Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

"Crest" v "Badge"

Hello all, User:Achowat is going about making dozens of changes from "crest" to "badge" after unilaterally deciding to move Star (football badge) to Star (football crest) himself without discussion (at least, without any discussion I've seen). I have advised him that this sort of mass change would ordinarily be done following a quick chat here at the project. I wonder if anyone else has anything to add to this? For what it's worth, a quick check on badge vs crest reveals that many clubs use either/or, and as such I think that this kind of move is not without controversy, so I'd like to get a wider perspective. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I got no opinion on that. But, i'd say that list, especially the club's one does not belong in the article because its not notable. -Koppapa (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Keresaspa changed crest to badge at Darlington F.C. some time ago, and explained why at Talk:Darlington F.C.#Crest. Their reasoning was that in heraldry a crest is something that stands on top of a helmet, and isn't a coat of arms or suchlike at all, so changing it would improve the accuracy of the article. The proper heraldic word is "achievement", apparently, but badge is a suitable real-world alternative. I believed them, anyway :-) Don't know if that's why Achowat's doing it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As the person making the change, let me just explain my reasoning. First, Koppapa was correct, when speaking in terms of heraldry, the Crest is simply the part of a great Coat of Arms that describe what lies on top of the helmet. Because Scottish Clan Badges are taken from the Crest of the Clan Chief, the belief that the term "Crest" refers to the entire Coat of Arms (or, as Struway2 puts it, "armorial achievement") is widespread, and strictly-speaking incorrect. Now, because so many Club Badges look like (or in some cases, are) Coats of Arms, this usage moved over to football badges. The problem comes that our Football coverage doesn't echo our Heraldry coverage. Badge is the correct term (as opposed to crest, by it's actual definition or its incorrect application, or Coat of Arms) because, frankly some-if-not-most Club Badges do not even attempt to parallel Coats of Arms. Looking at just the Premiership, I could point to Tottenham Hotspurs F.C., Bolton Wanderers FC, the once and future use of the Liverbird exclusively on Liverpool FC kits, Blackburn Rovers, Swansea City and Wolverhampton Wanderers as clubs that make no attempt to echo Heraldry. And I'm sure I could find similiar results for any league in any country across the world. "Crest" (if taken to mean Coat of Arms) is an exclusive term, it doesn't account for every Club Badge in the way "Badge" does. That being said, this is where the footballing Wikipedians congregate, so I'll be more than happy to allow WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to rule if it is deemed this change is to the detriment of the pages in question. Achowat (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I thought it would be useful to gain a consensus before changing every single instance of it across the Wikipedia. Some British clubs (Toffees, Magpies, Brum etc after a two-second Google) seem to use it exclusively or interchangeably. I didn't think a unilateral move and mass edit was good form. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why use of crest in the context of football should be the same as it is in heraldry: does WP:BIRDS complain that heraldry use the word differently than they do? I'm sure football articles use the word captain in a very different way than those on military personnel. If there is a long tradition of football teams using the term to refer to their badges, then the nature of a living language is that this becomes an auxiliary meaning of the word. So long as the link is appropriate, why should it be a problem? If the club consistently refer to it as a crest, then our not doing so would be to act contrary to the sources. Kevin McE (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue with that solution (which would be a fine solution, throughout) is that there are some clubs that refer to the icon exclusively as a Crest, some exclusively as a Badge, and some use the term interchangably. When talking about the impetus for this change (namely Star (football crest)) we can only use one name. It seems the simplest solution would be to use "Crest" when 'crest' is used by the sources, exclusively, and "Badge" when both are used, when only 'badge' is used, and in cases where the translation of non-English texts are unambiguous. Achowat (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but without any centralised discussion over a clearly subjective issue (as you concede above), you moved the page from crest to badge, and then set about "fixing" redirects on dozens of pages. I would suggest you undo it all and let individual clubs and their interested editors make that decision with more specific knowledge. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

My change was made based on my firm and clear understanding of football terminology and Heraldic conventions. In all of my changes (of which I stopped when I was informed of this conversation opening up, and through it informed that the changes were "controversial") I made the change that I deemed was benefitial to the accuracy and consistency of the Encyclopedia. Going back now and undoing those changes would be against the tradition of discussing controversial changes before making them. There was (evidently) a controvery to what I had already done, and as such, there would be a controversy in changing it again. I'm not going to revert based on a lack of consensus especially given that we are already involved in the consensus-building process. If you would care to make those changes yourself, pending consensus, I would have no issue with that. But simply asking "individual clubs" to make that determination is folly, in my opinion, because the supporters of a club don't own their club pages. Engaging in a broader discussion about a broader issue seems more in keeping with what we are trying to do here. Achowat (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We base Wikipedia on reliable sources including the club homepages. As I pointed out, a number of them refer to their emblem as a "crest". Your move is "controversial" so should go by WP:RM, and you should seek consensus before making unilateral edits across the whole encyclopaedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, as in regard to WP:RM, I can honestly say that I did not expect such a firestorm over the move. In fact, I had changed various page sections from Crest to Badge that still stand (including one dilligently watched by an editor who is both an Admin and pretty overtly a supporter of that club). My intention was not to "mindlessly and wrecklessly change pages across the encyclopedia". In fact, the changes we only made to the <40 pages which, at the time, linked to Star (football crest). The real issue, the content issue (notwithstanding whether my behavior was "Too Bold") is what to label crests/badges/logos when the terms are used interchangably or when referring to all of them, en masse (like on the [[Star (football X)]] page). Essentially, if we were going to have an article on the identifying symbols on the upper-lefthand side of football shirts, what would we call it. Of course there would be cases where individual clubs would, in reliable sources, refer to that symbol as a "Crest". In all of those cases, "crest" is the proper term, and I doubt anyone would be willing to dispute that. The bigger question is in regards to the "default" term (for lack of a better word): Which word do we use when there are no sources pointing to one term or the other? Which word do we use when both are used? That's the real question we should be dealing with. Achowat (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No firestorm at all, just an objection to a unilateral decision to move the page and change the links to it. Take it to WP:RM, notify the major contributors (e.g. this project) and we'll see what happens next. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems a little foolish to go through the process of "notifying major contributors" when this discussion is already taking place. So let's wait some time, solicit other relevant opinions (per WP:3O, not WP:CAN) and we'll see what happens next. In the meantime, the only "non-controversial" change, it would seem, would be to use "crest" and "badge" in any circumstances where the Sources use that term, exclusively. Feel free (encouraged, really) to make those changes. Achowat (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, using whichever term wherever appropriate seems the most logical approach, which puts into question why you decided on you own course of action? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Because, absent a discussion on the issue, I was bold and did what I, in good faith, thought would be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. You keep bringing up the actions that were taken, despite my explanation of them on here and on my user talk. I thought that my actions were in keeping with the best way to build a better encyclopedia, and you do not. Either way (as my father would say) "You can't should have done something". The action was taken, and now the proper course should be to discuss if the edits were beneficial to the project (the edits, not the way they were made) and take any corrective action, if need be. I must ask, in all seriousness, what your opinion is on the name of Star (football badge). Though, while researching it, it seems that the easiest solution to the naming of that particular article would be Star (football). Achowat (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Commercial brand named leagues

I became a bit perturbed when I just observed an article move Fair Play ligaen → Oddsenligaen for the Norwegian 2nd division. I would like to have this article, and similar articles, named generically. I also object to having the mention of the sponsors imcluding discussion about change in sponsors appear in the lede paragraph, which is obviously hard to avoid with the article eponymously named after its sponsor's leading brand. Has there been much discussion about this matter in the past? __meco (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you specify your objection using WP encyclopaedic policy justifications such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV & WP:OR? Leaky Caldron 23:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(editconflict) I made this move, as the league has been renamed, but maybe I should have moved it back to Norwegian Second Division instead, we cannot keep move this article around if it changes name every third year (In opposition to Tippeligaen, which has been the name for the last 20 years). It should be noted that this article was moved from Norwegian Second Division to Fair Play ligaen in January 2010 in response to the Requested move of Norwegian Premier League to Tippeligaen. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Currently all English football competitions use the non-sponsored name. However, for foreign leagues a few sponsored names have stuck - e.g. the Gambrinus liga (although if you read the talk page, the main stumbling block to moving it seems to have been the issue of what the non-sponsored name should be, rather than support for the sponsored name). Number 57 23:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I definitelly favour generical names in opposition to sponsor ones. The main problem to this is that the sponsor name is actually the official one, however it becomes inconsistent to have different seasons of same legue named differently. But, if possible, I beleve it would be benefitial to have generical names for the leagues as title, and the sponsor name well explained in the lead with an obvious redirect avaliable.

