Is there any merit to edits like this? Does it add anything to a club's article to list the name of one player on the current squad........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
It should be removed first-and-foremost because it's unreferenced; and secondly because it's ridiculous. One player is not a "current squad." GiantSnowman10:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear project members, I've come to ask for your contribution in this FAC nomination. So far, it has been reviewed by two editors, so I would very much appreciate feedback from this project. Regards. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Flags again
Per this recent discussion here, I wonder if anyone supports the use of flags for managers and players (e.g. captains in the table) at 2012–13 Premier League and similar. In their roles as Premier League (or any club league) players, their status as being nationally aligned to one country or another is not important. Accordingly, one point of view may be that such flags should be removed from articles. Thoughts? Thanks, C67909:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
They should be removed with prejudice. Club captains are not representing their national sides in the Premier League, and that goes doubly for managers. Whether you'll get away with it is another matter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Results that clinched the title/promotion
Recently I have been removing a lot of instances of "on April 20 Foo Rovers gained promotion following a 2-2 draw with Foo United", but other editors, usually IPs, keep adding them back in. My reasoning is that promotion is based on a whole season's worth of results, not the outcome of one particular game, and describing the game which clinched promotion in that way (especially when it is the only thing said about the whole season, which it is in some cases) could give non-experts the impression that clubs can be promoted based only on the result of one match. I note that no article ever lists a specific result that clinched promotion for anyone in the pre-internet era. Thoughts......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I realise that the press have always reported this sort of thing. What I meant by my earlier comment was that you don't see articles on Wikipedia that say things like "in 1953 the team were promoted following a 0-0 draw with Burnley". That information is extremely hard to find for pre-internet seasons, therefore it's recentist and undue weight to report it for more recent seasons...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I disagree (but then I wouldsay that). It is mostly a matter of context and how it is worded. Obviously, hasty day of promotion additions in breathless detail are often inappropriate. But I see nothing wrong with something along the lines of "Foo Rovers secured automatic promotion on the final day of the season, after a 2–2 draw with Foo United." Oldelpaso (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
And Foo Rover's second half performance was so nervous that it nearly read, "on April 20 Foo Rovers gained promotion following a 2-3 defeat by Foo United, as Foo Vale also failed to win." Kevin McE (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I concur that highly dramatic/well remembered finishes like last season's Premier League or Carlisle's Jimmy Glass incident should definitely be mentioned, but is it really necessary to mention that Cardiff's promotion was confirmed by a 0-0 draw with Charlton three games from the end of the season? In 20 years' time will anyone remember/care......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The simple answer here is that the vast majority of anonymous help we get in this way is from fanboys, and there is no point fighting it as it happens. Let it lie until next season and then clean it up, once they've moved on to glorifying the following campaign. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Just to add my thoughts... Although the season needs to be considered as a whole one must also consider the chronological happenings in the season. Instances such as promotion, qualification for other competitions (ECL, Europa etc) are all viable the whole article as the season progress. Of course if it isn't provided with references then the entry is highly questionable and grounds for deletion. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
So, the Premiere League championship is listed at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items meaning that assuming the corresponding article has been updated, the winner of the Premiere League should be listed at ITN every year. Perhaps my experience with football has been different from reality, but it has always seemed to me like La Liga was a more major league from a global perspective or at least on equal grounds with the Premiere League. With that in mind, I was surprised that the Premiere League was listed at ITN/R while La Liga wasn't. I considered starting a discussion about adding La Liga, but I thought I'd come here and ask some people who know far more than me about the importance of La Liga and whether or not it would be worth starting discussion, because I certainly wouldn't be able to make a compelling argument for adding it. RyanVesey03:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Mario Götze will be joining Bayern in the summer, so there'll be a lot of people trying to change his official club between now and the transfer window. I think this is fine after the active season is over for both clubs' competitions, although others disagree. I can even sort of understand people making that edit now, maddening and stupid as it is, given he has 6-7 games still to play for Dortmund. But listing him as a winter transfer? The mind boggles. Why not stick him on the bench at 1999 UEFA Champions League Final for good measure? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I dare say that it took you longer to craft that response than it did to roll back the edit in question. For what it's worth, the IP in question is based in India, and Winter in India stretches into April, so this is plausibly an internationalistic hiccup (compounded by the general ignorance regarding when to date transfers that we have trouble with all the time). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Well if the rules in Greece are the same as in England (as I recall/understand them), he would not have got a medal, if that's any help...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
That's what I'd imagine, and the article seems to have been majorly edited by someone who appears to be a personal connection of the subject, but it would be good to have some more opinions before I remove it. Thanks, C67909:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
In my view even 0 games played would warant that. Just being in the squad, training with the team and possibly pushing them. It's also the easiest to verify inclusion criteria. -Koppapa (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Like Chris says, there is likely a rule in Greece (as in England and elsewhere) which states you must play at least X games to qualify for a winner's medal. However, that is WP:OR; we need WP:RS to WP:V. GiantSnowman17:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
OR it may be, but doesn't WP:BURDEN say that if it's not referenced, it may be removed until such a time where one can be provided? C67922:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
In many countries 1 appearance is enough, and in many also even being part of the roster is also enough, just as Koppapa said. Now, I am not sure about Greece, however assuming English exemple is unworthy for other countries as many don´t apply any minimum appearances. FkpCascais (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
For future reference, how many appearances are required to earn a winners medal in England? The Premier League website says 10 but I cannot find any information with regard to the Football League. Also, how should the honour be referenced on a players page? A link to Soccerbase showing games played that season? Cheers. T 88 R (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
It's 10 games because that's a quarter, so 12 would be the threshold in the football league. As others have said, I wouldn't at all assume that this rule applies on the contintent - in Germany all squad members get a medal, and this is much more the norm. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
There must be a valid reference somewhere. In yesterday's ManUtd - Villa game the commentator's spent a few minutes about 10 games being the threshold for getting recognition of the award. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
We should never, ever assume that because a player has met the minumim threshold of appearances then he has therefore won a medal. ONLY is WP:RS confirm it. To answer C679's earlier question - no source = no honour. GiantSnowman19:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
According to the article No one likes us, we don't care, "the image of many Millwall fans as hooligans [was] perpetuated by certain sections of the media" (italics added for emphasis). This reads like a slur towards the press and is quite pov, it's taking sides for Millwall and against the press. Is it really the job of Wikipedia to take sides? 94.209.187.34 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone please have a DOB for John Mackie, a Scottish player who played for Hull, Bradford City and Chesterfield in the 1930s? GiantSnowman18:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
1 March 1910. ref: {{cite web |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20120329032402/http://www.chesterfield-fc.co.uk/staticFiles/fd/49/0,,10435~150013,00.xls |url=http://www.chesterfield-fc.co.uk/staticFiles/fd/49/0,,10435~150013,00.xls |format=Excel spreadsheet |first=Stuart |last=Basson |title=Football League players, 1921 to 2009 |publisher=Chesterfield F.C |date=18 February 2010 |archivedate=29 March 2012}} cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have any more on this guy? I think he was a coach with Nacional Funchal in c.1989 and coached Brazil women in the 1991 Women's World Cup, but I can't find a decent source. Perhaps one of our clever Portuguese speakers can help? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know what to make of this, various sources including BBC, Telegraph and Daily Record reported on 13 June 2001 that a pub team, Stockport Town, had played a match in Prague against a club celebrating their 150th anniversary, purportedly Meteor and got a 14–1 thrashing. This immediately seems dubious, considering the world's oldest club, Notts County F.C., only celebrated its 150th anniversary in November 2012. Also RSSSF reports that the oldest club in the Czech Republic dates back to "just" 1892, a mere 109 years before the story was reported. Meteor is actually listed there as being founded in 1896 which may indicate a typo on 150 (105). However, looking in more detail, there are other things which do not tally. BBC and Daily Record reported Meteor as a professional team playing in the second tier, but no team in the league that season matches the description. Even in the third tier, RSSSF lists nothing matching Meteor. What else? Two sources also mention a second match, played against a "FC Strichlov", most likely a typo of FC Střížkov Praha, noting the club had just won the Czech second division. According to the RSSSF table linked earlier, they were playing in the third tier and finished second behind Kolin. So what is it? A hoax? Poor journalism? Does this story have a place on Wikipedia at all? Perhaps someone can shed some more light on this. Thanks, C67911:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Notts County lead clarified. As regards the news piece, I think the simple answer here is that the world was a much larger place in 2001 before literally every schoolchild in the UK was possessed of a universal instant pocket fact-checker. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Definitely not. The club can't have been 150 years old in 2001, as that would make them older than Sheffield F.C. and surely something would have been written about that. Maybe the match was celebrating the 150th anniversary of something else.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Why should we remove the information it is properly sourced and referenced? It is relevant to the article, I don't see why we shouldn't have it. Anyone have a link to the original discussion mentioned by GiantSnowman? TonyStarks (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You may not be aware but I was not the only editor to revert GiantSnowman's edits made to articles about 17 individual (women) footballers. As two other editors have asked (in addition to myself), where is the original discussion mentioned by GiantSnowman for the rationale behind the removal of these longstanding informational sections? Hmlarson (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Personally I don't like having these as separate articles. When anyone scoring 1 or 2 international goals can have his own goals article that's gonna be a mess. Remember when we had 13 articles for Pele's goals? Pele carreer goals (200-300) and so on. It's better to improve the International section within the article than to add huge stats, like who made the most assists to Christine Sinclairs carreer goals. Isn't there a website listing international goals? That would be a useful addition to the external links, not everything has to be up in wikipedia. -Koppapa (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The newest discussion was about international matches tables, despite the misleading title. I can't really see a consensus in the discussion from four years ago, I think that is one of those discussion where editors disagree without reaching a consensus. I guess we should have another discussion about this? Mentoz86 (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Another discussion is fine by me - though there is, to my mind, plenty of consensus against these kind of tables. The ones that Hmlarson has restored to a number of women articles are the very worst examples I have seen - they are over-complicated, and yet at the same time incomplete (only using goals from World Cup or Olympics) and they therefore serve little-to-no-purpose, as well as violating WP:NOTSTATS. if you are to have an international goals table, then they should be incredibly simple, something along the lines of this or similar which is found in many articles, and which I grudgingly accept. Hmlarson and other editors who concentrate on women's football seem to believe those articles are subject to a different MOS or rules, which is simply not the case. The tables also rely on a far-too-complicated key, which is underdiscussion at TFD. GiantSnowman11:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Recently, a standalone list of around 150 international goals (by Abby Wambach) was kept as no consensus to delete in an AFD. Whether it wanted to or not, the AFD set two precedents as far as I can tell... (1) international goals are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (2) standalone lists of goals are just are not objectionable to the community, assuming they meet WP:SAL. I don't think we should be removing international goal lists or lists within articles, based on this recently decided consensus. Consensus can change, but this consensus was reached less than a fortnight ago... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't really mind either way, but the format of the tables in articles like Bettina Wiegmann are awful to say the least, and should be deleted just because of how plain dreadful they are. Who on earth came up with that format??? Number5712:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, some of the formatting is undesirable but that's no real reason to delete all of the facts. I'll happily tidy tables up, just say the word. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Quite, that's why I said "kept as no consensus to delete". It demonstrates that the community did not want to delete the list. So it shows there's a very recent consensus to "not delete" the lists.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It also demonstrates that the community did not want to "keep" the lists - there's a very recent consensus to "not keep" the lists... GiantSnowman12:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Well this is circular. The point is the list wasn't deleted, whether you want to say that means it wasn't kept or not is not important to the fact that the list still exists. And it's an extreme example, a standalone list, and a poorly formatted one. The vast majority of lists are kept within bio articles, and the majority are not as badly formatted as that one. I wouldn't want to second-guess the community but since that list still "exists", lists which aren't standalone and better formatted are "more likely" to be "kept" than not. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Number 57 - yes, that's my main issue with them as well. As I stated before, they are over-complicated and incomplete - if we agree to have international goals tables, then they should be as simple and clutter-free as possible, something like this. GiantSnowman12:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It's simple, but also incomplete according to the one reference used. It also didn't meet MOS:DTT (it does now), we need to be careful selecting articles to use as a golden standard, especially if they fall foul of one of the issues you have in the first place (i.e. completeness, or lack thereof...) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't highlight it as a golden standard, it is the last one I remember poppin up on my Watchlist (the table was added by another user a few days ago) - what am I saying is that we should be aiming for that kind of table, not the style on these women articles. GiantSnowman12:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
An interesting case here - looks like a page for a fake footballer including a fake twitter account and youtube video, which has been kicking about sicne August 2012. I would appreciate if a few people looked at this to confirm/counter my suspicions! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
An American editor has correctly pointed-out that the definite article should not be used before "MLS" and stated that British newspapers that do so should be ignored and is requesting that we stop using the definite article. Discussion was started at Talk:Major League Soccer#" v. "the MLS". Please continue the discussion there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as you've threatened to continue to edit war over this on the Chivas talk page, allow me to present a similar ultimatum: if I see you warring over such a blatantly obvious case of MOSVAR again (whether on a page where it is utterly obvious that the US style should be used, such as on an MLS team's article, or on a less obvious case like a UK-centric article that mentions MLS) I'll be issuing a 48 hour block. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't threaten anything there. What I did was state that consensus should be respected, but it must first be achieved. Also, it's not MOSVAR at all. The definite article is used in both North American and British sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Five of the seven, and I stopped at seven, but could have added at least twenty more. Chris, please assume clue on my part and don't take sides until you understand the whole story.
