Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Margate F.C.

Just a quick note to say that I've put a group of articles up for Featured Topic status which, if successful, would be the first ever football FT, and only the second sport-related FT of all if you don't count pro wrestling........... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it'll be withdrawn and snowed. They will still be 1 sports-related FT! :D Davnel03 17:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification re. notability criterion

Could someone clarify the following notability criterion for me?

"[A person is generally notable if they] have competed in a fully professional league, ..."

Let's use the Dutch leagues Eerste Divisie and Hoofdklasse as an example of this. The top clubs in those leagues (RKC Waalwijk, IJsselmeervogels) are fully professional, while the bottom clubs are either semi-professional (e.g. FC Eindhoven) or fully amateur. The players of the top clubs are probably notable enough for Wikipedia, but technically speaking they're not in a fully professional league. I would suggest finetuning this criterion, to take such cases into consideration. Any thoughts? Aecis^Brievenbus 23:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This was tried with a short while ago, with the suggested criteria amended to "plays for a fully professional club in a national league", which would cover the clubs you have mentioned above. However, it doesn't seem to have been adopted... пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out at this stage that there is a current proposal on WP:BIO to demote the additional criteria to essay status and allow projects to come up with their own additional notability criteria. This will not affect the overarching guideline of WP:N in that any topic is notable if it provides adequate proof and sources. In the majority of cases WP:BIO only applies/is used if an article doesn't have any sources or proof at all. Nanonic (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Help - Group of Sleep

Hi. I'm trying to resuscitate this article, which was rightly speedied after prod for being unreferenced for so long. The term is very familiar to other British fans I speak to, and indeed there's loads of uses in blogs etc, but I have so far found just one source that refers to the term that isn't a blog/forum, but it ([1]) isn't even a football publication and certainly doesn't fulfil WP:V!

I've done excruciating web searches and turned up nothing. If anyone out there has books about World Cup or European championships and can find RS for this, I'd be most grateful. --Dweller (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it is familiar? I've certainly never heard of it, and it doesn't even sound like proper English to me. "Group of Death" would be the only "group" I would say is a well-known phrase. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've certainly heard it used, I think the first time might have been at the 1986 World Cup, although I may be daydreaming that. I wouldn't say it was a significant part of football lore, though...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict> The term was coined in ironic opposition to "Group of Death". I first remember it (it may predare this, but Group of Death only originates in 1986) used for the 1990 World Cup group that was England, Ireland, Netherlands and Egypt, which produced dire football. Google hits are about 250K, but many of those are "group of sleep doctors" or whatever, but plenty of relevant hits... just not RS. And Chris, agreede it may not be massively significant, but think it should be demonstrably notable, just frustrated I can't find the evidence! I suspect the redtops use the term, but I don't think they have searchable web archives. --Dweller (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, can't say that I've ever heard of it. - fchd (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is original research, and not necessarily by any of the contributors to this talk page. I was an avid national team follower during the 1990 World Cup, and knowhere did I hear the term mentioned - today is the first time I've heard of it. It is certainly not widely used enough to qualify for an article (or even a mention in an article), in the way that Group of death is. Just because one quotational remark is notable, does not automatically mean that it's antithesis is. And an opposite which can't be sourced properly, at that. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Earliest reference I can find is [2] where it was used in the US press about England's group in the 1986 World Cup. There is a search box at the top of the page linked, I was searching for "group of sleep" AND "world cup" and got about 15 hits, some from/referring to 1986 and some applying the term to other competitions. Though FWIW I don't remember hearing the term used either. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Goal

Some code already modified in this templates, now it can use pen. or o.g. (e.g. {{goal|45|pen.}} to determine that additional parameter. --Aleenf1 04:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Citing a match programme

Is it possible to cite a match program if it not on the internet. Thanks.  Sunderland06  12:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've done it several times e.g. in Hatem Trabelsi. Use the same approach as you would for a club website, bearing in mind that both programmes and club websites are self-published sources. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I would use Template:cite journal to cite a match programme. – PeeJay 13:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll have to wait till Gazh tells me the date the programme was sold and what the title of the article was. Thanks.  Sunderland06  14:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be okay, as programmes are freely available to buy for years afterwards via the internet and specialist outlets - therefore it is possible to use them as references as a "non-throwaway" resource, unlike some newspaper editions which aren't archived or transferred to the internet. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yossi Benayoun article name changed

Someone has just moved Yossi Benayoun's article to Yosef Shai "Yossi" Benayoun as that is his full name, surely this runs counter to WP:COMMONNAME? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverted by PeeJay2K3. Davnel03 19:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that and reverted it. – PeeJay 19:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Denbigh Town F.C.

Doesn't seem to be notable. Anyone want to prod it? Davnel03 19:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

They seem notable enough to me. Peanut4 (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why they're not notable. Care to explain? – PeeJay 20:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite a poorly written article but I agree, it seems notable enough..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Playing at Level 2 of the Welsh system seems notable enough to me as well. - fchd (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer reviewed journals

For those of you who may not have come across the site before, I'd like to recommend the LA84 Foundation as being quite useful for it's archive of peer-reviewed sports related journals including Football Studies (archives) (NB. The Football studies archive is a) not complete and b) covers all variants of football). The archive index of all available publications can be accessed from here and are predominately pdf files giving references, as you'd expect from peer-reviewed publications. Some selected papers include

• New Fans, New Flag, New England? Changing News Values in the English Press Coverage of World Cup 2002
• An Examination of the Homefield Advantage in a Professional English Soccer Team from a Psychological Standpoint
• Attitudes, Expectations and Demands of English Premier League Football Association Referees
• Theyre Playing R. Song. Football and the European Union after Bosman
• Football, History and Memory: The Heroes of Manchester United
• Globalised Football Fandom: Scandinavian Liverpool FC Supporters
• The Effects of Managerial Changes in English Professional Soccer, 1975-1995

and many more. You can search within the archive here. Hope this is of some help to someone. Nanonic (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Scottish footballers who played for another national team

I don't have time to nominate this properly at the moment, so I'm listing it here for now. Obviously, if someone wants to move it to the main page, please do.- Dudesleeper · Talk 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also Category:English footballers who played for the Republic of Ireland. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Before doing so, you should be aware of the naming debate here. Kevin McE (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A debate I have attempted to re-ignite, after if closed with no consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Gallery of Bradford City kits

Notable or not? I'd say it's erring on the side of a Keep vote, myself, but what do you guys think? – PeeJay 21:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah. Definitely on the "indiscriminate collection of information" side of things. There's no impact or derived notability from them, and the strip template is only supposed to provide an approximatation for the sake of recognition anyway. It's a well-done page, but do we really need five images to point out that Bradford City changed the colour of their socks twice in the 50s? Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with User:Thumperward. This sort of thing is best suited to the historical kits website - fchd (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour, it's an interesting historical document. I'd tie in makes, sponsors, even badges, though; flesh it out a bit. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. It's a good start, but it does need a bit more detail for it to hit any notability threshold. – PeeJay 22:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am with PeeJay on this, 1. I think it looks great and 2. I think its very informative.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the "indiscriminate collection of information" camp. Non-trivial information about kits can form part of the Colours and Crest section of a club article, minor kit changes are inconsequential. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I also think listing kit changes is a bit pointless, minor kit changes are a bit inconsequential. Woody (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm errring on the side of deletion for this one, while its presence is not harmful, it does seem a little bit too trivial to have here. Qwghlm (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with the distinguished users right above me. – Elisson • T • C • 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this gallery should be deleted, since Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Relevant kits should be included in Bradford City A.F.C.#History or History of Bradford City A.F.C.. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Bradford City kits. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

David Wetherall

Before I re-write and delete half, maybe most of the Bradford City section of the David Wetherall article because it looks like a fan site, I'd like to get the views of fellow project members about what should go and what should stay. It's been like this since March 2006 and can't believe it's avoided the knife since so am hesitant about re-writing without other input. Peanut4 (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you know exactly what's wrong with it, so be bold! These things sometimes slip through. Wetherall is a player whose career could be described as "solid but unspectacular", and his article probably gets quite low traffic as a result. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wing Foward

Is there any hope for this one? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like original research to me, can't say I've heard the term used. The position described is basically that of an old style inside forward. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's now a re-direct to Inside forward. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

F.C. versus FC, a bot proposal

Because of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) about formatting initials in the titles of articles, I've proposed a bot to create redirects for all alternative styles. For example, for titles containing "F.C.", it would create corresponding redirects containing "FC", "F. C.", and "F C". For discussion, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Eubot 4. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

George Eastham

Have spent some time expanding & improving the George Eastham article (who, as well as being a World Cup winner, whose legal action in the 1960s made him that era's equivalent of Jean-Marc Bosman). Would be interested in any further improvements, or suggestions and criticism, that other editors could make, thanks. Qwghlm (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Last and next games on National team pages

The user Qampunen keeps adding these to national team pages. Me and some others keep reverting them. He makes it the first section. It really does not belong there. I asked him about it and he said fellow Wikipedians said it was a good idea even though I checked his contributions and he has never written on a talk page. I think this next and last game section is really not needed. He has re-added them and it is annoying to revert them all. Can we make a final ruling on whether these are needed or not?

Example: Sweden national football team#Last and next games

michfan2123 (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete them all. No different from club articles. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 20:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Zanramon‎

Could an admin who knows a bit about image issues take a look at the contributions of User:Zanramon‎ over the past few days please? He has added a number of images to football articles that look professionally taken, at least two of which are copyrighted (he has kindly provided the urls...) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I checked one or two and they seem violations, I will go through them systematically sometime later this week. Qwghlm (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(Mis)using the image= attribute in infoboxes

Putting links to the current season in a club's infobox by (mis)using the image= attribute - is this OK or not? An example can be found here if you're not sure what I'm on about. A discussion without any real consensus emerging appeared here - what are others' opinion this? I am not a massive fan, personally, and if it should be put anywhere, the foot of the box next to the previous season's position seems the more obvious place. Qwghlm (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We could have a "current" attribute which did the same thing as it does in {{infobox football tournament}} in five minutes. It's just yet more irrational fear of adding attributes to the infobox, a bizarre phenomenon unique to this particular WikiProject in my experience. So yeah, people shouldn't misuse the current attributes, we should just add a new one. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. That took about eighteen seconds. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

EC Morley

Hi. I want to transfer this image to Commons, but I don't know if it's older enough to be in public domain. It's taken from the book The Official History of the Football Association, but as far as I know this book is not available where I live (Uruguay), so I can't check the year the photography was taken. I would appreciate if someone who has this book could check the year. Thanks, Ffahm (Talk) 04:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it, is it not a painting rather than a photograph.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the description (Reproduction of the only known photograph of Ebenezer Cobb Morley), no. Ffahm (Talk) 15:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Another non-World Cup football templates nominated for deletion at WP:TFD on 28 December. - Darwinek (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

An assist or clarification please

User:DenCA has ambitiously taken to resorting the German clubs category (and maybe some others) by the full team name rather than by the name of the city the club plays in. My understanding (looking at other cat sorts) is this stuff is sorted by city name. Is there an an admin handy halt this guy and reverse what he did (or update my undestanding of how this should work)? Thanks. Wiggy! (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left the following at Den's talk page and repeat it here:

Okay, for better or worse I have undone what you've done and restored the sort by city name to the German football clubs category. I think that as a courtesy to other editors, before you engage in such a sweeping change, you should first bring it up at the football project page or the Germany football sub-project page. None of the updates cited in the edit comment section an established policy that would have explained the change to other editors. The changes ignored what has emerged as defacto sorting practice used consistently by several editors within the topic area of German football. If you want to have another run at it, please get a consensus from other interested users first. Thanks. Look for discussion on the project pages I cited above. Wiggy! (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally we sort by name (excluding leading terms like FC, etc), but I understand that in Germany the town names thing is more commonly used. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had a look at the other national cats and it seems to be all over. England is by full team name, but basically ends up as a city sort because of that countries naming conventions. France is by city. Italy is mostly by city, with a few full team names slipped in. Spain is by city. The Netherlands is all over. Portugal is by city and so is Scotland.

If Germany isn't sorted by city we'll end up with about a dozen groups (FC, SC, SV, VfB, VfL, etc.) just because of the way Germans name their teams. A city sort looks to fit best. It is also a fairly simple rule to follow with just a few exceptions.

Thanks for you input. Wiggy! (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI

There is a new football article, James Baird (footballer). Concerns have been raised over notability. --Popplewick (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Update to the above: this article is now up for deletion here. --Popplewick (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hoax/notability query

Anyone here a good authority on Nigerian football? The article Baba Onos has caught my attention - as well as being written from a fannish point of view, all of the teams this person has played for are redlinks and a Google search [3] comes up with nothing except Wikipedia and a couple of FIFA 2008 forums, including what appears to be spam [4]. Have flagged as a probably hoax and will duly prod, unless I can find some proof of authenticity or notability. Anyone have any idea? Qwghlm (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not many references, teams he played for redlinked and i have heard of the african Alan Shearer, but it is deiently not him, so i would leave it down to a person more experienced in this department.  Sunderland06  13:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I listed this for deletion as a hoax as per [5]. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baba Onos.   Jhony  |  Talk   15:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - though in future please try prodding such articles first - articles should only be nominated for AfD one all other means of deletion are exhausted. Qwghlm (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Phil O'Donnell

Keep an eye on this one, the vandalism already seems to be flying in...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

R.I.P. --necronudist (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua

Hi, I am not sure if this is the right place to raise this issue. I am concerned about the behaviour of User:Fasach Nua. I have contributed to Ireland national football team (IFA) and believe this article should be maintained. However Fasnach wants this article merged with Northern Ireland national football team. I have also contributed to Dual Irish international footballers. Fasnach is now re-editing this page in an inappropriate manner. This seems to me to be bullying and harassment. Is their someone here willing to mediate in this situation. Fasnach actions are seriously spoiling my enjoyment of Wiki. Djln--Djln (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

SVG badges

Out of interest, has there ever been any drive to get people to create SVG versions of the fair-use club badges? Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Logos Wiggy! (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Physioroom.com

In writing an article on Rob Swire, Manchester United's physio, I referenced an interview with him from Physioroom.com. However, it appears that all links from that website have been blacklisted. Does anyone know why this is, and how I can get it un-blacklisted? – PeeJay 23:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals. Chris Cunningham (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Ramis Barrios

Does anyone know anything about this player Ivan Ramis Barrios? The entry is merely an infobox and seriously needs some text. I've added a line as per the infobox but only per the infobox and not from any sources. Peanut4 (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto with this one - Juan Manuel Gómez Sánchez Peanut4 (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sheffield Wednesday

Just noticed this WP, but I'm left wondering just why do we have a WP on Shef. Wednesday. Do we really need it? D.M.N. (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why worry about whether we "need" it? The idea of projects is for people with similar interests to get together to improve Wikipedia. The more the merrier. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Should really be turned into a WP:WPF taskforce, along with the United one, as has been done with other clubs already. Qwghlm (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me how to use the football squad templates?

