Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Harry Lowe

Two footballers (at least...) by this name, both born in 1886, but they are disambiguated at Harry Lowe and Harry Lowe (footballer born 1886)! Should we move to month of births - March and August? GiantSnowman 17:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think disambiguating them by month of birth should be fine. For the record, there were also two footballers called Harry Lowe born in February 1907: Henry Lowe (born in Skelmersdale on 19 February 1907) and Henry Pratt Lowe (born in Kingskettle on 24 February 1907). – PeeJay 17:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, how should we disambiguate the February 1907 Lowes? GiantSnowman 17:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Has there ever been a need to include a person's full date of birth as a disambiguator? If not, are we about to set a precedent? – PeeJay 17:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively we could use the middle name and a couple of hatnotes to disambiguate the two. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I've never seen it in my 4+ years here, and to be honest it's not ideal. But unless we can disambiguate by something else (full name? playing position?) we may indeed have to do so...GiantSnowman 18:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Henry Lowe played as a left-back for Southport, Everton, Preston and Swindon, while Henry Pratt Lowe played as an inside forward/right-half for Watford and QPR. Make of that what you will. – PeeJay 18:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Harry Lowe (defender born 1907) and Harry Lowe (forward born 1907)? GiantSnowman 18:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, probably the best yet. Now all we need to do is actually create the articles... Alzarian16 (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the 1886 players to their month-of-birth article names, fixed links, and turned Harry Lowe into a disambiguation opage with all four players listed. GiantSnowman 18:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Dubious goals

A few days ago the Premier League Dubious Goals Panel announced some rulings, among which they awarded Jensen's own goal in Birmingham-Burnley to Cameron Jerome, can't imagine why, but that's by the by... However, the Premier League stats page still gives Mr Jerome 10 goals, which is his total without the dubious one. I've emailed Soccerbase to ask what their policy on counting these things is, but on past experience, I don't expect a reply. Does anybody happen to know whether Rothmans/Sky Sports Annual adjusts their figures to take account of Dubious Goals Panel rulings? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It says "confirmed as a Cameron Jerome" goal. There's a couple of goals on there which have been overturned and specifically say so. I think most of those 32, including the Cameron Jerome goal, haven't changed. So Cameron Jerome is still correctly on 10 goals. 91.106.111.52 (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree the wording's odd, but if that was correct, a) which of these 10 shouldn't he have; b) why does the club think the Dubious Goals Panel ruling puts him up to 11; and c} why does the match report on the Premier League website give it as a Jensen own goal? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, the Premier League has misworded the story or forgotten he wasn't credited with the goal in the first place. Perhaps email the Premier League rather than Soccerbase. In response to your first question, I suspect the SS annual will have updated figures - I've previously seen them change attendance figures to ones that were updated after matches. 91.106.111.52 (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Rothmans/Sky Sports has always adjusted the goalscorers in the past Cattivi (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cattivi, thought they probably would, but it's nice to know. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Formatting titles of team season articles

I noticed an inconsistency of the formats chosen to represent the titles of the articles documenting the seasons of CSKA Sofia. There are, currently, the articles PFC CSKA Sofia 2008–09 season, PFC CSKA Sofia season 2009–10, and PFC CSKA Sofia season 2010–11. The former uses the format "PFC CSKA Sofia <yearspan> season" for its title, whereas the other two have been formatted as "PFC CSKA Sofia season <yearspan>". I wished to unify those, and checked up this category and its subcategories. Here's the inconsistency I found there.

I do feel we ought to reach a consensus on how to unify all the existing and yet-to-be-created articles of that kind, and to actually unify them. Also, Category:Saudi Arabia Football (soccer) clubs 2009–10 season needs to be renamed as Category:Saudi Arabia football (soccer) clubs 2009–10 season, with a lowercase "f". --Магьосник (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the article PFC CSKA Sofia 2008–09 season belongs to neither of the above two groups. --Магьосник (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

We already did come up with a consensus at the season article task force. The preferred format is "[yearspan] [club] season". – PeeJay 08:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

User:King of the North East

It is unfortunate that this respected football editor has decided to take a prolonged break from Wikipedia due to problems with other users/policies. Please take note of his reasons, although I hope he does subsequently return. Eldumpo (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Free transfers

I have added "Free transfer" to the contents of Transfer (association football).

There does not appear to be a need for the article stub Free transfer (football).

219.75.69.202 (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Rajiv

New table format

The whole point of the past argument about the format is to have one not only good on info but also eye-friendly (because the current one sucks).

I propose a small change to the table format to have a "colspan" after each final or whatever as well as adding a width limitation to everything to make it look neat.

i.e.

Year	Country	Home team	Score	Away team	Country	Venue	Location	Refs
1960	URU	Peñarol	1–0	Olimpia	PAR	Estadio Centenario	Montevideo, Uruguay
	PAR	Olimpia	1–1	Peñarol	URU	Estadio de Puerto Sajonia	Asunción, Paraguay
	Peñarol won 3–1 on points
1961	URU	Peñarol	1–0	Palmeiras	BRA	Estadio Centenario	Montevideo, Uruguay
	BRA	Palmeiras	1–1	Peñarol	URU	Estádio do Pacaembu	São Paulo, Brazil
	Peñarol won 3–1 on points

What does everyone think? The list of Recopa Sudamericana winners' list looks like garbage right now and with my modification we can keep it somewhat simple without needing to separate a winner's list 5-10 times over. Look how much better the List of Copa Libertadores winners looks now than before. Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This table looks OK, but I don't like the colspan between the two years. Seems unnecessary. – PeeJay 14:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The colspan is to separate every edition from each other in order to not make it look all jumbled up. It looks crappy with only two editions but it looks a lot better when there are 50+ editions to look at. I have also combined it with some new limitations on the width of each section to make it look neat and organized. Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

People aren't stupid; they don't need a big fat line to separate each year. – PeeJay 14:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but we should also strive to make information eye-friendlier (because the current version looks like crap). For UEFA pages where the finals are single matches, this is not needed. I should have been a bit more specific...this is for final series that involves two matches. On those sort of tables, not having this colspan (or something that can slightly separate every edition from each other) makes it look like pure crap. Jamen Somasu (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

empty table rows are bad for accessibility. We shouldn't use them for the sake of mere aesthetics. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no one trying to access anything on the "empty row" since there is NOTHING in there but a small line (that is what it basically is). As a matter of fact, the FIFA World Cup page also uses this idea in the same way (although vertically) and it was welcomed! And that is a FA! This wouldn't be the first (or last) time something originally used for a purpose is taken and used for another purpose making a great contribution. Jamen Somasu (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But the current World Cup top4 table doesn't look good. Cluttered with unnecessary colours and those extra lines. Imo List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners has by far the best looking table style. I actually have proposed to move away to the FL style used on the UEFA finals for the World Cup (but there was never much discussion). A similar style as already been applied to List of FIFA World Cup finals

I also think the line between years is unnecessary. Look at the UEFA Cup finals to see that it works fine (They were played in two legs before) chandler 15:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The current World Cup top4 looks good and it is eye-frienly & informative. It IS a FA for a reason. What works for UEFA pages work only for UEFA pages, not everyone else. This is just for CONMEBOL; South American finals usually has a final series, not just a single match, which is why that line helps a lot. As I keep metioning, we should strive to make an article be its best for what it is, not what something completely different from it has. That's ludicrous. For CONMEBOL, it is needed. I could care less about UEFA's pages and if you think it looks good on their pages, good for you. However, UEFA and CONMEBOL are two different monsters that run things way too differently to have the same formats and tables (as well as the FIFA World Cup). Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There is NO reason why table formats should be different for different confederations. They should very obviously be standardized. As I said, the UEFA Cup was played in two-legged matches until the last 90s. It's not a case of "what works for UEFA ONLY works for UEFA", everything is designed to work for EVERYTHING. chandler 16:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Accessibility" means the ability of visually or physically impaired users to access our content. Please see WP:ACCESS. Whether or not GA-class articles have problems is neither here nor there, as GA review is not perfect. This is still a problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The posted layout looks excellent. Keep up the good work! Sandman888 (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks ok apart from the needless empty row. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree this looks okay. Visually, though the downfall is that the country information is kind of unnecessarily repeated. Additionally, the information is not sortable. I realise the main problem of going for a Winner/Loser system instead of Home/Away system is denoting the home/away legs etc. This is just a suggestion, but what do people think about going along the lines of this (added benefit of sortability) with a sort key used for the aggregate score. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Year	Country	Winner	Score	Loser	Country	Venue	Location	Refs
1960	URU	Peñarol	1–0 (h) 1–1 (a)	Olimpia	PAR	Estadio Centenario Estadio de Puerto Sajonia	Montevideo, Uruguay Asunción, Paraguay
1961	URU	Peñarol	1–0 (h) 1–1 (a)	Palmeiras	BRA	Estadio Centenario Estádio do Pacaembu	Montevideo, Uruguay São Paulo, Brazil

Now then. That's a good way forward. A very good way. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The empty row needs to go, as Chris said above, on accessibility grounds. But I was just wondering why anyone would actually want to sort on aggregate score? In the current List of Copa Libertadores winners format, the summary line after the lines with the scores tells the reader how the winner was determined (points, playoff score and venue, penalties...) You can't make the table sortable without losing that informative summary line, and from the reader's point of view, sticking that highly relevant information in a footnote wouldn't be an adequate replacement. Surely the loss to the reader of removing that summary line rather exceeds any theoretical benefit gained from forcing sortability onto a table that doesn't seem to have anything particularly worth sorting on? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think this way the winner becomes much more obvious at a glance. As for the summary line, all it is basically saying is, for example, that one match was a draw and one was a win. Isn't that painstakingly obvious from the scores? The sorting is beneficial for example sorting countries - gives you if numerous teams represent that country in the final, whether that country was more prolific in an era by looking at the years alongside country, and many other statistical patterns that might be found in the data. IMO sorting is almost always desirable. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

First, sorry if my previous comments came across a bit aggressive, I was tired and snappy last night and shouldn't have been on here at all :-( However... In the two rows illustrated, the summary line is indeed saying only that one match was a draw and the other a win. But that isn't the case for all entries in the table. Some winners were determined on a playoff, or on pens after a playoff, or on pens without a playoff, and the details are given in the summary line conveniently for the reader as part of that year's table entry, not buried elsewhere. I have no problem with adding sortability where it's helpful, but I'm not convinced that in this case, providing ready access to statistical patterns, for those interested readers who actually know that those funny buttons at the top mean you can sort the columns, outweighs losing basic information like how the 1981 winner won 2-0 in a playoff in a neutral country or the 1985 final went to a playoff and then penalties. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As you may have noticed I'm quite a fan of sortability. Although not perfect, I believe the information above can also be incorportated into a sortable table—see below. Additionally you also then get given the location of the neutral playoff. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How a sortable table could incorporate that information

	Match went to a playoff
#	Match went to a playoff and then a penalty shootout
†	Match went to extra time
*	Match decided by a penalty shootout after extra time

Year	Country	Winner	Score	Loser	Country	Venue	Location	Refs
1981	BRA	Flamengo	2–0 (h) 0–1 (a) 2–0 (n)	Cobreloa	CHI	Estádio do Maracanã Estadio Nacional Estadio Centenario	Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Santiago, Chile Montevideo, Uruguay
1985	ARG	Argentinos Juniors	1–0 (h) 0–1 (a) 1–1# (n)	América de Cali	COL	La Doble Visera Estadio Olímpico Pascual Guerrero Estadio Defensores del Chaco	Avellaneda, Argentina Santiago de Cali, Colombia Asunción, Paraguay

That latest version does now include enough of the relevant information for the general reader not to lose out. Not keen on the general appearance of that layout, but my personal taste probably isn't all that relevant to the matter :-) I'd be interested to know how often people (ordinary readers, not WP editors) actually do sort columns in sortable tables. Don't suppose it's something that's ever been recorded, even if it was technically possible. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I seriously see no point in making these lists sortable. --MicroX (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

...and I find the 1% width separating row pointless and a reader's nightmare. It was fine the way it was. I only recommend that the winner be in bold, not in italics. It's WAY easier to see bold text. --MicroX (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Alexander (or Aleksandar) Arangelovich, serbian player in Canada and Australia

I created his page on italian wikipedia (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Arangelovich), he was a serbian player in Italy between 1947 and 1952: he emigrated in Canada and then in Australia: please, do you have news about him?93.33.6.63 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The player's article - Aleksandar Arangelovic - was actually created by myself over two years ago. That's all the info I can find on the guy. Regards, GiantSnowman 18:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As a Serbian footy editor I can only say that what GiantSnowman did is excellent, and hardly something more can be added. I can only say that his name probably is "Aleksandar AranDJelović" (being the letter DJ also written as Đ, both correct in Serbian, and sounds as Italian "G" in Giorgio), but was probably addapted to Italian to "Aleksandar Arangelovic" because that way would be correctly pronounced. Aleksandar is certainly with A, not "Aleksander"... I´ll check in the next few days to see if there is possibly anything new about him, but I doubt. FkpCascais (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for something really impossible, his career in Australia and Canada.. thank you very much for you help and if you need help to translate from italian in basic english I'm ready..93.33.6.63 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no record of him playing in Australia - so maybe he emigrated there as a normal citizen? GiantSnowman 19:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

or he played as amateur in an minoor league.. who knows it? A source says he played also for jugoslavian NT, possible?93.33.6.63 (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No record of him playing for Yugoslav A team. 100% sure. FkpCascais (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

youth NTs teams, maybe? It seems it's written everything is possible knowing about him..93.33.6.63 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, U-21 were mot much in vogue those days, but instead there were city selections (Belgrade, Zagreb, Sarajevo...). But records for them are impossible to be found. Since he played for Belgrade clubs, he may played for the selection of Belgrade (the city selections were formed by players of the city clubs, not necessarily players born in the city), but they were formed mostly of young players from BSK Beograd and SK Jugoslavija, being his club, Jedinstvo, the 4th, 5th of the city, so it would be hard to imagine him selected for it. On the other hand, he was 21 when WWII begin in Yugoslavia (1941-1945), so his career may be affected by it. He didn´t played for any Olympic team either, so I could possibly affirm that he would hardly had played for some national team. Sorry... :) It is not impossible that he played, or, there was also back then the Yugoslav B team, but unfortunatelly there are no records for it. FkpCascais (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have his stats in Ligue 1 : 8 matches, 1 goal in 51-52 for RC Paris. (from the classic Barreaud, Marc (1998). Dictionnaire des footballeurs étrangers du championnat professionnel français (1932-1997). L'Harmattan, Paris. ISBN 2-7384-6608-7.). He is named AleksandAr Arangelovic in the book. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I think you're right about his name FkpCascais. Check the 1947 line of this where he is named Aleksandar Aranđelović – nicknamed „Aca autobus“. If correct article should be renamed--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This could be useful.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha...nice nickname, "Aca autobus", meaning "Aca the bus", that´s a great nickname for a striker! Yes, that seems to be him, and I would also support the move, leaving a redirect. Many thanx! FkpCascais (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

please, can you translate what there is written in the two links above? Thanks!!93.32.249.46 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Article renamed, according to new references. However, there is an iconstantency about his date of birth. Weltfussball and RSSSF give 18/12/1920, Red Star Belgrade website 18/01/1920 and my French book given in the article 18/02/1920??? Which one should be trusted? To translate the Serbian page, use google translate, that's what I do. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

the problem is also the place of birth, some italian sources write he was in a city near the border with Bulgaria and the year of birth sometime is written as 1922.. then if a serbian is so nice to translate it would be better, I could do big mistakes with google translate :))..93.33.7.94 (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix Clubs

Any help with this article will be much appreciated (and finding references is harder than you would imagine). TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

AS Nancy is a successor for FC Nancy, such as Toulouse FC for Toulouse FC (1937).--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised that Halifax Town weren't there. I've added them and included a couple of references. The English list doesn't appear to be in any particular order - Alphabetically or year of reformation are the two most obvious choices. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Mario Astorri: if you speak danish I need your help

I enlarged Astorri voice on italian wikipedia but please now I need desperately :)) all the informations available for his career as coach in Denmark, why he emigrated, what he did and so on.. thank you very much!!93.33.7.94 (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Pepe Brand

Template:Sevilla FC managers states that someone called Pepe Brand was manager from 1917-1921, from 1939-1941, and in 1942. This site confirms the latter two spells, but his date of birth is given as 1900, meaning if he was manager in 1917, he was still a teenager! Were there perhaps two Pepe Brands, father and son? GiantSnowman 17:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What I can say is that he began playing for Sevilla FC senior team in 1917.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Player-manager at the age of 17? Impressive! GiantSnowman 18:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hum, I don't really know...But at these times, "managers" were not always full-time ones. So, he could have been a kind of head coach, given his playing abilities...According to this [1] he was joint-coach with D. Eugenio Eizaguirre. Moreover, football in Spain was mainly regional at these times. So it looks like he was player-coach at the age of 17. He is considered as the first great Sevilla FC player, he was also a guest for Celta Vigo in 1928, according to this [2]. He definitely worths an article....--Latouffedisco (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have created a little stub at Pepe Brand, any improvement is more than welcome! GiantSnowman 23:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Topklasse

Will the new Dutch third tier be fully professional? GiantSnowman 21:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It will be semi-professional. The main difference between the old Hoofdklasse and the Topklasse is that clubs can pay players directly now. In the old Hoofdklasse (some) players were payed by sponsors. There is no minimum number of (semi)professional players for clubs to get a license. Some clubs like Quick '20 will probably remain amateur. Cattivi (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thanks very much! GiantSnowman 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Club 'Player of the Year' templates

Are templates such as this and this worthy of Wikipedia? GiantSnowman 23:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If the club is professional and/or has a stand-alone article on the subject then I don't see a problem, but then the first one you list was created by me, so I might be a bit biased. ;-) I've been here for six months now but I don't remember it being discussed at any length. I guess the question is, where do you draw the line? I've seen numerous templates on player pages which include Player of the Year awards, Top Goalscorer for a particular division and Team of the Year, here is an example. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think such Player of the Year templates are OK as long as they are suitably referenced in the main club article. Eldumpo (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

World Cup player categories

It appears that the categories for World Cup players (e.g. Category:1930 FIFA World Cup players) are used to collect all players who were in the squad for that tournament, rather than those who actually played in a game, despite the name of the category and the fact that the category explanatory text has the wording 'players who participated in'. I think these categories should only be for players who actually played in a match at the World Cup finals. I agree it is still noteworthy to collate who was in the squad but this is already being picked up by the squad list articles (e.g. 1930 FIFA World Cup squads) and the individual team templates (e.g.