The other editor claimed that the British sources should be discounted. I don't know why. I'll assume that it's because the league is not British, which could be a valid argument, but it's an enthymeme and so I took one conclusion. It's not an ENGVAR case Chris. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
His article says that he is Egyptian descent citing a Goal.com article. Considering that Goal is not a very reliable source in my opinion and the fact that I haven't found the information anywhere else, I was hoping a fluent Spanish speaker can help confirm or deny the information. So far I haven't been able to find anything that would suggest that he is. TonyStarks (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, in the {{fb cap player}} template is there any reason for there not been a link or hover-over tooltip on the flag icon as without this it is unusable for those with access problems. The other football templates, such as {{Efs player}} have links and tooltips. Keith D (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be a problem with {{fb flag}}, as it also occurs with {{fb mfs player}}. Once again, this is mostly due to the legacy of nested template garbage that we've suffered for years. It may be time for another drive to eliminate as many of these as possible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Greenland national football team has been moved to Greenland men's national football team. I don't see any other similar articles being moved to specify male gender, they just have a note at the top pointing to the women's article. Is there any consensus that this is how article titles should now be, or is this a bold move that should be reverted? Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm... I'm not aware of any consensus on the issue. Personally, it doesn't really bother me, but I am a bit concerned that it is a potentially controversial move that should be done to all or none of the relevant articles and therefore one for which consensus should be established here before any "bold moves" are made. Fenix down (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted all the moves with the comment that as they are moving articles from a standard naming format, they should be using the WP:RM process. Number5708:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It's a format used for the US and Canada national team articles - I'm not even sure they should be in that format though. GiantSnowman09:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
For most countries, I'd say there is absolutely no basis for moving them. The men's senior national team is THE "national team" when you look at FA websites, national press, fan forums, etc. The other national teams (women's, youth) are labelled accordingly. For Canada, it might be different since the game is not as popular here and the women's team is a lot more successful and gets plenty of coverage, if not more. I'm against making such a move. Whether we like ir or not, senior men's football gets all the coverage in football. TonyStarks (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The US senior teams are often referred to as the Men's National Team (MNT) and the Women's National Team (WNT). For most of the other countries the naming of the relevant teams doesn't reflect the relevant common names - adding the gender adds precise disambiguation and is hardly going to break the Wikipedia. Hack (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm weakly in favour of the status quo. What I would say is that these are not low-traffic pages, and almost all of them have a large amount of backlinks. Even if there were consensus for the 200-odd pages to be mass-moved, articles should be moved one at a time, and the cleanup done one article at a time, until we eventually get there. This would be particularly true if we went for the US solution. —WFC— FL wishlist08:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
There will come a time (maybe even not that far in the future) when we'll have to consider a mass move, but it isn't now. The women's game is sufficiently high-profile in certain territories to warrant moves on a case-by-case basis at present, but not in general. Editors who feel that a particular country would benefit from a move can use the normal RM process. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
You can't really argue with Laura's logic in moving these. But I also take the point that the "England football team" usually refers to the grotesquely overpaid, serially-underachieving manchildren, rather than the women. At the very least, I think the articles should carry the hatnote:
This new article, about a football match between Heart of Midlothian and Sunderland in April 1895 poses several questions:
Is the match notable enough to warrant a standalone article? The article refers to it as "an exhibition football match" between the English and Scottish champions. As such, does it have any more official status than any other inter-club friendly match?
Was this match really considered as a "world championship" when it was played, or has this title been conferred on it subsequently? The article on the London Hearts website refers to it as the "Unofficial World Championship", whereas the StatCat (Sunderland) website calls it a "Friendly match" between "the newly crowned champions of England and Scotland". A newspaper report from the time simply calls it "the meeting of the English and Scottish League Champions". The only article I can find that confers the title World Championship is a Sunderland fansite.
If the match is sufficiently notable, then what name should the article have? Surely, it is now accepted that the title should somewhere include the sport involved – something like 1895 football World Championship. Otherwise it could be cricket or darts or tiddlywinks.
I don't see any evidence that it warrants a standalone article. Perhaps just a mention at the club season articles? Eldumpo (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed quite a few national leagues' articles in Wikipedia, such as 'Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional de Honduras' and 'Salvadoran Primera División', are in the local language. Occasionally and in addition, they are no references to their country of appartenance, as in 'Primeira Liga', making them potentially ambiguous. I have already initiated moves of some, such as the German games. Before I start doing the same for the others, would anyone care to give me any history as to why these articles are where they are? Thanks, -- Ohconfucius ping / poke07:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
League naming should be based on what the reliable English-language sources call the league. However, if the term is in need of a dab to differentiate then a suitable country name could be added, although I would think most references to leagues will be clear e.g. whilst there will be leagues outside England called Premier League I would've thought most references to other 'Premier Leagues' will include a suitable qualifier. Eldumpo (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I would urge extreme caution before assuming that Anglicised titles for foreign organisations / competitions (of any sort, not just in football) see any common use at all. They are proper nouns just as names of players are, and should only be Anglicised in the event that there is a clearly-preferred common alternative. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone else having problems with the size of the China club map. When I view it (on ipad) with a size of 600 it obliterates most of the 'Clubs and Locations' table. I changed it to 260 so it didn't overlap but was reverted. How is it looking for others. Shouldn't there be a format which works irrespective of your computer type? Eldumpo (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Bedfont F.C. and Feltham F.C. have merged to become the above. Not sure how this would be handled on Wikipedia (new article or article move), whether it's a new club or a continuation of Feltham FC, whose place the merged club is taking in the CoCo League next season. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
If they're taking Feltham's spot in the league, then it is a continuation of Feltham, the name is just changing and the club is basically continuing and absorbing Bedfont. With that said, moving the Feltham article to the new name seems like the more logical choice. TonyStarks (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Comments requested on PROD for East York City FC. I have converted to PROD from Speedy because I am not sure it crosses the notability line. Somebody knowledgeable on Canadian Football (indoor) can certainly be of help. So far it does not look good enough to stay to me -- Alexf(talk)20:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it wasn't eligible for speedy, the "assertion of notability" required by WP:CSD#A7 is ectremely low, and "football team that plays in a league" is enough I'm afraid. PROD was the correct choice. GiantSnowman19:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
A very small but important (in my view) question: if references in ALL languages (Welsh, Azeri, Finnish, Kazakh, Catalan - not even an official language as Catalonia is not a country!) are allowed, why are external links only allowed in English?
Is there any possibility this rule is changed? Makes zero sense to me, or am i missing something? Attentively, happy week all --AL (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
It is just a preferred choice. If you must use a non-English external link and someone removes it then just explain yourself and why you added the Non-English link and add it back into the article. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The difference is that external links are meant to give the reader a bit of background reading. If the links aren't in English the majority of our readers won't be able to understand them so it's pointless. On the other hand, it's fine to use foreign language references though if they back up information in the article, but English language sources are still preferred if available for the same reason as with the external links. BigDom (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Yakubu has 101 Premier League goals for Portsmouth, Middlesborough, Everton and Blackburn yet isn't on the 100 Premier League goals list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtelfs (talk • contribs) 08:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.
About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).
The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.
Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.
If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
If you flick through the slides at ([1]) you'll soon get to the one of Mark Robins celebrating "the goal that saved Fergie". If you can possibly deflect your minds from thinking about one of the stranger omissions from Norwich's Hall of Fame and look at the chap on the left of the photo, who the heck is it? He looks familiar, but I can't place him and it's driving me mad. --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
New article on a football team from Wigan. Notable? Just two seasons in The Combination and Lancashire Combination Division Two in the early 1900s by the looks of it [2]. No FA Cup record so far as I can tell. Del♉sion23(talk)18:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The Combination was a decent standard. Given the many short-lived Wigan clubs that pre-dated Wigan Athletic, there might be a case for merging one or two, or folding some information into Springfield Park (Wigan), but I wouldn't regard it as a candidate for deletion. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
They entered the FA Cup in 1907/08, see The FA Archive, and their sine die suspension in January 1907 was reported in both the Daily Express and Daily Mirror. It's a decent little article, the club satisfies the mythical FA Cup criterion, as Oldelpaso says the Combination was a serious standard (including the likes of Crewe Alex, Tranmere Rovers, Chester, Bangor), and the club attracted at least some London-based national newspaper coverage. That's good enough for me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
At least, indeed... There are 11 pre-war, according to Joyce, plus a WT Wilson first names unknown. Your DOB unknown is a Billy Wilson, if that helps, but Joyce doesn't give a birth year. William Wilson (footballer) was born 1902, and is also known as Bill. All at {{cite book |last=Joyce |first=Michael |title=Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939 |page=285 |publisher=SoccerData (Tony Brown) |location=Nottingham |year=2004 |isbn=978-1-899468-67-6}}. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, it is still the case that players need to have played 10 Premier League matches to get a winners' medal, right? I've been reverted by Sdotd (talk·contribs) who stated this in an edit summary: "new rules now that each team gets 40 medals and every player who has played will get a medal". Smells like baloney to me, just thought I'd post here to make sure. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe so - on a related matter, in the Netherlands it is only 3 full games (270 minutes) of play, as Gregory van der Wiel has just been awarded an Eredivisie medal, see his article for the reference. GiantSnowman19:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it's just five appearances in the Prem now. They were talking about it during Utd v Chelsea when Alexander Buttner came on. – PeeJay23:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
It looks like Nick Powell's page has him winning a medal. Should this be changed? I would say we have enough information to say Buttner, Lindegaard, and Fletcher will get one based the article above since they are all specifically mentioned. Powell did play in two matches, but he won't get the necessary five. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I should say so. The club receives 40 medals, which they can distribute any way they want as long as anyone who played 5 games gets one, so it may happen that Nick Powell will also get one, but until we have a source, we can't call him a Premier League winner. – PeeJay09:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I've updated Powell's page to indicate he hasn't won a PL medal yet since he doesn't look like he received one today. If someone has a source indicating he has, please feel free to revert my change. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
F.C. vs FC
Perhaps now is the time for a definitive guideline on which among "F.C." and "FC" should be used in titles of football clubs. Particularly, if "F.C." means "Football Club" that is in the English language vs. "F.C." that is not an English phrase, or doesn't mean anything, where should it be? –HTD14:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I guess you haven't seen the massive discussion at wherever the Milan club not called AC Milan is now titled here... –HTD15:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Personaly, I favour "FC" in all situations... I think we should discuss this for other club initials, not only "F.C." (exemple, P.A.O.K. F.C. why not PAOK FC?), and get consensus. FkpCascais (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The continued use of F.C. outside of logos and signs is a Wikipedia anachronism. The Chelsea FC web page uses the dot-free version. Hack (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I disagree. I believe this is merely a stylistic issue, and that we should get rid of the dots. They cause a lot of punctuation issues, IMO, and serve no functional purpose. Nowadays, people realise that if two capital letters follow each other, then the term is probably an initialism, so why not just dispense with the unnecessary punctuation? – PeeJay18:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree we would be better off without the dots from a style/extra typing perspective, and my perception is that most references to FC will be without the dots, but this is not something I've checked. Eldumpo (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Totally disagree re it being stylisticly preferable. The two football clubs I visit the most both have very large signs on their main stands including the dots. Number5722:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
[3] Look at the top (regarding "P.A.O.K. F.C."). Also "PAOK" vs "P.A.O.K" in Greek language news sources, notice how most of the results when you search for the dotted version are actually undotted. I think an RM is in order... Cheers – Kosm1fent06:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Web pages of Sky Sports, BBC Sport and Yahoo! Sport UK+Ireland omit the "FC" altogether, both in tables and individual team pages. –HTD06:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
UEFA do the same, I believe; for example, see here. User:Number 57: Oftentimes, people will do things to preserve an image, such as retaining dots in initialisms to indicate a sense of tradition; either way, it is a stylistic choice, and not one that I believe we need to subscribe to. After all, we don't put dots after people's titles (Mr, Dr, Prof, etc.) any more either, do we? – PeeJay12:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
FC and F.C. are both stylistic choices. Why do we suddenly need to change after 7 years of using F.C.? Number5712:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they are both stylistic choices, as I said. FC, however, has more benefits to its use than F.C. does, and fewer drawbacks. Why shouldn't we change? Yes, it would be a monumental effort, but just because a task is big doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. – PeeJay12:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Why not have done with it and have the article listed at Man Utd? Because we're not a bunch of lads down the pub, we're an encyclopedia. We at least need a pretence of respectability. GiantSnowman15:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Dropping the FC/F.C. entirely would work for the examples above, but what about clubs that are just the area/town/city name? Portsmouth, Dundee, Fulham for example? Would we then be seeing Portsmouth (football club) titles everywhere? ;) Grunners (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
It appears that this indicates in the Periods (full stops) and spaces section that The letters in an acronym are generally not separated by periods (full stops) or blank spaces (GNP, NORAD, OBE, GmbH). Periods and spaces that were traditionally required have now dropped out of usage (PhD is now preferred over Ph.D. and Ph. D.). It would seem to avoid potential arguments in the future that we follow this guideline, even where football clubs refer to themselves as "F.C." to ensure we use the same presentation in each article. I can't think of any club where the presence or absence of "." would mislead any potential reader. Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
If we were to go to no periods (FC as opposed to F.C) we would still required redirects at the common name article and we save nothing. However, if we've got redirects there already, then there's no harm with this suggestion either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman. That's a foolish, Slippery slope fallacy. Asking for a title which is not the technical name is far from arguing that we should therefore have the most commonly used informal name. Wikipedia's guidelines don't demand that we call things by their formal name. For clubs where the name is not identical to the location of the club, or another sports team, why not just remove the FC/AFC altogether? It is sufficiently precise, accurate, natural and concise for Wikipedia's guidelines, and is far from informal, as you seem to claim. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Because there is significant value in having consistent titles in a group of articles. I can't think of a worse outcome than having articles "Blackburn Rovers" and "Liverpool F.C." in the same category. Number5707:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
There is value in that, yes, as I acknowledged. If people think that this one criterium is more important than the other four, then I'll shut up about it. So far, no-one's given me a reason for the belief that consistency is more important than precision, accuracy, naturalness and concision, the other four naming guidelines. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
What exactly is imprecise and inaccurate about using Manchester United F.C.? It may not be quite as concise as Manchester United, but it's more concise than Manchester United Football Club. The only criterion I can see Manchester United F.C. truly failing is naturalness, but even then it's actually 4–1 in favour of that name. Remember, it's not a case of judging the criteria in terms of which title fits each criterion better, it's just whether the title fits that criterion. – PeeJay09:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Two different arguments here
The above replies commingle two different debates:
How we should abbreviate "Football Club" as it appears in most British football club titles (and an associated argument for the same common phrase in Spanish, Italian, Ugandan clubs)
What we should do about outliers (specifically, clubs outside the UK who use "FC" in contradiction to local convention to, being blunt, look cool
Here is the present, firmly settled consensus on these issues:
Where the letters actually stand for something, we use a consistent variation of the abbreviation for each country. Some use dots, some don't.