I am currently working on Tampines Rovers FC. If I can find enough referenced information to write short "Stadium" and "Supporters" sections, the article may become Wikipedia's first GA on a football club located outside Europe and South America. The table in "Current squad" should be replaced with the templates, but how do I use them? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Like this:

{{Fs start}}
{{Fs player|no=SQUAD NUMBER|nat=NATIONALITY|name=PLAYER NAME|pos=POSITION}}
{{Fs mid}}
{{Fs player|no=SQUAD NUMBER|nat=NATIONALITY|name=PLAYER NAME|pos=POSITION}}
{{Fs end}}

List all the players in that format and place {{Fs mid}} halfway down the list to make two columns. Position should be GK for goalkeeper, DF for defender, MF for midfielder or FW for forward. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 14:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I started it for you: Template:Tampines Rovers FC squad. Please check for errors. Have fun! -- Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 14:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How do I arrange the players? By name, position, shirt number or something else? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

For what I've seen, and done in the several templates I worked on, they usually go by number. You may also want to add Position to it. -- Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 16:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody else has formatted the squad list using the template. A big round of applause goes to...PeeJay2K3! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Manager infoboxes

Can we add languages spoken to manager infoboxes? I think it would be a good idea, especially for national team managers. Ademkader (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

For once I'd oppose. This can rarely be properly verified for Continental managers (who routinely speak several) and it's rare that it even matters that much. Chris Cunningham (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded - I don't think it's that important, and how on earth would we verify it. Also, how much do they have to know to be able to be classed as speaking a language? пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. My understanding is the infobox serves as guide to the rest of the article a little like the lead but with the key info in one handy place. I don't think many entries would even include the info about other languages so neither should the infobox. Peanut4 (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, a list of languages spoken should be included in the article, not an infobox. GiantSnowman (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, convinced. Let's think about adding languages to the articles though. Some game databases (championship manager, football manager etc) have the information.Ademkader (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, please. Game databases are not reliable sources.   Jhony  |  Talk   15:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Football (soccer) - Association football RM completed

As an FYI, the main football (soccer) article is now located at association football following it's requested move. If editing old articles, please take Do not change links to redirects that are not broken into account, you only really need to change double redirects if you come across them. 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that a consensus has been reached (whether we approve of the result or not) can we now all agree to accept the article name and move on. We should all have one aim in view - to improve the quality of (association) football articles on WP. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone oughta fix the link on the various Year in association football pages... --Madcynic (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing it, albeit a little slowly - see below. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Football players transferred for over £10,000,000

Can anyone think of a specific reason why this article should be deleted? It seems like a prime candidate for deletion to me, but I can't think of a decent reason to put in the AfD. – PeeJay 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:Listcruft is my first thought. Or maybe Wikipedia:Overlistification#Trivia/Trivial Lists Peanut4 (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would think this is more suited to being a category: as an article it is not informative. Based on my experience with a category of players with over 100 caps, be warned that some editors but not me) will claim that even such an obvious round number is an arbitrary cut off. If there is to be such a basic restriction as transfers including English clubs only, this ought to be in the title, otherwise the title does not describe the article. Kevin McE (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This article already basically exists but at Transfer (football)#Highest transfer fees and that is a complete list of world transfers not an arbitrary value cut off point and not limited to those including English teams. Peanut4 (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

International football results

Hmmm... Any thoughts on this one, created earlier today? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate, IMO. The article has no inclusion criteria and it is extremely hard to keep it up to date. I propose that it be PRODded. – PeeJay 19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:NOT, not a news source or a directory particularly. Defo support prodding it. Peanut4 (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am the editor of this article and I´ll be in charge of updating this artcile every single day so you don´t need to worry. This article informs, which is the main aim of any encyclopedia. (Answer me in my talk page). Qampunen (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Normandy national football team

could someone take a look- It was speedied, and I changed it to Prod, but I'm out of my depth here.DGG (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does not seem appropriate that the editor who started the article (and many similar ones) simply deleted the prod for deletion with neither improvement nor justification. Kevin McE (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a prime candidate for an AfD discussion then. - fchd (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need some project consensus on notability here. Stanza13 (talk · contribs) has been on a roll of late, creating many articles linked from List of non-national representative teams in men's football and Template:Non-FIFA teams, but I have a hard time understanding how many of them are notable. I'd prefer to see some project consensus on this issue first so that the same discussion isn't made several times in several AfD discussions. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think we need a notability guideline for non-competitive representative teams. Articles like these have a notability grade that is proportional to the independent coverage they received, as already stated in WP:N. --Angelo (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let the AfDs begin! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Brittany national football team, although they have at least managed a second game against Cameroon. Still don't look at all notable. I expect the Cameroon game was a World Cup warm up and plenty of teams play these against local league sides or the equivalent but it doesn't make them notable. Peanut4 (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And most of the other ones on the Non-FIFA/Non-NF-Board Teams template as well - e.g. Chuuk, Virgin Gorda, Murcia etc. - fchd (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see that Martin Shaw is the head coach at Yap. I was wondering what he had been up to since Judge John Deed finished! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Jack Pelter

Can somebody please rate Jack Pelter, Thanks.  Sunderland06  15:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Probably ready for an AfD, I'm afraid. - fchd (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It does state that he has played for Canterbury United, who are in the top division in NZ. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • New Zealand u19 [6].  Sunderland06  15:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    • (It's irrelevant as he has played at the top level in NZ, but the general consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability) пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, after re-reading the page and checking Canterbury United, he probably passes. Youth caps are irrelevant in my opinion though. - fchd (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources (see talk page) so will survive an AFD I think. 81.77.136.231 (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal football transfers

You'll like this one, Arsenal football transfers, created a few minutes ago!! I'll prod it in half an hour or so. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I nodded off and forgot about this but I see someone speedied it on its way out of the door... --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lee Martin... again

A few hours ago, User:Chanheigeorge moved Lee A. Martin, Lee B. Martin and Lee R. Martin to Lee Martin (defender born 1968), Lee Martin (goalkeeper born 1968) and Lee Martin (footballer born 1987) respectively, without discussion. I have reverted the moves for now, as I recall a discussion about these pages happening not too long ago, most likely instigated by myself. I can see where User:Chanheigeorge is coming from with these suggested article names, but the use of positions as disambiguators is not a popular one, especially since Lee A. Martin also played as a midfielder and even a striker for Manchester United on occasion. Suggestions please. – PeeJay 12:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I didn't know that there was a discussion before. My rationale comes from that none of the three players use their middle initials in the football world (as far as I know), so using them in the title is certainly not the best way of identifying these players. If Lee A. Martin is primarily a defender (I'm not sure how often he's used in other positions, but almost all outfield players can be and has been used in other positions), then I think Lee Martin (defender) (or Lee Martin (defender born 1968)) is a good enough (and better) title. And who is to say we won't have some politician or musician or footballer named "Lee Martin" with the middle initial A (or B or R) in the future? Chanheigeorge (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Lee Martin (footballer born February 1968) and Lee Martin (footballer born September 1968)......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's quite clumsy. Again, I don't see why Lee Martin (defender born 1968) is not a good enough title, as it disambs with the other two Lee Martins. That he also played other positions occasionally is beside the point. Almost all famous people have multiple roles, e.g. "XYZ (musician)" may also act in a few movies, that doesn't make it a bad title, as long as he/she is identified as primarily a musician, or identified by all that he/she has been a musician. Same case applies here. Chanheigeorge (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there appears not much support for my move proposals, instead I suggest moving them to Lee Robert Martin, Lee Andrew Martin, and Lee Brendan Martin respectively. Using their full names are better than using "artificially constructed names" with their middle initials. I don't think the moves are controversial, so I'll move them in the next 24 hours if nobody oppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanheigeorge (talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Although this isn't a solution to the overall situation, it may help a little. Lee Martin (footballer) currently redirects to Lee Martin, which includes non-footballers. How about Lee Martin (footballer) being a separate disambig page? Peanut4 (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I should add that I consider them only to be "interim" solutions that at least improves on the current titles. If there's a discussion and consensus on their final titles, I'm all for it. On a final note, you may be surprised to see this, but according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifier between bracketing parentheses, Years of birth and death should not be used in a page title to distinguish between people of the same name. Chanheigeorge (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox football tournament

Template:Infobox football tournament has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — --Howard the Duck 17:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

New Article Bot

Nanonic and myself have made a new feed for the New Article bot. User:AlexNewArtBot scrapes all new articles and puts suspected Association football related articles into User:AlexNewArtBot/AssociationFootballSearchResult based on a set of rules at User:AlexNewArtBot/AssociationFootball. There is also a log at User:AlexNewArtBot/AssociationFootballLog explaining the rules and points scored that sent an article to the search results (the log is cleared every day, so try to look into the history of the log). I've added this to the bottom of WP:WPF/NEW as a test to make sure it isn't giving too many false positives and may tweak the rules further, if you have any ideas on its usefulness or wish to amend the rules yourself - go ahead, be bold.

This is not intended to replace the current New Page system, we just wanted to have something to show all those articles that aren't reported on WP:FOOTY pages. Enjoy Foxhill (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is really good, thanks a lot. I have made some additions and been bold as suggested - they are admittedly UK/Europe biased. Could you look them over and see if they are all OK? Qwghlm (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

They look fine to me at the mo, the bot is run between 15:00 and 19:00 (UTC) daily (takes a long time to do the 200 odd tasks it has) so we'll see if it needs any further tweaking after that. Nanonic (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image help

At the FAC for Stocksbridge Park Steels, a user has flagged up that the two logos and two graphs should not be in the JPG format. The graphs should apparently be in SVG, which he says should be easy enough for me to do as I originally uploaded them, however I only have access to MS Paint and that doesn't seem to offer the option to save in SVG format. Is there anybody who has access to something more sophisticated that I could email the original XLS documents to who could turn them into SVG files for me? Similarly he says the two club badges should be PNG files, and pointed me to this tutorial, which I can't follow. Would anyone be able to turn the two images into PNGs for me?

(or alternatively does anyone know of the existence of any sort of image-assistance-for-poor-saps-who-don't-have-Photoshop type project.....?)

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help out!!!!!

Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disregard the above, I've now discovered the graphic lab...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to tell you "send me all the stuff", but as I can see you don't need this anymore... Good luck! :) --Angelo (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Champions by year

Does anyone know of a website which lists the champions of each country for a certain year on the same page? I have done so at 2007 in association football#National champions, but I had to go to each individual league article (over 200 of them!!) to work it out. I've got 1902-2006 to do (1889-1901 is done as there were fewer championships in those days), so I'm try to reduce the workload a little... Thanks, пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Red Star Belgrade move proposal

PeeJay just advised me a move request regarding Red Star Belgrade article is waiting for a closure since two months. I declined to close the discussion in order to avoid a potential conflict of interests as I directly participated in the discussion, voicing my opposition to the proposal, so it would be great if some other admin around could close this discussion and take a decision. Thank you. --Angelo (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sub-project/Taskforce reform

Another WikiProject has been added to our list - WikiProject Scottish football - so maybe it's time to finally agree on some caveats for creation. So, should we -

• request that only taskforces are created
• request that all such taskforces should be created with prior discussion either here or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Task forces/Work groups
• accept all proposals that have attracted the interest of a certain number of editors

Your thoughts on this. Nanonic (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started draughting some guidelines at User:Foxhill/content to add/taskforces that could be added to the project's pages. Feel free to amend or add to these. Cheers, Foxhill (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I get a couple of people to read through the above guide and comment on it's readability/usefulness/correctness? If it seems ok, then I'll move it across to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects Nanonic (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Following no dissent (or comments at all..) on this, I've been bold and moved them across. If you wish to edit or amend these or remove or add sections or just plain don't like them - feel free to change them. Nanonic (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Koulibaly

I found these two entries today for Pan Pierre Koulibaly and Paul Koulibaly. It looks like it's for the same player but there are some slight differences, i.e. position and squad number, other than the name. Would anyone else object to Paul Koulibaly being redirected to Pan Pierre Koulibaly? Peanut4 (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There are different stats for both [7] [8] - and they look like they are distinct people according to a BBC report [9]. Confusingly their names are often spelt with a 'C' rather than a 'K' [10]. Could they be brothers - even twins perhaps? Qwghlm (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I asked. I wondered if they were twins. But why do they have the same name and same photo on the infobox? I'll have another look before proceeding with anything else though. Peanut4 (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The BBC report (which lists them both as defenders) and the dzfoot.com report on the Algeria match clearly show they are different people. So which one is actually in the picture? Peanut4 (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'd edit the articles down to only things that correspond to the links given for now. As for the photo, comment it out for now until any further sleuthing brings it up. Maybe if they're twins it doesnt really matter? :) Qwghlm (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've commented out the image for Paul Koulibaly since the caption says Pan Pierre and made some slight alterations. This is why I hate unreferenced entries, you simply don't know what to trust from what is written here. Both the external links bring up zero playing data. Peanut4 (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keba Paul Koulibaly is a defender for EFO, and is not the same player as the striker Pan Pierre Koulibaly (some detail here: [11]). Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work Jogurney. Peanut4 (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Amputee Soccer Championship, Central America

Notable or not? – PeeJay 18:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say "probably", the reference and deleted image give the article weight and it could possibly be turned into a better stub from google. As a variant in itself - Amputee Soccer would be notable and gets a few good google hits. 62.136.112.104 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Football club sizes

(Originally posted to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous.)

• 82.36.227.215 (talk · contribs)

The above user has edited the articles of several Football Clubs, changing the capacity and locations. I reverted one of these edits (their first), but given the extent of their changes - and the fact that on the face of it the changes appear as though they may be valid - can anyone either back them up or dispute their edits? (And if the latter, can someone with a rollback script take care of things?) Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Premier League POV / OR

The following line in the Premier League#Foundation section seems to be either WP:POV or WP:OR. I think it needs a reference.

This was considered necessary so that English clubs could once again compete with and beat the best of Europe, while attracting the best talent in the world, something which in 1991 seemed practically unthinkable. Peanut4 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the almost total dominance of English clubs in Europe just 10 years earlier using largely homegrown players, I would lean towards POV... пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added something of a link which does address some of the assertions although if someone could find a better one, I'd feel happier about this line. Peanut4 (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that the Premier League is a WP:RS on this issue! :) пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not unhappy about the Premier League website being a reliable source, just that I don't think it addresses all the claims being made. It certainly mentions about attracting talent, but not really about being the best in Europe, just competing again following the Heysel ban. Peanut4 (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Zombie433

User:Zombie433 (talk • contribs) has edited a number of football articles, but, sadly, his sources were not reliable. It is worth looking over his contributions, fix what should be fixed, and tell him in German to stop, as it seems that he doesn't speak English.   Jhony  |  Talk   14:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Link to player's image

I wonder if linking to player's image in infobox (see difference between revisions) is allowed?   Jhony  |  Talk   16:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Images should be imported if properly licensed. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Teammates

Thinking out loud here, but what would be the consensus on adding a few of a player's teammates at his clubs in order to add some context to their careers? For example:

Bolton Wanderers career

[Main body of section]

Smith's teammates at Wanderers included...

I just feel there isn't enough intertwining between articles of connected players. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, we really don't want that. D.M.N. (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning is blinding. - Dudesleeper · Talk 23:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If it can be achieved in natural prose, then fine, but otherwise I don't think it really works. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not just achieved; if it is necessitated by the need for natural prose. Even one or two examples is always an invite for infinite expansion of arbitrary lists like this on Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd only add relevant teammates when they relate to other prose. E.g. from the recently FA promoted Henry article.

Henry was again instrumental in Arsenal's exceptionally successful campaign; together with the likes of Dennis Bergkamp, Patrick Vieira and Robert Pirès, Peanut4 (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see why people would want to add to that seemingly exclusive list, which is what CC was saying. I just think there's a hole; I'll find a way to plug it. For now, club season articles are the closest things to achieving what I'm looking for. - Dudesleeper · Talk 23:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Easington Colliery A.F.C.

Can somebody please rate this article as i think it is better than stub. Thanks.  Sunderland06  19:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Woody (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I need help

On editing my new article The Football League 1889-90, which is the second ever football league season, I don't know how to insert a league table, can anyone help? Blueanode (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi I am now starting a campaign to get every football league season got down here on wikipedia, if anyone is keen on helping let me know. Blueanode (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to copy the relevant code from 1889-90 in English football#League tables into that page - I should know as I was the one who did all the hard work adding league tables to most of the pages in Category:Seasons in English football a long long time ago :). Tables start:

    {|

and end:

    |}

and more info can be found at the manual page at WP:TABLE. HTH - gimme a shout on my talk page if you need more help. Qwghlm (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Reporting transfer fees

In the process of compiling lists of football transfers such as List of English football transfers Winter 2007-08, one often comes across transfers where the fee is not disclosed by either club. However, sometimes the fee will be reported as fact by one or two sources, sometimes reputable ones. In these cases, should the fee be recorded here as "Undisclosed" or should we record the fee as reported in the aforementioned sources? Case in point, the fee for Hogan Ephraim's transfer to Queens Park Rangers from West Ham United was undisclosed by either club, but the Telegraph reported the fee as £800k ([12]). One editor of the List of English football transfers Winter 2007-08 article believes that the Telegraph is reputable enough for the transfer fee to be believed, whereas I believe that the fee should still be recorded as Undisclosed. – PeeJay 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be reaching boiling point now. It could really do with a few more third-party contributors. – PeeJay 20:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean up on Carlos Edwards

I cleaned up Carlos Edwards to the best of my ability but i do not know if i have done it to the standard of wikipedia, i may have splashed ^{citation needed} a bit to much, i would appreciate some feedback on cleaning up football articles i know to put convert template on the height, & ndash ; (without spaces) in seasons, match scores, etc. And some other formatting issues. Thanks.  Sunderland06  23:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