). At present, there seems to be no means in Wikipedia to easily gather people who actually played a game in the finals. This change would tie in with other competitions in Wikipedia i.e. you would not include someone in Category:La Liga footballers if they had only ever appeared on the bench. At the very least I feel the category names should change and the introductory text should be altered (if the consensus is to record squads rather than those who played). What are people's views? Eldumpo (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the current convention, for the following reasons:

• The general public and media seem to recognize a player as a "2010 FIFA World Cup player" once he is included in the squad, regardless of whether he plays a match. (On the other hand, does a 16-year-old who signs for a La Liga club qualifies as a La Liga player? I don't know....)
• Another problem is obviously that we will have to go back to check the database of previous World Cups to see who plays a match or not. Besides, with the 2010 squad announcement coming tomorrow, people will start to populate the category Category:2010 FIFA World Cup players. What do we tell them? Not to add a player to the category until he plays a match? Or remove a player from the category afterwards if he does not play a match? It will be a logistical nightmare.
• We also have Category:FIFA World Cup-winning players. Currently every player on the winning squad, whether he plays or not, gets a medal, so I think we have to include all 23 players into this category. So we may have the strange case of somebody in Category:FIFA World Cup-winning players but not in Category:2010 FIFA World Cup players.

I think if you really want to be totally accurate about the category names, we can call them, say, "2010 FIFA World Cup squad players" or "2010 FIFA World Cup squad members". Of course, at the very least we should change the introductory text to properly define the categories. Chanheigeorge (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, modern convention in international tournaments is that all squad members, including those who did not play, are recognised as full participants; this has also been retro-acted (see here). Changing the wording and perhaps category title is a good idea. Pretty Green (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert war at Gençlerbirliği S.K.

Hi! There's a revert war going on at Gençlerbirliği S.K. between a few users and User:Plexus14. I've left a message on the talk page, as well as on Plexus14's talk page, explaining why he's wrong. The war going on here is about Billy Mehmet's citizenship and how he should be listed. Plexus14 says that because Mehmet obtained Turkish citizenship, he should appear as a Turkish player (although he gives no source of this).

However, according to Wikipedia:MOSFLAG#Use of flags for sportspeople, Mehmet should be listed as an Irish international because has played for their U-21 team. I would appreciate if an admin could help settle this mini-feud because I would like to get started on a rewrite of the article (it's almost entirely unsourced, and it should be rewritten because they are one of the more popular clubs in Turkey). Thank you! Invisibletr (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Winners boxes

This topic first came up at the season article task force's discussion page a couple of weeks ago: would it be possible for us to do away with boxes such as this:

2006 World Cup Winners
Italy Fourth title

I don't see the point in having an extra box to tell us who the winners of a competition were, when it usually clearly says who the winners were several times further up the page. It seems to me that these boxes serve no purpose other than as decoration. Who's with me? – PeeJay 21:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur - totally pointless. I have deleted them from league season articles where I've come accross them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. We've got more than enough existing templates for use on competition articles which make these points clear. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I like them. For the most part they are not templates and it sums up the accomplishment of the winning them in a conspicuous way (in addition to the any prose, of course). I would rather have this than (C) in league standings (the latter requiring me to look up what it means). Digirami (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it's better than having the (C) in the league table, but surely it would be obvious from the league rankings who won the league anyway? It's not a matter of having one or the other. We could easily do away with both and simply mention who won the competition in the lead section. – PeeJay 22:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I also reckon that the winner boxes do no harm and they are less useless than some of the annotation floating about which is not even in use. But not always the top team wins the championship - The team could be stripped of the title for past misgivings. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is not about annotations. Any anomalies relating to the awarding of the league title should be mentioned in prose, not using a template such as {{winners}}, which doesn't actually explain the anomalous situation anyway. For example, if there is a championship play-off, it should be obvious who won the play-off through the use of {{footballbox}} to show the match result. If a team is later stripped of the league title, this should be mentioned in prose too. – PeeJay 22:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes there isn't a standing that would define the champion (which almost happened this year in Uruguay and happens every year in Chile). Obviously, it could be easy to deduce without this little box... but it doesn't hurt to have a little something extra to make it obvious and clear to any reader who the champion is outside the lead (perhaps if they are just breezing through). Digirami (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pointless redundant repetition. If it's not clear who the champions are, improve the text. It's just an excuse to have yet another flag draped about for little other than decoration. Knepflerle (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No more pointless than to give a PeeJay lookalike the go ahead and play master administrator because he doesn't like the color of some flag. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep your comments on the issue rather than the editors. Knepflerle (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The editors aren't the issue - They do a fine job. Its the PeeJay lookalikes.

Let me guess, would no true editor support the removal of the flags? Knepflerle (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider this a warning. Refrain from attacking other editors or you'll find yourself blocked. This idiotic rivalry you have with PeeJay2K3 isn't improving the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, this was taken to TfD a couple of years ago for precisely this reason, and in a rather poor close was basically kept as WP:USEFUL. I don't think anything's changed to make the template more worthy since then. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the value of these flags, especially the size of them. You should have the winners in the infobox and lead at the top of the article, so if that's all you want to know, you need not scroll all the way down. Then, in the detail of the article, it tells you who beat who in the final. It's a bit insulting to the reader's intelligence to add a decorative flag immediately afterwards. --Jameboy (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's even worse in domestic club competition articles, as there isn't even a flag in there. Just redundant text. – PeeJay 19:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Why worse? Just add the club emblem instead. Is that too hard? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You must not be aware of WP:FAIRUSE. Any non-free content must be accompanied by a valid Fair Use rationale. However, since the club logos would only be used for decoration, this would not be deemed to be Fair Use. Nice try though. Let's delete the boxes. – PeeJay 18:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

So are we deleting these or what? – PeeJay 13:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of deleting these and I already have in some articles though some people revert. The winner appears in the infobox to begin with, so no reason to put this box. Delete! --MicroX (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favour of making them smaller. It adds some information at-a-glance that the table doesn't always convey. the size is really too large. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

NK Olimpija Ljubljana

Someone has just deleted all historical data about the club (founded in 1911), only because the club was bankropted and re-created again in 2005. Should the situation be this way? The club has the same name, same logo, same stadium, same colours... should in this cases the article only contain the historical info about the "legal" history of the club, and another article (same name) done on the previous club (predecessor), or the situation should just be described in the same article (as I beleave)? See the last complete version here, [3], and compare it wih the current one. FkpCascais (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S.:It was me that added and sourced the former players section, that includes the historical players, it was only after that I saw the massive changes that someone has done to the club article. FkpCascais (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor goes the wrong way. He should at least create an article about the defunct club.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Should the info about the previous club be restored? Because, creating another article with same name... I don´t know... FkpCascais (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

France NT numbers

I am currently engaging in a disagreement with Jafdfm regarding the France national football team's numbers for the World Cup. So on 24 May, the FFF sent in the current official numbers to FIFA that the players will wear at the World Cup sourced here. However, in the ensuring two friendly matches, a couple of players are wearing numbers that contradicts the official FFF source such as Anelka and Ribery wearing 22 and 39. Regarding Anelka, players are only allowed to wear numbers 1–23 in official competition. My stance is keep the numbers the FFF initially sent to FIFA until there is official mention that the numbers have been change. Jafdfm's stance is change the numbers to the numbers being worn in the friendlies without any confirmation other than the numbers are being worn in friendlies, which I disagree with. Joao10Siamun (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You definitely appear to be in the right here. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I told the user to come here to explain his argument. The user has refused and continues to revert the page without legitimate reason. I told the user that until there is official confirmation of a number change then he/she can change them. The user ignores the comments. I have requested page protection because I am not a fan of edit wars.Joao10Siamun (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That list was released 24th, the frendly was last night. Why would players like Ribery, Govou change numbers betwen friendlies and THE World Cup? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafdfm (talk • contribs) 21:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I understand your grievance. My point is, and for the last time, wait until it is announced that the numbers have officially changed then change them. How can you not understand that. Joao10Siamun (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In domestic football, players wear 1-11 in friendly matches. But they are not official numbers! Same with the World Cup...GiantSnowman 02:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In WC, players' numbers are given from 1 to 23. So, Anelka will not wear his strange number 39 in South Africa...--Latouffedisco (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Footnote font size

Please see Template talk:Infobox football biography 2#Footnote font size, where I propose to fix the very small footnotes in {{Infobox football biography 2}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Club season articles

The club season articles are now being titled (example) 2010-11 Manchester United F.C. season, but it doesn't seem right to me. Having the year(s) and the word season on the opposite end of the title, when usually it's written 2010-11 season. Surely it make more sense if it was written 'Manchester United F.C. season 2010-11' or 'Manchester United F.C. 2010-11 season'. It would also be more clear to read that way.

I was wondering what everyone thought about this. (Bobbymozza) (talk) 19.15 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Basic English grammar dictated the naming format. "Manchester United F.C.", as an adjective, modifies "season" and goes in front of that word. "2010-11", as another adjective, modifies "Manchester United F.C. season" and goes in front of all that. "Manchester United F.C. season 2010-11" makes no grammatical sense. "Manchester United F.C. 2010-11 season" would only make sense if you add an "('s)" to Manchester United F.C. (i.e. "Manchester United F.C.'s 2010-11 season"). That's it in a nutshell. Digirami (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Digirami explained it pretty well. Even though it can sometimes still be an awkward-sounding title and/or require a little extra markup to make the articles sort properly within the categories, this is still the best way to title articles. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Then why don't other websites write it this way aswell? When searching for fixtures it most commonly says 'Manchester United fixtures 2009/10'. The majority of other websites don't use a title like this, other than Wikipedia. I've just been looking through the archives at similar discussions, i see that up until a year a ago they wasn't being titled this way and Digirami was the person who requested the change to all articles. So it's no surprise he thinks it's better like this. I still think they would be titled better the way i suggested, as was before. Whether it's grammatically correct or not. Because that's the way it's done and reads better that way. (Bobbymozza) (talk) 20.28 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ya, I proposed it because the previous format (with the year at the end) made no sense. It is grammatically incorrect to say "Manchester United F.C. season 2010-11" and no one speaks and/or reads that way. Besides, the naming convention I proposed had already been in use for all professional sports teams in the US (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS). We finally caught on proper English usage. Digirami (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Vladimír Weiss (footballer born 1939), Slovakian players from the sixties

I just created his voice on italian wikipedia, please, do you have more news about him?93.33.8.162 (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This website has information about a Vladimír Weiss born in 1964. Unfortunately, I don't think it covers players who played before 1980. Jogurney (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

thank you very much, but I need infos about the VW from 1939.. the VW from 1964 is the son, actual Slovacchia NT coach, where his son, VW III plays.. I know it seems a joke but it's truth, read his voice.. thank you very much anyway!!93.32.244.43 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability question for football biographies

The project previously developed notability guidelines for football biographies at WP:FOOTYN, and these including the following criteria:

1. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.

A new set of guidelines was created at WP:NSPORTS, and these include a slightly different criteria for football biographies:

1. Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football.

I wanted to get input from other members (it's probably easiest to have the discussion on the WP:NPSORTS talk page) because I had always understood that FIFA "A" international matches (includes friendlies) were sufficient under WP:FOOTYN. The new WP:NSPORTS guideline suggests that only officially sanctioned competitions (whatever that means) would qualify and not FIFA "A" international friendlies. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Good spot. Though from what you wrote above, it's says 'competition', not 'competitions'. Not sure if that makes much diffence.

Friendlies are seen as official matches by FIFA (unless they're playing a U21 team or non-FIFA nation), so they should be included. Bobbymozza (Bobbymozza) 16:06 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Copa Libertadores (as a FA)

I am on the process of making the Copa Libertadores article into a GA to eventually become a FA. Please give feedback on what you think might actually make it better. I have revamped this thing from corner to corner and I am out of ideas; peer review helped some but I would like to see what the WIKIProject Football people think. Jamen Somasu (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Grabbed a couple things flagged at [4] and [5]. There is one link flagged at [6]. I have not had the chance to go through it all but keep me in the loop if you need a hand.Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the "bad" links. Anything else? I am out of ideas.Jamen Somasu (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the page's review time is getting near. Please review here and check the page out. I would like to hear any critics or anything that could be fixed. Jamen Somasu (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

CONCACAF club coefficients

Is there any basis for this? As far as I can tell it's just an overzealous fan of CONCACAF that wants something that resembles the UEFA coefficients for his/her region. However, I can't find any factual basis for this information. Am I missing anything? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That page looks like original research to me. --MicroX (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's original research on behalf of the bloggers in the references by the looks of things. Any reason you didn't ask the author first? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So can we put this up for deletion? I'm not really familiar with the up for deletion process. --MicroX (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:NOTCSD:

The following are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion.
3. Original research. It is not always easy to tell whether an article consists of material that violates the policy against novel theories or interpretations or is simply unsourced."

Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think speedying it was being discussed, but rather the usual XfD process. As a first step it would still be a good idea to at least raise the issue with Dohertypenguin (talk · contribs) - Grant Alpaugh has brought it up, but as this is a new user it might be wise to take it from the top. After that, or if there's no response, ping me and I'll AfD it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Tevez height

Hi, can anyone tell me about Carlos Tevez height? Man city website says 5'8 (173cm) but imho 173cm is being generous. Official premier league website says 168cm as BBC and Soccerbase. Other sources as ESPN say 170cm and other one (a monority) say 169cm. So... that's a controversy but the prevalence is for 5'6 (168cm). For more details you can read User talk:PeeJay2K3#Tevez. Thanks everyone for help --Exorcist Z (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

New template for CONMEBOL

I have just created a new template that would unite many of the different aspects of CONMEBOL's football system.

This new template has effectively obsoleted several old templates that used to hang around. Could I get any feedback as to improve it? Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking good in general, but I don't like that dark blue as it makes the "Show" option almost invisible. Would you consider changing it? Alzarian16 (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The background colours make a lot of the text very hard to read indeed, Chile and Brazil being particularly bad. Could we restrict the coloured text and backgrounds to just the country names titling each column? Knepflerle (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(Alzarian16) If there is no other way, yeah. But I would like to try make it work with the color it has now (it is the color of the Union of South American nations and that is why I thought it would be appropriate to pick). I would like to find a way to make the font of the "show" option white.

(Knepflerle)Yeah...we might as well. But before that, let me see if I can get lighter colors. Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A good clear box, but I'd consider making it much less colourful, perhaps if possible 'bordering' each country with colour but nothing more. Bear in mind some readers may be colour-blind, or have other reading difficulties which make the use of colours inappropriate - see WP:COLOUR. Note too that red text should be avoided as people will think it is a broken link like this one--Pretty Green (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok...we can go along with simply leaving the nation headers colored and everything else would be normal. And we could add borders...any ideas as to how one does that?Jamen Somasu (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the colour scheme: how about blue text on a white background? That would allow us to use the same colours while improving the visibility of the text. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea and I already applied it. Now, the only problem will be bordering and that is something I am still trying to figure out...any ideas? Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think having the nation header coloured and the rest not coloured is a good idea. I'm afraid I don't know too much about constructing tables, but Help:Table suggests that coloured borders are possible; if not, do not worry about them! Pretty Green (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok...how about now? Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to add something to the title that says "CONMEBOL" since Suriname and Guyana are in South America but are not included in that template for the fact that they are in CONCACAF. Something like how the Years in South American football templates are. Digirami (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There is still one more template you should merge or incorporate (I would incorporate).