Where the letters don't actually stand for "football club" / "athletic club" et cetera, but are there to look cool (sporadic cases over the world, but specifically in MLS), we use whatever reliable sources use.
So, what is there to discuss?
Should we:
Unify our titles to consistently use dots everywhere?
Unify out titles to not use dots anywhere?
Keep the present system fine as it is?
Scrap the present system and use whatever reliable sources use on a case-by-case basis?
Should we enforce the rules we use for abbreviations even where the "FC" does not actually stand for anything?
I think that covers it quite concisely, but re point 2 of your second section, we don't currently enforce dots where FC doesn't stand for anything - which is why we have AFC Wimbledon as opposed to A.F.C. Sudbury. Number5714:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Notwithstanding my general view – that dots are a waste of time – I think supporters of keeping dots would agree with not using them in cases such as AFC Wimbledon? The purpose of dots, if any, is surely to denote initialisms?
I would dispute the characterisation of a "firmly settled consensus": the status quo is fairly stable due to enforcement, but I see little evidence of a strong consensus to retain it. In answer to the main question, "use whatever reliable sources use" is what we should be doing per WP:COMMONNAME, and I don't see a justification to ignore that based on a local consensus. A more sensible question would be which one of the first three options should be the default scenario, where no-one has bothered to trawl through reliable sources for a specific club. —WFC— FL wishlist13:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:NAME has five primary criteria, the fifth of which is consistency. That's the justification for the present situation, rather than it just being a local consensus. As for it being a strong one, I suppose it's right to say that we sort of ossified around it rather than deliberately choosing it, but nonetheless it's not one which has such significant dissent that we spend much time talking about it (at least not relative to some of our other perennial conversations). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
He has been making some edits which I do not find okay. For example, him changing the captain of Pune FC from Douhou Pierre to Chika Wali despite various sources (including the club itself) saying that Douhou is captain or when he went to the transfer page and added to other transfers which so far have not been confirmed by the clubs themselves. He then goes and adds a "Stadiums and Locations" part in the 2013-14 season article despite most stadiums not being confirmed. Many teams this season have used maybe 3-4 stadiums as a home venue. We do not know yet what will happen next season so it is best not to have it yet till we know. Now I said that to him but I never get a reply. On either page. In the end I decided to give him warnings to the point where I called it vandalism. How can someone just ignore warnings or calls for replies? Then recently Druryfire comes in and tells him to post on the talk page of the 2012-13 I-League page. I replied giving my side of my opinion (very poorly) yet C7777777 does not reply still. Now I do not want to block him as I know what that is like and honestly he has not killed someone but it just seems that nothing is getting to him. I ask for sources. I ask for reasons why an edit was made. Drury asked for him to go to the talk page. Yet nothing. He just keeps going as if I do not exist.
How do I deal with this? Have you guys ever dealt with users like this and if so, how did you guys deal with it? (Note: Yes, if you look at the Edit History on these pages you will see that I have not been the nicest. I am just angry). Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
You cannot force an editor to respond to comments / use the talk page, though if they continue to edit disruptively a block might be an option. In the meantime have you considered something like WP:DRN? GiantSnowman10:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me or does this article seriously suffer from a lack of prose? Premier League articles tend to be very well written but this one just seems like a big list, and the format isn't that great either. Thoughts? TonyStarks (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd be inclined either to properly listify it (by moving it to a list title) or take it to AfD as pure almanac content. I don't think the subject as it is could be given a treatment in prose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
It's the reason I brought it up here, it just looked awful, which is not usually the case for Premier League articles. However, after some recent edits from some of the folks, the article is already starting to look much better now. TonyStarks (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
As you might have noticed, there is a RM discussion about the names of Fußball-Bundesliga and the other German football leagues, 2. Fußball-Bundesliga and 3. Fußball-Liga. The discussion about 2. Fußball-Bundesliga was NAC-closed as "not moved" yesterday, and subsequently moved to a new title by the same that noone in the discussion has even mentioned, Second Bundesliga (German association football). My first thought was that this move needed to be reverted, but as I participated in the discussion and isn't an admin, I thought it was best to find an uninvolved admin to review both the NAC-closure and the page-move. Any takers? Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
While I commented in the RM, I doubt that undoing what appears to be a close that nobody wanted is a particularly egregious violation of WP:INVOLVED. I've restored the previous title and deleted the redirect, but left the RM itself closed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The above is now a redlink in my reference article, but I don't see that it was deleted. Can someone clarify? Thanks. - Dudesleepertalk16:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Annoying question about youth national team squad template
Could someone summarized which event is allowed and which is don't? Someone had created Template:Switzerland Squad 2010 UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship and a spam of youth template could be predicted. A player could very successful to play many major youth tournament but a very not successful low division player (Olympic and U21 somewhat coherence with the professional career), spamming a collapsible template on low division player were silly, or what the hack importance is that player was a teammate with Totti at youth national team?
In old consensus, Olympic (pre-1992 a senior event for player not yet played in World Cup, or post-1992 a U23 event), regional qualification to Olympic (Europe U21, etc) were allowed and U20 events were all deleted until the consensus was broken by abuse of voting and/or ignoring old for and against in the past discussions. Consensus was maintained in senior event that limited on major regional competitions and two international event of FIFA. (thus East Asian Cup should be deleted)
the title says it (almost) all, in this section we should only include the titles won by managers and players right? No assistant coaches, no youth/goalkeeper coaches, nothing, just the first two am i not correct?
Absolutely. If you want to raise a discussion point do not point the reader to the blinkered view you have already formed. Your original point on the Newport County page was requesting citations and once that was completed you've shifted the debate to back up the view you've already formed eg you know that it has already been discussed and agreed that Accrington is not a continuation of the original club. All the other examples you quote have their own unique circumstances and there is more benefit to the reader in clear description than enforcing inappropriate consistency. Also, Newport County's reformation was before any of those others so, if any consistency is required at all, where it is more informative for the reader the single page explaining club continuity should be the precedent. Pwimageglow (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
It was User:Topcardi who "shifted the debate", not me. If there are unique circumstances why Newport County A.F.C. should be treated differently from the precedents listed, it would be useful if you made the arguments in the relevant discussion, rather than here. Regards. Mooretwin (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
NFT player template doesn't seem to be working...
This is a bit of an odd situation, but what's going on with {{NFT player}}? I understand they upgraded their website, but this is the first time that I'm having problems getting access to the site by using the template. Is anybody else experiencing the same problem? – Michael (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
yes, they totally screwed up all incoming links. for example, consider Carlos Valderrama, the old link was http://www.national-football-teams.com/v2/player.php?id=14283 and the new link is http://www.national-football-teams.com/player/13683.html if you go to http://www.national-football-teams.com/player/14283.html you get a different player. it seems the best solution is to replace the links with query strings, like http://www.national-football-teams.com/search.html?term=+Carlos+Valderrama since the numeric IDs are no longer stable. Frietjes (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Search results pages are not acceptable for external links. If these idiots have broken their permalinks then the correct solution is to delete the template and lose them a ton of traffic, in the hope that the next time they redesign their website they hire people who have the remotest clue what they're doing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
If a site cannot reliably keep its links working then it is not a reliable source for our encyclopedia, and we should not direct traffic to it en masse. We do not owe these databases traffic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
A ridiculous attitude, numerous websites (including just about every single English club's official site) has changed format & 'lost' URLs, to dismiss them all is harmful to us. GiantSnowman09:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
No. If we're using a given page as a reference, we can dig into archive.org and find a permanent way of referencing it. For anything which we are using simply as an external link, we should be able to trust that it is working, especially where we are spamming it over hundreds or thousands of BLPs with a template. WP:ELNO #16 applies here: if we cannot trust that a link will continue to work, as evidenced by a site redesign so idiotic as to break the one fundamental rule of permalinks, then it cannot be trusted to be stable and we should not be linking it as a matter of course. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Unimpressed by this comment on their forum: "On the old version, by checking the national team squad of a specific year, you had listed the "missing matches", so I know that the players' statistics of this match(es) were missing. On the new site, I miss this info. I can't see if all matches from a specific year were considered or if there is a match missing." So, as well as there being no information as to ownership, sourcing or fact-checking, as required to identify a reliable source, now you can't even tell whether the data's supposed to be complete or not... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Worrying indeed, we'll have to see how it pans out, though I still have faith in NFT as a source worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. GiantSnowman09:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome to try contacting them and talking some sense into them. For now, we have (at least) 9728 broken external links, and if there is no way of updating them automatically (which it appears there isn't) I'll be taking this to TfD and strongly suggesting that we avoid linking to NFT directly in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Chris - please hold off on any action for now, I will e-mail NFT tonight and see if they can sort themselves out, threatening them with much reduced traffic etc. GiantSnowman11:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I have been changing the url as i "see" them, but it's excruciating to say the least. Also, how bout this guy? Have you ever heard of a case of a player without a club still going strong (maybe not the best word to describe these chaps) with a national team? --AL (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Its more common than you might think for small or low-ranked nations. Angola's goalkeeper in the 2006 World Cup, João Ricardo, had been without a club for over a year at the time of the tournament. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
If I remember rightly, some American international players in the early 90s went years without a club due to the near-total collapse of domestic soccer pre-MLS. They were basically training/playing full-time with the national team, which is why some of them won so many caps...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the change as it seems they have fixed their website to send you to the updated page. We should still probably do something about this, but we will probably want to create a new template for the new syntax or use a different parameter for the new ID (e.g., newid or something). Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk)02:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
And what happens when it changes again? We shouldn't be expected to repeatedly manually update near enough 10,000 articles every time someone else has a go at playing with the database. Sites which don't treat permalinks as permanent are not reliable targets for external links. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we can have a bot update them all. the fact that they are now supporting the old URLs is good, but there is no way to use the template for new links if you don't know the old URL. so, we do need a new parameter or a new template. and a bot to switch them all and check for errors. Frietjes (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
We could just lose the template if it only appears at the bottom of a page in the External Links section as it's not an inline ref and therefore there is nothing being referenced from the site. We do seem to experience this now and then, usually when FIFA or UEFA unilaterally archive competition pages and break all of the links after the event concludes. Responses from those in the past about this have generally been of the 'Fuck you' variety. Nanonic (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
the template has now been updated to take |pid= for the new numeric IDs and still return the redirect pages for the old IDs. we may want a bot to update the old ones to avoid confusion with the old syntax, but for now the old links work and there is a mechanism for adding new ones. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Club colours and navigation templates
What should happen to navigation templates when a club changes/swaps their 'primary' colour? I'm thinking in particular of Bradford City's rather (awful) new kit, which is mainly yellow as opposed to traditional colour of claret. However, it also applies to Bayer Leverkusen (whose 'home' colour swaps between red and black every year) and no doubt a multitude of other clubs which are unfortunately prey to bored designers. GiantSnowman17:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I think what Snowman meant was should the background colour of templates like {{Gillingham F.C.}} be changed if the club changes its colours. Well, in the case of my team, who changed their colours at the start of last season, the main club template did not change but {{Gillingham F.C. squad}} did. But then our change of colours was only ever intended to be for one season..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
While my personal preference is to simply avoid colour if we can, what about using colours based on club badges if there's a frequent change to the strip? Most clubs use their general playing livery on their badges, right? So Leverkusen's would stay red and Motherwell Bradford's would be 50/50 claret and amber. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
You cannot have a 50/50 coloured navbox (as far as I am aware), and my issue is whether I should change the navboxes from claret background with amber text to amber backround with claret text. Not all clubs use their colours in their badges e.g. Hannover 96. GiantSnowman09:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I tend to change the squad template to match the current kit, and leave the manager template as the traditional colours. I think it's fun that there are changes every season, it adds a bit of variety. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
On the links below there are several photos of football players that I need help uploading and identificate. They're all under a approved license for uploading at Commons. Best regards Fredde (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC) (Originally posted by User:Hastaro at svwp)
It's pretty easy to upload them to commons, but without captions I am not sure what the pictures are of, and selecting suitable file names is an important part of the uploading process. Can you help with this? C67906:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I assumed the original poster was asking for help identifying any players pictured clearly enough to be worth uploading? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Technically a breach of OR (thought one should consider citing IAR) but try and marry up the kit numbers with relevant squad numbers? GiantSnowman15:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Teams to have played in the old First Division, but not the Premier League
There was previously a wikilink from the List of Premier League clubs to a sub-section on the article for the old first division, with a table of clubs who have played in the old First Division (i.e. when it was the top division), but not the Premier League.