A similar situation can be found in some clubs. For instance, FK Sloboda Užice was renamed into FK Sloboda Point Sevojno in 2010, however the former (and historical) name returned one year later, basically making a number of totally unnecessary moves/edits in all related articles. Another situation happends with FK Spartak Zlatibor Voda which was troughout its history known as FK Spartak Subotica, until 2008 when after a merge it changed its name replacing the city name for the company one. However, the name change is so unconsistent, that even the official club crest remains using the historical name... FkpCascais (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is an agreed-upon generic name, then it should be used in the article title and note of the sponsorship should be made in the article itself. It works for the Premier League and it works in basketball and American football as well. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 01:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I see the contours of a consensus here which more or less falls in line with my initial sentiment. Perhaps there should be a policy discussion related to article naming so that we could have it in writing that relatively transient sponsor-directed names of leagues, teams and what have you, should be avoided as a general rule, with the admitted exception where the sponsored name has gained such prevalence as to make the generic name unknown to the public. I also take this discussion as an acquiescence to my goal of having the aforementioned league moved back to Norwegian Second Division. __meco (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Barely sufficient discussion about the subject for you to presume that it is agreeable. The "contours of a consensus" it might be but I asked whether you could support your opinion based on policy. Can you? As things stand, having a personal goal isn't convincing. Leaky Caldron 14:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I only asked for advice from this page. __meco (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That's fine and absolutely understood. What you should not expect to get from this project page is a definitive statement based on WP:5P and other content policies. As I know from recent experience, it is entirely possible for decisions to be "made" here which have, at least, a debatable basis in policy and upon consensus which is inadequately determined and documented for the benefit of all. I think these pages are great for determining the style & uniformity of appearance standards, etc. I have reservations about the scant attention given to encyclopaedic content based on WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV etc. Leaky Caldron 15:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I figured this would be the most likely place where precedents for this particluar naming issue would be known and cared about. __meco (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You would be entitled to think that. All you have been given so far is well-intentioned editor preference - not a consensus. Leaky Caldron 15:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I rather feel that Meco's "contours of a consensus" comment indicates a better understanding of what consensus is and isn't on Wikipedia than your continued insistence (debunked on the current St James' Park RfC) that consensus lies in "definitive statement[sa] based on WP:5P and other content policies". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Chris, I can tell that you are annoyed by my interventions in relation to establishing WP:CONSENSUS or in identifying existing consensus. It is not my intention to antagonise you further. I would point out that in reading the policy page the word "policy" is referenced 21 times and "guidelines" 9 times. Furthermore, both Reaching consensus through editing and Reaching consensus through discussion on the Consensus policy page make it clear that decisions, discussions and edit summaries should make reference to the relevant content policy or guideline which supports or refutes a particular edit or revert. Simply stating that there is a consensus or making reverts without it being clear to other interested editors why, does not comply with the consensus policy itself and is a barrier to entry for editors not involved with WP:FOOTY. Leaky Caldron 14:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that I'm 90% on your side as regards "secret rules" in WikiProjects. However, this is not some secret rule: it's just one where consensus developed over a long period of disparate discussions. The important thing is that the majority of participants in those discussions feel the same way about the result and can explain the rationale behind it. We cannot codify every single thing on Wikipedia where editors may have a difference in opinion. The argument that it confuses newcomers to a given domain is a valid one, but is that really aided by pointing newcomers to some massive tome of previous rulings and expecting them to read the entire lot in advance? The big problem with secret rules is where they actively contradict wider project consensus, rather than simply where they happen not to be explicitly codified. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

They way you discuss the term consensus it looks somewhat as if you mix the term up with another: compliance. I.e. there is consensus between editors, but there is compliance with the policies and guidelines. There is also no formal correspondence between the two, although there should be be in practice: a consensus may exist even though it violates the policies and guidelines. Of course, if edits are made based on a situation like that, it will be easy to overturn them later by calling in more opinions, referring the matter to the relevant noticeboards, etc. __meco (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

After reading through WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES, my conclusion is that Oddsenligaen should be moved back to Norwegian Second Division without controversy, while a RM is needed if Adeccoligaen is to be moved back to Norwegian First Division since "Adecco" or "Adeccoligaen" is as much used as "1. Divisjon". Tippeligaen should stay, because there have never been another official name of the league since the rename in 1991 (Eliteserien is unofficial and ambiguous) and "Norwegian Premier League" is, as far as I know, a Wikipedia-constructed name. But if there should be consistency between the league-names, the solution might be different. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

FIFA do use Norwegian Premier League in addition to the sponsored name, so it's not OR. Number 57 16:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Aah, okei. Thanks for letting me know, always wondered where it came from (or maybe FIFA used wikipedia as reference :P). Anyways, on the Norwegian league table on fifa.com, the name is Tippeligaen. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and when a competition or stadium has been known by a sponsored name for its entire existence (as is the case here), there is a reasonable argument for keeping it at that name (I've never heard the Toto Cup in Israel called anything but that, despite it being a sponsored name). Number 57 16:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Malmö FF seasons FLC

The list has been FLC since mid February and has now moved to the old nominations. I'd appreciate any feedback or support for the list. Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Billy Whitehurst

Possible BLP issue, see end of first para. Putting it here for a second opinion. Thank you. - Cloudz679 15:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reworked the offending sentence, with no objection to the content being reworked into the article with adequate sourcing. —WFC— 16:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I am perilously close to completely gutting the article, it's in absolutely awful shape... GiantSnowman 16:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Had a look through the edit history and it is somewhat alarming that the offending material dates from the original version in 2006. Thank you WFC and GS for your assistance. Cloudz679 16:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"When he was at Oxford, he was rumoured to be supplementing his weekly pay, and winding down, with some bare-knuckle tomfoolery with local gypsies." says The Guardian.--EchetusXe 21:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Doubt

I bring this situation forth here as a member of the "force" (so that also covers the second point obviously, i edit almost exclusively in soccer): i know that sometimes different people may use the same IP address, as the computers are located in cybercafes, libraries, etc, etc. My doubt is, is there any possiblity that the same IP address is located in different households (albeit in the same building or so)? This is because i have been subjected to the most vile attacks after a run-in in the Quique Flores article, and a checkuser has already proven that two editors with it related (the "bad one" User:Xxxx693, the "good one" User:Scoelho86) edited from the same computer.