It would seem pertinent to the template you created. Digirami (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I incorporated the "football in...." pages into it. However, the navbox is intended for South American football affiliated to CONMEBOL (which is why I had it specified at the top with CONMEBOL). Seeing the history of those other territories, some of them actually belong to CONCACAF (and a few of them aren't even physically part of South America); their information is far more proper there. The other ones haven't played an international match against any South American team; they all play other non-FIFA teams in Europe. Perhaps the nation those colonies belong to can be added to those pages and maybe even UEFA's but it definetly doesn't belong up there with CONMEBOL.

BTW, the name of the template is "South American Football (CONMEBOL)" because it pertains to South American football AFFILIATED o CONMEBOL, not "football in South America" which is football in the continent regardless of their affiliations. The navbox upthere, once again, is intended for CONMEBOL. Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem with the wording "South American Football": it could mean a different type of football, not just football related to South America. To use another area of the world, if you were using the wording "Canadian football": would you be referring to this or this? "Football in South America" is more precise to the topic at hand. Digirami (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunetly, that argument would only work in CONCACAF and Europe (where the sport is known by many different names i.e. calcion, soccer, fussball, etc). As you so adequately put, that might work for usage in another area of the world. Unfortunetly for you, the sport is known as "futbol" in every nation affiliated to CONMEBOL. Besides that, American football is not even played seriously in the continent; 2nd most important sports in South American nations affiliated to CONMEBOL would be basketball and rugby. No one has any idea what American football is. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you don't get the point. What is "South American football"? Thanks to the wonders of the English language, the adjectives "South American" could make "South American football" mean 1) a different type of football played in South American or of South American origin (in the same way "American" or "Canadian" in "American football" or "Canadian football" mean different types of football), or 2) football in South America. Compare that to "Football in South America", which which only can mean one thing: football in South America. "Football in South America" is clearer, to the point, and on topic. Digirami (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Another concern just occurred to me: standardization across the confederations. This approach may seem fine and dandy for CONMEBOL since it has 10 associated member nations (and maybe Oceania). But what if we tried to created on for Asia and it's 46 member nations, or Europe with 51 member nations, or Africa with 55 member nations, or North American with 40 member nations following the format of CONMEBOL, templates for that associations would be monstrous in size and complexity. Either we find a way to streamline this for the larger confederations, or abandon this approach and stick with what we already have in place. Digirami (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note The two editors above have again been blocked for engaging in edit warring. Opinions from other interested editors would be great. Rettetast (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This entire template seems like a horrible idea to me. It's too large, highly decorative – especially all of the colors and flags – the stacked columns make it awkward, and the same format could not be used for any other confederations. Also, WP:FOOTY agreed to use {{Navbox}} on navigational templates, and this template does not conform to that. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems a bit harsh. It's true that it doesn't conform to the recognised design, but I quite like how it's laid out: it's very comprehensive, has fewer redlinks than the ones it replaces, is fairly easy to navigate around (not awkward at all in my view) and the flags work quite well (although I agree that the number of colours could be reduced). Alzarian16 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I know that the intention is good, and it definitely would be nice to include more information on some nav templates. However, there is simply too much information and extraneous coloring here, and a similar nav template for any other confederation would simply be enormous. I even tried to put together a simplified nav temp in my sandbox by copying and pasting some links, but it still came out too large.

JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I quite like that, although it may be better to use the blue-on-white colouring that Jamen wanted. Regarding size, that doesn't seem to big to me: so long as it's kept collapsed it should be OK. Then again, I was behind possibly the largest template on Wikipedia, so perhaps my opinion isn't worth much... Alzarian16 (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not only does it keep its easy-to-navigate feuture (which the ones above lacks) but it is also shorter than anything above. I am still working on ways to make it shorter.Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It fails to address one important issue raised by another user: Navbox. This still doesn't used the Navbox format, which, as has been stated, is what is to be used in football related navigational templates. The version you replaced was simpler, better organized, and does use the Navbox. Digirami (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

For one, Navboxes are not a requirement everywhere. If it is, please give me a link. Second, I prefer navbox above anything but the problem is that is way too simplistic and unconventional for universal templates. That is why I took the advice of other sports' pages and simply modified their navbox to fit ours. Right now, I am still trying to convert that information into a genuine Navbox.

Contrary to what many has stated here, every single piece of the template serves a purpose including the flags. Click on the flag and you will be directed to the nation of the country; click on the name and you will be taken to its "Football in x" page; click on the abbreviation and you will be taken the country's football association. Three links...in one box.

The title of the template is the same thing: click on "South American" and you will be taken to the page of the continent of South America; click on "football" and you will be taken to the association football page (to not leave any doubt as to what type of football we are talking about) and CONMEBOL is self-explanatory. Again...three links, one line.

Not only does it compress a great deal of information and pages but it also keeps its simple manuevering and easy-to-navigate feauture which should be the goal of every template, not what type of template it is.

The colors on the different tournaments signified each tournament's unique identity. Although unofficial, the Copa Libertadores has historically been associated with red like the Copa Sudamericana with a blue that I forgot its name. I used the colors for of the Recopa's logo for its template and the template on subject received its colors from the South American Union (which I, alongside others, found appropriate). This is another thing I have adopted from the American sports.

While some sort of order is needed, we can't possibly have everything the same; it's ludicrous. To do that, we must assume that every single thing is the same and it doesn't take a genius to know that is a lie. Jamen Somasu (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Thumperward already went through the hassle to convert it to Navbox already, and it came out very well organized (better than it is now). He even tried to incorporate the color (painstakingly I might add) to discover that they were just distracting (go check the history). Every navigational template in this project uses the Navbox (except this now). That's very broad consensus. I'm sure there is a Navbox agreement somewhere in the talkpage archive, but finding it is hard considering the number of specific issues someone might have a a particular navigational template. Its nice that you looked to other sports, but that template still falls under the scope of this project. Do consider that. Considering that there isn't much to consolidate in this template, you can still achieve simple and conventional. You also have to think beyond CONMEBOL. If another confederation tries to use the same format at this template, it's going to be BIG (more like ENORMOUS). The Navbox format implemented by Thumperward, while still being a bit big for other confederations, will be more manageable in edit-ablity and size. Do not create a navigational template design like this and expect it to only be used in one place. What is used in one confederation should be used in all. Digirami (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing different or unique about CONMEBOL that merits a complete makeover in something as simple as a football template. The colors that you propose are distracting and add absolutely nothing to content as seen in not only this template, but all the CONMEBOL tournament season templates as well. Saying red (or blue for CS) is the unofficial color of Copa Libertadores would be considered Original Research, which has no place here. I will be returning the appropriate, neutral colors to their templates. --MicroX (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When you find that "agreement", let me know. Navboxes are widely used for their simplicity in usage, not their capabilities. In no ways or guidelines is it a requirement, just a preference. BTW, anything I do is distracting so I will not take your word on that.

CONMEBOL is different and it is unique; as a matter of fact, no two confederations are the same. For one, CONMEBOL HAS 10 MEMBERS...that's among the basic of the basics. CONMEBOL is also unique FOR BEING THE MOST SUCCESSFUL CONTINENT despite having only 10 members. That alone merits its unique template as everyone elses. It is just a matter of common sense.

To say that everyone needs to be the same is to assume that everyone IS the same and that is a lie: not two confederations are the same. There is a way to make UEFA's template look easy-to-navigate as CONMEBOL's. However, I could care less about UEFA so I will leave it to you. BTW, here is the red I was talking about. Questions? That is the offical page of the Copa Libertadores. While wiki states that it no one owns pages, it does give special consideration of those who have edited heavily a page. This is dangerously looking like a combination of cabalism, traveling circus and disrupting editors (which I have already reported and is in due process). You two are the most disrupting editors I have seen in wiki; it is amazing how quick you are to block progress...especially when it is made by me. Jamen Somasu (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. CONMEBOL is not special enough to merit it's own template design. You really have to get off this "CONMEBOL exceptionalism horse" and realize that when it comes to organizing the data in nav templates, no one confederation is special. Not CONMEBOL, not UEFA, not CONCACAF. No one. That's why nav templates for national cups and leagues all have the same format across all confederations. In a time where there are massive efforts in the wikiproject to make everything the same from navboxes, infoboxes, league season articles, team season articles, etc. you come along and disrupt that with this CONMEBOL exceptionalism... Dude, get with the program and realize that when we make decisions, it should be applied across the board (unless the exception arises). Template design for a confederations is a broad issue and CONMEBOL is not an exception (nor will it be in the foreseeable future). If this design you have can't be applied well to the larger confederations, it shouldn't be done.

PS, red is the color of the Santander Bank, not the Copa Libertadores. Last year's logo was green. Go to CONMEBOL's webpage for the Libertadores is mostly blue (that's the official page). Seeing as there is no clear color, go with the standard colors. Digirami (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not "exceptionalism" (although it could be clasified that way)...it is the fact that it is different from every other confederation as the others are, too. That is a fact that you can't change. For that very reason, it is ludicrous to expect every confederation to be "the same" because standarizing confederations is assuming every confederation is the same...which is not. It is not hard to understand. And once again...navboxes are a preference, not a requirement. I prefer navboxes but they are not sophisticated enough for universal templates. It is not my fault or CONMEBOL's fault that the other confederations don't have 10 members; as a matter of fact, there is a way to make a good template for the other confederations using the same method I have...only I could care less about the other confederations. That is up to you or whoever is interested.

I am interested in transforming the CONMEBOL section into a FP in the future...all you are interested is blocking progress towards it.

BTW, trying to deceive people is not a good thing. The logo last year was a one-time thing only and that was because it was the 50th anniversary since the creation of the competition. Besides last year's edition, no season has ever had its own logo; every year, the same logo for the Copa Libertadores has been used. It is simply a coincidence that red is also the color of the Santander group.Jamen Somasu (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you are trying to transform the CONMEBOL section into a FP, than you are surely already aware of all the Wikipedia:Manual of Style internals, aren't you? And by the way – your goal is noble, but it cannot be reached without collaborating with others. As the old saying goes "There is no "I" in "TEAM". And now back to real life. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am fully aware of it. As a matter of fact, that is the guideline I have been using so far. According to the manual, we "should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style". The article in mention right now is CONMEBOL. We can't standarized world football: it is much too large and all 7 organizations are extremely different from each other to do so. That is why I limited myself to standarizing confederations only. The font used in every template is Arial with the universal color for CONMEBOL pages being the colors of the South American Union (found to be appropriate). ACTUAL tournaments are excempted from this (I made sure with an admin) as it signifies a competition's unique identity. I also used Vischeck to make sure the colors used are unambiguous so even color blind people can tell the difference. Trust me...I got the bases covered. It is simply people like the forementioned that wants to block any progress to the article simply because they dislike me. That is the sort of editors we have in WIKIFootball which says a lot about the project. Jamen Somasu (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You know what...I just noticed something! As a matter of fact, the templates those above have been using and trying to force me to accept are NOT eye friendly towards those who are color blind since the colors used are INVISIBLE to them (Insert the Copa Libertadores page in Vischeck, which contains the template I created and "International Football" one, which contains the same colors as the atrocities above, and look at the bottom of the page; you can clearly see the template I made, which many have agreed, while the "International Football" one is almost a white section of random articles. Jamen Somasu (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't justified why a CONMEBOL nav template deserves to be different from the rest of them. Because they won more trophies? That doesn't matter when it comes to nav template design. Because it has 10 members? Still doesn't matter. Under that last argument, Africa should have a different template because, at 55 members, it is the largest. But that's pointless, as it is with CONMEBOL. Simply put, there is no good reason for CONMEBOL to have a different template design than the rest. Additionally, Thumperward did modify this template in a way that all the confederations could replicate it, but you had to revert it because of personal preference (or maybe because you think you own it).

We know what you're trying to do. But that doesn't mean you are going to go about it without checks (per say). This is still a community project. It's great that you're being bold, but you have a problem with assuming good faith with other editors. So don't assume that because someone does something that you may not agree, that that action is counter-productive (not agreeing does not necessarily equal wrong or detrimental). I also find your assumption that only your edits are progressive as simply arrogant and conceited. It also goes to show that you know nothing of what I, along with MicroX and other users, have done (and achieved) for articles related to South American football.

So why single out red then? The standard logo has six different colors (if you don't count black). The Copa has no official color (no CONMEBOL tournament has an official color). And yes, to say it has one without a source (or legitimate basis) is original research.

And no, you are wrong. The basic color scheme is readable for the colorblind. Digirami (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't assume good faith for people like you taking what I said out of context. I have mentioned above the reasons why I don't use nav templates. If you want to pretend I didn't explain myself, that's you. I have also explained why CONMEBOL is different; again, if you want to pretend I didn't explain myself, that's you. The template thumperward created (as well as many football templates) has a major and serious flaw, along with other smaller ones, that I have pointed out. Once again, if you want to pretend I didn't explain myself, that's you. Assumptions aren't good; you should never assume anything. Unless you are a mind reader (and I have only met one in Los Angeles) you do not know what I am trying to do. As a matter of fact, I have stated above what I wanted to do. One more time...if you want to pretend I didn't explain myself, that's you. But you are not going to wear me out with your "friends". There is a difference with having different opinions and being a disrupting editor and that is what you are: all you do is block progress.

Of course there are many colors! But the type of red Santander and the Copa Libertadores uses is the predominant color which is why I found appropriate to choose. Obviously, some coloring is needed due to the great flaw in the former templates but it can't also be a rainbow. Unless I am color-blind myself, the only thing anyone sees is a nearly-white background with a line in the middle and random articles in the "air". That is, by very definition and literally, an invisible color. Jamen Somasu (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Another update! Made it even shorter and I added some defunct Cup competitions of South America. Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That looks horrible with all those lines between the different cells. – PeeJay 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you made points. And I pointed out the flaws in those points. The navbox style made by has all the data yours does and its displayed neater and simpler.

The color test by VisCheck is just to show if it is readable to the color blind. The basic color is readable to the color blind.

Red is not used predominantly. One website is not proof. Digirami (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Another update!

Somehow, I managed to convert that template into the navbox that it is used in here. I have also made updates on the information itself: it is now slightly shorter than what it was before. I will keep trying to find ways to shorten the template. I also made the colors a bit more friendly than before while still making sure that it meets wiki standards on coloring. Jamen Somasu (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Buy a domain and make your one CONMEBOL-purposed website; or make a CONMEBOL wiki. You are harming CONMEBOL articles here on Wikipedia with very weak arguments. Saying CONMEBOL is also unique FOR BEING THE MOST SUCCESSFUL CONTINENT despite having only 10 members. That alone merits its unique template as everyone elses is dumb. How would you feel if I said CONMEBOL has never won a World Cup on European soil except on one occasion? How would that affect templates? It won't, and neither will the fact that CONMEBOL is the most successful continent. It's irrelevant to style and templates. What is this, the fourth time it's you against virtually the entire WikiProject where we couldn't get things done because you disagreed? CONMEBOL, UEFA, CONCACAF, AFA, CAF, OFC are all confederations, with a number of associations and a number of competitions. It doesn't get simpler than that. The fact that one holds a notable accomplishment or lack of accomplishments shouldn't make any difference what a template looks like. They should be similar and neutral to ease access for a reader. Remember this is for readers to learn and not for ourselves. Let's not be selfish. --MicroX (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You should stop this vandalism; this time, I will report you. BTW, you shouldn't take things people say out of context. That is very bad.Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Tell me what I have taken out of context. Here is another issue, the Copa Libertadores seasons template is red, but there is no verifiable source to back this up and it is original research. Copa Sudamericana has a sea blue on the template. This also has no verifiable source to call it its official color and is also original research (read the lead of this article). Then in CONMEBOL, you put a dark blue; again there is no verifiable source to back the notion that dark blue is CONMEBOL's official color and again would be considered original research to call it the official color.

I'm not vandalizing anything. Just because you reverted something and put vandalism in the summary, doesn't make it so. It's your subjective reasoning. --MicroX (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, Jamen, your definition of vandalism is wrong. Content dispute is not vandalism. If you even report this content dispute as vandalism, it'll thrown out faster than yesterday's garbage because it isn't what you claim it is.