British teams, and the use of the plural form for collective nouns

Courtesy of this comment and further discussion, I'm bringing this up here. I've always used the plural form for teams, the major UK media outlets use it for teams, and even the articles which don't use it consistently all seem to lapse into it randomly (lots of uses of the word they where it would be the correct form in singular). For the sake of having something to point to when making changes in future, could we generate some consensus on which form should be used for British teams? I'm point out that the Music WikiProject already has an identical ruling for UK bands. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My own personal rule is to use the plural when referring to the club as a group of players, and the singular when referring to the club as an organisational entity. For example, "Manchester United F.C. was formed in 1878" but "they have won the FA Cup a record 11 times". See what I mean? – PeeJay 00:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Strictly either is fine. But like you say, most if not all media sources will use plural, e.g. Manchester United are, and that's my preference. Peanut4 (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, when referring to a football club as "the club" in prose, you would also say "the club are" every time? Personally, again, it depends on context. For example, "Wikipedia F.C. was formed in the year 9999 and is one of the youngest clubs in existence. They are looking to sign a new player in the January transfer window." – PeeJay 00:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is maddeningly inconsistent to me (one of the things I love about the English language is how little metaphysical analysis it takes to assign a pronoun), and I'd rather we didn't mix and match. At the very least, we need every article either starting with "teamname is a football club from someplace" or "teamname are a football club from someplace" consistently. And I reckon the latter's the way to go. British media outlets, as pointed out, use the plural exclusively in the sports sections. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you use Wikipedia F.C. is ... You should then say It is... Otherwise like Chris says it's inconsistent. Peanut4 (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO, consistency is irrelevant to this topic. You should use the appropriate verb for the sentence regardless of whether it's the same verb form as in the sentence before it. – PeeJay 01:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not about the verb but the antecedent personal pronoun. They refers to a previous plural noun, and hence therefore a plural verb form. It refers to a previous singular noun, and hence therefore a singular verb form. If you use they are in a later sentence you imply the previous noun that they refers to is also plural and hence Manchester United are from your previous suggestion. Peanut4 (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what consensus on this would achieve, the use of collective nouns in both the singular and plural is a part of accepted British English (and apparently distinct from the American English usage). We can say that we would prefer one or the other or both for featured content (to avoid all the 'what are you talking about' discussions on FAC) but to try and enforce the usage of one particular style of grammar would seem to go against the spirit of WP:MOS in particular - "Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia." The MOS says that if I write an article I can write it in BrEng, making another guideline that says 'sure you can write most of it in BrEng, just use AmEng grammar for the following' strikes me as ludicrous. 62.136.112.104 (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It achieves cross-article consistency. On a subject like phosphorous or polar bear or Nikola Tesla there's a good reason not to insist on a particular interpretation, but to fail to have any consistency over a domain as limited as, say, the clubs in the Scottish Premier League - twelve articles - is silly. Projects can overrule the master MoS if they have a valid reason to. Chris Cunningham (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But is there a valid reason to do so? Football clubs, musical groups, etc. all fall into the category of Collective nouns, therefore they use the discretionary plural. This means that they can use either the singular or the plural depending on context, as I have said. Furthermore, with regard to British media outlets, they use the plural almost exclusively because they almost exclusively refer to football clubs as groups of players, rather than as organisational entities. – PeeJay 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The valid reason is consistency. This "group of individuals versus an organisational entity" argument is commonly-used, but not seen in practice in the domain in question. If the sports pages of every major media outlet in the UK can achieve this ("Manchester United have turned down an offer from Newcastle for Wes Brown" - I hardly think they took it to a show of hands in the dressing room), then I don't see why we can't. By the way, the distinction you've provided is used by the authorities as a description of common usage, rather than a prescription; I don't believe any of them go so far as to mandate it, precisely because of the heavy disagreement on the issue. Which is why it's a project MoS issue rather than a wider grammatical one that I'd take upstream. Chris Cunningham (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, our own MoS currently contains this gem of boilerplate:

"Template FC plays their home matches on..."

That isn't even literate. Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think my opinion would be better summed up as a case of "group of people affiliated to the club (i.e. board members, players, coaching staff, etc.)" vs "organisational entity". "Manchester United have turned down an offer from Newcastle for Wes Brown" is correct as it was a decision made by a group of people representing the club, rather than the club itself making the decision. – PeeJay 12:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I agree, the MoS needs fixing. – PeeJay 12:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Caps for Africans player

Hello, I search a website who give the selection of africans player for the CAN2008!Thanks a lot--PAULOM37 (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

First featured picture - yay etc

Image:U20-WorldCup2007-Okotie-Onka edit2.jpg is now a Featured Picture (nom) 84.70.79.28 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Assistance needed

On inserting a league table on the new article The Football League 1891-92, I honestly don't have a clue how to do it. Blueanode (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Blueanode (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C.

If anyone had a look at this FAC and was scared off by all the technobabble about image formats, that's now all been resolved (hopefully!!) so feel free to stop by and comment purely on the merits of the article itself...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Martin Galvan AfD?

Should Martin Galvan be deleted? I think so (non-notable) but don't really know how to properly start the process. -- Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 00:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article should be as he hasn't played in a fully-professional league. The AfD process is explained in very simple terms at WP:AfD. пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I followed the instructions to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Galvan. Thanks. -- Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 01:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Football (soccer) in other article names

Football in England

Someone has moved this page to Association Football in England without disscusion. It needs an Admin to revert the move. josh (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Association football in England (Redirected from Football in England)

1. REDIRECT Ffootball in England

Well, somethings wrong at least ;o Chandlertalk 14:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is currently incorrectly at Association Football in England - it should be Association football in England. Peanut4 (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should have been left at Football in England. Chandlertalk 15:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly yes, but Association Football in England is definitely wrong. Should either be Association football in England or Football in England. Peanut4 (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we've agreed, a long time ago, on not using more complicated article titles than necessary, it should of course be at Football in England, just as we have, and should have, Soccer in the United States and not Association football in the United States. I've made the move back to the previous title. – Elisson • T • C • 15:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the Association football in England and Ffootball in England to redirect to Football in England as well (I think I have, anyway). Lovely multidirectional redirects there were ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Australia

I deleted the ff one, implausible typo. On another note, what about Association football in Australia and the related Australia national football (soccer) team. Personally, I think it should be at Soccer in Australia but I am open to discussion. I was thinking about being WP:BOLD without the need for a WP:RM but what do others think. It gets more complicated when you consider, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia which should probably be made a taskforce anyway, (though that is under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects. Comments? Woody (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Since "Soccer" is the predominant term for the sport in Australia, the articles should be located at Soccer in Australia and Australia national soccer team, IMO. – PeeJay 19:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be Soccer in Australia with maybe a redirect from Football in Australia and Association football in Australia. Peanut4 (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, leave Football in Australia as it is. Peanut4 (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the sub-project though? My reasoning was identical to Peejay's. Woody (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not ask the sub-project, surely they'd be the experts on aussie football. Nanonic (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm from the WikiProject! Renaming the article to Soccer in Australia would be a very bad idea. Both terms are in common usage in Australia. There have been edit wars and endless discussions on talk pages about this, and a lot of us don't have the time to go through it all again - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) if you want more details. Same argument goes with the national team articles. -- Chuq (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the main word in Australia is soccer, it is just that recently the governing body has changed from Soccer Australia to Football Federation Australia, and alot of soccer fans are trying to change the word usage in Australia (easily the vast majority of Australians use the term 'soccer', 95% at least). So i dont know if wikipedia is for current common usage or for predicted future common usage.InsteadOf (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, just looks a bit unsightly in my opinion, much like Football (soccer) did. I was unaware of the national body changing the name. There were endless discussions (about two years worth) before we got any agreement on the Association football article!! Woody (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it is obvious that it will never be Football in Australia. I feel that the discussion should be allowed to cool down for a while (maybe after the soccer WC, or WCQ if Australia doesnt make it). I feel that one of the main reason Soccer Australia changed their name to FFA was to be recognised as a football code. Because before that change in Australian society it was barely recognised as a football code. People talked about "the three football codes (league, union, australian). This is my last comment on this issue for a while as i dont want to get into one of those big discussions. InsteadOf (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Soccer fans are not "trying to change the word usage" in Australia. They have always called it that. It is just that now, there are more fans of the sport, it is talked about more, and people pay more attention to it. Media: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Supporter/fan sites: Melb Syd SA Tas General Even BigFooty, an AFL-focused site, has forums called Football board and Football Australia which are about association football.

I'm not claiming everyone calls it "football"; I'm not claiming only association football can call it that; I'm not claiming no-one can call it soccer. I'm just claiming that "everyone calls it soccer here" and "no-one calls it football here" are totally false. Apologies for the sudden outburst but I don't want to spend days re-hashing the same old discussion! -- Chuq (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wing forward

I notice the page Wing Forward has been changed to a redirect to inside forward. I was of the belief Wing Forward was actually an outside forward not inside forward, as the originaly text implied. Peanut4 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay outside forward doesn't exist but it seems bizarelly outside right and outside left both do. Peanut4 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside right and Outside left should be merged to create Outside forward, and Wing forward should redirect to Outside forward. – PeeJay 19:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree but only if I'm right that wing forward is actually an outside forward and not inside forward. Peanut4 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the positions are exactly equivalent, but I'd say a Wing forward is closer to being an Outside forward than an Inside forward. – PeeJay 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

International Arsenal FC articles organised?

I wonder if Arsenal articles are organised "from above" because a lot of rather small wikis have huge articles for the local dimensions. Maybe I didn't hear about it. For just two examples see here and here What do you think? -Lemmy- (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean really, but I can say that the reason that some teams such as Swindon Town F.C. have so many interwikis with a similar version is due to a former drive on those wiki's to get all English clubs translated across, an aborted attempt can be seen at the Italian wiki article for the team. Foxhill (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly English clubs draw the biggest interest from abroad but what I meant was that the Arsenal articles are "too good" to be just, for example, the labor from one or more Icelandic Arsenal supporter(s).The strange thing is that almost all the articles are very long. Plus it's in tiny Wikis where there can't exist that many Gooners. My idea is that the club hired some native speakers to translate some articles.-Lemmy- (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Arsenal article was one of the first football articles to be featured on en:, and remains one of the best we have. Many wikipedias have projects to get featured articles in other languages translated. Arsenal are probably the highest profile club of those that have FAs here, so the article is likely to be a high-priority translation. I also think you underestimate the global nature of the fanbase of the biggest clubs. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that clubs such as Arsenal probably have better things to do with their time and money than hire Icelandic speakers to translate Wikipedia articles...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Current season in list of seasons articles.

People keep teliing me that they shouldn't have them because it means the article needs to be constantly updated. So I've fixed that for an article that I'm hoping to make a FL (here) seasons but that apprantly still isn't good enough! Would someone who understands this mind explaining why! I can't get a staight answer. Buc (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, it is only one editor's opinion (mine) that the final line is not required at this time. It isn't a complete season so doesn't need to go there. But as I said, it's just one person's opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be there. It looks unprofessional and it should be kept to completed seasons. (Again, IMO). Woody (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that a seasons list comes under FL Usefulness criterion 1.a.3 – contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles. If only finished seasons are included, then the set is clearly finite, complete and well-defined. If it has 88 finished seasons and the last one that goes up to wherever a club happens to be at the time, it's neither complete nor well-defined, and would (in my opinion) fail that criterion.

Articles are for the benefit of the reader. Leeds current season already has an article of its own. A link at the top of the seasons list, where it's the first thing the reader sees when the page loads, would point them to the current season if that's what they want to know about. Surely that's better than having them scroll right down to the bottom only to find that the league standing, top scorer etc isn't included on grounds of stability. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So your saying it shouldn't be because it's listed in some other article? You could make a case to remove quite a lot of info from just about every article using that logic. Buc (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he is saying that if contained within a list, it would make the list incomplete and loosely defined. It is akin to including wartime seasons. Struway then went on to say that the link is still included on the page anyway so it is no loss. It was rather eloquent and self-explanatory Buc. Why are you so entrenched on this issue? Woody (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I'm saying that in my opinion it shouldn't be there in a featured list because it stops the list being complete, finite and well-defined. That's all.

My second paragraph was a suggestion as to how the reader might easily get the information if it isn't at the bottom of the list. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No harm having it in two places. Buc (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have previously had a discussion with Bole2 here as to why I feel only at-least completed seasons or at the very least completed entries into competitions (i.e. once a club has exited a cup or completed a league season) should be shown. Especially in the case of clubs such as Leeds United whom have a 2007-08 Season article which is linked to on the template, shown on the seasons page the information is easily obtainable. The articles are also meant as a history of a club in completed competitions, not their current status, therefore this is another reason as to why I feel that the current league stats should not be included. Chappy^T_C 22:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that is basicly how things are set up now so what the problem. Buc (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Buc, I think that's now three editors who are doing their best to explain why the last line is not required. There are at least two good reasons, a) it looks unprofessional b) it doesn't help meet the FLC criteria. As per Woody, why are you so entrenched? If you ask for the community consensus you shouldn't always expect it meet your own opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Because no one has yet even a good enough reason for it to be removed. I don't agree which either reason you just gave. Buc (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So, not meeting the featured list criteria isn't good enough? Woody (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And no-one asked you to agree with anything, this place works on consensus and, right now, your view is not held by the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Buc, the new version is just as bad if not worse. If I judge consensus here correctly, the line should not be in there. Woody (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Football at the 1896 Summer Olympics (unofficial) at WP:PROD

Football at the 1896 Summer Olympics (unofficial) has been prodded. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Has now been poked with a big AfD stick. Woody (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging

These articles are currently being disscussed about merging, Hardenhuish Park with Chippenham Town F.C. here Talk:Chippenham Town F.C. and Filtrona Park with South Shields F.C. here Talk:South Shields F.C.. Sunderland06  23:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

External Broken Links - Featured Articles

• 2007 UEFA Champions League Final - 0 Broken/Suspicious Links
• Arsenal F.C. - 2 Broken/Suspicious Links done Woody (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Association Football - 6 Broken/Suspicious Links done Woody (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Aston Villa F.C. - 9 Broken/Suspicious Links
• Central Coast Mariners FC - 3 Broken/Suspicious Links
• Chelsea F.C. - 0 Broken/Suspicious Links
• City of Manchester Stadium - 4 Broken/Suspicious Links
• Derry City F.C. - 10 Broken/Suspicious Links
• Everton F.C. - 2 Broken/Suspicious Links
• FIFA World Cup - 3 Broken/Suspicious Links done Struway2 (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Gillingham F.C. - 12 Broken/Suspicious Links - done ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• IFK Göteborg - 4 Broken/Suspicious Links
• Thierry Henry - 1 Broken/Suspicious Links
• History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966) - 0 Broken/Suspicious Links
• History of Gillingham F.C. - 6 Broken/Suspicious Links - all fixed ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• History of Stoke City F.C. - 9 Broken/Suspicious Links - Fixed Dave101→talk  17:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Ipswich Town F.C. - 15 Broken/Suspicious Links Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Leek Town F.C. - 3 Broken/Suspicious Links - all fixed ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Manchester City F.C. - 3Broken/Suspicious Links done Oldelpaso (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Margate F.C. - 8 Broken/Suspicious Links - done ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Norwich City F.C. - 8 Broken/Suspicious Links - yadda yadda Dweller (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Premier League - 1 Broken/Suspicious Links - done ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Priestfield Stadium - 4 Broken/Suspicious Links - done ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Bobby Robson - 0 Broken/Suspicious Links
• Roy of the Rovers - 5 Broken/Suspicious Links done Struway2 (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Scotland national football team - 2 Broken/Suspicious Links done Struway2 (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Sheffield Wednesday F.C. - 8 Broken/Suspicious Links
• Gilberto Silva - 12 Broken/Suspicious Links
• York City F.C. - 3 Broken/Suspicious Links Fixed. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you guys know about these broken links, so that they can get fixed. I'll be doing this for Featured Lists and Good Articles soon as well. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

be aware that when publishers archive their articles on their own site, they don't always archive same version as the original. In particular, there was one in Roy of the Rovers, a piece from the Scotsman where the software tool had found a new link to replace the dead one. However the new link on the Scotsman website had less content than the webarchived version. I only noticed because the omitted content happened to be the bit quoted in the article footnote. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As Struway's example shows, archive.org's Wayback Machine can be invaluable for those hard to replace links. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Page moves and mergers

Could someone knowledgeable please take a look at User:Lucy-marie's recent football-related contributions. She's already moved Kit (football) to Kit (Association football) (with a capital A), has 3 or 4 other moves/mergers requested, and has been metricating/"cleaning up" association football, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, now Football (soccer) has become Association football (missed that discussion), that's probably driving her contributions. Anyway, I've moved the Kit page back to the one with a small 'a' and I'll have a look at the other bits and pieces... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The edits seem well-meaning, but some of the recent ones by User:Lucy-marie raise concern - e.g. proposing Laws of the Game is moved to Laws of association Football, and proposing a merge of Referee (football) with Assistant referee. The user has previously been involved in controversy renaming London building articles and proposing the merger of '24' characters. Paulbrock (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

SV Spakenburg

I am thinking of creating an article for this Dutch club, but wonder if it is notable enough - it is currently amateur and my very limited knowledge of both Dutch football and the Dutch language means I can't see if they used to be in a professional league. The club's official history is at [20] if anyone would be kind enough to translate for me...GiantSnowman (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As a Dutchman, I think this club is most definitely notable. They play in the highest amateur league of the country, the third tier of football in the Netherlands. The club's rivalry with IJsselmeervogels has been well documented, and has inspired a number of (award winning?) documentaries. Technically speaking Spakenburg is an amateur club, but a loop hole in the rules allows the players to be paid, making it a de facto professional club. Spakenburg has also played in the KNVB Cup. So yes, SV Spakenburg would definitely be notable enough for Wikipedia. I have created a number of articles about other Hoofdklasse clubs myself, such as HHC Hardenberg, Be Quick 1887, ASWH, Quick Boys, VV Bennekom and Ter Leede. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply Aecis, I though it would be notable as it many other teams in the same 'amateur' league have club articles. I'm going to create the article then, and if it is AfDed then so be it! GiantSnowman (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, I'll see what I can find in Dutch sources to expand on what you will write. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've created a very basic stub, any help expanding will be greatly appreciated. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Swiss football players with dual nationality

Hi there. Can an experienced participant of the WikiProject please come to this discussion and clarify if the guideline for the full list of football players with dual nationality also applies for lists for individual countries. Thanks in advance. --Leyo 12:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not know that both of them have a dual nationality. -- 129.132.210.4 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:VPP

From a discussion relating to the 2007 UEFA Champions League Final being the article of the day, a user has proposed the following -

• On first reference, do not use the word "football" without a qualifier. Call it American football, football (soccer), soccer, Australian rules football, etc. Subsequent references can simply say "football."