Attentively, ty very much in advance - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That depends on how dynamic his IP is. I'm sure about Canada, I'd imagine it would be pretty static. I don't suppose that tool reveals the MAC address? Anyway, if the "bad user" and the "good user" both have a grudge against you for the same reason then the fact they have the same IP address pretty much proves they are one and the same.--EchetusXe 09:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem, SCOELHO does not seem to hold a grudge, only XXXX693, the former has been nothing but helpful, while the latter attacks me in ways you can't imagine. Thanks for your input man! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok, perhaps they are different people but work/live together, or perhaps he gets mad when he has been drinking. You can request a sockpoppet investigation if you think they are the same person, or you can just ask an admin with some proper tools to investigate for you.--EchetusXe 16:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

I would appreciate any comments from WikiProject Football members, regarding the Ryan Giggs article at Talk:Ryan_Giggs#.22in_his_900th_game_for_club_and_country.22. Thank you. Cloudz679 10:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone has the wrong measuring tape :)

In David Fernández, the following: both Spanish-speaking wikis "give" him 1,77, as the new link i just provided (his DEPORTIVO career - "archives"). However, both links available in English (he spent ages in Scotland) "say" he's 1,73 (or 1,72).

With what piece of info shall we go? Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Latter. The Catalan version was created in June 2009 and the height has remained the same ever since. Plus it has no sourcing. – Lemonade51 (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Squad lists

Is the 2012 Algarve Cup squads article worth keeping, i.e. notable? It's a friedly tournament (although maybe the best known/most significant) for women's national teams. -Koppapa (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks to be a reasonable content fork from 2012 Algarve Cup. Needs some references though. GiantSnowman 16:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Caribbean Football Union

Could I ask people to come and have a read through of the Caribbean Football Union article? Thanks. TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

From a quick reading i'd say too much of the article is spent on the scandal. -Koppapa (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

An understatement if ever there were one. I'll see about at least flagging this and sorting out all the crud in the lead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Managerial changes table

Greetings,

I asked about this about a few weeks ago, but this content dispute hasn't been resolved and is getting annoying. This IP user in Italy insists that the "Managerial changes" section in the 2011–12 Serie A article has to be two tables because of some league rule. I highly insist that this goes against our general policy of consistency across articles and it should only be one table (just like every other league season article). I'm afraid there can be no compromise between the IP address and myself; it's one or the other. Can someone else please offer their opinion on the content of this dispute? Thank you. Digirami (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep it the same. I dont know what the IP user means by some rule. As far as I am concerned and probably every other user here is concerned it should be 1 box and that is it. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 08:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep it as one box, whatever the IP is rambling on about makes no sense and would have no effect on how Wikipedia formats its articles in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

While this and the like are plainly not productive, the correct place to have this discussion is on the talk page and not edit summaries. From what I can see you've never even informed the IP of these discussions: not everyone can be expected to check WT:FOOTY every time someone claims a consensus that hasn't obviously been established on talk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely worth notifying the IP but doubt the article talkpage gets any traffic at all, so this is a better place for a discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution between two parties on a given page is supposed to start on that page's talk. The WikiProject may be notified of that talk, but this page is far, far too busy for every bit of DR to happen here. Ideally, the only discussions which should actually take place on this page are more central or wide-ranging questions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, noted, but we're here now, so instead of cluttering up the discussion (which is exactly the opposite thing to do), perhaps you could comment on the issue at hand. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There's already a fairly clear consensus. The problem is that this was never communicated to the IP. Which is why we're back here. The easy way to end this is to add a note to the talk page, and to the talk page of the current IP, informing them of this discussion and inviting comment. That should hopefully end this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave a message in the talk page to come here. One of the problems with the other user is that he constantly changes IP addresses, even though it's clearly the same person behind each one. Digirami (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, this isn't the first time I take this issue to this talk page. I did it a few weeks ago (see here). The IP user commented, I commented, one other user commented... But that's it. Digirami (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Mr Digirami, who knows only the South American football, has forgotten to add that the version of the two tables have been inserted by the administrator Angelo.romano, super expert of Italian football on 30 January 2012 at 19:24. The previous version was a compromise as agreed in previous question. It is so right that everyone is dealing with a subject only if he knows the rules: this is not a game. --93.56.242.46 (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I know more than South American football. But that's besides the point. What you need to realize is that just because an admin inserted the table, does not make it is the final version. One editor, not even Mr. Wales, can decide the final content of any article. It has always been based on community consensus. And as of now, the leading consensus is for one table. Your version was never a compromise. The one table format has been in place in every other league season article across the project. As far as I can tell, it is the overwhelming preferred format for that content. Digirami (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The necessittà to have the two tables had already been highlighted in previous discussions and it is confirmed that the rules of Italian football is absolutely essential because a coach can not coaching 2 teams is sacked if the championship started but will do so if the exemption occurs before. In this season it happened that for Donadoni and Pioli can not be mentioned in the same table, to avoid unnecessary confusion.

Each country has its own rules and you can then make a rule the same for all as wants Digirami.--93.56.242.46 (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The "need" for two tables has never been addressed in any discussion within this project. You've made it up to legitimize your argument. No coaching rule justifies having it as two table since it is absolutely pointless to have two tables when one table does the job effectively and within the project's overall goals of consistency across. 08:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Are we still on about this. Okay, last time, it remains one table, not two, not three but only one. Like Digirami said, every league has its rules and honestly when looking at the page I dont see anything confusing. Just keep it at one table. End of discussion. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As amply demonstrated and shared by the Italian users is essential to have the 2 tables to avoid confusion.

These are issues that are rightly decided by the users of your country, it is necessary to know in detail the national football rules, profoundly different from one country to another. --93.56.242.46 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No, they don't that much. It is VERY easy to tell which coaches were changed in the off-season and which coaches were changed during the season with one table without any confusion. Every other league season article does it. So can the Serie A. The only one who shares your view on two tables is you. Digirami (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I and the administrator Angelo.romano.

Why do you want a big table incomprehensible and complicated?

With 2 tables is much easier: do not get attached to issues of piddling. --93.56.242.46 (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Who said it was complicated. Everyone here has indicated that the table is easy to understand, like all the others. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I do not believe User:Angelo.romano favors two tables. He was editing that section of the article long before you changed it to two tables and has never explicitly come out in favor of it. I also think you overestimate the power of an admin. An admin, if Angelo.romano is one, has no final say in the content of an article. This is still a community based project and so far the community seems to be in favor of having it as one table. Digirami (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

One table is fine, completely understandable and logical. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As logical as it may seem, the guy doesn't get it. Consensus is clearly not in his favor, but he continues to make his edits. It's disruptive and I'm going to have to get the affected articles protected for the time being. Digirami (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's the fault of Digirami that rejects any compromise. Now it was proposed to enter the new TIME column with "Pre" and "During seson" being in the wrong place "Pre seson" in the column placement. Sounds like a good solution. --93.56.241.95 (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not a compromise because it achieves nothing... Nothing is gained from your version, at all. Secondly, there is unfortunately nothing to compromise about. The status quo is the favored format. It is a format seen in Australia, the United States, Brazil, China, South Africa, and of course every major league in Europe. The status quo is preferred is does everything is is supposed to do: it is more than sufficient to tell which managerial changes were done in the pre-season and which we made during the season. Keep it simple. Digirami (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

One table, as agreed by consensus here, is the solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact in One table takes the TIME column to say when the change occurred, not that of the position. And there is even better to use PRE and DURING SEASON (today does not appear) only once, as in French football.