I think this remains useful information, so have dug back in time to get the table. Where to put it though, I don't know. Grunners (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Clubs who have competed in the top flight First Division, but not the Premier League, include:
But I'm not sure that covers the second and third divisions...... I haven't checked but I thought they were being proposed for moves too. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Second Bundesliga and Third Liga then should be used probably. But why spend so much time debating, that's what redirects are for. -Koppapa (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I recently tried to amend Template:2012–13 in Welsh football to include the activities of Welsh clubs that play in the English football league system only to find that User:Owain reverted my edits and labeled them as “not relevant” . I’m a bit mystified how articles on matches featuring Welsh clubs and season articles about the four most senior Welsh clubs are deemed “not relevant” yet articles about the 2012–13 UEFA Champions League and 2012–13 Europa League are included. Welsh involvement in these latter two competitions is minimal at best. My proposal for this template can be found at User:Djln/sandbox. Does anybody else have an opinion/suggestion on this topic ? Djln --Djln (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Nowhere in the template is the FAW mentioned but if it just about FAW competitions then change name of template to "2012–13 in FAW football". However all the four senior Welsh clubs are all affiliated to the FAW and played FAW competitions also. So your logic makes no senses. Plus last I checked the Champions League and Europa League were not organised by the FAW Djln--Djln (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways. Either the clubs are "Welsh" because they are physically located in Wales (their affiliation with FAW is a red herring, as the teams no longer participate in the Welsh Cup and after the FAW's shenanigans regarding rescinding a red card in the recent Conference playoffs I imagine they'll soon no longer be in charge of disciplinary matters either) or they are "English" because they play in and around the Football League. Just think of "Welsh" here being shorthand for "FAW" and "English" as "FA" and you'll be fine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Should Berwick Rangers be listed in all the "English football" templates? At present we have a good degree of consistency here simply to stick to defining Xish football in terms of the national body rather than geographic location. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
You can’t just presume FAW = Welsh and FA = English. Think of it from the point of view from someone who doesn’t have an extensive knowledge of football. The template should include all articles related to Welsh football and not discriminate. I agree with Koppapa that there is no harm in including articles in more than one template. Regarding Berwick Rangers, there’s a big difference. Cardiff City, Swansea City, Newport County and Wrexham are the four most senior clubs in Wales while Berwick Rangers are relevantly low level club Djln--Djln (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
That's not a "big difference": it's a marginal one, and how marginal it is depends on the year. "Someone who does not have an extensive knowledge of football" is not going to be navigating our article by navbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, it's just personal preference; Berwick are a diddy team so shouldn't be included in the English template, but Swansea and Cardiff play in the oh-so-mighty Premier League so let's put them in the Welsh one. I fail to see the logic in removing the season articles for European football from the Welsh template either. Clubs qualify for, and play in, the Champions League and Europa League through their association with the FAW. Maybe the articles for World Cups and European Championships should be removed too because, afterall, Wales' involvement is "minimal at best". Argyle 4 Lifetalk22:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it's illogical for such a template to not include the Welsh teams playing in the English pyramid, and I can't see how that is useful to readers. Eldumpo (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Johnston Press Websites
A heads up - they seem to have updated all their websites this morning and it looks like the historical links are all now dead. Which is useful. Anyone got any suggestions as to a quick way to fix them? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually - just done a bit of a test and they've just changed the url structure so you can still access them if you update it. (Well you can with the Sheffield Star ones.) Still a big job though. 08:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I've just checked a few, various papers (including the Sheffield Star ones in the article Sevenstone), many don't seem to have changed at all, and those that have changed still redirect to the correct article at the new-format url. Have I just been lucky? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it's just the Sheffield one or just football? The only ones to hand I had to check against were in articles I've edited - they've changed the url structure from sheffieldstar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffieldunited to just sheffieldstar.co.uk/sport/sheffieldunited. Maybe not as widespread then but worth checking if you use a lot of refs from them. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
If the URL structure has just changed slightly then you can get a bot to fix them, or maybe even AWB if you're suitably whizzy with that tool. GiantSnowman09:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thisisnottingham.co.uk has pulled the same trick - the "/football" chunk of their URLs have gone, but they appear to redirect properly. Still, might be worth sorting that out while that's true, as opposed to losing it if they decide to drop that redirect. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 11:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - it seems they'd sorted redirects for the last but one version of the Sheffield Star website but not the most recent one. I AWB'd the links and sorted them all now. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Articles for creation, perhaps you can help
Hi WP Football Wikipedians!! We have a few footballer bios that could use your expertise if you have some time:
I'm not comfortable in my knowledge of footballers to approve/decline, so perhaps some of you are (I have a feeling :) ) Thanks for your help. We have a big backlog, and your help would be so appreciated. Thanks for all you do for Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Others will wish to comment but on first viewing I would say that the first subject would not pass either Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability or Wp:GNG. He appears to be a youth player with no notable career. The second subject is an international player and as such is deemed to be notable. Both could use some more references but Ceballos career so far has little merit.Egghead06 (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Egghead, the first is an individual who has yet to play international football, nor feature in a fully professional league, and so would not be deemed notable usually. There is nothing to suggest that he has accomplished anything else to make him generally notable either. The second one is a full international and so would generally be considered notable, however, an article already exists for this player here, unfortunately, albeit under his Chinese rather than Portuguese name. Looks like there is a need to clarify the name in the existing article, but a review of sources and this link at NFT show they are definitely the same player. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Was going to say that Chit Un Cheung already exists, which is the second player under a different name, but looks like Fenix down beat me to it. C67908:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Great! Thanks everyone. I declined both articles based on your rationale. Thanks for informing me that you replied over here, too! Thanks again. SarahStierch (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Completely agree that Ceballos is not notable; it appears Geofredo De Souza has played international football (and already has an article anyway!) GiantSnowman17:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
It needs chopping down and sections need merging. Who in their right mind would allot a separate section for every season in the club's history? – PeeJay17:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I was always under the belief that in teams managed who had the teams who you managed and nothing else so i changed Alan Wright to reflect that but it has since been reverted. Others like Steve Clarke dont mention roles at Newcastle,Chelsea, West Ham, nor Mike Phelan for the role he is most famous for at Man United. Is there a consensus or practice as to what goes in there? Narom (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The instructions for {{Template:Infobox football biography}} say: "A list of clubs that the person has served with in the capacity of team manager. 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; this will apply primarily to those with significant or perhaps primary experience in management.". Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Where it relates to the team - Coach, Dir of Football, Scout, Physio, Youth Coach, Assistant: yes, ambassador, hospitaility, fan-club co-ordinator: no. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
But surely due to the increasing number of roles that football clubs now have, an infobox could get out of hand and look cluttered. That info should be put in the main body imo Narom (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2... You draw the line at roles that are not "a significant part of the person's career", as per the template instructions. While the reader won't be helped by an infobox-full of 15 short-term coaching jobs, half of which are the same job with a different title - that's what sourced article text is for - omitting something like Chris Hughton's ten years as Spurs assistant manager would be ridiculous. It's a judgment call. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm the original culprit that Narom mentioned in the first post, I was under the impression that assistant manager roles were relevant having seen them on many other infoboxes but I should have consulted the guidance more closely. I agree with a couple of the comments above that it does make sense to include football related positions else you can have large gaps in career history that leave the infobox more confusing as a result. In Alan Wright's case, it seemed relevant to include his spell as Blackpool assistant manager as it was his most high profile management career role and is one of the reasons that he managed to secure his new role as Southport manager. Of course, I'm willing to go with the convention in future Mountaincirque (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
It's editorial discretion what to include. For instance, I'd say that Nigel Adkins may well appropriately have his time as Scunthorpe's physiotherapist in his infobox, seeing as this was notable enough to result in one of the best songs in football when he was promoted to manager. But we shouldn't routinely include every job in football that someone has had, as most of them will not be independently notable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't a nice fix for this box be "notability"? If an independent third party source clearly highlights your significance as a person / player / role within club then it's notable for inclusion in the article body. For instance Stewart Houston, Ray Harford, Steve McClaren, Frank Lampard, Sr. seem to have odd infobox profiles due to gaps and/or absence of referring to key elements of their careers. Koncorde (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Various editors have been adding Wales to the infobox in the Premier League article as one of the league's countries. Although the league comprises two Welsh teams, I do not believe that Wales should be listed as one of the league's countries as it is administrated entirely from England and is part of the English football league system, not the Welsh. Opinions? – PeeJay22:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I realize that it's a minor league, but Major League Soccer has indicated both United States and Canada despite being sanctioned only by USSF. Unless we change the infobox to indicate sanctioning authority, it does make sense to include the nations of the clubs or teams playing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Question - which federation gets points for the UEFA coefficient if a Welsh team qualifies for Europe? The FA or the FAW? Maybe that would be helpful in deciding. Madcynic (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
But this isn't a matter of which country's teams play in the division, it's about which country's league structure the division forms part of. The Welsh league system does not feed into the Premier League in any way, and if Cardiff and Swansea are progressively relegated, there is no way they could end up in the Welsh system unless they resigned from the English leagues and rejoined the Welsh. The same applies to all of the Welsh teams in the English leagues (Newport, Wrexham, Merthyr and Colwyn Bay), Berwick in the Scottish league, Derry City in the League of Ireland, Vaduz in the Swiss league and AS Monaco in the French league. They are not binational leagues, they are merely leagues that happen to contain one or more teams from another country. – PeeJay21:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The field is entitled Countries: not organising FA, not co-efficient contribution. It invites one relevant question: what country/countries do the teams come from? In terms of participation, they are indeed binational. Is it true to say that the only country with participants in the Premier League or next season's League 2 is England? No, it is not. There is no reason for the casual reader of the infobox to assume that the field is restricted to organisational identity. Simple truth over bureaucratic technicalities. Kevin McE (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I am tempted to support PJ´s approach, not only because of the logic of his arguments, but also because when one see´s English and Welsh flag he may beleave that the two countries play fully in that only league (meaning all clubs and full league systems of both), and that is misleading. I beleave that the field in the infobox could rather be fixed than being decisive on what it actually says ("country" in this case), and also that the technicallity of the few clubs from outside can be explained in the article. FkpCascais (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree with PeeJay. Perhaps a compromise would be to state England, but with a note explaining that at present there are members of the league who are based in Wales. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I would be fine with a note as a compromise. It really doesn't matter where a club is geographically from. Swansea, Cardiff, Newport, Wrexham, Merthyr and Colwyn Bay play in the English football league system. Other than being on the other side of a border they're no different to all the other clubs that compete in the pyramid. Whether they want to admit it or not, Swansea will represent England in the Europa League next season and any coefficient points they gain will go to England's total. The 2013–14 UEFA Europa League article uses notes and it looks fine. Argyle 4 Lifetalk22:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Suggest that there be three fields: Country could be used on its own when there is only one country involved, as is the case for most leagues and division, so no change will be needed in all of these. Where there is bi-national participation, we could have two fields instead of that one: something like Countries of clubs, and Administrative nationality. Clarity, no danger of misinterpretation or claim of misrepresentation from either side. A rem note in the template could require that these are only used in seasons when the division has bi-national participation: the basic country field could have a footnote in other years to explain, for example "In some years, a Monegasque club has competed in Ligue 1". Kevin McE (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Two days without further comment, and on the principle that it is better to clarify than to leave information open to misinterpretation, I have implemented a variant on my proposal above. One additional optional field, Other participants, and the previously entitled Countries changed to singular. Kevin McE (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's not the conclusion that we reached. In fact, the last two comments do not support the change you made at all. You can't just make a change with as far-reaching consequences as this without a proper consensus. – PeeJay18:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
There is demand here that there should be clarity about the nationality of the league: I have provided for that. There is also demand here, and more importantly demand at the articles involved, that readers should not be left bewildered that the nationality of clubs involved is ignored: I have provided for that. We don't need to be adversarial and have a "winner" in every discussion: we can ensure that everyone's concerns are met. It was discussed briefly in February last year, with the majority of opinions being for stating all nationalities involved, but with prominence given to the main nationality, which is what I provide. The new solution distinguishes between the nationality of the league and that of some participants. There are not "far reaching consequences": it affects about two dozen articles, and the only effect on 98% of the articles that use the template is that the inappropriate plural countries is corrected. Kevin McE (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not dispute that people's concerns should be met. What I dispute is the method by which you are meeting them and the unilateral action you seem to be taking in order to meet them. The majority that appears to be emerging is in favour of a note, rather than adding more and more parameters to infoboxes (many of which are already too bloated with unnecessary fields). Instead of adding more fields, why not just keep what we had already and add a footnote? This would make far more sense as it would keep confusing info out of the picture, especially since the infobox is supposed to remain relatively constant, and it is not always the case that the Premier League contains a Welsh team, or that there is a Monegasque team in the French top flight (which I dispute, by the way; since AS Monaco is registered with the FFF, not whatever governing body they have in Monaco, they are a French team, plain and simple). – PeeJay23:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The Monaco situation is something of a red herring here: if we were listing football associations, I would agree with you, while we are labelling it as countries, I do not. Same applies to Guernsey FC in the Southern League. Kevin McE (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The recent change to the template resolves this issue completed. Should we be listing the nations or the national associations? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
If by "the recent change to the template" you mean the one Kevin McE implemented, then you clearly haven't read anything I just said and I have absolutely no idea why you are thanking me in your edit summary. Otherwise, please indicate the template to which you are referring. Either way, the second part of your question is moot; the only relevant info is whether the division is part of one country's national league system or another's, and if it is part of two or more countries' league systems, list all. Taking Cardiff, Swansea, Newport, Wrexham, Colwyn Bay and Merthyr playing in the English leagues as an example, none of their divisions should have Wales listed as a country since there is no link between the Welsh league system and the English. – PeeJay00:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
No, that is plainly not the only question. Until you intervened, there was a clear implicit consent, re-affirmed at the earlier discussion on this page linked above, and exercised by those maintaining the pages affected, that the nationalities of all participants should be reflected in the infobox. The glaring other question is the omission, in your preference, of the country of participating teams which has never been tolerated by readers/editors of the articles in question. In the adapted template, Wales is listed as "other participants" (maybe not the best title: minor detail like that can be discussed at template talk) to make it clear that their role is participation, not the nationality of the league. No-one is likely to interpret that as a "link between the Welsh league system and the English". Kevin McE (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
See, you say that, but I believe that people who have no clue might assume a link between those league systems. Obviously since those hypothetical people have no clue, they would need something to explain why Welsh teams play in the English league, but the appropriate method to do that is not the one you have suggested. – PeeJay10:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
People who don't understand the word participant probably shouldn't be trying to use an encyclopaedia. The infobox is clearly not the place to explain why Welsh clubs are in the Premiership: that should be in the text. But there is no need for the infobox to deny the fact that Welsh clubs are in the Premiership. Kevin McE (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
From my point of view - the "country / participant" thing now looks really odd. Wales does not take part at all. A couple of English registered teams based in Wales take part. If Swansea / Cardiff are relegated, does "Wales" cease to be a participant? The MLS argument is a bit of an odd one because of their league structure, and in fact PeeJay highlights the oddities of principalities etc in Europe.