Discussion continues at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Varieties of football on first reference. 84.69.169.60 (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Terminology on first reference

OK, I know I'm stepping into the lion's den here, but here goes.

I accept that articles may be written in the local dialect, and that since most soccer-related articles are of British interest, they are written in British English. That includes the use of the word "football" to mean the round-ball sport.

However, as a courtesy to readers, I believe a guideline should be established that on first reference and first reference only, a qualifying term -- such as the word "(soccer)" in parentheses -- should be used to specify which type of football is meant.

This has already become an unwritten policy for American-football articles, in which the term "American football" is used on first reference, then "football" in subsequent references.

Use of a qualifier on first reference is a good idea because many English speakers live in places where the word "football" always refers to another type of game. Undoubtedly, many of the 320 million English speakers in North America have no idea the word "football" can mean anything other than the pointy-ball sport.

True, most of those potential readers could probably figure it out after a while, but Wikipedia should be reader-friendly. That means spoon-feeding them rather than forcing them to do the work to figure things out.

The insertion of a single word is so simple and unobtrusive that I can't really see why anyone would object to it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned a few sections up the page, this matter is already under discussion at the Village Pump. FWIW, I am quite happy using association football (generally shown as football) when creating a new article, but never soccer; I'll leave that to our American colleagues. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have merged the sections. Lets try and keep the discussion in one place. Woody (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought this was the best place for it considering the lack of interest it initially generated on the VP, but the discussion has gotten busier there. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it was good that you did bring it to our attention. I think that centralised discussion is better than cross-posting. Woody (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Image enquiry

Does anyone know of any article which contains a reasonably decent full-length free-use photo of a player in action from the 1970s or 80s? I've trawled through dozens of articles this morning but just can't find such a photo..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this one cut it, or are you looking for an isolated shot of just the player? - Dudesleeper Talk 15:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That one would be OK except that it's a fair use image so I couldn't use it. To clarify my query, I'm doing some work on Kit (association football) and was hoping to include an image showing the kit "fashions" of the 70s and 80s...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a few pics on commons that may be of use (including this one), if not - I would suggest looking through the Agencia Brasil archives. All ABr pics are public domain (even recent ones like this. There are some other pics used on the portal that may be of use too. 62.136.167.175 (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You can also use MayFlower to search commons (think flickr, for commons, and just as annoying to navigate). Nanonic (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Template Question

Just after editing the John Paul McBride article and noticed this note regarding templates and sorting the article.

<--Please use Macbride, i.e. with an 'a', to assist category sorting-->

{{tl|DEFAULTSORT:Macbride, John Paul}}

I am wanting to know why an 'a' must be included to enable easier sorting of the article. Using this compleatly changes the way the name is presented and pronounced. There should not be discrimination to make things easier to sort. Gorillamusic (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't to make it easier to sort, and it doesn't affect anything other than the listings on the Category pages. What it does, is to make all names spelt the same apart from the Mc or Mac appear together on the Category pages. So that if you're looking for a person called something that sounds like McKenzie but you don't know the exact spelling out of Mackenzie, McKenzie, MacKenzie, you'll find all the variations together rather than possibly several pages apart. It's not the sort of thing people necessarily notice, but this is the way they do it in the telephone directory and in the Encyclopedia Britannica as well. hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable players section in Liverpool F.C. article

I have recently been having an interesting discussion with User:The Rambling Man, who made some useful observations in the peer review of Liverpool F.C. - one of which was that he was unsure about the notable players section (which User:NapHit interpreted as a call to delete it). I have copied the section in question into my userspace. I created this section back in 2006 - at the time, there was a lengthy list of "notable players" within the article. People were continually adding to the list more or less arbitrarily - at one stage Antonio Núñez made it in. I wrote this prose section because I felt that one of the most essential things any visitor to an article on a football club wants to know is "what famous players have played for that team"; and I honestly believe that prose sections are more interesting to read and make for better wikipedia articles. In the year and half after the section was added, it remained more or less stable, except for people adding references.

Now, of course, I fully admit to being biased on this score, but I really think that other wikipedia articles would actually benefit from these kinds of prose sections, rather than just relegating things to the oh-so-dry lists, and so I thought I should make a last stand! The Rambling Man suggested I bring it here for discussion. What do you think - is there any way of having a prose section of notable players - could the section that was removed ever be made usable? Or do we have to restrict ourselves to dry lists and tables - or not mention notable players within an article at all (which surely means that the article is missing something very important)? Robotforaday (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The major problem with that kind of section, though, is avoiding OR i.e. how do we decide who is deemed worthy of inclusion? Young editors will invariably want to include lots of players from the 1990s rather than stars of the 60s who they've barely heard of, and in general you'll never be able to avoid the "hang on, X is in there, why isn't Y?" edits..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just had a quick look at the section you copied to your userspace and I can already see issues. Steve McManaman, whose contribution to the history of LFC was, to be brutally honest, pretty minimal is in there, but ther's no sign of the likes of Graeme Souness, Phil Neal, Emlyn Hughes or the club's all-time appearance record holder Ian Callaghan..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your points are fair enough, but I don't think they're fatal for such a section - they just mean that we need to think about how it should be constructed. I don't think it constitutes original research, because each inclusion should be backed up with a reference indicating its verifiability and demonstrating its notability - this is the way all history sections (in football and other articles) are constructed, after all. The issue is more one of NPOV, and I think this can be overcome, as a clear case can and should be stated for each inclusion (I can't believe Callaghan isn't in there, to be honest). The prose section was a solution to a particular problem; it was all too easy for people to add bulletpointed players to a list with no justification. The section solved this problem to a large degree, because the section remained stable and the fears of young editors making it recentist were groundless (McManaman's inclusion is my fault). In a year and a half of that section in one of the most edited and vandalised articles, there were practically no "hang on, X is in there, why isn't Y?" edits or disputes, so I don't think that can be considered a barrier. Robotforaday (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely hope we don't have to restrict ourselves to dry lists and tables (and I speak as one who has one featured list already and another currently at FLC - no, I'm not canvassing). Football club articles need prose, or they'll risk becoming the sort of collections of links and statistics that Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be.

While notable players is a topic well suited to list format with objective inclusion criteria, and with the current consensus set so that a club established longer than five minutes has well over 100 such players, that doesn't mean that the notable players section on the main article should only contain a link to the list. In fact, the "in a nutshell" summary of WP:Summary style says that "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place" (my italics, but their grammar).

If notability criteria can be set to hold lists to manageable size, then editors are surely capable of working out notability criteria relevant to their particular club to keep the section to two or three paragraphs. As Robotforaday says, editors manage to work out criteria for which bits of the club's history are verifiably important enough to go in the history section. Or is the OR/NPOV problem perceived as more of a problem with players because "everybody" has a view on who should be counted in Liverpool's or Man Utd's 12 most notable players but far fewer think they know enough to question the key points of club histories? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you must have a "Notable players" section in the Liverpool F.C. article, then it should link to List of Liverpool F.C. players. Any players who made a truly notable contribution to the club's history should be mentioned in the History section, and if not, they can be found in the list of Liverpool players article. – PeeJay 23:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The solution to the number of people included in the notable player section on the Manchester City article (which is Feature Article standard) is to only include players that are inducted into the official hall of fame. This may not work for all clubs but seems to be a good benchmark for notability. As to prose versus list, I think it depends on the content and what communicates that content in the most effective form. All prose may not be suitable and a list may also be unsuitable. It depends on the content. Pbradbury (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the number of people included had been a particular problem for the prose section, because it wasn't as though it was being forever chopped, changed, and name after name added - although as ChrisTheDude has pointed out, it wasn't necessarily a perfect selection, which is probably my personal failure. Nevertheless, I think that it is significant that the people who edit the article themselves never seemed to find a problem with the prose notable players section in practice - it's only outside reviewers who believe there could be a problem in theory (although having said that, maybe they're right). Robotforaday (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't mind your prose, it's different, it reads well enough, no real strong opinion. It's not how I would have done it (I find it easier to consume that kind of info in a list), but that doesn't make it wrong. I wouldn't revert it if someone was willing to write and maintain it. I do have a concern that it would become unweildy if you had lots of notable players, say 50+ and at that point maybe it would be better to revert to a list. Pbradbury (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem, though, is that a club with a history as long and glorious as Liverpool's probably does have 50 players who could be said to have a reasonable case for inclusion in a section on "notable players" - the crux of the issue being discussed is what criteria could realistically be used to cut it down to a sensible number without getting into what I termed "hang on, X is in there, why isn't Y?" debates..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to ensure that the consensus is to allow prose in notable players section for non-world class teams. Avoiding OR is simple in such cases - international players, award winners, record holders i.e. most appearances, most goals (overall and in a season), most years in club, biggest transfers (in and out).   Jhony  |  Talk   10:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds simple but for clubs like Liverpool, you're probably talking about a hundred players who have represented their country, won awards (what awards?!) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But I guess it depends on your definition of "non-world class" teams as well... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-world class team = team without international notability, i.e. those with Mid or Low importance. In such cases there are no controversy. What awards? I'd say notable awards, it depends on country. For example, National Footballer of the Year.   Jhony  |  Talk   23:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Football (soccer) players by competition

A number of subcategories of Category:Football (soccer) players by competition are on the verge of becoming overpopulated. See for instance Category:Serie A players, Category:Premier League players, Category:The Football League players and Category:First Bundesliga footballers. Splitting them might be an option, but how? By position (e.g. Category:Serie A goalkeepers) or by nationality (e.g. Category:Fooian Serie A players or Category:Serie A players from Foo)? Aecis^Brievenbus 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would just get rid of them altogether, I have never seen the point. Qwghlm (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not restrict them to players currently playing in the competition? So Category:Premier League players would only include players currently playing for a club in the Premier League, etc. That's what I'd expect from a category titled like that anyway. - MTC (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of them. They'll get overpopulated and in the end, become useless. D.M.N. (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia v1.0, new classes

The following have been part of the Wikipedia v1.0 assessments since October 2007 -

FL-Class - Template-Class - List-Class - Category-Class - Disambig-Class

as seen at Template:Cat class (used in assessment cat's such as Category:A-Class football in England articles) and at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index.

If anyone is bored enough, I think we should consider adding some of these to the template, thinking mainly FL and List (and creating the necessary sub-cats of course). Nanonic (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? The page on assessments (Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment) still has them listed as non-standard grades, though it does look like the bot picks up List-class now. Paulbrock (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dejan Marić

Please keep an eye on all edits related to Dejan Marić. The article Dejan Marić has been speedied for non-notability three times (it's now salted), Dejan Maric has been speedied for G7 (blanked by author). The consensus during the recent AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dejan Marić was also that the subject was not notable enough for Wikipedia. The subject, Dejan16 (talk · contribs), his probable sockpuppets/meatpuppets Ultra16 (talk · contribs) and Ultra20 (talk · contribs), and a number of IP addresses, including 172.203.175.95 (talk · contribs), 172.206.11.47 (talk · contribs) and 172.142.233.79 (talk · contribs), continue to add this user to FK Igalo. Not only has he been deemed not notable enough, according to the deleted article, the subject plays for the youth academy of the English side Newton Abbot A.F.C.. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Leicester City F.C.

can you all add this to your watch list as someone keeps adding Rivaldo to the squad list atm.Skitzo (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've sprotected both it and the Rivaldo articles, as its coming from a variety of IP addresses. Qwghlm (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:English football

Has anyone seen this portal? I only came across it because it's been categorised in Category:Football (soccer). Personally, I don't see any need for such a portal, and perhaps it should be deleted. It's only been in existence since the end of 2007 anyway. – PeeJay 18:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's up for MFD. D.M.N. (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is. I put it there :-D I had meant to come here and mention that earlier, but I forgot. – PeeJay 21:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Club captain vs. team captain

Out of interest, what is the difference between a club captain and a team captain? GiantSnowman (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Usually the club captain and the team captain are the same person, but the team captain can vary from game to game if the club captain is unable to play regularly. – PeeJay 14:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Or not included in the squad for other reasons. Reserve teams still have captains.

The difference is basically the same as with any other "club/team" distinctions in the game. The team is a subset of the club, so occasionally it has a smaller focus. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

When Gillingham introduced this distinction, it was explained that a relatively young player became team captain, on the basis of his motivational ability among his peers, but a more experienced player was given the role of club captain, largely with regard to press/sponsors/PR dealings. Kevin McE (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Club Captain tends to be a senior player with a lot of experience, but if he were to get a long term injury then there would need to be a team captain who is only the on field captain and will give up the role when the club captain returns. Skitzo (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Current managers

Main page: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Leeds United A.F.C. seasons/archive1

If season list don't allow the current season why should current managers in managers lists? Buc (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody disallows anything. Community consensus is what we work on here. You have a reasonable point but then again managers can be at the same club for ten, fifteen years.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

But there stats would be changing all the time. Buc (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Buc, give it up. You would be better arguing for not allowing the current seasons stats in those lists. I could see that argument. For current managers though, the list would not be complete without them. Woody (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Could say the same about the current season. Buc (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It makes more sense to have a list of completed seasons, than one of ex-managers. Kevin McE (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How so? Buc (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's probably because people are more likely to want to know stats about the current manager than about the current season. – PeeJay 18:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Seasons have a defined start and end point. Managers like players don't. They can start and finish their careers at the drop of a hat. Peanut4 (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And if Crewe ever had a FL for managers, it'd look a bit odd for the list to stop in 1983.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty anti-recentist in a lot of what I say here, but I see no reason for not including current seasons or managers in the lists, as long as there is no undue bias or emphasis on them. Keeping up-to-date is not a problem - many hands make light work, and as long as an as of date to make sure people don't misread them, I think it's fine. Qwghlm (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it seems that most people don't. Buc (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(←) I agree to an extent but since, in the case that Buc is talking about, there's a dedicated article for the most recent season, it seems like we've got it all covered in this case without having to duplicate too much work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't consistently an issue though. Buc (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as seasons articles are consistent with each other, there shouldn't be a problem, IMO. If one page has the information, then they all should. – PeeJay 17:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Seasons will always be incomplete until the end of the season. You only have to wait nine months to add the relevant data, and if there is an individual season article, then linking to that is better.

But not adding a manager, can have long gaps, e.g. in the cases of Dario Gradi, Alex Ferguson, Arsene Wenger. On the flip side a manager can leave mid-season and be complete at any point in time.

Buc, I can see you're quite committed about your view, and I can partly understand the consistency element. But like I say seasons have a defined start and end point. Managers don't. Peanut4 (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No but Managers seasons and stats do. Buc (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Past consensus'

I keep seeing comments such as team is below step x or non-world cup squad templates not allowed in deletion discussions commenting on prior consensus at WP:WPF. This is all fine and dandy but would someone please just list all of these decisions on a page somewhere where we can all see them? It's kinda annoying to tell someone 'oh you can't do that because there is a consensus not to do so on WikiProject Football' to which they reply 'oh yeah? where? show me' and I can't. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There's an archive of outcomes of football related deletion discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Deletion archive. Most other discussions are ikely to be in the archives of this page. I guess it might be an idea to put links to some of the recurring ones onto Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the templates, I have a list that links to the discussion, as well as all the subsequent deletions at User:Neier/Soccer templates. It wouldn't bother me if someone wanted to move it to the project workspace. Neier (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C.