Try making these changes or not grant me the gates quickly, as you enjoy doing. Digirami understand that you must reach a compromise and we can not continue like this?.--93.56.241.95 (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say, but per above, one table is just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate - ONE table is ideal. GiantSnowman 10:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OK one table. I propose to add only the new column TIME, divided between PRE and DURING THE SEASON. And 'in fact the wrong place Pre Season in the rank column. I would say give it a try.--93.56.241.95 (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Why complicate the existing format with a new column? Stating "pre-season" in the rank column is more than fine and is very clear already. Digirami (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In 2011-12 Serie B, 2010-11 Serie A and 2009-10 Serie A presented a great improvement of the one table, thus resolving with excellent compromise the numerous issues raised in past discussions, that Digirami without entering either the substance continues with arrogance and bullying to delete, reject categorically any change for pure bias. Digirami refuses dialogue even as he has deleted all the many friendly messages sent to him in his talk. It seems absurd to have to stop for a third time to reason with him: someone thinks he can? Thanks --93.56.241.95 (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, just leave the tables alone because your changes adding nothing new or of value to them. At it's base, my problems with your edits is that you're creating a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. You can clearly tell which changes occurred in the preseason and which occurred during the season. That information comes across to anyone quite clearly. In some of your revisions, there are TWO columns that mentioned preseason in some way. That is no improvement. At present, there is nothing you can do to the tables to improve them, besides updating it. Digirami (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Digirami continues with an amazing obstinacy to refuse any improvement on the table, although the latest version has been accepted all his requests, including one table and no presence of horizontal lines (to eliminate sparked a edit war).

All this is contrary to the principles of this encyclopedia because he refuses to even minimal cooperation is not proposing any alternative version.

Despite numerous reminders that received egl continues its work of destruction, not realizing that he could greatly the third block. Someone is able to reason with him or just be blocked? --93.56.241.88 (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your edits do not constitute an improvement in any way, shape, or form. Why? Because you can already tell changes occurred when in a very clear manner. There is no need for an additional column. It's fluff. Give readers some credit to their intelligence; don't dumb down the table with your edits. Enough already. That's #1. #2, if you continue with your threats to block me will not be tolerated since they are increasingly baseless. You fail to follow basic Wikipedia procedure when it comes to contested edits (no one has come out in support of your edits). Very simply, the status quo (the original version before you came along) must stay in place until a solution, agreed on by both parties or by consensus, can be established either for or against. That's how it works... and you know that because I communicated that to you on your talkpage. Digirami (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We're clearly in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Achowat (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Is really puzzling that despite the many efforts that Digirami categorically refuse any change to the table, though his version creates many problems and reading difficulties have also seen that there are many exemptions in the Italian league. He wants to make an edit war instead of agreeing on a common version, not wanting to propose any change, categorically rejecting constructive behavior. He does not see the improvement of the table with the new column "Time"? Insert "Pre Season" in the column of "placement", instead of in that "Time" is simply absurd and complicated searches.

He has clearly demonstrated of being biased in the changes not even checking the change made: in fact in 2011-12 Serie B it took a vandalism canceling also the change of coach of Vicenza.

Please, someone can make him see sense explaining which risks a third block? --93.56.243.203 (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What's at stake now

This is what is at stake now: his version, or the status quo. While this IP user maintains his version is an improvement, I think there is nothing to improve in this case. The table format is fine as it is: it's simple, easy to read... which explains why it is used every related/similar article. His edits are only making it more complicated and inserting redundancy with another column. Like a said before, it's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Digirami (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP editor – your so-called "improvement" is not an improvement at all. The extra column only bloats the table, to the point of unreadability. It is also completely unnecessary, as all pre-season changes are already clearly marked. So, for the last time: Please stop making structural changes for these tables, especially as the current consensus is deemed fine by the members of this project. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The new column simplifies and can be searched more quickly changes of coaches, which are very numerous in Italy, otherwise making the search difficult for less experienced users.

Digirami refuses to proposed changes to the status quo. --93.56.243.203 (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The proposal is the result of many compromises and respect the much-needed single table, then it is absurd to oppose such a the new column to avoid inserting Pre Seson in that wrong placement where is made ​​only for rank. Being the first new column TIME allows immediately to seek the change only in the desired phase, without having to read the whole table this year already includes over 30 changes. --93.56.243.203 (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The current version is the best of the two and would even allow for sorting should that be desired, something the dreadful "TIME"-columned alternative precludes as a result of the use of row spans. I think we have a clear consensus that the status quo is just fine. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

But super expensive experts, have not yet figured out that if you opened this debate is because the current version is not sufficiently clear and simple for inexperienced users, especially in Italian football where there are more than 30 changes per season with new table to find what interests certainly takes less time. The TIME column has been inserted because Digirami has previously rejected the 2 tables and then the horizontal line, sparking a crazy edit war. It could accept the new table at least only for the previous seasons and not for the present, thus facilitating the search. It therefore calls for proposals to change the status quo and not exaltations. We want to reach a compromise or not?--93.56.244.94 (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You confuse compromise with consensus. They are not one in the same. If consensus is in favor of the status quo, than the status quo remains. Plain and simple. The only person who opened a "debate" is you; a discussion was opened to firmly establish that the format does not need to be changed. Only you think the current format is "flawed." Consensus is here to tell you it is not. The status quo does what it is supposed to do and it does it well. Who cares if the Italian league has thirty managerial change each season. Any reader can still easily tell which changes happened in the pre-season and which did not without the use of your column.

You talk about compromise. Well, let me tell you that that is not always the goal. It is not need here. We want to keep the status quo. Done. Consensus established. End of discussion. Digirami (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

We're done here. There's a clear consensus that we don't need the extra column, that it doesn't make things clearer. Can we now move onto better things? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to, but this IP user is making it difficult. Digirami (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Digirami despite the myriad attempts categorically rejects any compromise to simplify the table for novice users, which of course thank you to his obstinacy believing that it is the Sacred Scriptures.

Otherwise you were just beginning to double the table, no not to make any changes, be able to avoid teasing.

In this talk are 2 cats those opposed to the changes: Instead why do not we open a nice vote Democratic accessible to all?--93.56.244.94 (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a democracy. There is a clear consensus in favour of the current version. We go with the consensus. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Kit images

My apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere, but I'm not sure where else to put this. Does anyone know why so many of the infobox kit images on the Commons have logos on them? Last time I checked, which was only a short while ago, that's still prohibited, even if it's a tiny pixel rendition of the Nike swoosh. Is there any dedicated effort to cleaning this up? I tried to do it a while back with Manchester United's home jersey, and my change was reverted along with an accompanying rant directed towards me in Portuguese. I'd definitely like to try to clean up the problem but there are a lot of images to deal with. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 06:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason so many have logos on is because some editors insist on having them, but I;m pretty sure that they are in the wrong. There are people who must spend their whole lives creating detailed images and uploading them to commons, but with incorrect copyright tags. There are hundreds of them on there. Template:Football kit says that logos, club badge, etc. shouldn't be on there, and any with trademarked logos on will almost certainly be copyright violations. I try and remove these things where I see them. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Attempts to deal with it proved difficult as the original uploader on Commons was - shall we say - stubborn. The possibility of uploading versions with and without logos was floated, and used in this example. It's Malpass⁹₃! (_drop me a ^___) 00:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that Bruno-ban guy is the same guy I dealt with. It's quite annoying but I'm sure the language barrier is the cause of this whole thing. Is anyone here bilingual? I'm sure they could talk to him and make the policy clear. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 00:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've dealt with Bruno-ban before. The guy seems pig-headed to the point of idiocy. Logos should either be completely present (including sponsor logos and club badges) or completely absent, not just kit manufacturers logos and the odd sponsor. – PeeJay 01:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be present at all. The template clearly says "Club badges, sponsor logos, and manufacturer logos should never be included." --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 01:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem solved then. Tell Bruno-ban to piss off and that his consensus from other languages of Wikipedia are worthless [/irony]. – PeeJay 17:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone here speak Portuguese? The point might get across better that way. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 08:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I speak a bit of Portuguese, but I certainly won't be telling him to "piss off" because he does a great deal of thankless work.  Omg †  osh  12:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Scott Parker