Back to the topic at hand, MicroX is made very good points and you shouldn't dismiss his arguments. Furthermore, your "update" looks worse than ever. If you're going to make it look like a navbox, just use a navbox. Digirami (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You should see what he's done to my talk page. I seriously don't see how my comments are disruptive. I'm arguing a point and you fail to recognize that the colors used in the season templates are not officially recognized colors and thus original research. --MicroX (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

I've fallen out of this conversation in the past week, but it's getting a little bit rediculous. MicroX, don't advise other editors to quit editing here on WP. We need to cooperate and be patient during disagreements as much as possible. Jamen, people are not expressing dislike for you when they say that they disagree with your ideas and/or edits. I've worked with and discussed various topics with many of these editors over the past few years, and disagreements happen. We're still working together even though we all can't have our own way all of the time. Whenever one editor is in disagreement with five others then that one must accept the view of the other five. It is the opinion of myself and several other participating editors that the colors and flags are strictly decorative and don't serve a real purpose other than to "look nice". WP:MOSFLAG also discourages overusing flags, which I believe applies here. Also, using the colors of the Union of South American Nations is an incorrect association. It's not the same organization as CONMEBOL, the two organizations are completely unrelated to one another, and they each have different memberships, including two CONCACAF members in the Union. "CONMEBOL exceptionalism", as Digirami put it, simply doesn't apply in any way, shape, or form in this situation. CONMEBOL is one of six FIFA-affiliated confedrations, and this project has done its best to promote uniformity among articles, nav templates, etc. Your proposed format is simply not feasible for all six confederations. Uniformity is important in that it improves the ease of navigation, and I believe that a navigational boxes with rows, columns, flags, colors, borders, etc. becomes too large and cumbersome for easy navigation. Also of importance, such a large navigational template increases the load time of any article in which the box is transcluded. A simple navbox is a better solution. I actually believe that separate navboxes for each topic should be preferred, which is how it's been done for quite some time, and as such can be easily in Category:CONCACAF under the lowercase tau ("τ") sort. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Go read above from the beginning. I will not explain myself twice. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly the kind of collaborative attitude I was hoping for, Jamen. Why not try to address some of the concerns posted here by various editors instead of just saying "I will not explain myself twice"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Because I am familiar with the tag & wear down strategy. If he really did want to contribute something positive, he would have read the entire issue, not just jump in and announce something out of the blue (which is the very definition of meatpuppetry). Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because a large group of individuals disagree with your opinion, it doesn't make it meatpuppetry. It may, however, mean that your viewpoint isn't held by the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not contribute anything? It seems clear that JohnnyPolo knows what's going on and still has issues and critiques for you to address. In addition, he provided the first alternative to the template that you created. Digirami (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You still don't justify the use of background colors. Confederation templates don't use specific colors; they use neutral colors. --MicroX (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, go read above. It is stated there. This wearing-down strategy wouldn't work. Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand what the word "consensus" means? You really don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that, if you propose something for discussion, and a dozen or so veteran editors on the wikiproject don't think your idea is a good one, and you're left as the only one wanting it, your idea won't be implemented. It's as simple as that. And, for the record, I don't think your idea works either. The template you proposed is ugly, and it moves away from the sport-wide standardization we have all been working towards. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I came here to say Jon. Jamen, just as much as you shouldn't personalise your disputes over content, don't take rejection of a proposal personnally. You obviously put a lot of time and effort into something that you thought would be an improvement to the project, and any contributor ought to be willing to thank you for your readiness to do that. But this particular approval has not gained consensus support, and participation in Wikipedia is predicated on the acceptance that consensus is authoritative. Good luck with future contributions, and learn from the well intentioned responses to your proposal here, but the time has come to concede graciously to majority opinion on this one. Kevin McE (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand meatpuppetry? Do you understand that wiki does take into account someone's contribution to a page(s)? Do you understand that I will not take someone seriously when the have been on the site for over 4 years and did nothing to any CONMEBOL pages, I come with only 6 months and managed to make some pages quality material to become an FA? Do you understand that you could be here for 100 years and it would still mean nothing? Do you understand that this stinks of off-wiki canvassing? Some of you haven't even bothered to edit a letter in any CONMEBOL page; all of a sudden, a few people here show up magically RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME that this is going on?

Do you understand that at many points in our history, the consensus was to kill or enslave people due to color, religion or race which is probably the reason consensus is not a definete ruling in wiki? You are more than welcome to open a discussion board, of any manner, with neutral 'admin'; I know I can justify my actions. Can you? Jamen Somasu (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I work almost exclusively on soccer pages related to the United States, Canada, MLS etc. I know next to nothing about CONMEBOL or its competitions, and therefore have nothing useful to contribute. You are an expert in CONMEBOL issues, so that's where you edit. That's to be expected. However, having been here several years, I do know a lot about the way the football wikiproject works, and how there has been a drive towards creating a uniform look with templates and navboxes, to help people using the site to navigate it more easily. I absolutely have an opinion on those things, because I am part of this wikiproject, and decisions about these things can affect the pages I edit. The same would work in the other direction: if I suggested a new United States-specific template or navbox which I thought could be expanded to other leagues/countries, you would have the right to pass your opinion on it, even though you don't edit USA soccer articles. That's how a collaborative project works. Oh, and FYI, I didn't magically show up: I have been here the entire time, reading all the posts, and decided to give my opinion on the matter after you went off the rails (again). --JonBroxton (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW - "at many points in our history, the consensus was to kill or enslave people due to color, religion or race". Seriously? You're comparing a disagreement over a template to racism, murder, and religious persecution? You really need to calm the hell down and work on your perspective. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again Jamen, this is a collaborative project, and shouting at people isn't going to help. And claiming people show up "magically" is odd, because this project has hundreds of regular contributors. Many of them don't agree with your edits. This is all to do with gaining consensus, not just steamrolling people into submission. I can't see any CONMEBOL pages even close to featured status, and working without the support of the project probably won't help your cause. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't "yelling"; people in here seem to just read what they want to read so I bolded that part in order for it not to be missed. This project has hundreds of regular contributors...ok, how many of those actually edit anything in CONMEBOL...I know for a fact that I have been the largest contributor to CONMEBOL pages on the past few months with a far second Digirami and some others that haven't edited anything in months, some in years. Nice try in twisting the facts. I don't believe in coincidences because there isn't anything such so please don't insult my intelligence: the picture is getting clearer as it goes.

The Copa Libertadores page was a joke before I touched it. The Copa Sudamericana? Same. The Recopa Sudamericana was sad to look at (and it is a highly-regarded tournament). Don't even get me started on the defunct competitions...your so-called project has done nothing but try to regress, block, or frustrate progress. Some contribution... Jamen Somasu (talk)

No one is denying that you have made a lot of positive contributions to this site. However, when a large group of editors disagrees with a particular contribution, then it ceases to be a positive contribution. You really do have to stop taking everything so personally, darling. – PeeJay 22:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, once again "Some contribution", "you so-called project", "was a joke", "twisting the facts", come on. I spent some time trying to convince you that you needed to work to gain a consensus, but that's turned out to be a waste of time. Oh well. As you can see, you have no consensus for many of your edits, and because this is a Wiki, they won't stand. Fight as aggressively as you like, but you can't overturn consensus. It doesn't matter if people have singularly edited CONMEBOL articles, you still need a consensus to make sweeping changes. As I said before, I can't see any CONMEBOL page ready for good article, let alone featured status. Anyway, all I can do is suggest you try to work with people, not against them. But I've tried that a few times, as have many others, to no avail. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, like Knepflerle once said, Wikipedia takes into account the quality of the arguments and evidence presented. --MicroX (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Trust me...I will have no problems explaining myself. The question is...can you? Jamen Somasu (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's no trouble for you to explain yourself, then please do so. Cease this pointless posturing and give us something to think about. – PeeJay 23:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I already have. original research and unofficial colors ringing any bells? I guess you were right: "...people in here seem to just read what they want to read..." --MicroX (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Jamen... You know what was worse off than the those article for a long time? The leagues in CONMEBOL and their season articles. Until about a year ago or so, you were hard pressed to find a good level of uniformity across of them, from the standings, to the results, to their naming convention... pretty much everything. But now thanks to the collaborative effort of the likes of myself, MicroX, BocaFan76, and other members in this project, we worked to standardize that across the board in CONMEBOL (and even CONCACAF). You're right: football in South America, at times, does get little attention in this project. But those editors that do look out for football in South American when the need arrives (like myself and MicroX, among others) have been trying to improve has best we can with the limited amount of contributors there are. You improving three article is great, but the scope of football in South America is much, much larger than that. So don't assume you are the only one trying to improve the quality of article in South American football. Digirami (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Break for tea and biscuits

Seriously Jamen, there's no conspiracy here. This project is highly regarded for its collaboration, across all nations of football. Take a breath, realise that we're all here to try to make the best for Wikipedia, not ourselves, and perhaps move on from that point? As I said to you before, if you show willing to collaborate, and compromise, the project members will certainly do their best to engage with you and help. Shouting at people and accusing the project of meatpuppetry won't. Your call really, but I'd suggest you try to compromise. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll give this one more chance. If you read from the very beginning, it was noted that the template I created was far easier to navigate. Everything in that template serves a purpose. As a matter of fact, I had to bend the rules and jump through some programming to even create that template (anyone that knows anything about that Navbox will know why)...and yes, that is a genuine Navbox. I told you that I will convert the sort-of decent template I had into a real Navbox and I did. I am still working on ways to make it shorter. Note that the template I have meet every guideline wikipedia has stated on templates.

Besides the headache that is to manuever through the template a few are proposing up there, that templete does not meet wikipedia standards. The colors go used goes against the manual of style noted here; it states that the colors used must also be accessible to color-blind people. Using Vischeck, recommended by wikipedia itself, it is obvious it doesn't. This glaring error has passed on unnoticed for so long until I caught it recently.

Trying to make everything universal is also another glaring error. By doing that, we are assuming everything belongs to one body or everything is the same...perhaps both...and in this case it obviously isn't. Nothing is the same. CONMEBOL has 10 members...Oceania? 16. UEFA? 50-something, etc. One confederation has nothing to do with the other and that includes FIFA. FIFA has nothing to do with any of CONMEBOL's tournaments (or any other confederations' tournaments for that matter). Each organization is unique which it makes more sense to limit singularity to organizations (FIFA, CONMEBOL, OFC, UEFA, CONCACAF, AFC, CAF). It is only seven, after all. The only exception might be to the actual tournament template...they do warrant their own unique identity.

The idea was conceived when I was reviewing GA nominees and asked why the American tournaments (NFL, NBA, etc) each has unique template coloring to each others. That is where I learn why they decided to start swaying away from the format right now in UEFA and co.. I didn't choose the colors off of personal wants; I made sure the coloring had connections to the article at hand. For example, red has historically been the predominant color of the Copa Libertadores (it was mere luck that Santander also uses it) and it is the predominant color on the competition's official website. I used the colors of the logos for the Copa Sudamericana and Recopa Sudamericana for those. The same for the Supercopa. I am trying to find a better logo for the Copa CONMEBOL than what I have now. The same for the Copa Merconorte, Copa Mercosur, and Supercopa Masters. I haven't found any logos for the other competitions left (and I highly doubt I will).

The Copa Libertadores page is ready to become a FA...unfortunetly, I have to go through the slow-as-**** GA review before that. BTW, Digirami keeps trying to revert the part where it states exactly how many teams play in the Libertadores and the total. Let me remind you that the 1st phase is a preliminary round. It is not part of the tournament itself which is why I specified it (specific information helps in nominations). Since I have noticed I have been focusing a lot on the three present tournaments, I have switched me focus towards the small and defunct ones to make them look presentable. The Copa de Oro was bumped to a C Class by me (it was a stub before) and I seriously doubt it would get any higher than that. But it was many times better than before. The Supercopa Sudamericana is still being worked on; I am still trying to build a history for it that would make sense. Jamen Somasu (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

They do all belong to the same thing. FOOTBALL. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know football own CONMEBOL...I thought it was the other way around. Jamen Somasu (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

1) The basic navbox colors are color-blind readable. I provided a link from a VisCheck test to show that they are. So, your template is not an improvement in color-blind readability. In addition to that, it's basic organization is rather bad and the color mix for those who can see normally is rather atrocious.

2) Trying to make things universal is not a glaring error. It is a basic goal of this project to make related items as uniform as possible. This covers naming conventions, article structure, infoboxes, and yes, templates, too. No confederation is unique enough to merit there own nav template design. They are all continental confederations, that simple, and are treated the same. In this case, what is good for one should be good for the rest... And if it not good for one, it isn't good for the rest.

3) It's great that your are improving the articles on CONMEBOL competitions. Keep on it. But those competitions have no official color. Never have, probably doubt they will. So to impose colors because the logo is this color or because a website is another color is a rather weak argument and looks like you are trying to change things for your own personal taste.

4) That's not the issue at hand, but keep on improving them. 4a) FYI, the competition proper for the Copa Libertadores has 39 teams and starts at the First Stage. This is unlike UEFA (which I'm sure you're looking at for an example).

If anyone one has anything to add to those basic counter-arguments, feel free. Digirami (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that the American league tournaments have colors in their templates because their conferences use nationally-recognized conference colors, that came from the American flag. In this case, South American club competitions don't have specific colors, nor does this CONMEBOL template need them for its national teams. Edit: take the Copa Libertadores discussion to the talk page; I even started a section for it. --MicroX (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope for your sakes you got better argument than that...because what I mentioned is only the tip of the iceberg. Jamen Somasu (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What's with the aggressive and smug attitude too? Who do you think you're intimidating? WP:CIVIL. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to respond to the criticism laid directly against me. After I initially suggested an alternative format, there was only one response, and then this conversation went dormant for five days. That is why I stopped paying attention to it. I only returned when I saw how large it had become, and I read every single entry that followed my own so that I would not miss anything. I am neither a puppet nor uninformed. Jamen, I would like you to know that I understand why you have wanted to make the changes to the navigational template and believe that your suggestions are superior. However, I am still in disagreement with you as to whether it is an actual improvement. I don't want to continue this argument though, and while typing this I just saw in a different browser that you've been blocked. I hope that you are able to return to productive editing as soon as possible and realize that article namespace improvements are far more important than this one. Choose your battles wisely. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Enough of this

This is going nowhere fast and is wasting the time of multiple editors who are needed elsewhere. There's nothing to see here: just one editor who doesn't agree with a pretty firm consensus on any number of matters and who can't be trusted to argue his case in a collegial manner. I've pinged the admin who gave Jamen a week off last time to look into the latest round of edit warring. Should that not work I'll take it to the noticeboards. I would encourage people to find better things to do than bait said editor until that's been addressed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And here I thought admin is supposed to serve as mediators, peacekeepers, etc. and all you do is add fuel to the fire. How about a mediation/discussion section with neutral editors (things I have started)? Have you ever heard of those? Your favoritism can't get any more blatant than this. Jamen Somasu (talk) 09:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand

Ok, after some time off. Let's get back to the topic at hand (obviously). It's clear that the consensus is in opposition of the template as it is now for a number of reasons. So the question is "what is the next step?" Revert back to the normal templates is a given, but should we try to find a way to consolidate some of these template for the confederations? And do we remove the colors that Jamen applied to some CONMEBOL templates, like this one. I think it wouldn't hurt to try to find a way to consolidate the template in a way that is viable for all confederations (with project's approval first), and we should get rid of those colors for reasons already expressed. Digirami (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the colours. Navbox templates rarely warrant style overrides, and these were arbitrary. It would be best to start a new thread for any future work so that this one (primarily about Jamen and his edit warring) can be archived. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Copa de Oro

I don't expect this article to ever become a FA or even a GA. There is simply scarce information about it online (or anything else for that matter) to even think about such goal. But can someone upgrade the quality of the page? I am pretty sure that it can't be considered a stub anymore. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

For the lower classes (i.e. below GA) you can change the rating yourself if it is uncontroversial. Instructions for assessment are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment Oldelpaso (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a different issue I'd like to address. Would anyone be in favor of creating a template which merges the Copa de Oro with Supercopa Masters, Copa CONMEBOL Masters and Supercopa Sudamericana? All four of them are irregular tournaments because they united the previous winners of other tournaments on an irregular basis. This would be a similar move to the Template:CONMEBOL tertiary tournaments. --MicroX (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be ludicrous; those are all different tournaments from each other. Templates are something else. Many templates have many different articles...should we combined the Champions League, Copa Libertadores and FCWC, too? Jamen Somasu (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Payne in France

Is Ernest Payne, the Olympic cycler and sometime-Manchester United player the same Ernest Payne who managed US Boulogne in the 1930s? GiantSnowman 04:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No that's someone else. Ernest Arhur Payne he's ca 20 years younger, He never played in the English Football League Cattivi (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm what's Cattivi said, though he was faster that me...--Latouffedisco (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks guys - again! What info do we have about Ernest Payne, so I can create an article...GiantSnowman 02:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Here we go : he played for Excelsior Roubaix from at least 1932 to 1935, and for US Boulogne from 1935 to 1939. He managed Boulogne, FC Rouen, CO Roubaix-Tourcoing [7] He won the Coupe de France in 1932/33. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I have created a stub! Thanks again guys, GiantSnowman 22:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

peter winn

On the page: list of english football transfers summer 2010, Peter Winn has been transferred to stevengae but when you click on peter winn's name it goes to someone else named peter winn. Can someone correct it so when you click on his name it goes to his page? Cheers,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cesc Fabregas for protection

Cd an admin please protect said page. The Barca-circus is attracting vandals all the time. Sandman888 (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, but note please use WP:RFPP next time. Woody (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you understand italian and you need informations about football in the past..

here http://emeroteca.coni.it/?q=node/1&id=64&col=1 you can read all the Corriere dello Sport published between 1943 and 1972.. scrivo in italiano adesso, così mi spiego meglio: sono presenti nel sito le versioni scannerizzate del Corriere dello sport di 40-70 anni fa con molte notizie che forse possono aiutarvi.. se v'interessa posso dire in privato come funziona il sito..93.32.251.49 (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried looking at some of these, but unfortunately I got a message saying they could only be viewed within the library. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Football League Trophy winners succession boxes