The "Country" field appears to be pretty inappropriate when it is being used in this manner. I would also point out that, for instance, the UEFA Europa League does not utilise the field yet it has far more potential "participants". The Field should be amended to reflect the host federation / registered federation rather than trying to shoehorn all of Wales into the Premier League. Koncorde (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
It said countries before, it says country now: if it is inappropriate now, it was more inappropriate on 98% of the articles on which it is used until a few days ago, and has been inappropriate ever since the template was created.
You show lack of understanding by stating "A couple of English registered teams based in Wales take part": those teams are affiliated to the FAW, not the FA.
If you have to ask If Swansea / Cardiff are relegated, does "Wales" cease to be a participant? then you have clearly not read this thread.
Although I don't think any intelligent person would have interpreted it as meaning that the country of Wales takes part, I've changed the display label for that field to Other club(s) from.
What possible reason would there be for presenting Wales as a registered federation? Where did this designation come from?
The Europa League uses a different template altogether: it has no national association organising it, and is not really a league, despite its title. Kevin McE (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of Occam's razor? It is a principle that states that the most simple solution is usually the best one. This is not that. – PeeJay00:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Kevin, I never said it was better before. Only that it now looked odd now with "participant". The Welsh teams may be affiliated to the FAW - but they are registered to play in the English League structure which is managed by the English FA. The Premier League is an affiliate of the English FA. Why therefore are we trying to shoehorn a league which pays no attention to boundaries into a "country" designation? Why does the template not say "National Sports Association"? The "Country" designation really is massively simplistic (and inaccurate) and requires overly complex explanations of what are quite simple principles. The UEFA template seems to handle the issue of "participants" and "country" quite well by completely omitting it.Koncorde (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course he should. Winners aren't only determined based on who played in the final. Eden Hazard was out injured but contributed significantly in earlier rounds. TonyStarks (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure they are not that expensive. And also i guess Chelsea decides who gets a medal, not UEFA. May it be the bus driver, shirt washer or boots cleaner. -Koppapa (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Thousands of pounds (sorry, I mean Euros...) wasted, but it doesn't surprise me since football organisations, and the people they employ, are experts at wasting/misplacing/stealing money. Argyle 4 Lifetalk23:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think BA shoud have a medal (zero minutes?!), but TERRY (six games, one goal) as Tony aptly puts it, definitely should. --AL (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The UEL regulations just say that there are 40 medals for the club to distribute. Nothing about eligibility. Hack (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Ba is a special case, because he not only didn't play in the tournament, but couldn't, but given there are 40 medals now (up from 30) any active squad member (the squads are listed on the UEFA website) can be considered a winner. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I would make a distinction between him being awarded a winners' medal and winning in the final: ie, link to the tournament, not the final match. Same should probably be the case for all unused subs etc. But do we normally link to the final or to the tournament anyway? I would have assumed/hoped the latter. Kevin McE (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Just for your information, the daily mail and other newspapers critics this apparition in chelsea kit because he have not win the cup, it's not on the field in the final game. For the medals the UEFA said in 5.04 point : "Forty gold medals are presented to the winning club, and forty silver medals to the runner-up. Additional medals may not be produced." It's not indicated that the medals are only for players, coachs, president, doctor and others members of the club are concerned too, it'a at the discretion of the club. Sorry for my english, it's more easy in french for me...--Remy34 (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a recurrent error regarding the Leeds United content - namely that "A.F.C." is being inaccurately assigned to pages regarding the club rather than the correct "F.C.". Essentially all football clubs have a legal personality (XYZ Limited) and a playing personality (XYZ F.C.). The club was sold from one company, the old company (Oldco) (now in liquidation) to a new company (Newco). The reason for the error is that the "association" bit was part of the old defunct company name, but is NOT part of the new company name, nor is it part of the playing personality (team) name, as evidenced in this Official FA document. The one notable exception where AFC is still used, presumably an error on their part, is the UEFA site - which must surely be superseded by the official FA document above, not to mention no record whatsoever of AFC being part of the club's name on their own Official website - a place where the existence of such an oversight would be inconceivable.
Basically the problem is that many of the links to do with Leeds, including of course the main page itself, includes this erroneous "AFC" part. Can these errors be corrected for the sake of accuracy? Gefetane (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware some fans may take issue with this change, as "AFC" has unquestionably continued within some cultural aspects re. the club. The question is simply whether Wikipedia should be accurate on this matter or not, as I do not believe that can be any serious question of the factual integrity of the claim (any disputing of which relies solely on the assumption one uefa website page trumps the accuracy of the club's own official website/Official FA documents/records etc.) Gefetane (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Will if we take the approach that some users on here take, his lead should not indicate French or Algerian, he is just a footballer! On a more serious note, there's absolutely no discussion, Zidane is French. TonyStarks (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I was once part of the Wikiproject Football before, but school and life does indeed take me away from WP:Football. Now I'm back, and I checked about an article stub for Aguilas de Tabasco. The weird thing is... I actually can't find the official link for the football club nor any histories of it in the Tercera Division of Mexico nor in Google.
I'm curious to know what kind of guidelines do I have to follow to ensure that the club has enough information to stay here on Wikipedia as a solid article, whether as a stub or not.
Also, like I say before, I'm willing to help out with research for other little-known football clubs around the world if you want, y'all can ask me via the talk page of my profile.
Hey GiantSnowman, thanks for the reply, but I can't find any notability for the football clubs and to decide whether they should be left alone or deleted. Rakuten06 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, I checked the WP:FOOTYN for the club notability and according to that, Aguilas de Tabasco never appeared in a Mexican Cup (Copa MX) and I never found a independent link or whether that Aguilas de Tabasco have an official website for that, so I'm thinking of recommending it for deletion. What do you think, GiantSnowman?
Mexico hasn't had a national cup for decades, and Copa MX first began in 2012, so I'm not sure FOOTYN is helpful for Mexican clubs. This club is clearly small, but it does get some coverage in the Mexican press, so I imagine it will pass GNG. Accordingly, I think it would be best to take it to AfD if you plan to request deletion. Jogurney (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Is this club notable on any level? Despite the name it apparently has a men's section, which plays at a very very non-notable level, but what about the women's section.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
...........and, if kept, should it be removed from categories related to men's football, given the non-notable nature of that particlar team? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
A team from Stoke Gabriel, which is a village near Totnes, plays at a higher level than this club. The first team in this article plays in the sixth division of the women's pyramid. Not notable. The women's team associated with my club is borderline and they've played three leagues higher. Argyle 4 Lifetalk21:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
PROD has been removed on the grounds the team has played in a national cup. So, should the categories related to men's football be removed, on the grounds of the extreme non-notability of the men's team.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, as should all the information on that team, though it looks like the category has already been removed. If notability is defined by entering the FA Women's Cup then most of these clubs are eligible! Argyle 4 Lifetalk05:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
He's certainly culturally significant though, and I think probably merits an article under those terms, rather than his prowess as a footballer (ignoring race). Do we have any sources to suggest if he went on to play football at any level? The BBC source above does say he coached at Queens Park Rangers F.C.Grunners (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I can not find any reliable source though to back that claim. Surely if he played for Charlton their would be at least 1 reliable source claiming he did? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with GS ↑↑↑. But if anyone wants to contact him to clarify anything they can do so on [REDACTED] got it from here pg2. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
There was some contemporary media coverage. He got several paragraphs (headed "Boy 'Pele' plays for England") and a picture in the Daily Mirror before his first appearance for England schoolboys in March 1971 (can't supply a publicly accessible URL, but could upload a screenshot if anyone's interested). Leslie Nichol in the Daily Express preview of England vs Holland schoolboys (April 1971) writes "This boy has amazing speed, and I expect him to destroy the Dutch defence through a goal-scoring link with Brian Bason from Sussex" (England won 5–1 and Odeje scored). He gets a mention as an example in a November 1971 Mirror feature about the possibility of England being represented by a multiracial team in the next ten years. Played for Charlton team that reached FA Youth Cup QF in 1973 (Mirror). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit of a newbie (when it comes to creating articles) and I just created Benjamin Odeje without realising that this debate existed. Sorry if I have trod on anyone's toes... MrStoofer (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
No problems at all. Let's see if Struway can dig out his sources to bring up the article to meet GNG - if he does, brilliant, we have another notable article! If he doesn't, no worries, we can discuss other options such as redirecting etc. GiantSnowman15:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it massively pedantic to point out that if he played for England Schools then he didn't technically represent England? Anyone who goes to school in England is eligible for that team, even if they are not English (Ryan Giggs of course played for England Schools, which is what some people base the erroneous claim that he could have played for England on) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Depends if he passes GNG. If not then a redirect to a new article about Black players in association football would be fine, as stated. Argyle 4 Lifetalk06:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I've expanded it a bit, and nominated for DYK as well. To Chris: it's true that in the days when ESFA ran the schoolboy internationals, the qualification wasn't the same as the current England under-age teams. However, contemporary news sources referred to the matches as featuring "England", and to Mr Odeje specifically as the first "African" or "coloured schoolboy" to "play for England". And the current BBC news piece quotes an FA spokesperson as "confirm[ing] Benjamin Odeje was the first black player to represent England at any level." So yes, it's not only massively pedantic, it goes against reliable published sources ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Premature Neymar edits
So Neymar won't officially sign with Barcelona until Monday, and even then, it doesn't seem like he won't actually be on the team until July (though I'm not sure what the protocol is when a player has played his last match with his old team). That obviously doesn't stop editors from making premature edits and adding stat tables.
Anyway, I'm at (or past) 3 reverts so I'm stepping away from the article, so if this is the kind of stuff that bugs you, please keep an eye on the article. Mosmof (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
This category includes players who were born in what is now the Republic of Ireland or who have played for the Republic of Ireland national football team at senior level, junior level or both.
Mr proposed wording:
This category includes players who were born in what is now the Republic of Ireland or who have played for, or declared an intention to play for, the Republic of Ireland national football team at senior level, junior level or both.
Murry1975 (talk·contribs) disagrees, so we have said we will bring it here. My logic is that if a player (an example is Daniel Devine) is eligible for the ROI national team, and declares his intention to play for them, then he should be included in the category. Thoughts welcome. GiantSnowman16:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I dont believe the catergory should be added to player who hasn't played at some level for the FAI or been born in what is now the state, the wording of the definition in the catergory should, in my opinion, stay the same.