Anyone care to take a look at this FAC? It's been open for three weeks (since 2007 in fact :-) ) but seems to have gone a bit dormant.......... ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like no FAC closes have happened in nearly a fortnight. From looking at Raul's talk page the next batch of closes will happen later today, which will no doubt result in a promotion. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

John O'Toole (footballer) → John-Joe O'Toole

Should the John O'Toole (footballer) artice be moved to John-Joe O'Toole? Kingjamie (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends what he's most commonly known as. If most people refer to him as John, then the article should remain where it is. However, if he prefers to be known as John-Joe, then it should be moved to reflect that. – PeeJay 23:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Very possibly. A simple search on google shows John-Joe O'Toole from the BBC and Watford's official website. I've never heard of him before so can't say for sure. Even if he isn't moved, I'd certainly set a redirect from John-Joe O'Toole to the current entry. Peanut4 (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My first thought was that this would be about the ex-Everton reserve goalie John O'Toole, but from looking his record up he only made it as far as the bench and then dropped into non-league, and doesn't merit an article. However, his existence means I'd prefer to have this article at John-Joe. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Coaches

How would I go about categorising football coaches? Many of them have never been a manager, so they wouldn't fit in Category:Football (soccer) managers, and the only other "football people" category we have is Category:Football (soccer) players. – PeeJay 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the category info says "In football (soccer) "manager" is the preferred term for a coach in many countries." and it's a subcat of Category:Coaches by sport so I'd say whack them in with the managers. Foxhill (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

no a manager is not just another term for coach, its another term for Head Coach. Skitzo (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Keegan's assistant at England

Can anyone remember who was Kevin Keegan's assistant manager for England? I should really know the answer but I can't remember, and some initial searching has failed to bring clarification. The succession box for Arthur Cox (footballer) said that it was Cox, but I have removed this because it clearly states in this article that Keegan was unable to appoint Cox to the position due to his age, although Cox was given a coaching position. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

His team was Cox, Derek Fazackerley and Les Reed. Who had what role exactly I'm not sure. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You might find this article useful. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

According to this article he wasn't allowed to hire Arthur Cox on a full time basis. That suggests that he still worked for him but only part time. josh (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard Kingson

User:Thumperward just tagged this as newsrelease so i think it needs a re-write, i started it but its gunna take a lot of work, any takers? Skitzo (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's going to be that much work. Over the next few weeks I imagine every African Cup player is going to get some free article improvements anyway. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

maybe not put it was a total mess, gave me a head ache just trying to separate club from country. Skitzo (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done a fairly radical job on it, removing loads of news site copyvios. Kevin McE (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. We could still do with more current references in English. He's a fascinatiing player, so with any luck there'll be a press bio released at some point during the Cup. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Flags listed next to clubs on national team pages

I'm not sure if this matter has been settled in the past but there is a lot of (sometimes heated) discussion in regards to the flags placed next to club names on national team pages. A prime example of this is the use of the English flag next to Welsh "exile" clubs playing in the English league system. There have been instances of potential vandalism where flags have been changed, often with what could be described as "politically-charged" discussion. Therefore as a suggestion to put an end to the matter, in my opinion the flag listed next to the club should be that of the national football association of which that particular club is registered with, regardless of which league system they play in.

In which case, flag designation should be as follows:_

1) Member club of a federation playing in a different national structure

i) The six Welsh clubs playing in the English football structure should be represented with the Welsh flag, as all six clubs are members of the Football Association of Wales. Despite the fact that all of the clubs take part in the (English) FA Cup, none of them have any affiliation with the (English) Football Association, nor does the Football Association have any jurisdiction over any matters surrounding the six clubs (this is dealt with by the FAW).

ii) All seven Liechtensteiner clubs are represented with the Liechtenstein flag, as opposed to the Swiss flag, as the clubs are members of the Liechtensteiner Fussballverband, but play in the Swiss football structure due to the lack of a national league. This is in my opinion a precedent for the Welsh clubs in the example above to be represented with the Welsh rather than the English flag.

iii) Toronto FC play in Major League Soccer, in the United States league structure, but are represented with the Canadian flag, also as members of the Canadian Soccer Association.

2) Member club of a federation playing in same national structure but located in another country

Some examples of clubs that are represented with the flag of the the association they are members of :_

i) The New Saints FC from the Welsh Premier League would be represented with the Welsh flag as members of the Football Association of Wales, although as of 2007 they are now located in Oswestry, England.
ii) AS Monaco FC are currently represented with the French flag as members of the Fédération Française de Football.
iii) Derry City, who would be represented with the Republic of Ireland flag as members of the Football Association of Ireland, having joined in 1985 upon special dispensation.
iv) San Marino Calcio, currently represented with the Italian flag as members of the Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio.
v) FC Andorra, currently represented with the Spanish flag as members of the Real Federación Española de Fútbol.

I haven't seen such an example but I would imagine Berwick Rangers FC would be represented with the Scottish flag as members of the Scottish Football Association in this case.

Jonzi9 (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We simply shouldn't be using flags at all if there's any potential for ambiguity, per WP:FLAG. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a possible solution to the issue, I've noticed most other language versions of national football team articles do not use the flags. It would certainly remove any grounds for arguments! Jonzi9 (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Unattached footballers

This category has been deleted. I don't agree with the decision, but perhaps that's WP... however, there was never a deletion tag on the category page, I (the starter) was never notified, and it never made the list on this project. That can't be right, surely? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support its reinstatement. Perhaps take it to WP:DRV. The Guinean goalkeeper from yesterday's Africa Cup of Nations game would be in it for a start! пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a very useful category, if they dont like it in the mainspace, it should have been used to talkspace like other non-encycopedic but useful categories such as Category:Place of birth missing. A deletion review is in order as procedure wasn't followed and I would have made my point on here if I'd have known about it before it was closed. King of the NorthEast 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Could it be tightened? Category:National football team players unattached to a club or the like? Then it accommodates the interesting situation of a player who can get a national game without being at a club, but isn't a catch-all for unemployed sportsmen. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Added it to DRV. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 Africa Cup of Nations

For some reason people have the urge to constantly update games even when they are not over. What should we place on the page so this does not happen? michfan2123 (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a note at the top that tells users to refrain from updating games whilst they are in progress, and only to add said updates once the games are finished. Jonzi9 (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Putting things in invisible text does not work because people do not listen. Maybe a template would work. michfan2123 (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There's already {{current event}}. I suppose we could have {{really current event}}, but does it really matter that much if people want to have fun updating goal tallies as a game goes on? It's not harming the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It happens all the time, in Champions League matches, individual cup ties, whatever. I don't think it's really a problem, is it? (I guess as long as the information being added is correct!) - fchd (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tut tut, people should be watching and appreciating the football, not sitting poised by a computer waiting to update wikipedia! Robotforaday (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said. --necronudist (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

FC Limburg

According to this article in the Times, FC Limburg is a proposed football team which will be formed by the merger of four existing clubs - Roda, Venlo, Maastricht and Sittard - and will, if it goes ahead, be the fouth best-supported club in the Netherlands. However, does the stub I have created break WP:CRYSTAL? GiantSnowman (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Noting the proposal does not break anything, suggesting that anyone can know how many fans will follow their teams to a new identity would, I suggest. Kevin McE (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice sought re: List of Gillingham F.C. players

Currently this list includes all players who made over 100 Football League appearances for the club. I've now obtained a new source which gives full appearance data for the club's two lengthy spells in the Southern League (1894 to 1920 and 1938 to 1950) which reveals that a further 15 players made 100+ league appearances in that time. As far as I can ascertain none of these players ever played in the Football League, so wouldn't be eligible for a WP article, and in fact I don't even have full forenames for them, just initials. Should I include them in the list......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No. If they're not notable enough for their own article then I suggest you forget about them. Check out criterion 1(a) of WP:WIAFL : brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria; - if they don't have articles there seems little point in adding them. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. What about adding Southern League appearance data to players who played for the club both in the SL and FL? Both on this list and their individual infoboxes.........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. It would need explanation I suspect (in the lead, something along the lines of players who featured in both FL and SL have their cumulative total in the table, not just FL apps...) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For the first period I don't see it being too much of a problem - the Southern League's top division was largely if not fully professional in the late 19th/early 20th century before the top clubs joined the Football League en masse and the clubs there were strong enough to compete with Football League - one of them even won the FA Cup while a Southern League side, though I can't quite recall their name :). Qwghlm (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How about the issue of red/black links being added to the list....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say add them, but without a link (i.e. black text). The argument about the Southern League being largely professional falls down when you think of our current criteria on the Conference! пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference being Conference clubs don't usually challenge for the FA Cup. Besides, back then even the Football League teams fielded their fair share of amateur players - but was nominally described as a professional football league, as the Southern League was as well. The Conference is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwghlm (talk • contribs) 12:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Conference (national at least) does present itself as being a professional league. With all the remaining mixed full time/semi-pro teams lumped together at the bottom , it is clear which way this league is going. They take exception to be described as "Non-League". I don't see what any nominal description has to do with it - surely that is either OR or POV? - fchd (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As Qwghlm has said, prior to 1920 the Southern League was (almost) as strong as the Football League. Neither league was "fully professional" at that time, but to compare the early Southern League with today's Conference shows a lack of knowledge of football history. Southampton were able to dominate the Southern League for a period around the start of the 20th century because they were able to pay higher salaries than many Football League clubs, thereby attracting England internationals. I see no reason why the players for Gillingham during this period should not be red-linked, and in due course why they should not merit their own articles. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You could make a similar argument for Rushden & Diamonds doing so well in the conference because they could offer wages higher than several Third Division clubs. There were several teams in the early Southern League which were probably not professional (Cowes, Royal Ordnance and Sheppey United off the top of my head). More importantly, can we verify that it was an all-professional league? I doubt we have the proof, and to procede regardless would be unfair to the Conference issue. I also think your comment about "lack of knowledge of football history", was quite uncalled for. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a few Gills players who have articles who haven't made League appearances yet. Such as Tom Bryant. Is he eligible for deletion? Jimbo^[online] 15:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If you want to AfD them, try to do them all under one to save hassle. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe there's only two, Bryant and Charlie Howard. Not that this is especially relevant to the debate on including/not including Southern League-era players in the list article..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

True, apologies for bringing them into it. Anyway, the league isn't fully professional so no. It's a shame, I have pages worth of non-league legends who never played in a 'pro-league' and aren't valid for an article - I don't see why this is any different. Jimbo^[online] 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I see it, the Southern League was originally a regional league, the Conference is played at the national level. There is nothing in the notability criteria about allowing teams from leagues that have provided other teams that have done well in the national cup competition. I'm not against allowing articles on Gillingham players from the Southern League, but I still believe it should be a priority to amend the criteria (as discussed at length) to allow players:

Who have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure (or in the FA Cup or League Cup for a fully professional club playing at national level).

-King of the NorthEast 15:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In reply to both the last two comments: Please note that, although the discussion has meandered about a bit, I was never suggesting that I would ever create articles on these players, I was merely enquiring whether it was appropriate to include them on the List of Gillingham F.C. players..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with Number57 then, add them without a link Jimbo^[online] 16:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there are good arguments in both directions, so I suggest you clarify the criteria specified at the article to include only players who've made 100 appearances since the club was admitted to the Football League, thereby nicely subverting the whole 'are they or aren't they notable' issue, leaving it to be decided when/if anyone creates those biogs, rather than as a sideshow to your list article. --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A pedant writes: technically it would have to be "during the club's two spells in the Football League" rather than simply "since the club joined the Football League"........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And in fact, thinking about it, that's what the criteria already are, anyway...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

...so, what's the problem? --Dweller (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem was, I wasn't sure whether the list would be complete without players who made over 100 (well over 100 in some cases) appearances for the Gills while they were in the Southern League but never played in the Football League. Originally the principal reason they were not the list was that I didn't have the data available to me. Now I do, I wasn't sure whether it would be appropriate to add them in as red/blacklinks...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Exclude them because the criteria exclude them and don't worry so much! :-) The criteria are quite rigorous, unsurprising and, most importantly, free from POV. I wouldn't expect a similar list of Arsenal players to include those who made 100 or 200 appearances for Dial Square. --Dweller (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say it depends on the sources you're providing. If you can show general notability under WP:BIO's (and by inference WP:N's) basic criteria with good references, then there isn't anything to worry about. If you're relying on the additional criteria of WP:BIO, then you'd have to argue that they meet "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field", which may be tenuous at best. Nanonic (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment above - to reiterate once again, I am NOT planning on creating articles on any of these players, only (potentially) including them as red/blacklinks on the master list of players..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that blacklinking them would be best, as some people see redlinks as an invitation to create new articles (especially when they appear on good/featured pages). There can be no real objection to simply putting the names on the list. King of the NorthEast 19:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Football "field" or football "pitch" (again)

Familiar topic this one, but in a new area.

Please read this thread Template_talk:Infobox_Stadium#Dimensions_2. The stadiums infobox automatically refers to the grassy area as a "field", rather than a "pitch". The template creator is willing to introduce an element that would permit the variation to pitch, but only if all footy articles followed suit.

I'm not sure whether it's called a football pitch in English-speaking countries all over the world. Can you help fill in this chart with country name and what it's called? (and feel free to expand the table to other countries where it may/may not be an issue) Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Country	Terminology	Your signature
England	Pitch	Dweller (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Wales	Pitch	– PeeJay 11:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Scotland	Pitch	Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
USA	Field	Che84 (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Australia
Canada
South Africa

The thoughts of the template creator seem rather like a breach of WP:OWN to me. Anyone who has the required experience of editing templates should be able to add the relevant code whether the creator agrees or not. - fchd (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

While I support the argument for article text, regional variances of English in templates sound a bit too much. Besides, the IFAB (which is a half-British organisation) refers to the area as the "Field of Play" in the laws of the game, so I don't have too much problem with the use of the world "field" in this case. Qwghlm (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You could just ask them to use "Playing area" and get rid of the whole pitch/field issue. Nanonic (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, works for me too. Wonder if it is OK in American English? Any Americans here? --Dweller (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The average American refers to it as a field, but those in the soccer community will often call it a pitch. Che84 (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gianmarco Sogus Honnorat

In the rationale against speedy that's at the talk page, there's mention of a team this chap played for being a professional team. Can someone who knows about Italian football confirm this? --Dweller (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

He is claiming that Serie D is fully professional, but its own WP article specfically states it isn't.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Serie D is not professional. In fact, all clubs are obliged to use "Dilettantistico" (Amateur) in their official denomination... --Angelo (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Auto-archive of this page

I have reduced the auto-archive time for old threads on this page from 21 to 14 days as I think it's a bit too big as it stands (over 120k!). If anyone objects then feel free to revert, I was just being bold. Thanks. Qwghlm (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Flags

What flag would you use for an Australian-born player, who has played for England U-17s, and I believe also England U-19s? I would say England but wanted to check first. Peanut4 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say England as that's the country he's playing for. If he later switches to Australia then it can be changed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

England, for the same reasons Terry Butcher and John Barnes don't have the Singaporean and Jamaican flags listed by them. Qwghlm (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's the nation they've represented at the highest international level. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Next daft question then!! I've found he's played for U16, 17, 18, 19, 20. I'm guessing it would be daft to put each one of these in the infobox. Would you even put any in? Peanut4 (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to put 'youth', only list u-21 as distinct. If they've played at u-21 or higher I usually leave out youth altogether. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Looks loads better now. Thanks for all your very prompt answers. Peanut4 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:FLAG is extremely clear on the issue. if there's any potential for a flag to be ambiguous, we shouldn't be using flags at all. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But we have a clear criteria, and it matches the idea of nationality that is understood throughout football, so there's no ambiguity. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Refs

I haven't been able to determine the exact notability requirements for officials. There is an AFD here that has made me curious: [[21]]. I don't know the standards so I refrained from voting, but it would be nice to have them listed somewhere on the main project page. matt91486 (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure on this one, the only prior AFD precedent I'm aware of was for Belaid Lacarne where it was argued that officiating at the World Cup Finals was a good inclusion. Previous attempts to determine notability Here and also here were never adopted by the project. In the case of Christoforos Zografos, he's been FIFA listed since 2004 and was fourth official for one game in the 2004 Olympics. He's officiated European Cup, UEFA Cup and Intertoto cup qualifiers,[22] and domestically, he referees regularly in Super League Greece.[23] Sources are a bit of a bugger, not being able to read Greek, but I would surmise that being an International referee would allow his inclusion. Anyone else? Nanonic (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(additional) I don't suppose that his Superleague officiating would whack him past WP:BIO as "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league"? Nanonic (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

List of FA Cup giant-killings

I'd like extra input on this article as there are constant disputes over Chasetown's feats this season. [24]

My position is simple enough: Chasetowns win over Port Vale and them reaching Round three is certainly notable and is therefore duly included in the history of the FA Cup section. But it does not constitute a 'giant killing' for the very simple reason that Port Vale are not a giant of English football. Secondly an identical result in 1998-1999 when another level eight club, Bedlington Terriers beat Colchester (a level three club) 4-1 is long forgotten. Thus we should also be wary of such recentism. Thirdly we need stringent criteria on the article to stop people just adding their favourite team's results (before we introduced the criteria Premiership Birminghams win over Newcastle last season was frequently added). Valenciano (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the criteria could be amended to make it just "when a team beats another from a division three or more divisions above them." Then again, the article should probably be deleted, as any giant-killing is not technically defined, and to create a definition would be OR. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

An inherent problem with the term "giant" in my opinion. When did Huddersfield or Oxford United make "Giant" status? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The term "Giant" is confusing. Havant & Waterlooville's recent win over Swansea in the FA Cup was a shock and is certainly notable, especially as they now face Liverpool at Anfield. I think it should be included, but it doesn't constitute a "Giant" killing. Maybe the section should be called "FA Cup upsets" or something similar. Any thoughts? Oliwestham (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Applying WP:COMMON-like logic, it is certainly regularly referred to in print/broadcast media as "giant-killings" whenever any team beats a higher one, regardless of the absolute levels of the clubs involved - i.e. giant is a relative term rather than absolute. - fchd (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