At the moment, all clubs having won the FLT have Football League Trophy Winners succession box(es) down with other navigation templates, as here. We don't seem to do this with other competitions, either with s-boxes or navboxes, at least not with other English competitions, so is this something we ought to be doing with the FLT, or should they go? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the Football League Trophy should be treated any differently to any other competition. Let's get rid of the succession boxes. – PeeJay 10:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - strangely, this was never added to the page for the current holders. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think they were added in the first place by a new-ish editor looking for a good thing to do, and not many people noticed. Seems a shame your lot were deprived, though, especially as the Luton one was updated to include Southampton as successors.... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So do people think I should replace them with a Football League Trophy winners category, as we have e.g. category:Football League Cup winners, or just disappear them? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a category. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

League table help

Hey all, I was wondering about the league table template that is currently being used for leagues on their pages. The table which automatically grants three points or one point based on what you put in the win or draw column. I was wondering if there was (if not can someone create one or help me create one?) a similar table that would automatically grant four points for a win, two points for a draw, and one point for a defeat, which is the points system in the amateur leagues in France. I ask this because I had a tiring effort constantly editing all the 2009–10 Championnat de France amateur and 2009–10 Championnat de France Amateurs 2 league tables where everything had to be done manually. Getting a similar table to the current ones being used in the top leagues would preserve a lot of time.Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Instead of using templates, perhaps you should use a simple wikitable? Here we have yet another reason why the creation of these templates was a very bad idea. – PeeJay 00:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Forget about it. Either you misinterpreted my problem and question or I completely botched it.Joao10Siamun (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are seeking to use the wiki software as if it were a spreadsheet, which it is not. Kevin McE (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sigh* Actually, no. I've taken care of it. So, again, forget it.Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Association football man-markers

Should this category be deleted as the term man-marker is not really a football position, but more a playing style? There seems to be no man-marker article or even sub-section on Wikipedia. Eldumpo (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Its creator also made Category:Center forwards and Category:Association football center forwards on the same day. I'd suggest it'd be uncontroversial to empty them (there's only a very few pages in each) and then they could be speedied with {{db-emptycat}}. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I tagged the three categories, User:Daemonic Kangaroo having already emptied man marker in the meantime it seems. Thanks to both. Eldumpo (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

FAR nomination of Roy of the Rovers

I have nominated Roy of the Rovers for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. –Grondemar 00:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Football League Championship clubs category

Noticed that User:Lloydf640 has created a category:Football League Championship clubs, which appears to be for clubs that have played in the Championship since that name was given to that division of the Football League in 2004. I know that categorising clubs by competition is standard procedure, but categorising clubs by such a restricted subset of a competition strikes me as going too far. Other views welcome... (I've notified Lloydf640 of this thread.) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

OK i do agree that it is a bit restricted but the reason i did create this is because their is a catergory for the Premier League which only includes teams who have played in the Premier League. I can understand what you are trying to say though another point I would like to make is that the Premier League has only had 44 teams who have played in it, yet the FLC has had 45 so really the Category:Premier League clubs should be up for deletion as well. Lloydf640 (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. We also have Category:Football League clubs and Category:Member clubs of the Southern Football League, so why not a category for the Chanmpionship? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My problem is that the Championship isn't a League, where the Prem, FL, Southern League are. It's the latest brand-name for the division of the Football League that from 1992 to 2004 was called Division One and before 1992 was the Second Division. In a couple of years a new sponsor comes along and it's called something else. I'm not convinced we need to categorise clubs as having played in particular league divisions at all, but I could accept it. But re-categorising every time the same division is renamed for branding reasons doesn't seem sensible. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would understand your point if we had categories for clubs who have played in the Barclaycard Premiership and a different one for those who have played in whatever it was called before that, but I don't think the rebranding from First Division to League Championship is the same thing as renaming the league after some external sponsor. Madcynic (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wish I could write clearly. I didn't mean naming anything after external sponsors. My point was 1) I'm not sure we need categories for each division of the Football League, but if others think that's OK, then fine; but 2) really don't think we should start a new category every time the Football League changes the name of one of its divisions, because changing its name doesn't make it a different competition. Hope that makes sense now, if even you don't agree with it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The (sky) people at Premier League seem to think that it's a different competition from league one / first division , hence united with most wins. It's probably still at the talkpage. Sandman888 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

<reduce indent > The Premier League is a different competition; OK it has essentially replaced the old Div 1, but it is run by a new organisation under new rules. The Championship is simply a rebranding. I'd support removing the category, and the almost empty Category:League Two clubs as well. If it is to be kept, the category should be renamed Category:English Football second tier clubs or something. --Pretty Green (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So if it's run by another organisation, then it's a different competition? What new rules are those, AFAIK it's nothing concerning the game per se. I think this is a thin distinction between different and same competition. Sandman888 (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Struway and Pretty Green. The category should ideally be removed/renamed as it's really the 'English 2nd tier' with a rebranded name, whereas the Premier League is a separate competition from the old Division One. Eldumpo (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

By 'new rules' I was referring to regulations really - things such as number of substitutes which can be named, for example. OK, there are no huge changes, but there are some! --Pretty Green (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

International tournament overview

I recently found this article: Peruvian football clubs in International Competitions. Do football articles like this exist or is this the only one of its kind? --MicroX (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it's a one-off. Does that make it a candidate for AfD? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There are others similar, see this multiple AfD where the articles/lists were kept. Those are largely lists of match results and endless repeated national flags, whereas the Peruvian article/list makes an attempt at prose and context, so IMO wouldn't fail WP:NOT#STATS. Some references would be nice, but I'd say it wanted improving, not deleting. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks as always Struway - you have a longer memory then me. The problem with these sort of articles is "How to categorize them?" Should there be a Category: Football clubs in international competitions? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The idea of me having a longer memory than anyone raised quite a snigger in this house :-) I've added the catchall Category:Association football records and statistics to it, don't know if that would cover it or whether something club/competition-related does need inventing. I looked up Manchester United F.C. in Europe, but that only has the MUFC category. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And that article title needs a change. Firstly, International Competitions shouldn't be capitalized. --MicroX (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it to the correct capitalisation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaziantepspor

Hi, Erkan 6317 (talk · contribs) continually vandalizes the Gaziantepspor page even though I have warned him several times. He keeps adding a link to a fan site (presumably his), even going to the lengths of creating a new section. Can an admin deal with him? Thanks Invisibletr (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a similar problem at Universitario de Deportes and Alianza Lima, a fanboy Rdvarq (talk · contribs) is messing with the national titles. Universitario has 25 and Alianza has 22 but he keeps subtracting 1 from Universitario and adding 1 to Alianza. I've taken it to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but they say to try to reason with the guy. I know these kind of fanboys and how they think. They will never compromise and never listen to anyone but themselves and their biased views. These fanboys are edit wars waiting to happen. There is also an IP that is doing the same thing. 190.41.149.140 (talk · contribs) --MicroX (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

European Cup Seasons 1955-1956 to 1991-1992

I have checked all European Cup Seasons and see from the season 1961-1962 till 1973-1974 onwards quite often first and second leg of ONLY Italian teams are detailed. Why is this (did an Italian write the articles?) and why are not all matches displayed in detail? The season 1974-1975 doesn't show any detail of scoring except for the final. 1975-1976 first round again only an Italain team with match details. 1976-1977 similar. 1977-1978 till 1981-1982 again almost only Italian teams for all rounds detailed. Further everywhere where I see written Milan it should say AC Milan as there is also the other team Inter(nazionale) Milan. If you only see Milan people can think of both Milans.(Belanda Gila (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC))

I think someone with access to only Italian information may have added the detail to those articles. Personally, I have no problem with it; if other editors have information about the other teams' matches, I hope they will add it to the articles. As for referring to Associazione Calcio Milano as "Milan", I don't know about other countries, but this is standard practice in Italy and it is becoming standard practice in the UK. Similarly, Football Club Internazionale Milano is always referred to here as "Internazionale", so it shouldn't be a problem at all. – PeeJay 07:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I did add details for European Cup season. I made about 10 seasons...I can tell you it take lots of time....--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I think some people forget that fact about Wikipedia. Editors do not always have the time to make large-scale changes, so tasks can often be left half-finished. – PeeJay 08:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Where there's any possibility of confusion, such as in qualifications lists, Milan should be referred to as AC Milan. This is still the predominant name for the team in English-language sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, they're not the only big club in Milan and mostly referred as AC Milan from what i've seen. I noticed the same with Italian results elsewhere in Intertoto articles aswell. Bobbymozza (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Fb team template

Hi! I have written about a problem with this template into its discussion page but no one seem to respond. Hope it gets more attention here. Thanks. —WiJG? 21:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to get your edit done, you'll need to speak to an WP:ADMIN, I don't know if there are any who use this page. This looks like a technical issue rather than anything to do with football, so if you place {{Editprotected}} on the talk page then someone who can edit it should come along. --Pretty Green (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advise, the template works perfectly now. —WiJG? 06:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Moruleng Stadium

Moruleng Stadium is probably going to be in the news a lot more this week due to England playing a friendly against Platinum Stars in front of 12,000 people. Does anyone know what the coordinates of it are? TheBigJagielka (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

25°09′24″ S, 27°10′32″ E. --ClubOranje^T 16:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox football club season - kit graphics

Can some-one point me to where I can find an explanation of how to "draw" the kits. I would like to add these to the early Southampton season articles (red & white quarters or red & white halves) but I have no idea how to do so. Cheers and thanks in advance. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Check out the documentation for {{football kit}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to understand this. I have had a stab on the 1895–96 article but it's still a mess. Where can I find an explanation of the coding used for the colours, e.g. FFFFFF which seems to produce Red? What I am trying to get to is shown on the historicalkits website; i.e. red & white halves, with the opposite sleeves white and red, combined with dark blue shorts and socks. Is it possible to draw the kit with long sleeves? What about the length of the shorts - can this be changed? In the 1890s, they tended to cover the knees, although the team photos indicate that they were not as long as historicalkits suggests. Any help would be gratefully appreciated. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The colours can be found at web colors. As for changing length of shirts/shorts/socks - no can do. When I come back from work tomorrow (about 28 hours away) I'll have a crack if you can wait that long...GiantSnowman 01:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'll wait as long as you need. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The strip shape can't be changed; it's deliberately an abstraction. For the patterns, the idea is that you leave the "pattern" part blank unless you need something other than solid colour (so blue shorts should just specify the colour). For the patterns, a list is available at {{football kit/pattern list}}. I've tweaked your sample article according to your description: is that any better? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've adjusted the arms so that they are each just one block colour. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had a go but can't better your worthy effort so I've left it. But if you need any other kits mocking up...GiantSnowman 02:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thiago Emiliano da Silva vs. Thiago Silva

I noticed that at the namespace Thiago Silva there's currently an article about some sort of martial artist named Thiago Anderson Ramos da Silva. Now, I don't want to be presumptuous, but I think that someone who types 'Thiago Silva' is most likely looking for Thiago Emiliano da Silva, the footballer. So, I suggest moving the pages accordingly, or at least having a disambiguation page. Any thoughts? — Luxic (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation is probably the best idea. --Angelo (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree w. dab Sandman888 (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In Italy we name him simply as "Thiago Silva". --Exorcist Z (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I know, I'm Italian too! ;-) By the way, it's not only in Italy: the Portuguese wiki itself has Thiago Silva for the footballer and Thiago Silva (lutador) for the martial artist. However, the consesus here seems to be for a dab at the moment. — Luxic (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Here in the US, people are probably more likely to know Thiago Silva the MMA fighter because his name often comes up in UFC fights which are promoted on TV for PPV. A disambiguation page would probably be best. Digirami (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

+1 for disambiguation. --Exorcist Z (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Make that +2! GiantSnowman 21:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't need a dab if there are only two choices; a hatnote will suffice. If it comes down to it, count the inbound links to figure out what the primary topic should be. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As for the inbound links, the outcome is 104 to 40 in favour of the footballer. On the other hand, Google hits (English version) seems to put the martial artist at a slight advantage. Mmh... it seems hard decide which one is the primary topic, doesn't it? Fortunately, WP:DAB states that if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used. So, I think having a dab remains the best option. — Luxic (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What about if we used the page view statistics to determine the primary topic? The martial artist has higher page views, more than twice page view for the footballer. This would made the martial artist the primary topic. I suggest a hatnote on top of both pages and also to move Thiago Emiliano da Silva to Thiago Silva (footballer) (see WP:COMMONNAME. — Martin tamb (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If we're arguing about inbound links and page view stats to find out which is the primary topic, then in my view there isn't a clear primary topic. There's already a disambiguation page at Tiago Silva whose See also section has links to two footballers but not the martial artist, so as there are three Thiago Silvas (at least, depending on whether Thiago Quirino da Silva, Thiago Silva de Paiva, etc could reasonably be searched for as Thiago Silva), we do need a dab page of some sort. Perhaps it would be possible to expand that dab page to deal with both spellings: Thiago or Tiago Silva may refer to..., as we do already with e.g. Dennis Moran, which covers Dennis and Denis. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Martin, did it not occur to you that a fair few of those hits at Thiago Silva were in fact looking for the footballer? – PeeJay 09:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, definitely. If there's already a dab at Tiago Silva then homophones should definitely be added there, with Thiago Silva redirecting to the existing dab page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Résumé

Ok, let's try to sort things out. We could do this way:

1. Thiago Silva (martial artist) → move to Thiago Anderson Ramos da Silva
2. Thiago Silva (emptied namespace) → redirect to Tiago Silva (dab)
3. Thiago da Silva (yes, there's this one too) → redirect to Tiago Silva (dab)
4. Tiago Silva (dab) shall be updated according to Struway2's suggestions (see above)
5. Hatnotes at Thiago Anderson Ramos da Silva and Thiago Emiliano da Silva shall be updated so that they link to Tiago Silva (dab)

What do you think? Am I missing something? — Luxic (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd move Thiago Silva the martial artist to Thiago Silva (fighter), common name and what appears to be the standard disambiguator for MMA fighters. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks great. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's nice how you got the MMA project involved in this before screwing up their work. I'm going to have change dozens of articles to reflect the change you've just made. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you notice, I've already been fixing some of the wikilinks you're talking about... just give me some more minutes! — Luxic (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox player

I haven't used the new template much, but I was going to add in a line in John Burridge's to illustrate that he was on loan at Blackpool before joining them permanently. To do this, do I have to change by one the number of every years, caps, etc., of which there are 132? - Dudesleeper talk 19:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. I'd blame Burridge for having played for so many clubs! Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That is the reason for me supporting the use of the "old" infobox for players whos careers in infoboxes are possibly not complete. What bothers me the most is the number of editors that make the infobox2 making the clubs section with their last club (probably the one they support) and including only the previous, or past famous clubs, ignoring completely the entire career (sometimes hard to find complete) and making the job of completing them much more harder for commited editors. FkpCascais (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is, sadly, unavoidable in the name of template accessibility. If we ever come up with a solution you guys will be the first to know, I guarantee. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now inserted the extra line to accommodate the loan spell - can you edit the details. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Still on an infobox theme: possibly the oldest article still without an infobox? - Dudesleeper talk 00:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not any longer ;) although the article still needs a lot of work to bring it up to scratch, to remove some of the hyperbole and improve the referencing. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The awarding of FA Premier League medals

I have reproduced Section B, paragraph 27 of the Premier League Handbook 2009/10 [8] below:

"The League Champions shall further receive 21 commemorative medals to be presented by the Club to its Manager and to such of its Players and Officials as it thinks fit provided, in the case of a Player, that he has that Season played in a minimum of 10 of its League Matches.

Additional medals may be presented with the consent of the Board."