My reasonig for this is based on two (related) points;-
Firstly WP:CRYSTAL, we dont know if they will be capped, calling them Foo association footballers assume they would/will be.
Secondly, the biographical aspect- if a player fails to be capped, their career ends without, Vinny Jones wanted to play for Ireland at one stage (he wasnt eligble in the end but still gave his intention), do we keep a catergory that doesnt represent the players career.
I removed the atergory a while back some where (cant remember who) an American player who is of Irish descent, no caps, not born in the state, an American international and no indication of his desire to play for ROI.
I agree with GiantSnowman. If a player declares themselves for a nation, they must be recognised as having that nationality to some degree by some form of governing body and therefore they have a right to claim that nationality. If we do not add this text to the category, we are precluding the category from including players that have every right to be included there. – PeeJay20:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Murry here, declaring intent is simply not good enough to warrant inclusion in the category. Is there proof that the player is eligible to represent the country? Do they have nationality/will they be able to acquire it? Are they answering a simple question in a not so serious interview? Will they ever receive a call-up? Lots of factors have to be considered and I think it's a lot simpler to keep the category as is than to modify it and open it up to editors interpretations of comments made by players. If anything it will just create more problems to deal with. TonyStarks (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Regarding eligibility - yes. Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, I believe that every player from Northern Ireland is eligible to represented the Republic of Ireland at sport. Does that mean that every player should be included in both? No. Does that mean that players who declare international alleigance to the ROI should be included in the relevant category? Yes. GiantSnowman08:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with TonyStarks, declaring intent does not equate to being such a person. If you have a Kenyan who wants to play for the Denmark national team, he shouldn't have the category until he is such a player, regardless of his objectives. Until such a time that he has represented his adopted country, he is not a player of that country. Otherwise every Kenyan footballer in Denmark could make a claim to this re-worded category. I've used different nationalities in my example to try to emphasise the point. C67910:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
If the Kenyan is eligible for the Danish national team i.e. holds nationality of that country then I say he should also be included. He is Danish, he is a footballer - he is a Danish footballer. GiantSnowman10:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, and based on that, let me clarify my point from earlier: if a player declares his intention to play for a particular national team, and it can be proven (either in the same source or another) that he is indeed eligible to play for that country, of course he should be added. – PeeJay11:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Just make sure I'm getting everything straight here, we're talking about someone who is not a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, but is eligible to play for the RoI (is this even possible?) and has declared their intention to do so? Then, yes, they should be included in this category. The eligibility creates a sufficiently real link between the person in question and the RoI, and declaration makes the link sufficiently pertinent to merit inclusion in the category, in my opinion. Only one or the other is not sufficient though. As already pointed out above, without eligibility the declaration is irrelevant, and without the declaration, the eligibility is in all likelihood not encyclopaedically interesting. I've included the criteria that the person be a non-citizen, because if they are a citizen of the RoI, they're an RoI footballer by virtue of their citizenship already and the declaration becomes a moot point. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
(de-indent) People born in Northern Ireland can choose to have British or Irish citizenship (or both) under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. Football-wise, FIFA goes further, and allows anyone born on the island of Ireland to play for either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland (good background here). In Wikipedia terms, we need to be VERY careful when attributing national identities to people from Northern Ireland – such editing is subject to Arbcom restrictions (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles) Oldelpaso (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Marco van Ginkel
He is being linked with a move to Chelsea from his club Vitesse and a lot of people keep vandalizing the page. I have reverted it once already and another Wiki user has also, just was hoping for some protection of the page so it doesn't keep happening. Thanks! Rupert1904 (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Something seems extremely fishy about this article. It was created by a user whose presence on WP seems to simply be the enhancement of the subject's online profile. Is the subject actually notable, or are most of the sources in the article red herrings? – PeeJay01:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This reminds me of one of those CVs which says things like "I was involved in a project" or "During my time at xxx so-and-so was achieved". Yes but what did YOU actually do? This has all the right words, Ruud Gullit, Arsenal, coaching etc. but what has Mr Ali actually done to make him notable. Even the image included is up for deletion. Would suggest a massive case of self promotion with very little substance.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Taken a look at it and it's not clear if the sources are enough to support such an article. The Daily Mail article labels him an amateur and youth coach. Other sources appear to be making routine reports and/or are from blogs, etc. May be a candidate for AfD. C67910:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Had a bit of a crack at improving to meet BLP standards. While there was a fair bit of literary licence, he seems to have been at all the places claimed, just not always in the capacity claimed. Hack (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I just watched Fast & Furious 6 (don't judge me). Anyway this guy played a minor role as a massive bruiser. I looked on his wiki page and it says "Kold is a former football goalkeeper. In 1993, at 27 years of age, he suffered a serious injury in his Achilles tendon. He was sent to the gym for rehabilitation training, where he took up an interest in bodybuilding". If he was a professional footballer at the age of 27 then he must have had some sort of career in the game. Does anyone have any sources for (probably) Danish football in the early 1990s?--EchetusXe00:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
In this interview he claims he has played 150 "divisjonkampe", which means league-matches, but even though I speak the sister-language, I believe that it means lower-league matches. Atleast he hasn't played in Superligaen (per GiantSnowman), and since he doesn't say what team he played these matches for, we should assume that he never played professional. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
So how does this USA drafting/allocation system work? In my understanding a team can draft players, but those don't have to play there it's optional. She was apparently allocated to the Wahsington Spirit, but doesn't appear in their roster now. Should the team even be included in the infobox, and should she be in Category:National Women's Soccer League players? I bet there are more players that were drafted/allocated and never went for that club. -Koppapa (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
By drafting a player, a club basically owns the rights to that player in that league, but never has to actually sign them to an contract or put them on their roster. In MLS there are two seperate categories for a club's drafted players and their actual players, which might be an idea for the NWSL. As for the league category, a player would not be eligible until they have actually played in the league. GiantSnowman15:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Between-Season Squads
I was wondering if you could advise on what to do at Barrow A.F.C.. An editor has been removing players who were at the club for the 2012-13 season, on the grounds that they have not signed again for the 2013-14 season yet. I can see some logic in this, but it doesn't reflect what's done at other clubs - in practice, we'd be having to remove players from many semi-professional clubs during the summer, which we don't currently do. It's also a huge logistical issue - we'd be removing hundreds of players from squads in May, only to re-add them in July/August. It also doesn't reflect how we represent player careers - we don't state that players leave clubs over the summer nad return, even where they are out of contract for those months. Finally, it's not what people are looking for on Wikipedia - they want a sense of what players are involved in the club. These are the players who have been playing at teams within the last month, and are therefore relevant for the article.
Therefore, my inclination is to hold players on a club's article, until it is confirmed that they have signed elsewhere, or are not signed again in the July/August. This is primarily an argument based on pragmatics, usability of Wikipedia and precedent. However, I wanted others' views on this as I'm happy for there to be a consensus which disagrees with me! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Your view is right - only remove players once they have actually left (not leaving at end of contract, not unsure of future etc.). GiantSnowman17:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Project concensus for merged/sold franchises?
The Mexican top division has just approved some significant changes to three of its franchises for the upcoming season (two clubs were sold and moved to new locations, while a third was purchased by a second division club who are using it's franchise to compete in the top division). What is the general view on how to deal with articles about these clubs (there have been several other franchise moves in the past as well)? I think the US clubs have articles denoting the club name and years active, and a new article is created each time a franchise is moved (e.g., San Jose Earthquakes have an article, and Houston Dynamo have a separate article). Is that the appropriate way to organize the Mexican club articles? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe - with US/Canada/Mexico/Korea/wherever - that if a football franchise moves location or changes name then we do not need to have new articles for every 'incarnation', we simply need to re-name the page and have redirects as appropriate. GiantSnowman10:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
So, we would expect to move the article for San Luis F.C. over to Chiapas F.C. because that franchise simply moved location and was re-named (it wasn't a merger or liquidation of the former franchise)? However, in the case of C.F. La Piedad, an existing club (Tiburones Rojos de Veracruz) acquired it's franchise and C.F. La Piedad ceased to exist. Should we keep the article on Veracruz where it is (and simply note that the club will play in the top division after acquiring La Piedad's franchise) and also keep La Piedad's article in the same place, but note that it is now defunct? Thank you. Jogurney (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
If the same club/franchise has simply moved/changed name (as I believe is the case in the San Luis/Chiapas example), then we should simply re-name the existing article.
In the La Piedad/Veracruz example, has the Veracruz club which has acquired the La Piedad name changes its name or anything as well? Or is it still Veracruz?
It's more confusing than I stated earlier. According to this article, the former Veracruz second division franchise was sold and relocated to San Luis Potosi where it will play under the name Atletico Potosino. So the old La Piedad top division franchise was acquired by Veracruz's owner and moved to Veracruz where it will adopt the name, logo and uniform of the second division franchise which was sold. Yuck. Jogurney (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
So the La Piedad club/franchise has gone to Veracruz while the Veracruz club/franchise has gone to San Luis? GiantSnowman16:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. However, the former owner of the Veracruz franchise bought the La Piedad franchise and changed its location and name to match the former Veracruz franchise. It's confusing. Jogurney (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I've tried my best to update the central section (out of date information there had cause at least 3 news, including The Guardian, to incorrectly report FC Pasching will enter promotion play-offs[1][2][3]), but I lack the time to update the rest. The German version is up-to-date.
I'm sure this has been brought up on numerous occasions but a potential edit war may begin in 2012–13 Ukrainian Premier League about the inclusion of a section to the goalscoring section - This being a table of assists. An individual has placed the a table on the 10 leading assist producers. I contended that this is an additional statistic that does not add any value except statistics. However, I see that it is also in the EPL. I contended for consistancy's sake that previous seasons don't have this table and that other leagues don't have it as well. Appreciate some comments from the gallery. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Reliable sources that tally assists are few and far between, and many disagree on the definition, giving contradictory stats, especially historically - therefore it is better not to include assists. Same goes for red/yellow cards. GiantSnowman12:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
My exact sentiments on this. The source being used is from a media source. It may be a copy of what the governing body of the league is displaying on their website. However, this individual is being confrontational on this issue in that several top league season articles are including this data. I'm considering a WP:RFC so there can be some mediation into this matter. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I oppose that point. In my opinion as long as there is at least one well documented source, it should be mentioned. If not than the information qualifies for self research and should be omitted. However, the assist statistics can be a great supporting information for reflection on a season and justification for some national sports awards such as annual player awards. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I mean, define "well-documented". If all the sources use different definitions of an assist, who's to say which is correct, and therefore is there even such a thing as a "well-documented" source for assists? – PeeJay15:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
That's the point with this ambiguous statistic. While goalscoring is documented and noted by the referee, where is the determination of the assist coming from. There could be a conflict of opinion as to whether its an assist at all. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I completely agree with you. Some sources even award assists to the players who are fouled in the awarding of a penalty! But anyway, now that we've got that sorted, can I suggest that we don't just remove assist stats from season pages but from all pages? – PeeJay11:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that assists should be removed not just from season pages but also other pages. However, I think we are going to get resistance from this side of the Atlantic Ocean (USA) where the assist statistic in soccer is there to be so it analogous to hockey stats, basketball stats etc. Most of all FIFA has kept way from this area. My attention is to the Ukrainian league where a couple editors have mad comparisons to other UEFA leagues that now are displaying this table and this statistic. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
GS - Do you think it is worthwhile to get rfc for third party mediation and/or do we get them involved with the discussion that has evolved here? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
It would certainly be worthwhile bringing this discussion to the attention of any editors you think might be interested. GiantSnowman15:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Aleksandr Grigoryev. Assists are an important indicator of some of the most valuable players in the league, alongside the top scorers. Some leagues or magazines give awards to the player with the most assists, or the player that has the most goals + assists combinations, as the person who directly participated in the most goals. Just because you found some sources that slightly disagree doesn't mean that an assists section automatically has no value. Most of the sources agree on everything besides only one or two players.