One man's Giant is another man's dwarf... The Rambling Man's chronicles, circa 2008 The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue is subjective and as such is an OR minefield. Even if you could find a definitive explanation with exactitude from an RS as to what does or doesn't constitute a giantkilling (and I doubt you will) there'll no doubt be plenty of games described in other RS as giantkillings that don't fit those criteria. --Dweller (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

To be strictly accurate, this article should be entitled FA Cup matches resulting in a win for a club at least three divisions below a club in one of the top two tiers of English football, shouldn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite. And any article with such arbitrary inclusion criteria should be deleted forthwith as intrinsically OR/POV. In my opinion :) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with User:Struway2. However, I would also disagree with User:Valenciano in that I certainly haven't forgotten the Bedlington v Colchester result - that was (and remains) their only time in the Rounds Proper. - fchd (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've no doubt that you do remember it but that's more to do with your impressive encyclopedic knowledge of such results than its memorability :) Valenciano (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It has a {{prod}} now. I'll inform major contributors. This must go (imho omg etc etc)... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well by the time I'd got my router behaving the prod was removed so I guess it's back to jolly old AFD! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Listed now, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of FA Cup giant-killings, remember everyone - NPOV and no OR! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree, can't see how such a list can ever work. In the past it was even more ad hoc and was regularly hijacked by people adding their favourite teams results. I previously nominated the article for deletion last month for exactly the same reasons. Despite a majority in favour enough editors popped up on "I like it" grounds for there to be a no consensus. Valenciano (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Manager templates (caretaker managers)

Maybe this has been discussed before, but is there any official policy about whether caretaker managers should be included on the manager templates or not? I notice that some templates (e.g. Sunderland) do not include caretakers, others (e.g. Sheff Wed) do include caretakers but specify whether the manager in question was a caretaker manager, and others still (e.g. Blackburn) include all managers without specifying whether they are caretakers or not. As Bill Simmons would say: can we have a ruling on this? --Badmotorfinger (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Since I created about 80 manager templates semi-automatically from Soccerbase, inevitably all caretakers mentioned there are included. Several editors have removed or added caretakers since. A ruling would necessitate something like "caretakers are allowed on templates if they've managed for X games" at a guess... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Wales-footy-bio-stub

This template doesn't seem tobe displaying correctly, at least not on my screen - anyone shed any light.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Its the new parser, am reporting to the devs. Woody (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Guy

I'd be grateful if someone would confirm that this isn't a hoax before anyone spends time cleaning it up. Ta. --Dweller (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like bullshit to me. Salernitana are not a Spanish team... ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I am worried about it, but, pushing AGF, if you read the edit summaries, the creator did post from memory of a conversation... that could easily just be his flawed recollection of a long chat. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And AGF is not undue, as the newbie's other contributions are clearly good faith. --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that (a) Havant & Waterlooville didn't exist in the 1970s and (b) and that there are no relevant google hits for any of the claims, I would say it's a hoax. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Warming up my toaster and big stick now. Thanks chaps. --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And as I was posting a kind AGFy warning to his talk, he was busy vandalising, so I guess that's the end of that. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jamie Mackie Image

Am I right in thinking Image:mackie.jpg should be deleted? Jimbo^[online] 13:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I should say so, yes. – PeeJay 14:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I've tagged the pic BanRay 15:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you have to do to get rid of a picture without the correct copyright? I'm unsure of the process. I found another without copyright Image:sandor.jpg Jimbo^[online] 16:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You should add the template {{nld}} and then after the appropriate time an admin will pop by and blow it away. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Beitar Jerusalem F.C. Images

I took some photo's in October 2006 of Ossie Ardiles and Beitar training, I don't who all the players are, not sure if any numbers have changed since then. But anyone is welcome to use them for player profiles if they know. [25] Govvy (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S I've already uploaded these two, Image:Ardiles14-08-2006.jpg and Image:Beitar Jerusalem in training.JPG. Govvy (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image of change of name certificate

I have found an image of the change of 1892 certificate where Everton Football Club and Athletic Grounds Company Limited became Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Company Limited. I would like to upload this to wikipedia for use in the Liverpool F.C. and History of Liverpool F.C. article, and I assume there should be no problems with copyright, given that it's an image of a document that's more than 100 years old, but I don't know what tag I should use for the image to prevent it from being deleted; I can't see anything about images of documents. Any ideas? Robotforaday (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Flagicon in infobox, again

Someone told me that the use of smaller flag is reviewing in MOS, but where the discussion? AND why the discussion has not yet closed, they already adding flags, again?! Matthew_hk tc 08:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There are discussions at WT:FLAG, but the active discussion seems to be about the meaning of flags in squad lists, not about use in infoboxes. This discussion raised the matter of infoboxes but came to no conclusion and the last posting was three weeks ago. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote

Seeing as you've been previously removing flagicons from footballers' infoboxes, I would like to inform you that we have come to a consensus regarding the use of 15px flagicons in footballers' infoboxes, so please don't remove them in the future. Cheers! BanRay 16:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He told me, do something, watch him. Matthew_hk tc 16:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

List of football players with dual nationality (yes, again...)

While I still think having such a page is a great addition to Wikipedia, the page is vastly under referenced and repeats itself all the time. Therefore over this coming weekend I shall embark on a major overhaul of the page, which will include the following changes:

1. Merger of all the sub pages into the main page
2. Removal of ALL unfeferenced players
3. Change in format (see talk page)

If there any major objections or suggestions then please let me know ASAP. Many thanks, GiantSnowman (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you gonna list EVERY Angolan-Portuguese player or EVERY Italian-Argentinan player?? That's crazy...A virtually endless list. --necronudist (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If they have dual nationality than can be referenced then yes. GiantSnowman (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And it needs to concentrate on what the article title (and lead) states, players with "dual nationality". Not just players who happened to be born in one country and play in (or for) another. Look at Dale Tempest - listed under Hong Kong - but the sucession box at the bottom of his article says he won the best foreign player in HK award. - fchd (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, which is why only players who have a second nationality referenced will be included. GiantSnowman (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And the flags are going, right? - Dudesleeper Talk 11:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you want them to go? If so then I'll delete them, although I would personally prefer them to remain next to the second country, but not the primary nationality. GiantSnowman (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, flags should go - the proliferation of them on all sorts of articles is ridiculous. - fchd (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me what this list is supposed to be of? I've had a look at discussions on the talk page, and they don't help.

If it means List of footballers qualified to play for more than one national team, it should be called that, and then, so long as every inclusion was referenced, there's no problem, although the list would go on for ever.

On the other hand, if it really means nationality, there's no such thing as English, Scottish or Welsh nationality, being born in one country doesn't automatically give you nationality of that country, etc, etc, etc. yours confusedly, Struway2 (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This page seems like an endless list of confusing information: surely in Britain alone there could be thousands of British players with parents/grandparents of Scottish/English nationality, etc. I don't think this page adds any value - why not simply include a trivia section in relevant national FA pages of players who have been capped despite being born in a different country, i.e., actually playing for their second nationality? This must be one of the longest pages on Wikipedia. Fedgin | Talk 16:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And officially (I mean outside football), no-one has English or Scottish nationality, their citizenship would be British (or if there is a suitable adjective meaning "of the United Kingdom" that would be even better!) - fchd (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have now completed a major purge of the page, the only players who remain on the page now are those whose qualification for a second or even third nation are from a reliable, third-party source - mainly BBC, UEFA, FIFA etc. Any additions would be more than welcome. GiantSnowman (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It needs to explain what the two countries mean. I guess, it's born in one (or nationality of one) but plays for another, but I'm not sure as to the exact meaning of the former bit, and it doesn't say which way round the two are. Peanut4 (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I also have some queries regarding this list. Does a footballer have to be an international to have dual nationality? I guess not. How would they appear on the list? Second, do players have to have dual nationality to end up playing for another country? I guess so but I don't fully understand the nationality issue regarding footballers. Peanut4 (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The BBC Source used for a lot of the examples still makes no reference to the concept of dual nationality - merely that the players have African descent. Is it verifiable that Carlton Cole has Nigerian or Sierra Leonan nationality rather than African ancestors? - fchd (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you've summed up my concerns perfectly there. It's been too long a day for me!!! If you're right, then I'm not sure this list is manageable properly. Especially if my above concern, that this is really a list of international footballers, not all footballers, is right. Peanut4 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of your issues, the BBC source is just a temporary source until I find better ones which state that they have a second nationality, not just are of African origin. I shall also add some more info re:inclusion into the introduction. GiantSnowman (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Crest?

Can I make a point which may appear pedantic, but really is not? A lot of articles have sections called "Colours and crest". Yet the use of crest here is not strictly the proper use of the term crest, as set out in Crest (heraldry). Now, no biggie, you might say, and maybe this is a pedantic point; EXCEPT that Aberdeen F.C. has recently been failed as a GA and one of the numerous points made was that in order for it to be improved was that the section titled "Colours and badge" should be renamed "Colours and crest". Now, generally I would think that it is splitting hairs to ask editors of Aberdeen F.C. to make such a change. BUT when I strongly suspect that we're not using the term "crest" properly, and so we're asking somebody to say something wrong to improve something to GA standard, I feel the push to standardise articles and make them all have the same headings and look just like Arsenal F.C. (which is a very good article, I admit) has gone too far. Robotforaday (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I don't know what is wrong with the term badge. I'd say crest is also correct, but I don't see what's wrong with badge. Secondly, I was quite surprised to read some of the comments at that GA Review anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I think this area needs looking at, and the guidelines could be improved. Badges/crests can get complicated for a number of reasons:

• Several clubs have at some point adopted their town or city's crest as the badge for the shirts.
• The club badge and the shirt badge may not always be the same.
• The terms "Club badge" and "Club crest" may be used interchangeably in sources.e.g. here

These were some of the things I came across when writing the Crest section of West Bromwich Albion F.C. (which I'm now thinking should have been called "Club badge" section!) --Jameboy (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points - the crest is the official symbol of the club, the badge is what the team wear on their shirts. The two are not always the same - e.g. Arsenal used to have an AFC logo on the shirt, and later a simple cannon, before adopting the badge around 1990 or so. The Arsenal F.C. article could do with clarification on this matter, actually - lemme find some sources and I'll update it. Qwghlm (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminiscent of the pitch/field debate a few days ago... :-) Fedgin | Talk 16:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanaka (talk • contribs)

Did you know...

• ...that WikiProject Football has been in existence for 19 years, 166 days (original page)?
• ...that as well as being our first FA; IFK Göteborg was also our first article to appear on the Main page?
• ...that Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C. was the 30th FA?
• ...that Gillingham F.C. was the 1st featured topic?
• ...that we currently have 71 items of featured content (30 FA's, 39 FL's, 1 FP and 1 FT)?
• ...that we only need a Featured portal and a Featured sound to complete the whole set?
• ...that on average, 2.258 items are promoted to featured status every month?
• ...that we've had more than 10 articles featured on the main page?
• ...that we've had nearly 100 entries in Did you know? on the main page?
• ...that we support over 20,000 articles?
• ...that we have over 350 members actively working on Association football articles?
• ...that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Milestones exists?

Well now you do! Foxhill (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I certainly learnt something there - I didn't even know Featured Sounds existed! Now, what could we get for one of those.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that too. I suppose if we got a recording of a football chant or something... – PeeJay 08:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although it would probably have to be a very well-known chant such as YNWA. I'm not sure the wider WP community is ready to give FS status to a hearty chorus of "the referee's a w*nker" :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Rainham End could be persuaded to rouse up a chorus of The Last Waltz that could be raised to FS and added to the topic :@) Kevin McE (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Well, quite. – PeeJay 08:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the world's oldest football song? --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Being pernickety, I assume Gillingham was football's 1st FT, but not the project's? --Dweller (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Leeds seasons FL

Hello everyone, just a quick note to say that this article was promoted last night to featured status following an excellent collaboration of WP:FOOTBALL contributors. Thanks to everyone involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Football chant

I came across this article the other day, and it was in a terrible, terrible state. I've attempted to clean it up and give it some structure, but perhaps some other editors could also have a go. I think the Club-specific songs section needs particular attention. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job! On that note, I've tried to cleanup Michael Mifsud and have added a load of references to the Coventry part of the article, but cannot find anything for his career before Coventry. D.M.N. (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

wp:flag discussion

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the use of 15px flagicons in footballers' infoboxes, please feel free to throw in your opinion, cheers. BanRay 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll comment over there, but I simply hate the proliferation of them in infoboxes. Peanut4 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jason Dozzell

I just read his article!! Two things there, not sure if it true or not, or if it is vandalism! First being: He was recognised as being useless without Chris Kiwomya. The next: He is generally reckoned to have wasted his football career, and now runs a market stall. I mean!! Is that vandalism or not?? Govvy (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalism so I reverted it. Woody (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also taken the bit about the Spider-Monkey. It might be true (though I seriously doubt it) and no references and nothing on google. Peanut4 (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he was useless without Chris K, but it was still vandalism! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Matthieu Bochu

I'd appreciate some guidance as to whether this is genuine, a hoax, or a typo version of an existing article. Or something else I didn't think of! --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

He does seem to exist, although the details seems to be a bit, ahem, all over the place..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like someone is adding bogus details to FC Istres players (see Nordine Assami). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed Bochu's article. Now I'm after the vandal. Thanks guys. --Dweller (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

He exists, and played for Fiorentina during their Serie C2 stint a few of years ago. --Angelo (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Updates during matches

Is there a definitive consensus or policy about in-match updates, to prevent the unseemly race to post goals during events such as the present ACN tournament. My opinion is that this project is an encyclopaedia, not a live news service, and that latest scores in a results section are a projection, not a fact, but many editors just ignore any attempt to revert to the pre-match situation, no matter how argued. Kevin McE (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Total waste of time but I can't see any way of preventing it from happening unless you (semi)-protect all active pages (such as the African Cup of Nations pages)... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to updating match summaries with live scores, especially as I don't really see how it can be stopped. Even I've been guilty(?) of it in the past. I am, however, opposed to updating league tables and goalscoring charts while matches are still ongoing, not least because it can be quite confusing when it comes to updating the tables after the game. – PeeJay 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

While I can't understand the motivation for anyone to update articles rather than watch the football, it seems more hassle than its worth to do anything other than ignore it. They're not really hurting anyone, just being a bit sad. Robotforaday (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a laptop it's very easy to do :) That said I don't see the point in worrying - matches only last 90/120 minutes and the effort to police them would very quickly be of no use whatsoever. Plus, it detracts from our own enjoyment of the game. Qwghlm (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Updating league tables and goalscoring charts is a big big no-no. What happens if they game gets abandoned? The goals will be chalked off a players record and the result obviously not count. However, it can't be stopped unfortunately. The same as people updating players when they're about to leave to another club, etc, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion - it's probably unhelpful but ultimately harmless and (beyond page protection) impossible to prevent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You remind me of the chaos that descended on Zinedine Zidane and its talk page during a certain match. What astonished me was that so many contributors (while the match was still in play) were obviously Italian or French. If England ever made it to another World Cup Final, I doubt I'd even blink before the final whistle. --Dweller (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Wright (English footballer)

Please move Mark Wright (English footballer) to Mark Wright (footballer born 1982), since the other Mark Wright (footballer), is also, um, English. Chanheigeorge (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to the way this has been done - this should have been done requested on WP:RM. As a result of that unilateral move there is now pre-merge article history which has been deleted which is a breach of GFDL - see here if you're an admin. All requested moves should be done through Wikipedia:Requested Moves and not here. Qwghlm (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Apologies. Early morning. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I've requested a move there. Chanheigeorge (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

International notability

Would a player who is on the books of an established Premiership side, but hasn't yet made a first-team appearance, and has also played for Wales Under-21s be notable? GiantSnowman (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding, Under-21 caps make a player notable. Daniel Parslow was recently nominated for deletion and passed because he has Welsh Under-21 caps. Jimbo^[online] 15:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good - in that case how would I got about getting an article un-deleted? GiantSnowman (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No idea, don't think you can. What player were you talking about anyway? Jimbo^[online] 16:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Rhys Williams of M'boro who had four Welsh Under-21 caps. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You'd need to take it to deletion review........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, will give it a go! GiantSnowman (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:DRV#Rhys_Williams_.28footballer.29. I'm also going to refer them here ;-) --Dweller (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Dweller! GiantSnowman (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If the deletion is overturned, would this mean that South American U-20 players are notable?(since they dont have U-21,making U-20 the highest level of youth football on the continent) King of the NorthEast 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on that rationale, then yes. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Role of infobox

I thought that an infobox has a backup role of duplicating information from the article in the interests of reader. And, therefore, presence of information in infobox is not a valid reason for removal of this information from the article itself. Is that so?   Jhony  |  Talk   15:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends, really. If there is just a bulleted list of clubs, then I'd say the infobox supercedes that. But obviously it shouldn't replace prose describing a player's career. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree - the infobox should summarise information which is already present in the main article. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies!   Jhony  |  Talk   18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe Jhony is refering to this edit of mine, specifically the section on Trencin; and I agree that in general it should only be a backup for prose, but in the case like this, where the information is simply a duplication of the infobox, with no additional information about his time at the club, it doesn't add anything to the article. It is simply the stats which are already on the page. If there was some additional prose, for example based on a source which had some information about his time there, then I would be happy to include it again. John Hayes^talk 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't have removed that section - while simply describing the infobox isn't great, it's OK, I think. Also, if there is a section for Zenit, having a Trencin section makes sense, however brief, if only for completeness. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Surely I didn't expect that such a minor issue as a removal of two or three sentences would be discussed at WPF. I was going to ask about infobox anyway, not depending on your edits, Jrphayes.
In this particular case, the problem is that I don't understand Slovak language and therefore I can't promise that I'll find a pile of information about Škrtel's Slovak career.   Jhony  |  Talk   20:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case I will re-instate it. Nonetheless for arguments sake (I know doing something on one article doesn't mean it should be done on all others) would this mean that ideally a similar section should be added for every club for every player where one doesn't exist? Because if not why do it in this case? John Hayes^talk 20:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Squad changes 2007/08 season

What are people's opinions on such sections in club articles? GiantSnowman (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete on sight, especially if the club has a separate article about their current season. – PeeJay 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a news service. In five years time, who will care which player went out on loan in 2008? The only place for them is the individual season articles. Woody (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

PFC CSKA Sofia

The article is just poor in grammar and orthography.Maybe someone has the time to revise it..-Lemmy- (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks or blacktext?