I am at 3RR here and anyway must go out. Would the project keep an eye on an editor who is adding random changes to the article and putting Parker's international freindly appearance in without a source? Thanks. Britmax (talk) 13:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye, but it might be just as easy to add a source. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

To get this straight: "BBC Sport understands that" and "Sky sources understand" is not good enough for Wikipedia? It's what we call unsourced rumors? Mentoz86 (talk) 13:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I've reworded accordingly – "Sky Sports reported that they believed Parker had been chosen by caretaker manager Stuart Pearce to captain the team..." – which is what your source verifies, but if people are going to change it back, I'm past caring... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the 24 hour instant world for you. News channels lower their standards to beat the competitiion to the punch, by announcing when they believe rather than when they know. Britmax (talk) 14:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

And look what's happening now. People think he's the new captain of England because the news announce rumours not facts. I think the implications of this go far beyond the career of one soccer player. Britmax (talk) 14:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Google 'Scott Parker' - it's about 2/3 news reports confirming he is captain. GiantSnowman 14:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's current news, folks. So long as it is reasonably sourced and not damaging to the subject, there is little reason for us to be particularly bothered by people adding it at this time. Should it turn out not to be the case (though I would suggest sourcing is sufficiently reliable that it will be), it will be removed by the time the game kicks off I'd imagine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, people won't think less of Wikipedia for reporting a 'fact' from dozens of reliable news sources that later turns out not to be true. Unsourced 'facts' that come from rumours/pure imagination are more damaging.--EchetusXe 16:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Lo and behold, the many, many sources rporting it were indeed correct. Seems like a lot of time & effort reverting IPs was wasted. GiantSnowman 10:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Waste of time is it? Is Eddie Howe enjoying managing Charlton then? Britmax (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a waste of time. While the newspapers often get it wrong in their rush for a scoop, I think it's fair to say that most of the time that every newspaper in the country is running a given story that there's some truth to it. So most of the time it's not worth the effort to revert editors who are adding material to our encyclopedia in good faith until it's actually proven not to be true, unless it would actually damage the subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oman-Myanmar

The match 2014_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_–_AFC_Second_Round#Oman_v_Myanmar is listed by FIFA as awarded 3–0. Most secondary sources have it 2–0 to Oman, and the FIFA news about the abandoned second-leg match and later disciplinary measured don't suggest the first leg was awarded. 1 2, 3. That surely needs either a direct FIFA source stating the awarding explicitly or should be reverted to 2–0. -Koppapa (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going against the FIFA-report here and list it as a 2–0 win again. That's backed by the AFC and all other secondary sources i found. -Koppapa (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

After being directed to at least 2 more CONCAFAF matches that FIFA awarded, see Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC), it seems like it isn't a random mistake by FIFA. Guess i'll revert back to 3–0. Apparently FIFA randomly awards matchs without publicising the reason. -Koppapa (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

2007 West Bank Premier League

Maybe someone who knows something about football can understand the statistics on this page. As it stands, I can't make heads or tails of it. I've already proposed 2006 West Bank Premier League for deletion because I see no hope of it ever being edited appropriately, but then maybe someone from this Wikiproject can save it. I would have prod'd 2007 West Bank Premier League but it's already been prod'd and de-prod'd once. Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 17:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a standard knockout cup competition to me. It's sourced to RSSSF (which has just about every football nugget in the universe) but is it notable, that's the question we need to answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The articles should be notable as they (seem to) represent a season of the highest league of Palestine (although the cup format for 2007 is rather strange). Both articles are rather suffering from verification issues as they are very hard to source outside of RSSSF, at least regarding Latin alphabet-based sources. Unfortunately, this might eventually lead to their deletion. On the other hand, it is likely that the one or other Arabic source might exist. So, is there someone among us who is able to find something in that direction? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 20:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't even like the main league article. Why does it say the league was founded in 2010, weren't there at least two perfectly fine seasons before? Maybe even 5? -Koppapa (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason it says 2010 is due to the following: "The 2010-11 Season marked the creation of the first professional league in the territories and saw high profile signings for many clubs." Clearly, whoever put 2010 was assuming that the new league was a separate entity and not a continuation of the previous one. I have no idea whether they were right or wrong. As for notability, yes the articles are clearly notable, although they do need a lot of work, most notably references. Palestine is a FIFA member and as such, the top level of the domestic league is notable and warrants an article. TonyStarks (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It was known under the current name before, so i'd go for including. -Koppapa (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking through Palestin foolball competitions on goalzz, it seems the knock-out matches are part of another competion and not the league. tournament from article. So it should be deleted or moved, if other competition is notable. -Koppapa (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've redirected to league article. See Talk:2007_West_Bank_Premier_League. The article didn't describe the League, but another club championship. -Koppapa (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And this German speaking palestine football source, tells 2011/12 is the 4th uninterrupted season played. So 2008-09 was the first of this continuous block, and 2006 was was just another (there have been more in history) abandoned season. That's why the matches played column, doesn't add up. I guess that prod should go through too. -Koppapa (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Real Madrid again

This edit seems to miss the point of WP:RS and I don't have the time to explain it to RealCowboys. Someone care to step-in and explain? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry he's back again. I've reported him for repeatedly removing the referenced material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

And he's been blocked. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Blackpool_F.C.#Shirts

This section has real photos of the Kit. Is this something thats allowed.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. It's no different to showing action photos of players in the kits..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be awkward here, but I'm not sure that's correct. The kit is a club or kit manufacturer's intellectual property. If you show a photo of a player in the kit, the point of the photo is to depict the player, and they don't really have a leg to stand on. If you show a photo of nothing but the kit, I'd have thought they would have grounds to take issue with it. Besides, if it were okay to take a photo of a kit for that purpose surely we would have kit photos in club infoboxes? —WFC— 16:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarence Seedorf article

My English is not so good, but perhaps someone here can clean up the Clarence Seedorf article. He deserves a better article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.199.96.38 (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fb cl template

Hi,

What is the proper combination of elements in building a Fb cl table when the relegation/non-relegation positions in the table are decided by head-to-head games? Say, 15th place in the table is where the relegation zone begins and 14th and 15th teams are separated by head-to-head results. I played around with Fb cl3 qr and Fb cl3 hth options but I couldn't make it work (the table layout breaks no matter what). Can anybody suggest something? Thanks.