It appears to suggest that not all players with more than 10 appearances would get a medal (if the number of medals awarded had already reached 21). Given that it refers to dispensation given for certain players who have played in less than 10 games to receive a medal, do people feel that in practice anyone with 10+ appearances would definitely get a medal. Eldumpo (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it actually mathematically possible for more than 20 players (21 minus the manager) to make more than 10 appearances in the season? I'm sure it is, but I'd like to know if it's actually possible. – PeeJay 20:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If you played the same starting XI and 3 subs for the first 11 games of the season, then changed them all for a new 14 for the next 11 games, then changed them again for the third set of 11 games, you'd have fielded 3 x 14 = 42 players for more than 10 games each with still 5 games of the season remaining... Obviously that's artificially extreme, but I don't think it's all that improbable for more than 20 players to have 10 appearances, assuming that sub appearances count. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

True enough. Nevertheless, I'm sure that if a club had more than 20 players with 10 appearances in the season, then that would be a case where the decision over special dispensation would be a no-brainer. – PeeJay 21:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Actual fact case; Spurs used 30 players, of which 20 players appeared in 10 or more league matches, plus 2 others with 8 and 7 respectively, so yes, easily possible a club could surpass 20 with the 10 threshold.--ClubOranje^T 09:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The wording is strange relating to officials as there is no minimum threshold qualifier for them, so in theory a title-winning club could award them to numerous back-room staff, or even the directors, and there's nothing in the wording to prevent that. Does anyone know of any references which show exactly who's been awarded medals for each championship? Eldumpo (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There is some information on title-winning players at List of football players with a Premier League winner's medal but the detail of who has won medals is not referenced. Eldumpo (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps FC

It was announced today that the Vancouver Whitecaps FC ownership have been permitted to carry the team name over to the MLS. Until today there was a separate article that has been renamed Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS) due to the uncertainty. Since the new team has the same name, same ownership, same office staff, the two should be a single article. The only difference is the league in which they are playing. The current article shows that the franchise has successfully transitioned between seven franchises already, I don't see why a new article is required for the MLS franchise. In fact the club considers that the NASL franchise is part of the same club and I would argue that that article should be merged into Vancouver Whitecaps FC as well, but that request will come later. Please add comments to Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC#Merge Vancouver Whitecaps FC .28MLS.29 into this article. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the Earthquakes, Sounders, Timbers and Impact? They are in a very similar situation as for me. —WiJG? 08:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Club season articles (again)

Most club season articles have a section for transfers in and out. I note that on the Manchester United 2010–11 article Ben Foster is shown as leaving on 1 July 2010, whereas the Birmingham City article has him joining on 19 May. Which is correct? IMHO, as most player contracts expire on 30June, when I understand the season officially ends, the correct date should be 1 July. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to do with season end or player contract expiration. The contract can be broken, renegotiated and re-written by agreement, and the Foster agreement was for when the transfer window opens, so the applicable date in this case is the opening of the transfer window. If I recall from last year (or maybe the year before...) this is a set date, but varies from year to year. The FA has set June 9 as date for opening window this year per this article. --ClubOranje^T 12:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

...Although to correct myself... it does say "Domestic transfers remain unaffected and deals can be done as soon as a club’s season is over following the completion of a club’s last competitive game", so if this is considered a domestic transfer, 19 May could be correct. --ClubOranje^T 12:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Tevez height

Hi, can anyone tell me about Carlos Tevez height? Man city website says 5'8 (173cm) but imho 173cm is being generous. Official premier league website says 168cm as BBC and Soccerbase. Other sources as ESPN say 170cm and other one (a minority) say 169cm. So... that's a controversy but the prevalence is for 5'6 (168cm). For more details you can read User talk:PeeJay2K3#Tevez. Thanks everyone for help --Exorcist Z (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Haven't you raised this query already? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Asociación del Fútbol Argentino say 1.72 on their World Cup squad details. As that's both official and recent, I'd be tempted to go with that. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

FIFA.com says 173cm too. — Luxic (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate for me to be a little smug here? – PeeJay 14:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be inappropriate. FIFA makes me laughing... They say DIEGO MILITO is 177cm but he's 183cm !!! However do as well as you like... --Exorcist Z (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Goodison peer review request

C'mon guys... peer review. I've been waiting two months... ;) Wikipedia:Peer_review/Goodison_Park/archive1 TheBigJagielka (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't help that the peer review was automatically closed by a bot after only one day. I have fixed any issues there may have been with the listing, and the request should pop up at WP:PR within a few hours. – PeeJay 10:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football league

Whoa whoa whoa. It looks like the appearance of this infobox was dramatically changed two days ago for a reason that doesn't seem clear. First off, why? Anyone know? Second off, what's the extra league-specific parameters? Are they really necessary? Digirami (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Plasticspork (talk · contribs) left a comment on the template talk: it's apparently a problem with the potential width of the box because of the lack of wrapping. I've reverted for now, and I'll work with him to come up with a less drastic solution. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football club parameters

If Template:Infobox football club contains a 'top scorer' parameter, shouldn't it also contain a 'most appearances' paramater? GiantSnowman 01:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Should that really be in the infobox? Digirami (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is going to be a good idea because only a handful of leagues will have a reliable source. Most leagues won't have a proper source to attribute the player with "most appearances" of the season. --MicroX (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly why it's a parameter - it displays when in use, and is ignored when it is blank. For those that do have sources to say "Player X is the highest scorer/most appearances for Y F.C." I think it is a useful tool. I mean, national teams have had it for as long as I can remember - so why not club teams as well? GiantSnowman 05:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Useful" is not the only criterion used for infobox inclusion. We don't want infoboxes to be full of trivia; the shorter they are, the easier it is to find the most pertinent comparative material. That's why we don't add new fields on a whim. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the template documentation says that the 'top scorer' parameter is for the MLS only. — Luxic (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

We've been gradually doing away with the MLS-only stuff. It's probably worth re-thinking whether or not it's still needed at all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(FC) BARCELONA

I think this discussion is getting (really) old, but each outline is more "exquisite" than the other: i have seen articles where clubs with longer names are allowed to stay in full, only FC Barcelona has to be piped, even in storyline, which can create funny situations, as "born in Barcelona, X-player entered Barcelona's academy...". Really fail to see why this is the way it is...

The new twist is the following: due to the change the club's reserve has undergone in name, it appears someone thinks (would like to know how many users, is there a consensus?) if a player has played for the B team in both denominations, it should appear in box: BARCELONA B / BARCELONA ATLÈTIC? Real strange, and i'll develop: Barcelona is a featured article, granted, but so is for example Real Madrid, and the reserve squad for this club has been called PLUS UTRA, CASTILLA, REAL MADRID CASTILLA. Yet, in 99,999% of the cases (and i edit massively in Spanish soccer), REAL MADRID B suffices and noone seems to revert it, ever. Same for SEVILLA B (SEVILLA ATLÉTICO), CELTA B (until recently CELTA TURISTA), etc (i think the B suffix should suffice to show people reading the article it's a reserve side).

In conclusion: i think either one or the other name, not both in box, it may even mislead some readers into thinking a player played for two teams at once. Attentively, opinions please :) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The team name should that displays should mimic the team name at the time the player was playing there - so if the team was known as Wikipedia B, say that; if it was known as Wikipedia II, say that. The team name should, however, link directly to the current name of the team. Hope this helps! Regards, GiantSnowman 19:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How common is references to Barcelona Atletic? When I read English sources they refer to the team as Barcelona B. Perhaps a move request cd sort it out, per the WP policy of using common name. news.google.com gives 35 for "Barcelona Atletic" and 150 for "Barcelona B". Sandman888 (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think for football teams, the actual name is actually a better idea than the commonname, especially in England i.e. Sporting Lisbon, Inter Milan etc. etc. GiantSnowman 20:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So you want Inter to be named Internazionale Milano ? Sandman888 (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC) I'm a bit tired now. But do note that it's called Red Star Belgrade, not Fudbalski Klub Crvena Zvezda. Sandman888 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The team's name is F.C. Internazionale Milano, known as Internazionale. 'Inter Milan' is just fallout from lazy/ignorant journalism - it's the same as giving English team names such as 'London Arsenal'...and 'Red Star' is just a literal translation of 'Crvena Zvezda'. GiantSnowman 20:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Red Star is a translation, and a necessary one for most English speakers. On the other hand "Inter Milan" is no more encyclopaedic than "Hamilton Accies" (or for consistency should it be "Hammy Accies"?). WFCforLife (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not "lazy/ignorant journalism" to give readers clues as to where teams originate from, or (in the case of Red Star) to give them names which they can actually parse. We should still err on the side of caution in this regard in articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Request a link to previous, later seasons link in all football season article

Hello, I would like to request all less popular football season article, like the Spain's Segunda division etc to add a link to it's previous season and later season like the premier league's season have. e.g 2009–10 Premier League This would saves me a lot of effort to go through past scores, goals tally of players, whenever i want much faster instead of searching each season 1 by 1. Can I add just add them on my own? Thanks Dsdsasds (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, none of the articles in Category:Segunda División seasons use the {{Template:Infobox football league season}}. This has "prevseason/nextseason" parameters. Perhaps you can add the infobox as per 2009–10 La Liga to the 2009–10 Segunda División article and then work back from there. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In order to browse faster, you may also use the templates at the bottom of each season article, namely Template:Segunda División seasons and Template:Segunda División B seasons. — Luxic (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I had added the infobox on the segunda division with what little info I knew. If you dont agree with it please change according =/ Dsdsasds (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:Qampunen took it upon him/herself to remove the infobox and other edits with no explanation. I have reverted these changes - we'll see what happens. Hey ho! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I added the infobox from all 2007 to 2009 seasons. it seems like the 2009-2010 season is the only article left with the info box, i will add again since it appears that majority of you agree the infobox is indeed just as useful as how I always though when reading the article. Would also like to add the infobox on all other professional football season, league if nobody had any objection when I'm free.. Dsdsasds (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Qampunen has once again removed the infobox from the 2009-10 aarticle (and earlier years). As I don't want to get involved in an edit war, "I'm out", as they say on Dragons' Den. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Season articles are definitely better with the infobox included. I see that Dsdsasds has already posted on Qampunen's talk page, so we'll see how he/she responds. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The infobox in the article is quite unnecessary as Luxic said, you can move the next or prevous season on the template below the article. The reason why I removed it most is that it says things such as "Europe qualifying" and stuff which in Segunda División are non-existing. When the template is added it leaves a horrible blank space on the left and the introduction and the map falls to the bottom of the info-box. If you insist in introducing this infobox I would appreciate it if you solved these problems. But as a whole, if you want to see the best win, or the top goalscorer you can simply go to "season statistics" or to "top goalscorers". In conclusion, I think it is not necessary, but if everyone wants to include it then please solve the previous problems I've mentioned above. I apologise if I have seemed too harsh at first. Qampunen (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've never said that. As far as I'm concerned, infoboxes are OK. I was only suggesting him one more way to browse through the articles quickly. — Luxic (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C.

Would someone mind helping solve a dispute at Arsenal F.C.? User:Halmstad believes Marouane Chamakh should be removed from the "Current squad" as he joins on 1 July, which is reasonable, although there would appear to be an accepted system of adding an asterisk next to such a player's name and a note stating the player is to join on 1 July. This system is fine by me, but could anyone add any input? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I for one am completely unaware of any such system, and have been removing players that have been added prematurely to the current squad lists of German clubs for the past several weeks now. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I was helping to remove the player since the transfer window is still open and he is officially not a player until 1 July. However, the reference for the roster is to the team's site and the site already shows him as a member of the side. We either need to remove the reference and the player to reflect the transfer window or indicate the player is not, according to FIFA's rules, a member of the side until 1 July, or just ask the edit war to end and leave it alone. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the transfer window in England is currently open, as according to The FA, so that shouldn't be an issue. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wagering number listed on 2010 FIFA World Cup schedule

Someone has decided to add an odds column to the 2010 FIFA World Cup schedule. It will change frequently, it's not particularly encyclopedic, and it sets an odd precedent as this has not been represented in previous tournaments. Any comments are welcome on the talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove immediately without question. as SPAM. WP is not an advertising site for Betfair. Apart from anything else, the odds vary form betting agency to betting agency. Totally non encyclopaedic and inappropriate.--ClubOranje^T 14:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page. there are moves to gain consensus. the determination of 2 eitors in 6 minutes certainly does not constitue as such a consensus. the talk field lists the reasons for each and an accomodation is coming to. Furthermore, the listing and reasons have not been listed here to make a determination, only the views of 1 editor was listed here.Lihaas (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

and adding it has not gained consensus either. It is most certainly against WP:SPAM as the site is blatantly commercial. Please leave it out, carry on the discussion here and if it's considered valid, you can add it back in in 24 hours. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What's more, all of the comments on the article's talk page seem to be against adding it. You're the only one who was in favour of adding it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned WP:Bold states that "Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc." I also made a comment on the talk page as i created the section, then I asked you to say why you thought it was spam, which you have not cited, your opinion is not grounds for assertion. I've repeatedly asked you to use talk, and i have. discuss the issue. I mentioned the source may be off and we can come to an agreement but you absolutely refuse to have it any other way but yours. You still havent given the view on the consensus suggestion being worked out on the requisite talk page. you have simply come here to post your view and then make a pronouncement that the 6 minute conversation here has constituted agreement to remove it. None of the other views and threads were even posted here for discussion. you have simply expected things to go your way as the right way.

Please read my message on the talk page. I said im in agreement on a consensus suggestion, to be productive you can comment on CONTENT. Lihaas (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Content? Whose odds do you use? Why would you even consider odds as encyclopedic? As trivia, sure. Wikipedia isn't a collection of trivia though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hundreds of Google results for World Cup Odds. Here are the top four. The fifth was blocked as SPAM by Wikipedia. (caution: these are mostly commercial sites).

(list of external links to betting sites blanked, we're all capable of using Google) Oldelpaso (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

They probably paid Google the most to be placed high on the key word search. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blanked the betting site links. As an aside, Google does not accept paid placement in the main results. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem with a category

Please investigate Category:FIFA 100 includes 127 articles, even thought the list itself has an article and there were 125 players on it. Does someone want to determine which one is the extraneous addition? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

One is the list itself. Not sure what the other is though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I figured it out--it was Amy Allmann. It was very easy to do: I just opened up the article for every player in my browser and then checked the category to see the one article that wasn't in my history. Obvious. Sorry for the waste of time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Could someone have a look

Could an editor who nows more about notability of footballers have a look at the contributions of Alex latham, they have created a number of new articles about Newcastle United players, they all appear to be academy players which are not notable as far as I am aware. He has also added them to the template of the first team squad Template:Newcastle United F.C. squad, I don't know if they are in fact part of the first team squad, thanks. Mo ainm~Talk 19:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see from the page of Newcastle Untied, the following players are not first team players: 19 Xisco, 25 LuaLua, 29 Zambiera, 34 Forster, 49 Airey, ? Folan, ? Adjei, ? Leadbitter. The following players are first team players but not in the template: 21 Fabrice Pancrate, 22 Nicky Butt, 31 Frank Wiafe Danquah, 32 Wesley Ngo Baheng, 37 Callum Morris, 45 Darren Lough. I didn't check explicity, but at least some of the ones - if not all - not in the first team are listed on the reserve page. Hope that helps. --Bimberbube (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

They're all academy players, and non-notable until they actually play for the first team. None of them have appeared for Newcastle in any recognised first-team competition. This Soccerbase page lists all players appearing for Newcastle last season; the only one named on that page is Ole Söderberg, who has no appearances, but is on that page because he was an unused substitute in at least one game. None of them appear on the corresponding pages for the previous three seasons. I see User:Jimbo online prodded or tagged them {{db-repost}} earlier today, but the tags have mostly been removed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a user education issue and should not have been taken here at the first instance. New users who make productive contributions like this which happen to raise questions regarding our notability guidelines should not be templated to hell and back the day they're autoconfirmed! Every single one of the people who have currently Twinkled away on said user's talk page should be WP:TROUTed repeatedly. Congratulations on scaring off new contributors; you should be proud of the damage you've done to the project today. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chris, whilst it's good to keep faith, it should be pointed out that the user has now made edits containing false information. Whether this is in response to the initial harsh reaction is up for debate, but it none the less changes the issue slightly. Pretty Green (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Xisco and Lua Lua have both played first team ball by the way. Cptnono (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris, I fail to see what your issue is; all I see in the history of this user's page is: **A welcome message, **A standard PROD notice for a PRODable article followed by a polite note regarding notability for said article, **a user-education notice regarding marking edits **another standard PROD notice, **A SPEEDY notice for a G4 article followed by level 1 author removal of speedy educational notice, **An AfD notice for contested PROD followed by multiple warnings regarding removal of deletion notices, **a level 2 notice regarding vandalism for addition of apparently false information to an article.
All fairly standard stuff really. Not overly lovey-dovey, but not overly harsh either. As for it being raised here, the user who raised it (presumably after noting a few new pages on new page patrol) stated it is not their area of expertise and came to an appropriate place in good faith to find someone to assist in the notability judgement calls. Those users who provided friendly welcoming messages, advice and educational snippets for the user also needn't be roundly criticised here either, particularly when it still states at Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion". AFG, BITE and CIVIL apply to existing contributors too. --ClubOranje^T 12:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with ClubOranjeT I nominated one of the articles created using Twinkle, which also notifies the article creator which you are supposed to do, can't see the harm in that. I really don't see the aversion some editors have to templates they do "exactly as they say on the tin" and inform the user what the problem with their edits are. And 4 warnings for removing speedy tags is the standard response to the removal of the tag. I brought this issue here to get as was stated above more informed eyes to rectify the matter, no need for melodrama thumperward, IMO standard procedure was followed. Mo ainm~Talk 16:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle provides a boilerplate message for the sake of fulfilling the notification requirement. It does not adequately inform new users of our policies, and editors who are repeatedly falling foul of them while adding material in good faith should be personally instructed as to what they're doing wrong. Racing to get to an L4 warning isn't helping the encyclopedia. I see said editor hasn't edited for a couple of days, so it's possibly the case that he's gone for good. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Persistent young lad. Still editing, still creating pages for WP:ATHLETE failures, still ignoring all advice and warnings.--ClubOranje^T 19:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Wholesale link rot at Euro 2008