I have a particular aversion to redlinks, so, in a fit of being bold, I removed the square brackets from the names of those at Gillingham_F.C.#Current_squad who, according to earlier discussions here, should be listed as squad members, because they have been issued numbers (and in the case of Chris Kiely, has been on the bench) but who are not considered sufficiently notable to have an article, because they haven't (yet) made a first team appearance. So, is this a sound practice? Kevin McE (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, as it avoids giving the temptation to create an article which will be AfD'd. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ritchie Jones

82.17.183.68 (talk · contribs) has recently been editing this article to state that Jones has been allowed to leave Manchester United on a free transfer, and that this was corroborated by MUTV. Unfortunately, MUTV is not a channel that many people subscribe to, and so it could be quite hard to verify this claim. When I reverted the edit to the Ritchie Jones article, the aforementioned anon reverted my own revert, stating that he was Jones' agent and that I was vandalising the page. I have therefore reverted his revert and explained to him that since the information is not verifiable, it cannot be included. Can anyone recommend a further course of action? – PeeJay 10:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ack, the fact that no-one watches it does not stop it from being verifiable, with enough information about it - interested parties could request tapes - but it would need to be cited correctly using {{cite episode}}, {{cite video}} or another. The line "Jones has just been granted a free transfer by Sir Alex Ferguson and has been confirmed on United`s own tv channel MUTV." is useless without a cited source giving the date and time or show that this was announced on not to mention written in a very newsy tone. The fact that there is no announcement on the club website or any other news source would lead me to think it was dubious too.

You are correct to remove the quote under WP:BLP - "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." (see also here).

You may find that reminding them that no-one WP:OWNs a particular article and - if they continue to say they are his agent - that they should avoid editing articles in which they have a Conflict of interest helpful (as well as using {{Uw-coi}}) and link the to the Business FAQ. Not that I believe for a second it is his agent mind you. Nanonic (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You should not have kept reverting repeatedly. Neither of you have been vandalising, but you have been edit warring and both of you have broken 3RR. Endeavour to keep it to the talk page. A proper handwritten explanation of your actions is far more productive in this sort of situation than a revert or templated warning.

I buy the agent thing, what with ~70 edits to the article over the course of year when the player is a low profile reserve, but our threshold is verifiability, not truth. If he is to leave the club I would expect it to be in the Manchester Evening News in the next couple of days. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I took the issue to WP:AN/3RR, and the anon was blocked for 24 hours. During that time, another anon (123.242.230.168 (talk · contribs)), edited the article, stating that Jones' release had been reported on givemefootball.com, the PFA's official website. However, I ran a quick search of that website for any info I could find about it, but none could be found. I therefore reverted the new anon's edit, explaining my reasoning in the edit summary. This morning, Jones' "agent"'s block apparently expired, and they have made an edit exactly the same as the other anon's edit. What should my next course of action be? Can I report it as vandalism yet? – PeeJay 10:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

On givemefootball there is a link in the left navbar to Player Transfer Directory. You probably have to register to access it, but registration is free. I searched in there, and Jones comes up as Trainee-YT Currently on Transfer List, but doesn't come up in the Free Transfer class. hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

MLS Draft and AfD

I've just discovered that loads of players that were in the MLS draft, but have not played in a fully pro league have articles. I've put a few up for deletion here and here (and prodded about another 15). However, American contributors seem to think that they should be kept as being in the draft makes them notable. Opinions? пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the AfD discussion, and you'll see there is some serious misinterpretation of what "American contributors" think. Please take all relevant opinions to that discussion please (and if you could lower the tone of condescension by, for starters, not referring to us "American contributors" in the third person like we're the ugly cousins in the family, that would be wonderful). Thanks! --Roehl Sybing (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Misinterpretation? Perhaps you need to read the discussion. What I saw was:

• "obviously, these players were all drafted in the first round"
• "Being drafted in the first round signifies notability"
• "was drafted in the MLS"
• "Although what a player being drafted means in respect to Wikipedia notability has not been specifically defined (AFAIK), common sense should dictate that it falls under the same criteria".

And what is condescending about calling you American? пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Treating us as one bloc of editors with a singular mind is condescending. There are any number of rationales that have been expressed in the AfD, and just picking one and using that to stereotype one group is ridiculous. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the evidence presented above speaks for itself. Perhaps some other members of WP:Football would care to comment? пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• My personal opinion is that MLS draftees ARE notable - they would have enjoyed a college career, the signed for a professional league. We must also remember that MLS sides have restricted squad numbers (about 25ish) so it's not like Europe where young players will spend years in the Youth and Reserve sides. GiantSnowman (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Another reason being suggested for keeping them is that they have played at the highest level of amateur competition. If the AfDs are unsuccessful, this might also mean that there is a precedent to keep articles on players from the Football Conference... пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My own verdict would be that they fail WP:BIO. I see GiantSnowman's view that squad numbers are small and players will probably play. But it's only probably. If for some reason, their careers were to end before they made the side, then I doubt they would be notable enough. I'd only create once they play a game. Peanut4 (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly think it's unfair that players who have never played professionally can have an article because they played for their university yet full-time professionals, potentially of many years standing, can't have an article because they play in the Football Conference which is only partially pro..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BIO. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed WP:BIO in detail in the AfD. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but not using the interpretation that this Wikiproject uses. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I hurting your feelings by not playing according to your dictates? I don't see any absolutes defined in WP:PROJGUIDE where I must do this or that because of some pre-arranged dogma. Furthermore, I'm taking a line from that article: "A WikiProject is fundamentally a social construct; its success depends on its ability to function as a cohesive group of editors working towards a common goal." As far as I'm concerned, conversely, if there is no cohesion among editors on a given issue, said WikiProject has no force to begin with.

This is actually good for this WikiProject. The AfD legitimately challenges the pre-arranged status quo, and "This AfD will create so much more work if the result is Keep" is not nearly a valid argument to quash an article. As far as I know, this can be a potentially necessary evolution in the criteria that should at least be considered. Policy and guidelines are not static, they must be developed when things not previously and seriously considered enter the realm of discussion. Be bold! --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you are not hurting my feelings, but by making comments like that, you are beginning to push WP:DICK. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOBY --Dweller (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That does not answer the points I've raised. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already answered - there is cohesion within the project on this issue - see Rambling Man's comment below. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't stipulate to that either. The American system is clearly not something anyone had in mind when reaching prior consensus. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And on the other hand a college soccer player in the US is far more likely to have media exposure than a Conference player, therefore making them more notable. John Hayes^talk 14:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Except when it comes to Conference players playing at Anfield/Old Trafford in the FA Cup who are watched around the world. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And I would suggest (if you are refering to the example of Havant & Waterlooville players) that if they have been given a lot of coverage in the media (which some have), and therefore are covered by the "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." in WP:N then they are notable outside of the rules of this project anyway. Surely the football notability rules only cover cases where the players are only notable for having played professional football. For example Freddy Adu was notable before he even kicked a ball in professional soccer, and David Beckham is notable for many things other than football, if you deleted all his footballing history he would still qualify for an article. What I am trying to say is just because a player doesn't qualify under football rules doesn't mean he doesn't under normal notability rules anyway. John Hayes^talk 15:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You could say the same about Rhain Davies, but his AfD ended in deletion. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly, i don't know the details of that case, but as someone mentioned WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS just because something is done one way in one article, doesn't mean it should be done that way in every other article, every article should be considered on it's own merits. John Hayes^talk 15:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Chill out arbitrary break

Okay, just before this ignites into an us versus them scenario, can I suggest we all chill out a bit, and examine the issues at hand.

• WP:FOOTY have clearly stated their position - without a professional game under their belt, they don't qualify under the project's interpretation of WP:BIO.
• Those who believe draftees are inherently notable need to justify it with the relevant policy. I think this is where the discussion over notability as an amateur becomes the issue.

Now let's play nicely and resolve this! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to say something very similar. I think this sums the debate up perfectly. To keep WP:N, the MLS draft and its associated notability and coverage in the media, needs to validate some other policy. Peanut4 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just waiting until notability gets so watered down that I get an article. Let the good times roll. Robotforaday (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk about a biased and slanted summary of the debate at hand. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so the chillout didn't work too well. If you dispute this summary, kindly provide one of your own so that instead of sarcastically digging at the project, we can actually progress the discussion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing sarcastic about it, as there's no irony involved. You're leaving out those of us who are not focusing on the notion that they're draftees, but rather have previously played college soccer, a point that clearly fits WP:BIO, just as clearly as whatever it is you're going on. So let's not get the idea that one side "clearly" has all their ducks in a row while the other side has yet to put on a case. It's disingenuous and condescending and that is where people need to "chill out." --Roehl Sybing (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how they pass WP:BIO. At its highest level, football is a professional sport, so you can't claim they pass WP:BIO because they have played at the highest amateur level, (with the exception of playing in the Olympics), when they haven't played at the higher professional level. If the draft process gives them WP:N then fair play. Peanut4 (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

College basketball, College football, College soccer, and College baseball are all amateur sports, even though in all four cases, people somewhere make money playing the same game. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." To say that a soccer player cannot meet this criterion without a full year of MLS under their belt is silly. Patrick Nyarko was the runner up for soccer's version of the Heisman Trophy and has been the subject of profiles in the Washington Post and Roanoke Times. Both of these major newspapers are independent of Nyarko or his school. He is considered to be the greatest player in the history of Virginia Tech and is unquestionably notable. --B (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've just realised that the USL Premier Development League is the highest level of amateur football in the USA, so this argument is completely irrelevant for college players. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe that people are misinterpreting the guideline on amateur sports. That is there to ensure that people who play at the highest level of their sport can be included when that sport is not played professionally (e.g. Gaelic football; there are no fully professional leagues in that sport, yet county footballers are notable because they play that sport at its highest level). It is not an "add on" so that fans of sports that are professional can say "not only are our professional athletes notable, but even the ones who haven't made it professionally should be counted as notable as well". That's extending things far too far. Saying that a purely amateur sport is notable at its higher level is very, very different to saying that professional sports are so notable that even people who haven't made it professionally are notable. Robotforaday (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How many of their games are on TV? College sports in America is far more significant than elsewhere - it's on a par with pro sports. We get 100K+ to show up to college football games, but I think there's only one pro stadium that seats over 70K. American businesses shut down for 3 weeks during the college basketball tournament. People who don't otherwise follow sports watch the tournament and participate in "pools" where you fill out a bracket and try to predict the game winners. College soccer obviously isn't as big as the big two, but all of our games are on the radio and a handful are on national TV, including the NCAA final four, in which Virginia Tech played. But the point is, if a player distinguishes themselves in college soccer and the news media takes note beyond merely reporting the results of their games, that's significant. College sports may not be as big outside America, but in America, college sports are big. --B (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As an English person I have to agree with this. College sports (including soccer) are a million miles away from amateur divisions in other sports where there is a pro league. As mentioned above it is on the same level as the pro versions, the only difference the participants are not paid and attend universities. I think an acception should be made in this case for an amateur league. I'm not saying all college soccer players should have articles, but if they are notable players (in the US) they shouldn't not have articles just because of the league they are in. John Hayes^talk 17:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

←Actually, I think the project has gone through this sort of thing more times than I care to mention. So to that end the project members are all in alignment as to how a footballer would meet the project's interpretation of WP:BIO. And note that I never said it was necessarily correct, just clear. Also, presumably this money that amateurs are making is from sponsorship, not from their sport per se? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Taylor (again)

I notice Andrew Taylor (footballer born in Hartlepool) has been moved to Andrew Taylor (footballer born 1986) and Andy Taylor (footballer born in Blackburn) to Andy Taylor (footballer born 1986). I know this was discussed a while ago but have these moves been properly ratified? Peanut4 (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with them being disambiguated by year of birth. The names they commonly go by are different enough, even if they are two forms of the same name, so a hatnote should be enough to direct people to the correct page if they happen to stumble on the wrong one. – PeeJay 21:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think dabing by birth place is not a good idea, that's why I move them, given they do have different names. Birth places are not as commonly available as birth date, and who in the right mind would check whether other Andrew Taylors or Andy Taylors are born in the same place. Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Club statistics and records articles

Hello project. As some of you are aware, I'm in the process of following in the footsteps of project-legend ChrisTheDude, and trying to get our second featured topic, namely Ipswich Town F.C. Although I say so myself, it's going rather well and based on Chris' recent success I need only two more articles to make a comprehensive set, one of which is the List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records. Now Chris just had the Gills version peer reviewed and that was fine over at FT.

I was wondering if it'd be possible to get this article to GA/FA/FL with some rework? Right now it's a pretty long article with little or no prose and quite a massive stat-attack. I've brought up from 1Kb to 28Kb yesterday and still consider it work in progress but I'd like to hear from the project whether this sort of article can ever make featured. For comparison we have Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records and List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records and peer review with Gillingham F.C. records having completed a peer review. I'm more than happy to rework it entirely - now almost all the statistics have been researched it just a simple matter of making it read well and look good! I'd appreciate your thoughts. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason whatsoever, in my opinion. FL seems most appropriate aim and it's eminently achievable. There's very little discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records/archive1, but there are a couple of nuggets worth bearing in mind. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've launched a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records/archive1 and would really welcome advice from the project on how best to get this to featured status (if possible)...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Brazilian player sorting

What should Brazilian players be sorted under - their fullname, or their surname, or their nickname? And what about players whose name and a nickname form their footballing name e.g. Alexandre Pato or Eduardo Ratinho - should they be listed under their firstname or their nickname? GiantSnowman (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I think there are similar players from other countries, but the Brazilians are the key ones. My gut feeling would be to list under their commonname, whether that be nickname or their natural surname. Peanut4 (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The same is true of Portuguese and, to a lesser extent, Spanish players as well. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My take on this is whether the player's name may be shortened even further in the media. For example, the sortkey of Cristiano Ronaldo is "Ronaldo, Cristiano", even though Ronaldo isn't his surname. Same for Alexandre Pato, given that he's also rather commonly referred to as just "Pato". However, Rui Costa is never just called "Costa", and Gilberto Silva is never just called "Silva", even though those are their surnames, and should be sorted under "R" and "G" respectively. Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. So Eduardo Ratinho should be sorted under "Ratinho, Eduardo".  Jhony   04:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Footballers with an unknown status

I'm reminded by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Category:Unattached footballers that I created Category:Footballers with an unknown status and posted in in late August 2007, with the idea for others to list footballers who it was hard to find info on the internet and for others to help update. It hasn't happened, despite some early enthusiasm, so would it be better to to have a stub/template message on the player articles instead? Might attract more attention and serve more purpose, as the category is buried away. Altenertaively, it may be better to discontinue this if there is not suitable interest. Wanaka | Talk 12:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not create a template to go on the article that ALSO automatically adds the article to Category:Footballers with an unknown status. This way you can bring more attention to the problem AND have an easy way of tracking affected articles. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 13:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've made Template:Footballer-unknown-status but not sure how to use a standard football icon...can somebody make sure this has been made correctly (I based it on Template:England-footy-defender-1980s-stub)? Thanks Wanaka | Talk 17:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this OK? I have one question for you though - was it always your intention to create a stub template? I would imagine that there are plenty of non-stub articles that fall in to this category, in fact I think I came across one recently. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 13:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I meant or what I did...just copied from an existing template. I simply want to 'highlight' these pages as needing updating, in the same way a stub highlights a needed expansion. Wanaka | Talk 15:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's what I thought. Because you have copied a stub template, the template that you have produced is also a stub template, which isn't ideal. Not to worry, I'll have a look at it and try to convert it to a normal template without changing the appearance. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How's this? I've added the template to Emmanuel Omoyinmi so that you can see how it looks in an article. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Magic, that's much better. Wanaka | Talk 16:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Uruguay v Brazil (World Cup 1950)