Geregen2 (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not just add the head-to head results as a footnote below the table. -Koppapa (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Since I guess that you are looking for a solution to apply here, I have fixed the table accordingly so that you just need to fill in the proper hth results. The general trick is to add rowspans where necessary. See also here for a more thorough example. But that being said... an Fb cl3 qr template with only the rows and competition parameters set, the latter with a single non-breaking space as value, should do the same trick...--Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Would use it from now on when necessary. Cheers! Geregen2 (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

2013 Africa Cup of Nations qualification

There are contradicting reports on the scorers for a couple of first round first leg matches. A little feedback at Talk:2013 Africa Cup of Nations qualification would be great. Banana Fingers (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Ince (footballer)

His common name is Tom Ince, but the article was moved from there to its current location last August. Could an admin please move it back? - Dudesleeper talk 22:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Number 57 00:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

2008 AFC U-16 Championship squads

Should this page be deleted. There is nothing in it! And the External links dont help at all. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Also same thing for this article... 2010 AFC U-16 Championship squads

In its current form i'd prod it. -Koppapa (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

José Manuel Reina RM

Hi, due to inactivity at the RM of José Manuel Reina I proposed a week ago I thought I'd mention it here to gather more attention. The move is requested on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME, as the most common name for the subject in reliable English-language sources is Pepe Reina, rather than José Manuel Reina. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the move, I've never heard him referred to as Jose Manuel Reina in the media, its always Pepe, so it should be moved to reflect this. NapHit (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have opposed the move. A google search shows both Pepe Reina and Jose Reina used. With Jose probably being more prominant. He certainly is rareky refered to as Jose Manuel Reina, probably only by people who have got his name off Wikipedia, but I would say either Jose Reina or Jose 'Pepe' Reina. But not Pepe Reina. Adam4267 (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is why we don't assign very much weight to unqualified ghits. Have a look at the Web results for the Jose query and you'll see that Google is automatically adding the Pepe hits to the results, which is why there are more of them. This was a good close and I'm somewhat surprised that it was so long in the making. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you calling me an unqualified ghit? Adam4267 (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"ghit" = "google hit". Apologies for any (most certainly accidental) double meanings. :) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

haha, sorry Chris my mistake :) I know that google hit numbers aren't everything but I still think that he is just as well known as Jose as he is as Pepe. Which is why I would say that Pepe Reina shouldn't be the article title. I think the best title would be Jose "Pepe" Reina.Adam4267 (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Football League Championship seasons

What do people think of this article? Should it be extended/renamed to cover the all-time English second level. At present it refers to Championship even though that only started in 2004/05. Statto has an article to cover all-time second level winners, with sub-sections within showing how the second level name changed. Eldumpo (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It could certainly do with some work! There is already an infobox of English second level seasons so it would complement the article if you decide to rename and add previous seasons -- which I think should be done. I've had a dab at trying to cleanup List of Premier League seasons, which is similar I guess, so a history section could easily be accommodated should somebody have the time to do so. – Lemonade51 (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This article should cover the Football League First Division and Football League Championship seasons from 1888-89 to the present. The First Division was the same in 1991-92 as it was in 1992-93, there was just a mass promotion of teams after the top teams left the Football League to form the Premier League. This would mean that the article covers the top-flight of English football (1888-89 to 1991-92) and the second-tier (1992-93 to present), but it would be more accurate that way. – PeeJay 16:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the above view, I don't see the logic in tracking in one article the results of separate league tiers. I see RSSSF take a similar view to Statto and collate the winners of the tier, not of the same league name. Eldumpo (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

John McMahon

Wikipne has pointed out that the John McMahon article is the merger of two people with the same name. What is the procedure for splitting its contents? U+003F^? 13:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't involve posting huge capital letter disclaimers within the article itself....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorted. Thanks all. U+003F^? 14:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You must be Jon King!

My source tells me Tranmere Rovers legend John King (footballer born 1938) played for Everton and Wigan Athletic, and managed Northwich Victoria. Yet Altrincham legend Johnny King also played for Everton, Wigan Athletic, and (worryingly) Northwich Victoria. Is there any way that someone can confirm that both men did indeed stay at all three clubs, or is there some confusion somewhere, either on Wiki or on other websites? Also, would be great if someone with some info could start the article for the Altrincham legend at Johnny King (footballer born whenever).--EchetusXe 14:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The stats section of the Everton website suggests that there was only one John King who made a first team appearance for the club [1]. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The latter King is, from the second source, twelve years the junior of the former, and both have fairly well-documented career paths which separate them. Amongst other things, both may have "been" with a club, but that doesn't mean they both played in the first team at said club. I'd put it down to coincidence unless there's some specific case of confusion as to which King was at a given club during a given period. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, either it is a coincidence or a mistake elsewhere, but the John King article is correct. Someone had added that he was the manager of Bangor City, but they had him mixed up with Altrincham chap.--EchetusXe 16:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Nunzio Zavettieri

I wasn't sure about deletion so I choosed to ask. Does Nunzio Zavettieri article should be deleted (notability)? --Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 18:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The notability of the article should be okay since he was managing in both the UEFA Champions League and Europa League. However, the application for a job is not that important that it should be included into the article. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Recentism

APOEL_F.C.#Champions_League_2011-12_group_stages_and_the_route_to_the_last_16 e.g. "A nice shot in the 43rd minute went past the goalkeeper in the far left corner." :-) -Koppapa (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this club notable?

I am just wondering before I try to make this article if it can be considered notable so I dont run into trouble. The club is Hyderabad Globe Football Club who play in India. I have researched and could not find out if they played in I-League, I-League 2nd Division, Federation Cup or Durand Cup. I do think that it might meet WP:GNG. Here are the articles I have on the club... [2] [3] [4] [5] and one that is very recent [6]. These articles are from very reliable sources and if you look up the club you will see that they have been in the national Indian news a lot and that they have participated in many National level events. They were even champions of there state league (3rd Division of Indian Football) in every year of its existence (cept for the first season) and they have played many fully professional I-League clubs before like East Bengal FC, Churchill Brothers SC, Pune FC, JCT FC and Mumbai FC to name a few. Please do think about this as I do believe that this club has some notability and also in my last source that was more recent it said that Hyderabad Globe FC are a professional club. Thank you. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Their website says they play in the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh (SAAP) Premier League.. i.e. a state league. TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

They also played in many other sports leagues and plus the SAAP Premier League is defunct as of 2008. This club have been playing in a league in Hyderabad (called the state league) and many AIFF approved tournaments. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOOTYN says that a club is notable if they have "played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria." If you can show that they played in the National Cup or the national level of the league, then they are notable. If not, you can try using WP:GNG to prove their notability. If you can't do either, then they are not notable :D .. Anyways, I don't know enough about the football league structure in India to really help you out in this one but a quick search on Google shows that they are not really notable. TonyStarks (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think they might pass the WP:GNG. They do get a lot of coverage for a team like theres. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If you feel they pass GNG then by all means go ahead and create it. Just make sure you provide lots of different sources. Also, I'd suggest you keep the page on your Watchlist just in case someone decides it's not notable and tries to delete it. You can then bring up the GNG argument. Take care. TonyStarks (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers mate. Will make it later then and see how it goes. Cheers --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Lionel Messi

Was excellent last night and had a quick check of his Wikipedia page today just to make minor reference fixes. There are cleanup notifcations at the top of the page which are understandable but isn't part of the problem under his club section -- with a season by season account. For one, he could play at Barcelona for the next 10 seasons so by logic, you need to include a further ten sub sections. You can make a case for WP:WEIGHT in 2005–06 which gets the fewest of sentences and 2011–12 reading like a week by week diary. Likewise, his goal/game rate is so impressive, it would be lethargic for the average reader to read every time he puts the ball in the back of the net. I'm sure if this article ever wants to aspire to WP:FAC, his time at Barcelona needs to be condensed with the most important bits: first goal, 100th goal, sending off, hatrick, becoming the club's top goalscorer (Eight away, easily can be put into WP:LEAD), et al. This isn't only just a Messi problem, several footballers have season by season section: Robin van Persie, Cristiano Ronaldo at Real Madrid which can also be compressed. In the case of Patrice Evra it works because they are year spans, not seasons. So what do people think? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I personally find the season-by-season sub-sections as ugly as they get (let alone that you are 200% right that we don't have to write about every game/goal a player plays/scores, ESPECIALLY for strikers, not a novelty when they "net it"), i only use sub-sections (and in some cases, not always) for the different clubs the player has represented, not seasons. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't have a problem with the article being split by seasons. It's as sensible a way as any, given that the subject has been at the same club for a long time and the article needs breaking up somehow. The content of Messi isn't too bad up to 09/10, but from then on there's far too much "on 4 May, he scored twice against somebody. Then on 7 May, he scored another two against somebody else" stuff. 2011/12 is poor, but recent seasons always are; fans like adding stuff, and the easy way to add stuff is to stick a blank line and a sentence on the end of the existing content...