In the case of the Ukrainian Premier League, there is only one available, reliable source so this isn't a problem there. In another league, if some sources disagree (and we know they will agree on almost everything), then we can come up with a hierarchy of sources we can trust. I propose that the priority should start with first looking at the official website of the league. Next, you can look at the websites of large sports-related magazines that hire their own journalists and give out association football awards. Third in line would be the websites that simply discuss the news and write commentaries about events. With this hierarchy of sources, I think most of the inconsistencies can be eliminated. However, the decision to remove assists tables is not a solution because in removing them, you are depriving the article of valuable information.--BoguSlav15:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
What is the article being deprived of that is so valuable? The result of a game and the tabulation of points that determines classification is from goals scored and not assists. The information is speculative at best. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Without an assists table article is being deprived of acknowledgement of the players that were directly involved in the creation of a goal. Goals don't materialize out of thin air, so the person who made that last pass that led to a goal deserves recognition. Similarly to the top scorers table, which tells us which players are best at putting the ball in the back of the net, the assists table tells us which players are best at making the last pass that will become a goal. If you watched football, you would know that the last pass is often just as important, or even more important, for the goal to be scored than the work of the player who scores the goal.--BoguSlav21:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Assists are no more of a statistic than own goals, red cards, yellow cards. While you say that an assist is more than important than the goal itself and that goals don't happen out of thin air, that is a highly opinionated consideration given that some goals are scored by individual brilliance or by defensive mistakes. Given that then the goal scored is the most important occurance in the game which determines the result of games in the season - NOT assists and giving them credence is highly speculative. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
That's why I said some players that assist a goal have done more work than the person who scored. Nice try there. I think you and I both know what I'm talking about here, unless you really have no clue about this game. In some goals, all of the work is done by a player who passes the ball to another player who taps it into an empty goal. Sure, the scorer deserves recognition, but no less than the assister.--BoguSlav23:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
FIFA doesn't agree with you because the referee makes a note of who scored for the official match report but no recogition is made to the assister or assisters 23:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
To coin a phrase, no one remembers the guy who finishes second, just as no one remembers the guy who made the pass for a goal. And nor should they. Assists are statistically irrelevant. After all, where do you draw the line? The guy who passed to the guy who scored? The guy who passed to him? How far back does it go? I mean, in the end, which pass makes the goal? It's not relevant. – PeeJay23:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you we were to play your hypothetical game lets forget the contributions of the individual players altogether. After all, it's the team that wins or loses. Clearly none of the top scorers wouldn't have made it onto that list had it not been for teamwork. Besides, what is a "goal scorer" really? It's simply someone who made the final touch before the ball went to the back of the net. Who's going to remember that? It's the result of the game that matters more than who scores. Let's just make the season articles with a league table and that's it. You can make anything sound irrelevant if you oversimplify. --BoguSlav23:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Given that Dario Srna is supposedly the number 1 assist maker in Ukrainian PL with 12 assists one should be able to find where those 12 assists happened. The source just doesn't exist because the recording is kept in some hidden file that is not accessible to all.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Eldumpo (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
If reliable sources are quoting assists for leagues then I don't see the problem in including them. If there are multiple reliable sources (with different data) then either list the alternative figures, or if there really is too much confusion there could be a case for not including them. However, most of the time won't there be an official source for these assists? Eldumpo (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
The assists table has been part of the league statistics for quite sometime. Last season of English premier league saw their page being played around a lot with people removing and adding back the assists table. Sadly, I too was involved in the melee. Ever since the dubious goals committee was formed, the confusion of goals have gone in Premier League. It's not the case still with other leagues. Pichichi awards goals based on their team of experts, and their award to the top scorer is the most coveted in la liga. But this is not the official stats. This was evident couple of seasons back when Ronaldo scored different number of goals as per different committee. Same goes with assists as well. There might be contradictions between sources, there will always be. As long as the source is quoted and reliable to some extend I feel it should be fine. Regarding claims of only goal scorers being remembered... This is mainly because goal tally of every player is easily available and the assists tables are not. It's only been in the 2000s that assists counts started getting noticed more seriously. And this being Wikipedia, it's sad if we let such knowledge go waste. If I want to see how many did Pele assist, I won't even get a vague figure. Fifteen years down the line, if i want to see how much Cristiano Ronaldo impacted the game other than those many goals, it would be a little easier with the assists he made. I am not claiming here that assists give you a full account of the impact of a player. But it does give an additional account of the player's ability and impact in the final third. Deepak (talk)
Well same can be said for attendence, stadium capacity or even goal scorers as shown above. Sources differ. -Koppapa (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
But there are many sources... For assists I have asked, especially where this table has been included that if Dario Srna has 12 assists, where is the reliable source that will provide where each of those 12 assists occurred. For goals there are multiple sources - both in English and Ukrainian so even if there is a difference there is guidance that is laid down in WP:FOOTY as to what is to be included. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
What should the club stats be? Seems they've been messed up discreetly amongst all the adding of the misinformation. Narom (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Overhaul of notability guidelines and football article MOS
User:GiantSnowman and I have agreed that this WikiProject needs to re-examine its notability guidelines and completely re-do the Manual of Style for all the different types of articles we have. Obviously we can't do this unilaterally by ourselves, so we're looking for input from all of you guys. If you're interested in restoring WP:FOOTY to its past glory, post below. – PeeJay11:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Basically, we need to make it clearer as a WikiProject what we consider acceptable/notable and what we do not. How we want articles to look, what they should contain etc. GiantSnowman11:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Precisely. In my opinion, things are starting to get a little out of control and we need to pull back on the reins a little bit by imposing a few more stringent guidelines. – PeeJay11:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree but we've been saying this for years, especially with regards to notability, and every discussion ends up going precisely nowhere. Here's hoping for better luck this time. BigDom (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we just have to resolve to make sure any suggestions are actually implemented this time. This is why I'm hoping we can get a decent number of people (particularly WP:FOOTY veterans) involved in the discussion, so that we can get considered opinions based on the past and future of the project. – PeeJay12:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy to help out wherever needed (and think I count as a veteran ;)) so hopefully we can get a few more people on board and get cracking. BigDom (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
As an opinionated noob ( as you can see on the Danny Wright AFD) I'd be happy to help where possible. Narom (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Members has 401 active members and a whole lot more that are inactive. The list has not been updated with a tag from July 2011. The project as whole has been status quo for a while now. I will contibute in the areas that I have been involved with primarily from the Ukrainian Football scene. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree some changes would be welcome, but would suggest that revised notability guidance is more important than MOS issues. Eldumpo (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to prioritise one over the other, as I believe that some club season articles are getting ridiculous in terms of the sheer amount of pointless stats, templates and tables that are being included, but I see where you're coming from. – PeeJay12:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Certain club season articles do really take the biscuit when it comes to stats. Ban starting XI's first and foremost unless it can be backed up with creditable sources, not tosh. Why is a disciplinary record table needed if said user isn't going to add any context? Some have a squad information table, on top of a top goalscorers column. Plenty have kit sections without prose -- I mean really. Looks nice on the eye, but nothing encyclopedic or creditable for a reader to get stuck into. Such was my concern of them, I actually bothered to keep a record of the Arsenal ones in my sandbox and the articles ticked are more or less what this new MOS should expect. Readable content and tables when needed. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree. I remember use having this discussion earlier in 2012 on the 2012-13 Arsenal season page. This is an encyclopedia for gods sake, not a football stats website. Starting 11s I am fine with though. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you give/link to a bit more info - which guidelines need to be made stricter and what are the problems? What exactly do you suggest? - filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
So, how are we going to go about this? I would suggest creating a separate page for a discussion of this magnitude. Perhaps have a page called Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability Guidelines Discussion and then have members use the talk page there to add there opinions on what the new rules should be and then have the actual page have a "rough" copy of the new rules as they are implemented and agreed to. I am fine if we choose to go about this in a different way and am willing to add my input as well. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I am alright with that. Better title as well considering that we will all probably talk about the MOS and notability at the same time. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Totally disagree, I think separate pages for separate discussions. This topic is only a few hours old and is already confusing as editors comment on elements that are personal priorities. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it is already clear some editors are more interested in notability, some MOS. By having separate pages, editors can enter whichever discussion they want without their comments losing impact as others talk about a different subject. I don't have any particular issues with the current notability guidelines for clubs and players, they are succinct and a quick view of the AfDs in recent months show they work as they lead to pretty clearcut decisions 99% of the time. However, completely agree that more formal guidelines should be laid out for Leagues (particularly those that are not the top league in any given country), seasons, referees, non-playing staff, etc. Looking at the recent AfDs, it is these areas where there is much more debate because there lacks clear guidelines. Fenix down (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
From a project management aspect Fenix, you should always start with a centralised hub - and then you can spiral off into subsections with task forces etc and personal interests. If you spin it off right now, we're going to get a MOS that will not speak to the Notability and have difficulty referencing a centralised strategy. The 2013 Review should be the White Paper from which we identify activities to be undertaken in a logical and managed process. Koncorde (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Happy to see a centralised page to allow us to decide upon which elements need to be looked at in greater detail, but would be concerned if it was much more than that. there already seems to be two separate discussions on notability going on here already, one about what elements are notable within an article (which would be relevant to any MOS discussion) but also a discussion on what level of notability would be required for an article in the first place for subjects not directly covered by WP:NFOOTY. Would be great to do some work on this, so happy to participate whatever format it takes. Fenix down (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes Fenix - we would have a central page for general discussion and organization, and then create individual pages for every aspect we need to cover. GiantSnowman17:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm all for this. The articles are inconsistent across the board, I would love to see a consistency in sections, points of reference etc and would be more than willing to offer support wherever required. Koncorde (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
As another with many opinions, happy to contribute. Would suggest we decide on a priority list to stop this spiralling out of control and to avoid scope creep. Maybe the hardest issue could be dealt with first - notability? This would not, of course, preclude other issues from being dealt with later.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I hope you won't leave us to guess what your preferences would be, SNC! Input from all is welcome. – PeeJay00:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we need to change more than just notability guidelines / MOS - we need to change the culture. Participation in XFD is little-to-none, which is never good. GiantSnowman16:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I probably won't be here for the full discussion, so I'll weigh in early. In the relatively recent past it was suggested that we look to fr.wikipedia for inspiration. This was branded by some as bureaucracy, and misrepresented by others as an attempt to nuke any football article with any sort of connection to Scotland. With enough people conscious of the need to change, and given that there more chance of nuclear war on this island than of us reaching consensus for a change to the status quo on Scotland, I think something vaguely along the lines of the French model would be worth looking at again.
But the whole lot of this is doomed to failure, if we do not change the very nature of our notability guidelines. The bar should be set at a level above which you are almost certainly notable, not at a level below which you are almost certainly not. AfD discretion should (generally speaking) be anything between the current bar and the higher one, while the decision whether to keep or delete such articles should generally be based on their quality. Notable stubs should never be deleted purely for being stubs, but low profile one-line BLPs with a negligible hope of ever developing have no place on Wikipedia in 2013. —WFC— FL wishlist00:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I will create the subpage(s) later this week for a more in-depth discussion; I know that Lukeno has been working on some proposed guidelines and it could be for a good diea for other interested parties to get their thinking caps on as well. GiantSnowman10:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Airdrie / Airdrie United / Airdrieonians
This story is going to cause a mess. Any suggestions how to resolve this? Long and short of it is that Airdrieonians FC was founded in the 19th Century, but was liquidated in 2002 and ceased to exist. An Airdrie fan bought over Clydebank FC, moved the team to Airdrie and renamed it Airdrie United FC. That club has now been renamed Airdrieonians FC. The closest analogy I can think of is if AFC Wimbledon was allowed to rename itself Wimbledon FC. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Not sure how Clydebank feature in this, I thought they were a seperate, still-active club? My understanding is that Airdrieonians went bust in 2002 and Airdrie United were formed that same year as a replacement for the area. It would make sense for the following page moves:
I disagree that this bears no resemblance to the situation at Wimbledon/MK Dons. Airdrie United were in many ways a similar formation to MK Dons (In the sense they bought a club, changed its name and moved it. While keeping the same operating company, same FA membership share and same league membership share). VanguardScot13:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe the Accrington Stanley example is a good one. The current Accrington Stanley are much more notable that the original. Airdrieonians are the opposite, with the original Airdrieonians being much more notable. I would give both Airdrieonians pages a date, (2002) and (1878), especially since the original club were around so recently as opposed to the original Accrington Stanley disappearing over 50 years ago. i.e. having the current club page at Airdrieonians F.C. wouldn't be right with the original club being around so recently. VanguardScot13:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to let yous know some editor who hasn't joined this discussion (despite being asked) has moved the pages about, put the original club at Airdrieonians F.C. (1881) (wrong date) and has mixed up the talk pages. I don't have the knowledge to sort it out. VanguardScot14:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I've restored the history. Your problem was that Lbarnett-bl made a cut and paste move, so the page you moved back over the top (thus deleting the original page history) was actually the redirect (with a very short history) he created by making the original move. Number5714:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
You try & help out here, get everything perfect & some jobsworth slags you off, if you actually read the original Airdrieonians page they were under another name to start with & were Airdrieonians from 1881! (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC))
It's not a question of anyone being a "jobsworth", it's a recognition that this name change potentially involves moving a page (Airdrie United FC) to a page with an existing article (Airdrieonians FC) with hundreds of incoming links. This really needs to go through a WP:RM process, preferably after reaching some sort of consensus here. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Plus the fact you severely messed up the talk pages with your edit, so it was far from "getting everything perfect". Everyone here agrees with moving the Airdrie United F.C. page, its just a matter of solving all the small problems that entrails, and deciding exactly where to move it to. Cheers, VanguardScot14:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Snowman, There was also changes to the league table template earlier but I have corrected those for now and will update that on the outcome of this discussion. VanguardScot14:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I posted this on the talk page at the article in question as well but do note that there is now a reference within the Airdrie United F.C. article for the logo reverting back to the old Airdrieonians logo, surely I'm not going to be disagreed with for this particular edit!? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC))