The article details the build up to the match the aftermath of the match and what happened during the match yet doesn't actually give the final score. Where would be the most appropriate place to put in it, the lead, the section on the match, both? Guest9999 (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd put it in the opening sentence of the lead and then in the main section on the match as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the title of this article, I would have expected it to be at Maracanazo, which is a redirect. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was previously named Maracanazo, but on September 6, 2006 the article was moved by Djln. I prefer the name Maracanazo, as this is the term commonly used to refer to this match. --Carioca (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

TBH, I have never heard of the term Maracanazo. Might this be due to its usage being perdominant in South America? Then I'd humbly suggest to keep it at the current title, as more people will know what is meant by the match-up. The term could be added in the lead, certainly? --Madcynic (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing you may wish to do is to show the game info using the {{footballbox}} template (or one of the others available), an pre-completed example is shown below -

1950-07-16

Uruguay	2 – 1	Brazil
Schiaffino 66' Ghiggia 79'	(Report)	Friaça 47'

Estádio do Maracanã, Rio de Janeiro

Attendance: 180-200,000 (est)

Referee: George Reader (England)

You can look at the other World Cup Final articles linked at the bottom of the page to see how it's located within articles. Nanonic (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added in the information as text in the lead and in the template (thank you) in the match section. Guest9999 (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

F.C. Internazionale Milano#Managerial history

Should the flag for Austria coach Tony Cargnelli be the flag of Nazi Germany? When he was coach, Austria was controlled by Germany. michfan2123 (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Having a Nazi flag next to a football coach could have negative connotations; I'd personally keep the Austrian flag. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I know I do not like it either but I think the flag format says it should be like that. Austria's official flag while he was coach was sadly that flag. michfan2123 (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

When Cargnelli was born, Austria had not been annexed by Nazi Germany, so the Austrian flag could well apply too. Which one do you pick? Here's a question along the same lines - would someone who fled the Nazis (or some other oppressive regime) to avoid persecution, but had yet to be naturalised by another country, would they have that oppressive state's by their name? Of course not, it would not make sense. WP:FLAG states where any ambiguity may lie, it is best not to bother with a flag, and it is clearly ambiguous here - the swastika was not just part of the flag of a nation state but the symbol of a particular political belief, and to display it alongside Cargnelli's name could erroneously lead the reader to think he adhered to those beliefs as well. It's best to avoid - either choose the (non-political) Austrian flag or none at all. Qwghlm (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea I agree, I was just wondering what Wiki thought about it. michfan2123 (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the most elegant solution is to use the Austrian flag and footnote a comment about the Anschluss. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Entertainers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Shouldn't the article The Entertainers (NUFC) be merged into the history of Newcastle United F.C. rather than have its own stand alone entry? Peanut4 (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a surprisingly full article, but yes, it should be merged with the Kevin Keegan section. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a subjective term and it should only really exist within the context of the NUFC article, as the big icy one says, in the Keegan section. I wonder if we'll eventually be treated to such fun again once KK works his "magic"? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started an AfD. I would find it funnier if King Kev failed miserably at Newcastle. I reckon the Geordie public would have been calling for Big Sam's head if he'd have made the same as Keegan. Or is that WP:POV? Peanut4 (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm no fan of KK but those NUFC vs Liverpool games were best ever... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral, he's absolutely mint because at least, as suggested above (!), you're generally guaranteed a bit of entertainment. Just the entires story of his appointment unfurling was captivating viewing. Anyway, my mrs is a Boro fan, and

I'm under orders not to like Newcastle! Peanut4 (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you find it so funny to have someone Afd an article you spent time to create without any initial recourse to normal discussion, placement of any tags, review of the appropriate policies, or even the common deceny to include you in a discussion such as this one? MickMacNee (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag HAS been placed on the article, and the AfD page is for the discussion, where you can discuss what merits you think the article has, and why it should remain. GiantSnowman (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with a basic understanding of policies would see that statement as nonsense, Afd is not just a tag like {bias} or {cite}. The deletion policy page lists all appropriate steps to take if concerns are present, the nominated ones of merge or POV are explicitly listed. Further, none of the reasons stated bar possibly whether it deserves an article at all (notability) are listed as reasons to list an Afd, at least not as a starting point. Can you not see from the ensuing mess and divergent impossible to follow debate that arbitrarily closes in 5 days that has followed, that Afd was not appropriate as a start point in this case, even ignoring the nominators proven bad faith here. MickMacNee (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As the article is now at AfD, let's keep things calm and not speculate on why it is there. Also, we can better keep the conversation in one place if we close this thread. Especially as there's a good-faith move underway to end the AfD with consensus. I ask you all very nicely not to reopen or continue this. Thanks in advance. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Hoax?

Is this a hoax? I can't find any record of him. Yet another AfD... пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it to me...a quick Google search doesn't bring up any results about a Livingstone football player of that name. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is. But check out this bebo page and cross check with the page's author. He certainly hasn't played yet and could be PROD-ded anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I already prodded it, but it was removed... пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If he is real, then he is not notable anyway. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Thomson. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm getting a bit tired of creating them! пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the Chris Thomson article creator has another one. Michael Garrett, he would probably be notable if there was actually any evidence that he existed. --Scottmsg (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought all new pages had to be verified. Who has verified this? No references, no external links, nothing on google. Peanut4 (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It must have slipped through: [26]. Woody (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've prodded it. Peanut4 (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Our January archive is the biggest one yet. I think it is some sort of Christmas hangover. Woody (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how did you find this article.  Jhony   04:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It was on the bot results list - very handy for picking up crap like this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Useful, thanks!  Jhony   19:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet another AfD. Why do people contest these prods?!?! пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Howard Foringdale

Is this article a hoax? Google hits = zero, no mention on the Sutton United website or in the external link included. Created by apparent SPA Matttythewhite, who seems to be spoofing our own Mattythewhite for some reason............ ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks to be a hoax, no Google hits at all is odd, even for a fake player. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks fake. And I'm quite flattered to be honest! Mattythewhite (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Do appearances in the League Cup make a player notable?

Yay or nay Jimbo^[online] 14:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see why not. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. – PeeJay 14:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. - Dudesleeper Talk 14:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd think so as well, although not strictly meeting the defined criteria, but it's a point worth stretching in my opinion. - fchd (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be different and original and say 'yes' GiantSnowman (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as long as we are talking countries with a League Cup that's worthy of notice. In Germany, the "League Cup" is a joke, compared to the English one. So, yes, with a but. --Madcynic (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the DFB Liga-Pokal would definitely count, as it's a first team competition for top-flight clubs only. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Luckily, as there is no competition scheduled for 2008, the issue is not as pressing ;) --Madcynic (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Stats for B/C sides in infoboxes...

What are people's opinions on having stats for B/C sides (e.g. for players in Spain) or II sides (e.g. in Germany) in the infobox? Examples include Bojan Krkić and Stefan Markolf. GiantSnowman (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Include it if you can find it (and it's comprehensive). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When the B team plays in a professional league, as FC Barcelona B and FC Bayern Munich II do, then the stats are pretty much essential. In other cases, I would say Reserve team stats are useless except in the prose. – PeeJay 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Could someone take a look at Ireland national football team (1882-1950), I think it is ready for submission to the good article review (although one image still needs fixed), but if someone with a fresh perspective could have a look at it, it would be appreciated, thanks in advance Fasach Nua (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Naming of football league seasons

What is the consensus on the naming of football league seeason? I notice that we currently have The Football League 1888–89 whilst the remaining 10 seasons that have articles so far are named in the The Football League 1889-90 convention (note the use of en-dash rather that hyphen in the former).

Also, The Football League 1888–89 has previously been moved from The Football League 1888-89.

What is everone's opinion on this? We should use the same system for all seasons (i.e. Premier League etc, etc.), but which one? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, my vote would be for the en-dash version, but we would need to make sure that there are redirects from all "-" versions and maybe even "/" versions too. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Bryan Arguez AfD

Hi all, the above article has been up for deletion for a number of days on grounds of non-notability (lack of first-team club appearances); it now seems like he made his debut today for Hertha Berlin, earning notability. Don't know if this affects anyone's vote, but thought I'd let you know. Cheers, GiantSnowman (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. He entered as a 63rd minute substitute in the Bundesliga's 18th round for Hertha. No question of notability now. Jogurney (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good spot. Amended my vote. But can people please stop creating articles before players play? Well I suppose that's a rhetorical question and I know someone will always jump in. I'm not sure there's much we can do to stop this. Peanut4 (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I've modified my !vote as well. It really is this simple, play a pro game, get an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The surprising thing is that the article was originally created on 1 February 2007, so it's taken exactly a year for him to become noteworthy. It's amazing how it wasn't an "afd" earlier. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This however doesn't answer the question of whether 1st round draft picks in the US are notable or not. I can partly see the POV of American editors, who probably rightly say the draft is a big thing - I don't really know how big. However the lad never even played for the club who drafted him in during the first round draft. So are first round draft picks notable or not if they get sold before playing? Peanut4 (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but you have to draw an objective line. Appearance in the professional game should supersede "notability via draft" (which is meaningless to most of us lot...) and it's easy to verify without this continually subjective "draft makes them inherently notable" nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My own personal view (as the Arguez article creator - and yes I am suitably embarrased!) is that 1st Round Draft Picks ARE notable; in Europe I don't think we can fathom just how big a thing the draft is over there. However, as The Rambling Man says, if in doubt, go with professional appearances. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And my concern is this draft is a little bit "shock and awe". If the players never make it, so what if they were draftees? Disappointing I'm sure but not notable. Unless we're thinking of List of draftees who "never made it"....! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact we have FLs for NFL draft picks makes me think the draft process is notable. But is it notable for football? I simply don't know either way. I'm sure this situation will arise again (if it isn't already a bone of contention in other AfDs) and we need to work out if the first round MLS draft makes a player notable whether they end up playing or not.

Let's be honest, Arguez was the 11th pick. That means he was the 11th best youngster breaking through that season. That doesn't seem to be that notable myself. And I expect there were others further down the list. Peanut4 (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even convinced that makes him the 11th best youngster. What about the marketing angle? Beckham's not the best player in the MLS but he's the biggest transfer deal by a mile. Why? So LA Galaxy sell tickets and merchandise. Notability of draftees (to me) seems to hinge on subjectivity and nothing else. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point...while the vast majority of draftees (as Arguez illustrates) do become notable, or are indeed already notable, with appearances for the US Under-20 side, there is a risk that an article is created for a player whose career ends abruptly, and so we should say that draftees are NOT notable. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree regarding the subjectivity to the draft system. But if the overall system is notable then maybe we can add in a line to the Football Wp:BIO criteria. I.e. All first round picks / top X picks are all notable. If the draft system isn't in itself all too notable then just wait till they play, because let's be honest, if they're good enough to be picked first, they're good enough to end up playing. Can a player be notable however if he's picked first, and for whatever reason doesn't ever play? Peanut4 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well for me it's all about playing. I would accept that a player who's a sub, say, 100 times but never gets on the pitch may become notable as a super-non-sub, but other than that it's on the field that counts for me, not subjective off-the-field criteria.. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

'Subjective off-the-field criteria' sums it up to me. You've 100% convinced me a player is NN until he plays a game or is notable for other career aspects rather than anything else. Peanut4 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I figure I'd better play the American PoV card even though you're thoroughly convinced ;). Anyway, the draft process in sports in the US generally is well covered and provides a degree of notoriety for at least the early picks. I'd be perfectly willing to support a 1st Round of MLS Draftees are notable before playing, others aren't, etc. rule. I don't think that every player in the NFL Draft should immediately get an article after being drafted, but I do think that the first round picks definitely should. Certainly the MLS SuperDraft is less well covered than the NFL Draft, which has multiple television channels dedicating several days to the coverage. But I think the principle holds true. If something were to happen to a first round pick to prevent him from playing, that would be notable in the American eyes moreso than if he did play. Being a first round pick is a certainty, of sorts. And when it doesn't work out (see Len Bias), there is still generally a notability conferred because the media attention for the failure will meet general bio requirements for notability. I fully appreciate the point of view of an appearance equaling notability, I honestly do, and I'd agree with it in 99% of cases; however, I think that first round draft picks in any sport in the American system have a notability because of that status conferred upon them by the clubs that they are soon to play for. I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well, so I'll be more than happy to answer any questions/debates. I imagine the tone over here will be a little less heated than in the current AfD, ha. And also, just for the record, I don't know if I'm technically signed up for this WikiProject or not, but I do plenty of work on articles for footballers, feel free to look at my user page or edit history, so I'm not coming at this cold, and I do generally stay completely within the bounds of the project guidelines. I just feel like in this case, they are a little too restrictive. It might not be worthwhile to put a full caveat in the bio for first round picks because I believe it's only valid for MLS teams, but the status conferred by that position, in coupled with their coverage in the college athletics system - another very American institution commercialized college athletics - helps to make them notable before they satisfy the standard one appearance rule. matt91486 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In some ways I agree with you. But Brian Arguez has been sold on without playing for the side who picked him in the draft. Which would now imply he's notable in America for not playing for DC United. Is it really possible to be notable for not doing something? Peanut4 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In extreme cases I would say yes, like perhaps being notable for being a sub 100 times without playing (there just may be the odd keeper that fulfils that criterion!), but in this case, being a draftee and then not playing isn't woefully non-notable. How many Academy players in the UK go through the same thing? Ok, so he went on to bigger and better things in Europe but how many draftees and other Euro-Academy kids don't? Too many... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you guys are coming from. I'm just saying that being a first round pick makes someone notable in the American system, it's a certain status and generally brings about a level of demonstrable media attention regardless of whether or not they make the appearance that they are presumed to do so. It's not the fact that they could fail that makes them notable...I don't know, I can't figure out how to phrase it exactly. It's a completely different system than the youth academy system. College athletics also play a big role in making them notable, too, from an American point of view. As I said before, I know you guys don't want thousands of articles on youth team players that can't make their first appearance for Luton Town, and I completely understand. I don't want to see that either. But I just think in the case of MLS first round draft picks, a rigidity on the one appearance rule is a little unnecessary because the media coverage they receive generally allows them to meet the primary criteria of WP:BIO which should supersede project guidelines. So rather than having a conflict between the two every spring, it might be conducive to setting an exceptional case rule in regards to ONLY the first round picks of the MLS SuperDraft. That's where the line can be drawn; I know that's a concern, about opening the floodgates; this draws the line quite clearly. matt91486 (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I too understand your point. Which is why I began to suggest certain draft picks be allowed. I'm aware of the NFL draft system, but don't know if the MLS really has the same notierity. If you can garnish me with some news reports then I might be convinced to back up my original suggestion. Peanut4 (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it certainly doesn't have the same notoriety as the NFL Draft, but it has some nonetheless. Here's the ESPN home page for it, dedicated to just the draft and previous drafts. Here's some Chicago Tribune pre draft analysis. Just going from my current perspective as an attendee of the University of Tulsa, the Tulsa World profiled our university's draft pick, and he was one of the later ones in the round, and we don't have an MLS team in town. Fox Sports coverage is here. The Washington Post held a blog for the draft, and noted that the first hour of the draft was televised on ESPN 2 here and here. I can find more coverage if I need to, but I figure this is a pretty decent cross section of some of the coverage of the draft process. Even the MLS draft, hardly a big deal compared to the NFL or NBA Drafts (which have all rounds of the draft televised without length requirements), was partially televised in the US. matt91486 (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be of any use to do a survey of the past 8 drafts to see how many of them made it anywhere? I see the current draft roster has virtually zero player articles. 56 (I think) players most of whom don't have even a stub.. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have a suspicion that people are waiting to see how the current AfD turns out with many articles in it before they create any more articles on current draftees. matt91486 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. So how many of the 2007 draft would meet the current project guidelines of notability? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to tell without going through all of them individually. It looks like there are articles for all bout about 10. I'd guess not all the articles there meet the one appearance guideline of notability, though. At the moment all but one of the first round pick articles do, which is my main argument for first round pick notability. I'd be fine with all rounds being notable, but I definitely am in favor of first-round pick notability before appearances. matt91486 (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that he played a game so as to solve the AfD question on this article, but I think it may cover up some of the wider issues of hand. I simply don't believe that playing 30 minutes of professional football has really made him that much more notable than he was before. I realise that this project's rules for notability are pretty good in most cases, but in my view the number of sources on him before he had even played that game made him notable by the general standards set outside this project, which after all this project isn't meant to overrule. I just feel that many people simply looked at his lack of appearances and didn't look any further, and I believe that every article should be looked at on a case by case basis with the no appearences rule only being a guideline. John Hayes^talk 22:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)