It's a difficult skill to take an ongoing career and pick out what's important and what isn't, particularly with a subject like Messi who always seems to be doing something spectacular. If anyone were seriously thinking of taking this to FAC, I'd suggest that although his 100th goal or whatever is a statistical milestone that should be recorded, his contribution to his team in a vital match or over a significant time in their season, or his failure to so contribute, is more difficult to source but arguably more important. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There are only so many notable events in the life of a footballer. Listing every goal or even the first goal of the season makes it read like a newspaper. For example this - his goals in a friendly, a Europe League play-off and against Cheltenham Town and..........his 113th goal!!--Egghead06 (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, season by season sub-sections are awful. To be honest I am actually genuinely surprised that Messi's is a good article. I think if it were getting reviewed now it would be a definite fail. Even after a quick glance at Evra's article there were one or two issues which just jumped out at me. Obviously no article is perfect, but maybe there are issues relating to GA articles deteriorating over time that we need to look at. Also a MOS for good player articles could be useful because there is no uniformity across GAs at all at the moment. Adam4267 (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's a player who has been at one club for a long time, or one with a short career then I agree with Struway2 -- it is sensible. More telling that there isn't a section on 'style of play' for Messi.

@Adam4267 -- The article looked in good shape after it passed WP:GAC, from the 2009–10 season the good standard of prose started to cart away. – Lemonade51 (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

just on the point of creeping sectionitis in player articles: I'm of the opinion that for current seasons this is a lost cause. All we can do is, once a season has finished, to prune the previous one and integrate it with the rest of the bio more thoroughly. My heart goes out to anyone writing a GA for a still-active player for precisely this reason, as it's only during the summer (and only if the player is not subject to transfer gossip) that one really gets any level of stability. But hey, new material is a good thing, and for every ten thousand folk clambering to add flowery prose about their hero's latest goal one might stick around and become a valuable contributor for the long run. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

2011–12 Umaglesi Liga

Hi all,

I need some general input on the structure of 2011–12 Umaglesi Liga. The competition recently switched from a regular quadruple round-robin schedule to a two-phased competition after increasing the number of participating teams from ten to twelve; the top teams of the league participate in a championship round, while the bottom teams go to a relegation round.

Unfortunately, there is a problem with this split. The top eight teams will play a separate championship round, while the remaining four teams will participate in a relegation round – which would also be fine if said relegation round would not involve four teams from the 2011–12 Pirveli Liga (the best two from each of both ten-team divisions) as well.

There are two possibilities on how to deal with this. The first idea would be to just include the information of the four Pirveli Liga teams in some form in the respective article sections. The second idea would involve "merging" the Umaglesi Liga and the not yet existent Pirveli Liga article to 2011–12 Georgian football championship (and before you ask, we have quite a few season articles for the second tier of the Georgian pyramid).

The former would leave the current article series for both leagues intact, while the latter would be a more complete approach for this season, especially since the two Pirveli Liga divisions also each play an eight-team relegation play-off round. So... any preferences? :-) --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd just treat the "relegation round" exactly like a post-season playoff. It doesn't matter if there's a little bleed-through from teams who are actually in the second tier. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Alessandro Gamberini

I'm almost scared to ask this, but i'll try it nonetheless...

Please have a look at this player's early CLUB CAREER (the Juventus contract issues). User:Matthew hk indulges in that economic approach in every player he edits. My question is: do we really need all that info? I thought that length of contract plus fee (if any) was enough in a footballer's page when it comes to transfer moves and akin, this makes for a very tiring read, and only one in let's say...1,000 readers will be interested in this piece of information.

Attentively, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Think that particular one's quite interesting, with him being co-owned by a club for which he never played. Bit too much technical detail, though, given we're writing for the general reader. I might cut the last sentence to "... a peppercorn fee, so Juventus lost €1.5m on the deal.", and if the reader wants the technicalities, they can read the accounts. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Footmi

I would have briefed User:GiantSnowman, but he's told me he's busier by the day. This guy (see above) continues to inflate player stats (Fábio Paím, Tozé Marreco, etc), thinking that the use of a summary (he often writes "corrected player stats" in his summaries) belies his vandalism. I am Portuguese and know 200% for sure Marreco did not play for Deportivo Alavés, he does not have the 14/8 this nice "user" gives him!

I have left the message here, what happens onwards not my business. I only know what would happen if i was an admin. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Does he make any positive contributions? If not then he might just be a Vandalism-only account and you should report him to an admin. Falsifying stats is something I've seen IPs and new accounts do a lot but rarely positive contributors. So if this was the case then a block would not be detrimental to the project. Adam4267 (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

They've only edited 3 times this year: the most recent one, GiantSnowman warned them for, Vasco undid one and I just undid another. I can't tell if any of their earlier contributions were positive: quite possibly not. Vasco, if you spot them changing stats away from correct sourced values again, just undo their edit, without any additional comment in the edit summary, and add the next warning up the scale to their talk page, underneath GiantSnowman's warning, without any additional comment. Just copypaste {{subst:uw-unsourced2|Lionel Messi}} onto their talk page, with the name of the article they edited instead of Mr Messi's. That's a level 2 warning. But it has to be for something they've done since the edit to Fabío Paím that they've already been warned for. If they persist, then it probably is a vandalism-only account. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks mates! Yes, i will do (100%, not 99,9999% :), have to watch those summaries that "feed the beast") as you suggest Struway. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"Unofficial" Stats

Hello!
I would like to get a feeling of the general consensus on the issue of unofficial results for a team. I will give a concrete example here, and would like to know if we can make it a general WP usage. Manchester United's official biggest win and loss are 10-0 v Anderlecht (1956) and 0-7 v Blackburn, Villa & Wolves. However, their unofficial biggest win & loss are against the now defunct teams New Brighton AFC (13-1 in 1941) & Corinthian FC (3-11 in 1904). I added these stats to the Man U stats page, with references - here and here. I put them right at the bottom of their respective sections and clearly marked them as "unofficial", but they got revered.
Now, I think it's important to have these results in teams' pages because they are matches that took place and I think the tag "unofficial" is clear enough. People who are interested in the history of a club will appreciate that these results have been included. No one is trying to claim they take precedence over the official stats. But they are a part of football history, which is why I believe they should be there. I have discussed the issue with the user that reverted me and put forward my arguments here, here and here but got no clear arguments back (save that these are not official results, which I'm not arguing with), nor any input from anyone else. I have not done any reverting but wanted to get a feeling of other people's views on this first. My main argument is that friendlies count in national teams' results, so why can we not include them in clubs' stats? Especially when we consider that the opponent being played, in this case Corinthians, were a non-competitive club, and therefore it would have been impossible to play them in an "official" competition at the time - in the same way as Barbarians FC, the legitimacy of whose results is not questioned by anyone.
Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As I noted at Talk:List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics, I do not believe that unofficial records (such as those recorded in friendlies) should be recorded. There are no regulations regarding the eligibility of players for friendly matches, meaning that sometimes a friendly side may bear no relation to the team it represents other than its name. – PeeJay 19:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily see a problem in recording unofficial/friendly highest scores etc as long as there are reliable sources and they are clearly marked. Eldumpo (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the reference should be showing that the result is regarded as 'highest' etc, rather than just showing that the result happened, as per the first ref of Big Steve's post. If you look at the Man U stats wiki article the relevant ref for highest wins (Best and Worst, Stretford End) is not currently working. Eldumpo (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I won't do it immediately, but I'll re-post it on the Man U page at some point. Although I fear it'll get taken down again. I won't enter into an edit war, but i just think they should be there. I'll try and find a reference somewhere that it is their biggest win/loss, as Eldumpo says. I want to point out that I only want to add such unofficial results in cases where they are even bigger than the official ones. Also, we could always add in a footnote towards each such result that "the team that played was not a representative side, because..." or whatever the case may be, which would therefore explain why the result is considered unofficial. BigSteve (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting the national football squad template