There reviving the crest, but do we know that it will be identical to the original one. Im not so sure that we can, therefore are we maybe not better removing the image alltogether until the club unveil it. No problem with the text though.BletheringScot16:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Blethering Scot here. Keep it in the text but wait for official conformation before adding the badge. Strange how the official site and the STV page don't mention this change considering it is just as big (if not bigger) a change as the name. I would think they may keep the current badge but change the name on it to Airdrieonians, we will find out soon enough though. VanguardScot16:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Reviving a logo does not mean the 100% exactly the same, it could be vague design, certain colours or elements etc. GiantSnowman16:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Well the logo seems to be reverting to the original, according to the official website today. Some changes have been made on the article page - couple of typos, new Director & readability of article... but no changes to what you guys are discussing above - I'll leave it to you neutrals to sort out, I'm too close to the action to give an unbiased view! Centre Stand (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Was a bad move and shouldn't of been done. They are totally different logos, yes parts of the old crest has been used but they are not identical by any means. Adding the one of a different club certainly would not meet the fair use rationale nor is it accurate, i have rectified this but please be more careful when it comes to copyrighted logos.BletheringScot20:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Really need to sort out both the speed of decisions & some admins saying to do something then later getting told by another that it shouldn't have been done. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC))
Heh, I'm not an admin. The cockerel, lions and lettering on the shield is slightly different, yes. I failed to notice initially, which was not helped by the club saying they were "reinstating the familiar club crest". I was going to say that the all-red version of the altered crest should be used instead of the black and red version that was uploaded, but I see that has already been changed. Walls of Jericho (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I assumed by the post on your talk page & the fact you replied saying yes, can both logos not be used, shrinking them slightly to fit them side-by-side? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC))
Gibraltar
I'm not sure if the 2012–13 Gibraltar Premier Division should be listed in {{2012–13 in European football (UEFA)}}. It indeed was during the 2012–13 season that Gibraltar was accepted as a UEFA member, but does UEFA recognise the Premier Division as a national league? At the very least, there are just six participating teams this season, and I seem to remember reading that UEFA requires national leagues to consist of a minimum of eight teams (and therefore Liechtenstein cannot have one as there are only seven clubs in the country). --Theurgist (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure. They are UEFA member, it's their top league. May not be enough to enter the Champions's League at current state, but i don't see a problem with that. -Koppapa (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Gibraltar became a UEFA member after the season ended, so it should not be in the 2012–13 season. However, it is fine for the 2013–14 season. GiantSnowman10:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Gibraltar was granted membership on 24 May. This page, which is the only external source cited in the article on the current season of the national league, says the last league game is to take place on 8 June (it actually reads "08/05/2013", but that's likely just a typo since the game is listed in the "June 2013" section, which is right beneath the "May 2013" one), and the last domestic cup game is to take place on 1 June. Apart from the Gibraltarian, some other leagues listed in the template are yet to finish as of today, like the Spanish and the Macedonian leagues. So, no, the season has not ended. --Theurgist (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
On the Kevin Phillips article, the career statistics section seems a bit confused. I have often wondered why in these tables, some boxes are completed with zeros and others are blank or have dashes. Phillips only played twice in European club matches, so in that column there is an entry against Southampton in 2003–04, while the rest of the column is blank. In the FA Cup and League Cup columns (appearances and goals), however, for some clubs there is a double box with a dash, while for others there are two zeros. I had assumed that the dashes should be used when the club did not compete in that particular competition, while zeros should be used when the club competed but the player was never selected. What is the correct treatment? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's how I've always done it: zeros when the club competed but the player didn't make an appearance, and dashes when the club didn't enter a competition so he couldn't have made an appearance. BigDom (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
As above, plus if the club entered a comp but the player couldn't, e.g. if he left mid-season before the club played their first match in that comp, or if he arrived mid-season cup-tied, I'd put dashes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Off topic, but still, I've been bold and added a table to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. I believe this was the table that GiantSnowman proposed a couple of months ago, and that there was a consensus to use in all articles. The only thing that there was no consensus over (if I remember correctly) was if we should include the league the club played in that season, but in this example I've included it. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, good stuff. The 'Division' column was the only one we disagreed over but it is a minor point, the main thing is we get all tables using that basic design. GiantSnowman10:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I thought it was supposed to be a one-size-fits-all table - should we have a "League Cup" column for every player that hasn't played in that tournament? Only a minority of countries outside the British Isles have a League Cup. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We do whatever's appropriate without going over the top. If the player has played in countries where they have a second cup, then it makes sense to have a column for it. If they haven't, don't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Our columns should match whatever the reliable sources say. If there is a reliable source that only states 'Cup', then we have should have a 'Cup' column. If, for example, a reliable source breaks it down into League, European and 4 Cup competitions, then that's what we should have. The main thing is the general style and formating of the table should remain constant throughout every single article. GiantSnowman09:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
We had this exact same issue with Chinese footballers by province - previous discussion - if I recall correctly without reading the whole thing again there was consensus to say all relevant articles should remain in the main Category:Nationality players. As a side note, I think Category:American soccer players by state and subcats need to go, absolute BLP nightmare - what do you mean "by state"? Born there? Raised there? Family there? Went to college there? etc. GiantSnowman15:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
So with the cats for English or Scottish players, its open as to what decides which category we put them in? I've been basing it on birth. Cjwilky (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree. American soccer player is a declaration of a player's national team eligibility - not ethnicity, nor country of birth, otherwise Jeff Agoos would be a Swiss footballer and Jermaine Jones a German footballer. This is a recognized FIFA standard. So, either get rid of the state subcategories, or put players in both state origin and international eligibility (American soccer player) categories simultaneously. Mohrflies (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
As I told the person who started this thread, this is not the place for this discussion. This WikiProject does not own these subject categories. Please take it to CfD or start an RfC and then feel free to leave a note that the discussion is underway, as well as notifying all other projects that also have a stake in the decision. Otherwise, the state level cats are a standardized categorization scheme used on many topics, including for instance baseball and American football (and in general biographies of people in the US). It is not OR or BLP, it is the same as every-other categorization decision, it is based upon the text of the article. It is no more of a complicated decision than putting them in the American soccer player cat (or in a People from Somecity, USA cat). As in if the text supports a particular state, then hey, it can go there (it can even go in multiple ones). But again, this is a topic that needs discussed at a different venue, as FOOTY does not own any of these categories, no more than WikiProject Biography owns them or WPUS owns them. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I want to know if referees at Olympic games have got FIFA accreditations to referee a match? Where can I find the rule?--FCNantes72 (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok but for example, the south Korean Choi Gil-Soo who refereed during 1988 Olympic Games had he got FIFA accreditation? Someone in French Wikipedia wants to delete the French article because he had only refereed on 1988 Olympic games, so I defend the article, I want to know if he had FIFA accreditations. --FCNantes72 (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
1988 was the last open-age Olympics. Not 100% sure whether they're considered full internationals though. Hack (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
According RSSSF, he refereed at least one other international - Malta v Indonesia in 1991.[8] Worldreferee (not a particularly reliable site) lists a Gil-Soo Choi as officiating in a South Korea v Australia friendly in 1990 (considered by Australia as a full international).[9]Hack (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
That match between South Korea v Australia which Hack provided the Worldreferee ref for; RSSSF says it was Kil-Soo Choi same guy? Footballdatabase also says Kil-Soo Choi for that match. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Are they different, or is Veikkausliga just the current sponsored name for the Finnish top division? There's only one article, whose content covers both names as if they're the same thing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that... I followed the link in your Pekka whateverhe'scalled page to 1961 Mestaruussarja, from there clicked a link reading Mestaruussarja, and landed at Veikkausliga. Didn't notice it had been piped so to do, assumed I'd been redirected. In which case, please feel free to ignore me :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
What should the name of the main category (and any/all appropriate sub-categories) be? Executives? Officials? Administrators? GiantSnowman13:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to add that this a discussion about if Transfermarkt should be used in football biography articles, so it is potentially relevant to many of the pages under the scope of this project. Thanks, C67919:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
When I read the article, there is a mention "part of Great-Britain to 1960 Olympic games", but there isn't category to complete the information. Moreover when I read the british squad, no mention of the person. Who can give me the real information?--FCNantes72 (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I have expanded the article to include information from "Who's Who of Welsh International Soccer Players". This states that he was "the son of a professional footballer" - does anyone have any clue who this might be? (No point searching for Smith!!). -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Closed merge request
I have one from December which is still waiting for a merger, but there are no tags on it. In case it slipped out, the link is here. Thanks, C67907:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Starting XI
I've got an over-enthusiastic editor who keeps on editing Starting XI pictures to the Chester F.C. article, I take it I'm correct in my belief that such diagrams violate WP:OR and are not welcome? GiantSnowman18:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd be intrigued to see how they've worked it out, perhaps just basing it off total appearanceS? But i'm intrigued by "approximate starting lineup", what ever that means. Narom (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
At least no one can accuse Wikipedia of being democratic. Why should the wider world know what is going on, when a group of about 20 editors can decide on a policy to be imposed on the rest of us? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
If we were cricket editors, we'd be sitting here being smug about how the rest of Wikipedia was coming round to how we'd done it all along... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Having asked them what they were playing at, it appears that only guidelines will change as opposed to policy. Therefore I suggest we IAR and continue to disambuiguate as we have been doing successfully for the past decade i.e. NAME (footballer born YEAR). GiantSnowman14:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
In the centralised discussion, one of the contributors pointed out that this is a practice often used by other WikiProjects, such as WP:BASKETBALL. I always thought it would work quite well here, but as that same user pointed out, "notable for basketball doesn't mean notable for being a basketball". Maybe I'm extrapolating too far, but I've always thought that "footballer" was an iffy disambiguator. – PeeJay16:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer the project to be joining (presumably?) all other projects in gradually working towards a common Wikipedia-wide method of disambiguating that particular subset of biographical articles, rather than, by digging its heels in, gradually working towards being different from the rest of Wikipedia. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The encyclopaedia as a whole looks sloppy if we're not all following the same guidelines. – PeeJay16:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The presence or otherwise of a comma makes no odds to me, provided any moves don't break anything or cause extra work. Indeed its a struggle to think of anything that matters less. I never intended to play devil's advocate, I just thought people might want to know about it before it appeared all over their watchlists. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
That was my worry. I'm sure we're all used to something being broken during our time on Wikipedia; either through changes on here or a source changing URLs. I guess that any page using {{sortname}} at present will link to a redirect of any affected articles. Walls of Jericho (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Should we have the possible outcomes of groups on the next matchday?
In my opinion, I'd say it should be the latter; it is something that isn't found on other pages and should be kept up for the purpose of giving readers interesting information. Socc13r37 (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
A user has been editing club season articles en mass. First he was reverting PeeJay2K3 to include a round by results table. Seemingly PeeJay won him round because the user has started removing the tables from club season articles. When the edit is reverted he reverts it back again saying "User:PeeJay2K3 says Wikipedia don't approve of the results by round summary and they need deleting". Can we clear up that in fact there is no such consensus to remove results by round summaries from the project?--EchetusXe07:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Think any confusion here might be caused by the inclusion of a round-by-round in the League articles. It is almost impossible to source which team stood in which place after what 'round' in leagues in England like The Premier League. There are no 'rounds', one team may have played 8 another 10 games at the same date and position by rounds are not shown in any reliable reference. On a club season article it is easy to show that after game 6, for example, they were 12th etc. --Egghead06 (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason to not include a results by round table. It gives visitors a quick, decent idea of how a side has progressed over the course of a season. Gasheaduk (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Well reliable reference Statto.com list positions by round. I believe they judge the position by the end of the day on which the match was played, or possibly waiting until Saturday or Sunday evening for Friday games. It isn't a major issue outside of the Premier League anyway as most matches are played on the same day, barring the odd postponement.--EchetusXe12:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not "positions by round", it's "position after game played". The concept of league "rounds" or "weeks" is not the same in English and continental football. 109.173.211.121 (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason to remove these and at least it gives you a rough overview of where the team was after each game. Without this there is no way of knowing the progression of the team during the season. Keith D (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The MUFC season articles use an ordinary wikitable for their match results, and have a league position column, so the results by round template is superfluous; which might be where PeeJay is coming from. But where a club season article uses a stack of footballboxes for its match results, I don't have a problem with including the r-by-r table; as Keith says, it gives a rough overview of the team's progression up and down the league through the season. Results by Round is a misnomer, though, because as said above there are no rounds in English football. Heading the section League positions by match, or something meaning that but in decent English, might be preferable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd more than happy if these are permitted as I also find them a very useful tool for seeing the progress of a season. Thebof (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
First of all, why didn't anyone inform me of this discussion? I wish I'd known that something I'd said to one editor had had such wide-reaching repercussions. Second, this is exactly why I don't approve of the use of collapsible footballboxes in club season articles; the space is not used efficiently so pages end up being far longer than necessary (physically, albeit not necessarily longer in terms of bytes), and a lot of information is unnecessary. The name of the stadium, the name of the referee and the names of the opposition goalscorers are irrelevant; since the article is about a specific club, we don't need to know who scored the opposition's goals or when they were scored, and the referee often has little bearing on the result; sure, there is always a referee and they may make a controversial decision, but their identity is not important to the table. In cases where the referee's identity is necessary, we can simply note it in the prose section that every season article should have (yes, all of them, no exceptions). By using a simple wikitable to tabulate the club's results throughout the season, space can be used more efficiently and the table can contain more relevant data, such as the team's league position after each game, thus eliminating the need for a separate "results/position by round" table. I am yet to see a reasonable argument in favour of the collapsible footballbox templates; were I to do so, I would certainly reconsider my position, but I firmly believe that the format of the MUFC season articles (itself stolen from another club whose season articles existed well in advance of the MUFC ones) is an example that should be followed throughout the encyclopaedia. – PeeJay14:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