All of the individual match reports for the group matches for Euro 2008 have been overwritten. For example, UEFA_Euro_2008_qualifying_Group_E#Results: each match now points to this: [9]. Leaky Caldron 09:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just replace the www. in the address with en.archive. and you'll be fine. Madcynic (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Didn't work for me. Leaky Caldron 11:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Try again, first report at en.archive works fine with the above replacement. Camw (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it needs a lot more doing to it than simply replacing www. with en.archive. Every match report in group E for example has a generic link to http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro2012/index.html. Just replacing www. with en.archive. gets you to http://en.archive.uefa.com/uefaeuro2012/index.html. http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/euro2012/history/season=2008/round=2241/match=83915/index.html is a diferent link entirely. Leaky Caldron 12:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no generic link to http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro2012/index.html on the group E results page that I can see. Camw (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I did a find-replace on all instances of www.uefa on this page and changed it to en.archive.uefa and the links work fine, you can see the change made in the diffs. Camw (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Up to that point the reports were all pointing to the 2012 home page, presumabaly as a default on the UEFA site for links that have been replaced by them. Your edits to point to the en.archive version have resolved the problem. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 12:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Name of football player lists

Sorry to bring this up again, but this is regarding the arbitrary criteria. There seems to be two options for naming player lists and there is confusing to whether there exists any consensus. I present them here:

1. "List of FOO" (current style)
2. "List of FOO with "insert critera" (proposed style)

• • Sandman888 (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Some clubs such as Birmingham, Gillingham and Bradford City have two player lists - one for players with more than 50 league apps, and one for players with less. Example - List of Bradford City A.F.C. players and List of Bradford City A.F.C. players with fewer than 50 league appearances. Having one list for these clubs would be too large; but some clubs do not have such a rich history as the Bantams! GiantSnowman 23:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps a vote could indicate whether there's any opposition to status quo. Then we cd take it from there. Sandman888 (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Where do you intend to take it? GiantSnowman 12:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Here? Put it down below. I don't know how to propose a vote formally. Sandman888 (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I just say, I'm opposed to lists of players with less than a certain number of appearances. Either there should be a single list that includes the names of every player to have ever played for a club, or there should be a cut-off point (e.g. 50 or 100 appearances) allowing a little more info to be included for each player, such as numbers of appearances, goals and duration of stay at that club. – PeeJay 12:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We already have categories for players of each club, so listing absolutely everyone is not a priority. If we choose to anyway then the Bradford method looks like the best. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, we do have categories, hence why my first option was a bad one. This does perhaps indicate, then, that articles such as All-time Chicago Fire S.C. roster need trimming and bringing into line with articles like List of Chelsea F.C. players. – PeeJay 13:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Worth bearing in mind, of course, that you can't include red links in a category...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. But since we're only discussing professional clubs and every professional player is notable per WP:ATHLETE, there shouldn't really be any redlinks! Alzarian16 (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that really depends on the editor(s) working on the article(s), doesn't it? There's loads of redlinks on the Gillingham F.C. player lists, because realistically there's only me likely to create articles for most of them and, frankly, I don't have the time or the inclination to do them all right now.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, fair point. So I'm inclined to say that we should go with splitting the list at a sensible number (not necessarily the same one for each club), name them by inclusion criteria and maybe have the "List of XXX Players" as a disambiguation page? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm let me see if I understand. If there exists only one article, then it should be named after proposal #2 ? The name in #1 should then be a disamb. page? Sandman888 (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking to start with one list named as in proposal #1, but when goes over a certain length (as many have done already), split it at a number decided on an case-by-case basis and then make the original article a disambig page. Does that sound reasonable? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdented) Yes that sounds fine. As far as I can gather from the comments there doesn't seem to bee any opposition to naming articles after #1 when there's only one. When there's two, I think we should have the criteria in both, redirecting the primary to the primary article, see Talk:List of Arsenal F.C. players#Requested move for arguments. Sandman888 (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the proper procedures are for requests for comment, but we certainly can't start saying there's no opposition to anything when the RfC has only been going one day and only three or four people have commented. Has the RfC been advertised at relevant talk pages? e.g. any or all of WT:FLC, WT:WikiProject Lists, WT:SAL, WT:NCLL? Struway2 (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Five people have commented! That's a five-fold increase! I don't know how RfC works, but of all the links you've listed below there's general consensus that it should be named after #1. I'm not sure those are relevant talkpages (or even active), but I'll notice them. Sandman888 (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• For information: This request for comment stemmed directly from the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Athletic Bilbao players with at least 200 appearances/archive1. However, the general question of footballer lists, re completeness, acceptability of splitting, acceptable criteria for splitting, and naming conventions, has been going on a good bit longer than that. Please see Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. players/archive1 from April 2008, and the recent move requested at Talk:List of Arsenal F.C. players#Requested move which was also provoked by the Bilbao players FLC. Judging by comments made at the Bilbao FLC review and by the closing FL director, it looks as if there will be a problem getting footballer lists featured until consensus is reached on naming (at the very least) and quite possibly on inclusion criteria as well. The relevant page of the Manual of Style would seem to be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists).
• The nominator raised the question at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria reg football player lists, and although an answer took a couple of weeks arriving, the respondent suggested that community consensus was the way to determine "sensible" inclusion criteria, and that so long as those criteria were clearly specified in the lead, it was "neither necessary nor appropriate to change the title to function as a definition". What we couldn't do was stretch the criteria to include (or exclude) people we just happened to fancy leaving in (or out)... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that it's OK for a list to exist without being entirely comprehensive, provided that appropriate inclusion criteria are applied, so why is it that we are apparently intent on creating lists of players with less than 200/100/50 appearances? – PeeJay 13:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that many of us with 1000+ players are that intent on it, too much like hard work. But I imagine those that are, do it to inform the readers. Same reason we create articles on anything else. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but is it really worth it? – PeeJay 13:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec. Just to be clear: A simple "list of all-time FOO players" keeps unchanged? FkpCascais (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC) But honestly, I like the complete lists, much more than the "more than 50 caps" ones. For exemple, I don´t need to see the list to know that R.Carlos, Zidane, Mijatovic or Butragueño played in Real Madrid, but I would fancy to see what minor players had also been part of the club. That is why I like the all-time lists, they include all. FkpCascais (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Vote

• There doesn't seem to be opposition to the status quo, so lets see if we can agree on the naming part. Sandman888 (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • 1. For one article it should be named: "List of FOO" (current style). When split due to size (length) it should be named after the Bradford convention: List of Bradford City A.F.C. players (main article) and List of Bradford City A.F.C. players with fewer than 50 league appearances (spin-off). The inclusion criteria should only be defined in the list's lead section.
    • • comment; above I've added what I believe we took for granted: The inclusion criteria should only be defined in the list's lead section. To those who have voted: Please affirm your vote by updating timestamp. Sandman888 (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Support Sandman888 (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Support GiantSnowman 20:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Support Struway2 (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Support OK, I don't know why this is called the 'Bradford Convention' when List of Port Vale F.C. players with fewer than 50 league appearances was there before it, but I support this.--EchetusXe 10:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • 2. For one article it should be named: "List of FOO" (current style). When split due to size (length), both names should include criteria.
    • Support. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Support. FkpCascais (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • 3. For one article it should be named: "List of FOO with "insert critera" (proposed style). When split due to size (length) it should be named after the Bradford convention.
  • 4. For one article it should be named: "List of FOO with "insert critera" (proposed style). When split due to size (length), both names should include criteria.
  • 5. It should be named "List of [club] players". There should only be one article, limited in size by a set of inclusion criteria.
    • Support – PeeJay 13:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
      • what naming convention should be used? Sandman888 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
        • "List of [club] players". The inclusion criteria should only be defined in the list's lead section. – PeeJay 13:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
          • included above. Sandman888 (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Support per Peejay2K3. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Support per Peejay2K3, providing that it is possible to set inclusion criteria to include ALL players, esp. for teams less than 25 years old. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to include all players, provided that the list doesn't become too big by including all players. In my experience, as long as a tabulated list of players has fewer than 200 entries, it should be workable. – PeeJay 16:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Support per Peejay2K3 & JonBroxton. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• • • ? : I´m not sure, so if explined to me I may change my vote, but if this means eliminating the "All-time players" lists (as many American and European clubs have), that include all players that played in official matches for the club, in favour of limited lists with stricter criteriums, well, I´m against. FkpCascais (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I guess the first thing to look at would be WP:LENGTH, especially for clubs who have been around for over 100 years. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I´m only interested in having some lists that were done after much work, and include for exemple, all players that played official matches for the club (even if 1). Will they survive if they are inside WP:LENGHT? And if not, can they be divided, and how? FkpCascais (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
          • I think what TRM is saying is that you can then split the lists. But that's why i posted above below comment. Sandman888 (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment if Peejays suggestion abides wp:length, it's completely similar to suggestion #1, apart from it doesnt say how lists should be named after a split. Sandman888 (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Query As above, really... What are we voting on here? Is it just what to call the criteria-limited list, because if so there's no difference between this and #1. But the other suggestions include what to call split complete lists as well. In the discussion, PeeJay seemed to be in favour of either just one complete list or just one criteria-limited list, and against a split list, which is how I understand this suggestion "there should only be one article, limited in size by a set of inclusion criteria". If I'm misunderstanding, then it'd hardly be the first time, but if I'm not, then he's effectively proposing that lists such as the complete, but in two parts, List of Gillingham F.C players et al, would be outside the agreed standard. Could someone please clarify. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I understood now (I hope). FkpCascais (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mean eliminating "All time players lists" at all. But if you split the "all time player list" in two, which names should the two parts take? Pick between #1 and #2. Is that clearer? Sandman888 (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see, sorry for the confusion, I just wanted to be sure what are we voting. I already voted, althought, I´m really not sure what is the difference between #1 and #2 because +50, or -50caps, is "inclusion criterium", too. FkpCascais (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay here's two examples to help you understand what the difference is, per WP:LENGTH both are fine, and consensus should determine which we want. Sandman888 (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC):

• Proposal 1. List of Bradford City A.F.C. players (main article) and List of Bradford City A.F.C. players with fewer than 50 league appearances (spin-off).
• Proposal 2. List of Bradford City A.F.C. players with more than 50 league appearances (main article) and List of Bradford City A.F.C. players with fewer than 50 league appearances (spin-off).

Have we forgotten our aim?

This is a WikiProject created with the aim to provide as much information about football players and clubs as possible. Therefore, it boggles the mind as to why editors are suggesting that having two lists - one for over 50 league apps, one for fewer than 50 (if required!) - is wrong? Surely if anything, it is unencyclipedic to limit the information present on Wikipedia! As ChrisTheDude said, categories do not cover redlinked players, and many clubs only have one editor working on player articles. After the disappearance of Peanut4, I am the only editor actoverly creating Bradford City player articles. The list of players with fewer than 50 apps is a great place for me to start (i.e. just knowing the name and dates of a player helps immensely with research), and it will no doubt encourage newer editors as well. With my limited time, resources and abilities, this second list really is priceless. GiantSnowman 18:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem stems from the idea of "50" or "100" etc being some kind of arbitrary cut-off point. Defining an arbitrary cut-off point in the title of the article will just lead to further debate over which clubs can cut-off at 50, 100, 200 etc. And if you cut-off at 200, do you then have a 100 to 200 appearances lists? And a 50 to 100 appearances list? Just seems a little clunky to me. We have to be aware of WP:LENGTH (and then using templates such as {{sortname}} kill loading time), so for some clubs (like Notts County) who have been around for, what, 135 years), there'll be multiple lists, most of which will take an age to load. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

But surely saying that 50/100/200 appearances is the minimum notability requirement to be included on the ultimate list of players is POV - why not 250? 300? At least by having multiple lists, we eliminate this problem. And if super-long lists are an issue, then surely having more, shorter lists is a better solution than having fewer, shorter lists...? GiantSnowman 19:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, shorter lists that don't violate WP:LENGTH are clearly the way ahead, as we've been arguing since this whole thing kicked off several years ago. However, some notability lists aren't just based on "appearances", they have club record holders, players of the year/hall of famers, internationals, what we're now saying is that the only criterion to subdivide player's lists by is appearances only. And then you get into the sticky situation of "league" appearances or club appearances, or whatever else. It's a minefield, and attempting to "name" our lists this way will just turn into chaos, in my opinion. Having clearly defined criteria in the introduction of each list seems, currently, to be the least of all evils. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely as long as the same criteria are used for the same club, then that's the main thing; I mean, I very much doubt we can find appearances not in the League for most clubs, especially those not in the UK...GiantSnowman 20:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Giantsnowman, can you read and say if #1 was what you really voted for? Sandman888 (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

To me, #1 looks like the current Bradford City articles - List of X players and List of X players with fewer than XX league appearances, right? GiantSnowman 20:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that maybe TRM and the other editors want this to be clearly stated: The inclusion criteria should only be defined in the list's lead section. For my part that was implicit in #1, but I've updated the proposal to make it clearer. So if that was what you agreed to in the first place, then that's good! :) Sandman888 (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, the current list being nominated by Sandman888 has friendlies included. And that really was just one example. I thought this was about how to "name" the lists, not really what the inclusion criteria were. So, I'd need to rename the List of Ipswich Town players as "List of Ipswich Town players who have made 100 professional appearances for the club, internationals while at the club, club players of the year and club record holders" if I created another list of Ipswich players? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

OT: It doesn't contain friendlies, only league stats. It could do with some reviews if any in here are interested. Sandman888 (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My view is that if a solitary list of players exists, then it should be named List of X players. If a second list is created for minor players, then the first page name should remain in place, and the second list should be named List of X players with fewer than XX league appearances. Is that what you mean by #1? GiantSnowman 20:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes exactly what I mean. But I think the other editors would like to emphasise that any inclusion criteria goes. I think, I'm unsure what they see as the difference between #5 and #1 or #2. Sandman888 (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The key point with #5 is that it states that there should only ever be one list per club, with inclusion criteria. So we'd have a list of players with 100+ apps and that's it, nothing else should exist. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

One other key point is that we're now saying the only inclusion criteria is (professional?) appearances. Is that what we're all discussing here? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I personally believe that any player with at least one League appearance should be included on any team's player list(s). Infooxes only show League apps, and some sites such as Neil Brown's only log League apps. GiantSnowman 20:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(after several edit conflicts)Reply to TRM re second Ipswich list: no, you wouldn't need a complicated title. You'd just call it List of xxx players with fewer than xx appearances, and the inclusion criteria set out in the lead would describe what a player was, just like they do at the existing List of Ipswich Town F.C. players. If the second list made it complete, then you wouldn't need the complex inclusion criteria at all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying the list title would be partially correct? It would state some kind of "primary" inclusion criteria (i.e. the appearances) but wouldn't include the exceptions, and that would be fine as long it's included in an inclusion criteria statement? If so, then why have any criteria in the title? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What, partial criteria like List of Ipswich Town F.C. players, as opposed to List of players? sorry :-) Perhaps it would make it straightforward if we stuck to appearance-based criteria, rather than stretching the inclusion criteria to cover whatever extras we felt like including. Holders of club records is one that's always bothered me: where's the objectivity in an editor deciding what club records are worth including? If we just went on appearances, at least the naming question would be easier to answer. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahah. So we're getting closer to the rub. We don't need any other criteria, and we're now moving away from the idea that a "clearly defined set of criteria" is acceptable within the list, it needs to be contained within the name of the list? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure where we're heading, it's past my bedtime and I'm not very bright. My view is: lists of footballers should ideally be complete. Where complete, they should if necessary for size reasons split at one or more convenient number of appearances. The first list should be called "List of xxx players" (as is permitted by local consensus as per WP:NCLL#Basic naming) and the second/subsequent something like "List of xxx players: 1–49 appearances", as per WP:NCLL#Long (split) list naming recommendations. Where not complete, as most of them won't be, the "inclusion criterion" should be players with xxx appearances (whether league or total, depending on available sources), a totally arbitrary number (100 is good, or 75 or 50, but I'd say no more than 100) set at a level such that the size of the list isn't unmanageable but still includes a decent amount of the club's players. And no extras. This list should also be called "List of xxx players", as per the reply at WT:SAL#Lead and selection criteria reg football player lists and its lead section should clearly state the inclusion criterion i.e. number of apps. This is what I'd do if I was dictator for a day... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I can agree that we should only use # of apps as inclusion criteria. However I'm not sure what the discussion of criteria has to do with the differences in the naming convention? Sandman888 (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is about how we name lists of players, primarily driven from a failed WP:FLC nomination. Are we now saying the only inclusion criterion is league appearances? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think they really want to merge your Gillingham lists, say, and just disregard LENGTH. I think that would be a void consensus, but I'm not sure. I'm not really sure what the proposal entails, but I think it's the part about inclusion criteria. It was my understanding that it's more or less anything goes as for inclusion criteria. Sandman888 (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

To TRM: Is #5 and #1 now the same in your opinion? To Giantsnowman: do you agree that one can cap off articles? Sandman888 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Rambling Man - no, I'mot saying that League apps are the only criteria; but it is certainly the easiest one to verify, wouldn't you agree? Sandman - what do you mean by "cap[ping] off" lists? GiantSnowman 20:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Like List of FC Barcelona players - this includes players from hall of fame and those with >99 league games. That's me capping off the list so I don't have to worry about including all FCB players. Else I would create "List of FC Barcelona players with less than 99 league games" as a dummy. Sandman888 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't believe in capping off lists. I'm still sure that the approach I have taken at Bradford (i.e. a list of more than 50 League apps, and a list of less than 50 League apps) is the most appropiate. GiantSnowman 21:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So what about lists that aren't just based on league appearances? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

ec, to Giant: But I could just make a list called "List of FC Barcelona players with less than 99 league games" and put like 10 (or no names, maybe just redlink the article name) names in it. Would that be okay? Also see Talk:List of Arsenal F.C. players#Requested_move, for more along these lines. :) Sandman888 (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Rambling Man - if records exist that show ALL "other" appearances for a particular club (i.e. FA Cup, League Cup, European etc. etc.) then that's fine. What I'm trying to say is that most sources available (particularly to me, particularly for Bradford) only show League apps - wop that is what I based the lists upon. Sandman - I have no problem with there being a List of FC Barcelona players and List of FC Barcelona players with fewer than 100 league appearances, should you wish to create that. GiantSnowman 21:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, replying to Struway2 above, who seems to have got my concern nailed, one way or another... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Outcome

So far it seems we only agree on one thing, a single article should be named "List of FOOO" without inclusion criteria in title. When split due to WP:LENGTH, some think we should use inclusion criteria in both titles (#2), while other want the inclusion criteria in the spin-off article name only (#1). There was amended an additional proposition which received much support, but it is unclear to this editor, and it has not been explained by those who support it, how it is different from #1 and #2. Sandman888 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

May I provide a neutral point? I am going to take a thing I have done on the Copa Libertadores page and suggest it for this issue; we have an all-appearance list being formulated for every player that has participated in the tournament. Obviously, we aren't going to have a table of it on the main article (or which ever page the information comes up at). So, in order to compromise both ends I ended up having an all-appearance page separate from the subject's statistic page. On the statistic page itself, I inserted a top-10 table with a link to its main article (being the all time appearances of players in the Copa Libertadores).

