweded because they were home team. Okay now many know where Abu Dhabi is, but I think when it is on neutral ground the country may be needed. My guess is this is why location parameter is used because then it is to much info on one row so stadium and location is split. QED237 (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As well as the fact that there are at least 16 places in the United States alone with the name Harrison. I think that exemplifies the need to include the state fairly well.--Reckless182 (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel like we're going round in circles here. Again: if we need to have it all spelled out (Stadium+City+State+Country), I think it's still better than just a city name by itself, but personally I think Stadium+City is sufficient if linked, even if there are other cities with that name. Number 57 12:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

History of Celtic

Time to divide article into sections?

This article's getting quite big and unwieldy now. I think it might be a good idea to divide it into two sections, say the first covering 1887-1994 and then the second part from 1994 (when Fergus McCann took over) to the present date. "History" articles for the top English clubs are generally in 2 or 3 parts, presumably for the same reason.

Any thoughts? ShugSty (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not. If it is too long. -Koppapa (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Abreviations

In football results sometimes there is p-p, that's postponed i know. Spmetimes there is a-a is that abondoned, awarded or something other? Specifically i am trying to find a women's league cup quarter final result. This for example has the a-a. Maybe a default win for away, since Cardiff have advanced eventually? Shekicks also use a-a often, though have a/w and h/w for away and home wins i guess. -Koppapa (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

'A-A' is likely abandoned. GiantSnowman 09:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The game was called off due to bereavement ("meanwhile Metropolitan had their fixture against Cwmbran Celtic called off due to bereavement", see 2nd paragraph). Only Cardiff Met were entered in the semi-final draw the next day[2] so Cwmbran Celtic must have withdrawn from the competition. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a reason. -Koppapa (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Category proposal

Any point to Category:Countries which have been members of multiple football confederations or Category:Countries which have changed football confederations?

Options:

• Substitute "Countries" with "National football federations"
• Substitute "Football confederations" with "FIFA confederations"

Maybe better as a list article instead of a category? Maybe not at all (hence asking the question here!)

It would only contain a small number of articles - Australia, Israel, Kazakhstan and a few others, probably fewer than 10 total. -- Chuq (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that a list is better than a category in this case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

In retrospect that makes perfect sense. Will allow an explanation of each change, etc. -- Chuq (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Chuq: If this does become a list, would Australia have an asterisk next to it, denoting the fact that it has won two different continental tournaments? Am I correct in saying that no other country has done this before? - J man708 (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:West Ham United F.C. captains

{{West Ham United F.C. captains}} - surely overkill? GiantSnowman 08:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Noted that {{Derby County F.C. captains}} is already at TFD. GiantSnowman 08:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Just found {{Leicester City F.C. captains}} and {{Bolton Wanderers F.C. captains}} and {{Newcastle United F.C. captains}} - all created by @AmorPatiturMoras:. GiantSnowman 08:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Being a team's captain just isn't that significant a thing. The position can change from game to game (I'm sure that earlier this season my team had something like five different captains in five consecutive games) and doesn't actually hold any significant responsibilities/authority. Managers are a significant part of a club's history, captains just aren't........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Right I'll take to TFD - unless @AmorPatiturMoras: can convince me otherwise? GiantSnowman 09:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There's {{Thames Ironworks F.C. captains}} too............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)