On this situation, how about we go ahead and create a page dedicated for every player that you know has played for that club. Not only that, we could include a mark (i.e. an asterisk or something) next to each player that has x amount of appearances or more, etc. and the main article, why not just have a top-10 or top-20 list. Jamen Somasu (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the above entails. However I'd like to know if there's agreement on the naming of single artices? Namely that it should be "List of FOOO" without inclusion criteria in title as all above have voted for (though with different criteria regarding splits, and some, apparently, against splits). Sandman888 (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

England v Hungary (1953)

I have to say, as far as cringeworthy POV goes, the above wins gold. Hopefully someone with more time than I can take their mop to it. - Dudesleeper talk 01:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This also applies to its "sister" article, Golden Team. I especially (dis)like

The Magical Magyars' performance had been revelatory that seemed to presage a tactical revision of the game from static models into a versatility-based new age that allowed players maximum freedom of movement and a compelling case of inceptive modern football up against the dated pre-war operating system.

Or, how about

. . . this triune partnership of Puskás and Kocsis up front with a force-multiplier leveraged in Nidegkuti that opened many doors of attack across inflexible defenses to obviate and subordinate all traditional systems.

Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I brought this up with Gallopingmajor (talk · contribs) in October last year. This is a case of overenthusiasm for the subject by a knowledgeable editor who can't remain impartial. The only good system for resolving that is to get more eyes on the problem, which likely extends right across that editor's range of edits. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Live scores (again)

Well, it's that time of the year again – World Cup time – and people are naturally attempting to update the match scores as the goals go in. Is this something we are prepared to tolerate? – PeeJay 16:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd choose option 4. Sure, it shouldn't really be done, but it doesn't actively harm anything and it is practically impossible to stop. No point tilting at windmills. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, letting it happen is much better than constantly reverting every user (including me) who adds the information as the game goes on and as the user above me said, "it doesn't actively harm anything."--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, but we must be strict about the provision of a source for these live updates. If a source cannot be provided, what then? – PeeJay 16:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we only get this issue on matches millions of people are watching. Is it being a problem on articles for events that are difficult to source? Oldelpaso (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A source can usually be provided easily anyway. Those updates will not be made just here but on the respective match covering sites by probably every major reliable source in the world (BBC for example). So I don't think that's really a problem. Regards SoWhy 17:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I've been going on, once BBC's live updates posts it I add it. While I can see it live, I'd rather see the update from a reliable source first before I add it in so I can make sure it was that player who scored or who received a card.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 17:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a news source. In addition, breaking news should not be treated differently or emphasized from other information. This is exactly what happens when with live scores since it is italized and treated differently than the other information on the page. So I object to adding live score. With that being said, don't go into an edit way removing live score. Similarly, don't add live scores knowing we won't remove it. Digirami (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with so many above that it is just impracticable to try to establish some rule against these live updates, however sound the arguments against it are. We should just watch out that the fact that these matches are ongoing is well visible.

As to the sources argument: Not every statement on Wikipedia needs a source, but every statement needs to be "sourceable". That is it must be possible to provide a source if someone adds a "fact-tag". I do not think that anyone would seriously consider to add such a tag while millions are watching. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course it is a news source. It's the BBC reporting. Just because it's being updated live does not make it fail our WP:RS guideline. I also fail to see how a different treatment is happening (being written in italics can't be the sole reason, can it? No one says it has to be in italics after all), so please explain. Regards SoWhy 18:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Digirami meant that Wikipedia is not a news source, not that the BBC isn't. – PeeJay 18:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you the BBC is a reliable source and all that's happening is the game is being treated a current event (which it is), this is no different than a person dying and millions of editors adding new information as it becomes available. It's only seen differently since it's a sporting event.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be acceptable to update the group pages but not the schedule which should show the scheduled time and final results only. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, if you're talking about the schedule on the 2010 FIFA World Cup article. Those shouldn't be updated until the game is over.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes and 2010 FIFA World Cup schedule‎. BTW: nice job of adding the game numbers to the article, and contrary to the reverts, Germany Australia is game 7 not game 8. Game 8 was played before game 7. Go figure. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see verification as the problem, it is that which is "challenged or likely to be challenged" where the citation is required, and this is uunlikely, and could be easily found with the number of live text commentaries on-line. I suspect that very few people who are not regular users of wikipedia use this site to check the state of matches in progress, and so they gradually become used to the implicit "italics=match in progress" convention. It shouldn't happen, but repeated attempts at curtailing the habit have failed, and only a small proportion of editors on the articles of the World Cup would get the message here.

But making the above assumption is a dis-service to readers who do not know/divine that convention, and could walk away from their computers assuming that the game has finished with that score. So may I present the templates {{match in progress}} and his quicker to type, but otherwise identical, brother {{mip}}, which would give us the current (as I type) reality:

Germany	2 – 0in progress	Australia	Moses Mabhida Stadium, Durban

Is this a suitable way of serving our readers, while accommodating our over-enthusiastic editors? (I am aware of ((in progress}}, but the icon makes it unsuitable for one line match listings) Kevin McE (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Space between score (with en-dash) and template {{mip}}. I'm not sure an encyclopedia is the right place for live scores though. It also puts more stress on the servers. The more edits the more work that is involved when rendering the page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I find it suitable. i was myself implementing a much more complicated solution with a footnote, but the template you show comes in much more handy. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And within 10 minutes of using the template for the first time, an anonymous editor has had Tfd'ed it, so I guess future comments should go there. but "reluctantly" withdrew a couple of hours later. I'm not enormously happy that it needs to exist, but pragmatically, do those here consider it worth trying to get this into use? Kevin McE (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with anon. It's completely unencyclopedic. It will create greater load for the servers as more edits are applied. keep it away from the schedule and the current season pages as well. Wikipedia is not a source for breaking news. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe we are actually not supposed to worry about the server load. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 23:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Occupational hazard to worry about server load. I'm a software testing specialist. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that it is probably mainly new or casual users making such edits. What about trying to win them over to a better way of doing things? If they are today's commentators (providing goalflashes etc.) then we need to persuade them that, on Wikipedia at least, they could contribute much more as tomorrow's football historians. There will always be in-match updates but for some editors it may be all they know how to contribute to start with. We may be able to get some of them on board and contributing more than just score updates. --Jameboy (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've become convinced that the best way of doing so is to allow them a little leeway here, to welcome them and to let them expand to more permanent topics themselves. We waste too much time on rolling back edits which will probably stick right now; better to allow the tons of IPs who go after current scorelines to keep themselves accurate (which works on the same principles as the rest of the encyclopedia does) and concentrate any rollback efforts on BLPs and less-watches pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:2010 FIFA World Cup Group C

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Nothing to see. This has gone on too long. The conflict is, to quote others, "shortsighted" and "a waste of time". Leaving this open will only fan the fire. Let it be and move on. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

---

There's a discussion there which deserves a wider audience. Tempers have been raised and a user has requested intervention at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I think here would be a better place to resolve it. Hasn't there been at least one similar discussion, maybe in 2006? --John (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for other parties, but I'm sorry for my part in losing my temper in that discussion. However, the fact remains that Group C is currently incorrect, and it's been frustrating why this isn't clear to others: England and the US are both tied for 2nd place with 1 point each. Putting a green line in between them making it seem like one is in 2nd place and one is in 3rd place is misleading. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The current state of Group C is the same order as is represented in the FIFA standings page. So you aren't saying that the order is incorrect. The line is not incorrect either because it doesn't say that England won't qualify but that if placement does not change, they will not qualify. Consider the template that represents league standings. The top teams don't qualify for promotion after the first game day, nor do the bottom teams qualify for relegation. Does that mean that those qualities should no be displayed in that table? -Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. Just like we have on all other league tables (example), we're not going to have two red lines and 4 green lines and 2 blue lines on the top and bottom just because EVERY team can qualify for every position. chandler 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Then it's better to have no green lines. The US is placed above England arbitrarily on the FIFA site, and it's unclear if there's any reasoning as to why one is above the other. The only thing is clear is that they both are tied for 2nd place, Slovenia is in 1st place, and Algeria is in 3rd place, but only two of those four teams will advance. The green line is a big marker saying that either the US would advance while England wouldn't or vice versa where there is no verifiable evidence that is true. It's extremely incorrect and misleading given the current data. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it better not to have a relegation and promotion colours as well? Would you like to make the case for that? You seem to be the only one arguing for your point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We're not discussing relegation and promotion colors. We're discussing the fact that the US and England are tied for 2nd place and showing it any other way is inaccurate. This is a simple fact, and anything portraying it otherwise is wrong. It is only unfortunate that a consensus on this was reached before activists here tried to destroy that consensus. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right, we're talking about how to display the final outcome of a tournament and precedent has been set in the league tables that shows the outcome at the start of the season. That carries forward to all tournaments. We're not discussing your puny point of the US and England being in second and third place (not tied for second according the FIFA results). As was already mentioned, group A all have the same number of points. I'm sorry that you don't understand those fine points. Consensus was reached in the football community, not only the football project, that this is the correct order, and the football project is simply maintaining that precedent across to this tournament. So either we fix your "problem" and the league table based on it, or we leave things the way they are. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Until you want to accept the reality that both the US and England both have 1 point and are tied for 2nd place according to FIFA, I see no reason to reciprocate this conversation due to your incivil behavior and just continue to repeat this simple fact until reality is accepted here. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I can guarantee that when the group is finalised, there will be no ties. There will be a 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th. Two teams will qualify and two teams won't. Spending time arguing about something that will sort itself out within days is a waste of everyone's time. There is much to be done elsewhere on Wikipedia in the meantime. --Jameboy (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Lovely condescending attitude, however you're asking us to accept something we don't deny. The table clearly shows that the clubs have an even standing. The green line does not represent what you think it does though. It represents the cut-off after the final games in group C are played. Now allow me to respond in kind: until you accept the reality that the green line is staying, you will find yourself exceeding WP:3RR again and the next time, you will likely not be given a free ride. You and you alone seem to find the green line a stumbling block to understanding what the table represents. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The template is fully protected now anyway. In future, please refrain from edit warring over ephemeral trivia like this before people start getting block records that they don't deserve. That goes for everyone involved. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was actually going to make a similar comment to Jameboy. This is a ridiculous argument that will change in 5 days. However, it is not difficult to remove the lines and most sources I looked at (Telegraph Guardian BBC Yahoo Daily Mail Washington Post) did not have a distinct break between 2nd and 3rd. One that did was CNN, but all these sources listed England higher (alphabetical order). I suggest FIFA puts the USA above because it might have some old sort by # y cards in the tables (instead of "arbitrarily") but that isn't a tie-breaker for the WC. Anyway, this argument is futile and if it will stop the bickering so people will go and do something useful just take out the lines and put them back in after match 3. It will take a matter of seconds! I hope we can just end this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what's confusing. In English, England is alphabetically before United States. Then I thought, FIFA is French, but Angleterre is also before États-Unis. In Afrikaans, it's Engeland and Verenigde State, so FIFA must have tie-breaking formula that isn't in play here. For the record, I would prefer to have the template be entirely calculated based on the results. The promotion colours used in league play used only after the final games are played in a group. However, that's not the case. Maybe in four years though. One further thing, the he CBC not only doesn't display a line, it display England over the US. However, short of changing all groups now and again once the final game is played, which has not been suggested, the line should stay in place. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This argument is ridiculous. It's just a line. It will be resolved in about a week. Just follow the FIFA website standings and if you're so picky about this tied-for-second thing, put a little bullet point below the table saying, USA and England are tied for second as done in the 2010 Africa Cup of Nations. --MicroX (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, this argument is pointless. In a week and a half time the group will be concluded and the correct final table updated. You wonder why some good editors clear off citing the poor standard of football pages, when you argue over something trivial, petty and shortsighted as this. 91.106.112.111 (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think FIFA's tie breaker is probably pretty obvious, most people would use alphabetical order, but either they're ranking USA ahead on away goals (something that isn't mentioned in the rules, just perhaps automatic in their system) OR they actually have as their rules said drawn lots for which order they're shown in. The order doesn't really matter (FIFA lists USA, so we should as well), but the line should be permanent and constant, it doesn't matter if teams are tied on points the line stays where it is because only 2 teams can qualify. For Euro 2016 we'll have to make our minds up how to do with they're probably bringing back the system used in the 24 team World Cups... but that's 6 years away chandler 23:17, 14 June 2010 (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.

Football project mentorship

A user involved with this project, Jamen Somasu (talk · contribs), has recently been the subject of an RfC on user conduct. As a result of this RfC, it has been posited that the user should be mentored by an experienced editor who works in his field but is not involved in the issues raised at the RfC. A volunteer is needed to assist as a mentor. It was suggested that we first ask here for a volunteer, since this is Jamen Somasu's primary area of content. If you have comments, suggestions, or other information that might be helpful, please consider commenting at the RfC's talk page. There, you will also find the criteria for reinstatement that Jamen Somasu will have to accept before being unblocked. Thanks for your time and efforts. — KV5 • Talk • 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

French football clubs new logos

Hey WF, I am having trouble uploading the new crests for several French football clubs (also a little confused about non-free content is uploaded) and was wondering if a more experience user in this field had the time, they could show me how or do it themselves? The following clubs have new crests: FC Lorient, Vannes OC, Stade Brestois 29, AC Arles-Avignon, FC Sochaux-Montbéliard, Le Mans Union Club 72 (effective 1 July), and AS Cannes. There are others, but I feel these are more important for now since many of them play in Ligue 1 and Ligue 2. Thank you. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for thinking about that...I've already uploaded some logos. What you should do is creating a new file, for example you copied the new Vannes OC logo at File:VannesOC.png, which was the old logo name. When doing that, we lost the old logo which, in my opinion, should be left in the article, for example in history sections. Create the file File:VannesOCnew.png or whatsoever and add the new logo; copy and paste tags and fair use, but change club name and links. Then you've got it! (if you really need help, I may do it in the future) Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Since most club logos get amended now and then, I would propose to name the file VannesOC2010logo.png or similar instead of just adding "new" to the name... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup goals with disputed scorers

Article was nominated for deletion (not by me), the discussion can be found there. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sahrawi national football team & Sahrawi Football Federation

Clearly the country hasn't played any national football in a long time according to online sourcing. There are just two citations on the pages, they aren't good enough. The sources aren't all that clear. Some of the arguments on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Sahara national football team don't seen so clear. Not one source seems to hold any real weight, I feel we should re-review these pages. Govvy (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

On a personal level I feel we could review all of the NF board teams, particularly sides such as Aramean Syriac football team, Yap football team, South Moluccas national football team, who have no regular record of football participation. It's never really been established what it is that qualifies a football team at this level for an article. If it is simple WP:GNG, then I think a few of them might struggle. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Another question is why are these articles called "X national football team" when they are not the team of a nation? Surely a name such as "South Moluccas representative football team" would be more accurate. BigDom 21:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the question of what is and isn't a "nation" or "state" is a very gray area. It can sometimes make issues like this difficult to pigeonhole. There is a good little blurb here concerning the use of flags. Although it is a specific example of WP policy regarding flags, the ideas behind it apply in a more general way as well. Suffice to say, defining what are or aren't nations can be a sensitive topic. Where a "nation" is clearly just a sub-nation or a state-within-a-state then I suggest just dropping the "national" from the page title. I agree with Pretty Green: several or many of these types of articles would likely not pass GNG. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)