In 2010, I suggested that the the ability to sort columns is added to the national football squad template. I also created a sandbox page. Danish Expert put a lot of effort into this also and came to the conclusion that it would be a useful implementation but it never went any further. Can we now come to a consensus either way? TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like an improvement. Sandbox has no examples, does it sort? -Koppapa (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Here is an example:

No.	Pos.	Player	Date of birth (age)	Caps	Club
1	1GK	Odelín Molina	(1974-08-03)3 August 1974 (aged 36)		Villa Clara
2	2DF	Carlos Francisco	(1990-05-22)22 May 1990 (aged 20)		Santiago de Cuba
3	2DF	Yénier Márquez	(1979-01-03)3 January 1979 (aged 31)		Villa Clara
4	2DF	Hánier Dranguet	(1982-09-02)2 September 1982 (aged 28)		Guantánamo

TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's nice, especially for sorting by position. Doesn't age sort correctly? -Koppapa (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Not until someone fuses {{birth date and age}} with {{age nts}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've put in a request on template_talk:Birth date and age to add a hidden sort key TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've sussed it. The template to be changed was template:Birth date and age2. Age is now sortable! Just need an admin to make the changes to the template:National_football_squad_start. :)

That's very nice, good work. Cloudz679 22:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Every goal and assist?

I have Luke Freeman on my watchlist as a throwback from his days at Gillingham: ‎SBFCEdit's interest in him is evident given his current club (although the B is of course now dropped). We have clearly different views about the degree of reportage of routine match performances. I removed a lot of data that seemed to me relevant to reports on the match in question, but irrelevant to a brief encyclopaedic biography; SBFCEdit reverted this, arguing "Noting assists and goals seems fair to me, which is what I've done...It's earned about 14 other articles GA status, I'll carry on doing it my way." Obviously the principle involves not just young Mr Freeman, but virtually every player for who we have an article. Comments? Kevin McE (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Every goal and every assist is simply not notable. To argue otherwise would be nonsensical. The GA status probably has more to do with sourcing than the fact that every action on the pitch in a player's career has been accounted for. Jared Preston (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it actually every goal and assist? There only seems to be a handful there. From what I can see the only assists mentioned are ones where he assisted the match winning goal, which seems fair enough to me. Also, Jared, WP:N doesn't apply to content within articles, only article creation. See WP:NNC. And getting one article, especially on a lower league player, up to GA status is hard enough. But SBFC has done 14 so I think his edits/opinions should be respected. Adam4267 (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Freeman is a teenager with five career goals to his name, so inherently every assist and goal is notable. SBFC does add a lot of detail, but most of the Stevenage players tend to be young, therefore there is plenty of room for match reports and such. If Freeman goes on to spend 10 years in the Premier League and then have a 30 year managerial career then perhaps the detail on his Stevenage will have to be trimmed, but that hasn't happened yet.--EchetusXe 22:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"Inherently every assist and goal is notable"? You'll have to make that case much better than you have. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is nothing notable to say, one shouldn't bloat the artilce with irrelevant things. -Koppapa (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is important to note that setting up goals is every bit as important as scoring goals.Ok, make my case much better? Ok, you people seem to be suggesting that the player's article should be brief because [NO REASON GIVEN]. I am suggesting that a biography on a striker (who is notably purely because he has featured in the Football League) who has scored exactly five goals in his Football League career should at some point mention the five goals he has scored and the goals he has set up. I do not think this to be an unreasonable suggestion. The readable prose (including all HTML code) comes in at 21kB, and WP:Length states that "< 40 KB Length alone does not justify division", so there is no issue of the article being excessive in length or size. There are no other pieces of information on the player being omitted so as to accommodate the details of his assists and goals. So I believe that SBFC has both common sense and Wikipedia policy on his side, therefore I disagree with Kevin McE's assessment of the situation.--EchetusXe 01:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

My view is that the horse has bolted. As an example (without any bias) the articles for Wayne Rooney, Antonio Valencia, Robin van Persie and Jermain Defoe are littered with goals and assists claiming no notability whatsoever. Doubtless there are many other aticles like this. Yes they start to read like something from a fanzine but often they can read better than the usual, sterile, "he did this, he did that" but without concensus who is to say just what the correct balance is?--Egghead06 (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this really a big deal? Yes, we should avoid having fanzine-ish articles which lavishly detail every time a player scores, assists, waves at the crowd or gets his hair cut; on the other hand, we should also avoid discouraging editors from improving articles by demanding too much in the way of editorial restraint. So long as the coverage is not egregiously OTT it is likely better simply to let enthusiastic editors get on with it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Valueless trivia per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK Leaky Caldron 12:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The key to a good article on a person is to write a well-balanced account of what the person has done in their life to date. Freeman's article is exactly that. If he goes on to become a Premier League regular, earn 100 caps for England and score a hat-trick in the 2018 World Cup Final, we'll probably look to trim back the Stevenage section. Until then, I'm in the same boat as Thumperward; this isn't a problem. It's much easier to trim back lots of well sourced information on a relatively low-key part of a player's career, than having to write about it from scratch ten years later. —WFC— 14:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

How ironic that the article on the only footballer to score a hat-trick in a World Cup final has exactly the same number of lines written on his entire club career as Mr Freeman's time with Stevenage!--Egghead06 (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if he were to become the English equivalent of Pele or Messi, the fact that he once assisted three of Stevenage's four goals in the club's 4–2 home victory over Milton Keynes Dons on 24 January 2012 will never be notable. Ever. Leaky Caldron 16:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

LeakyCaldron, the fact that you referenced WP:NOTSTATSBOOK above shows that you have absolutely no idea how things work on Wikipedia or how to write a decent article. And Egghead why would you reference the Geoff Hurst article, it's absolutely atrocious and a terrible example of a player article on Wikipedia. It's also not ironic either but that's not really the point... Adam4267 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

See this. Using possible future success as an illustartion to justify non-notable entries when those who have had success have crap articles. However my issue is not especially with the Luke Freeman but with the random dumping of spurious goals or assists for footballers. Someones 113th goal or this from only yesterday. Just not notable--Egghead06 (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I'm with WFC and Chris on this one. There is nothing wrong with it in its current form as his career expands and this becomes a less key part of his career it can be trimmed down.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Leaky: in those circumstances you're right. On the other hand, if his career were tragically cut short tomorrow, that level of detail would be entirely appropriate. —WFC— 14:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think reporting assists in miscellaneous and insignificant matches fails our content notability requirements. Either way WF, I resent the comment made above that "I have absolutely no idea how things work on Wikipedia or how to write a decent article." That is uncivil at the best of times and, I'm afraid, reflects the atmosphere I have generally encountered in this particular project (present company excepted!). Leaky Caldron 16:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you expect when you introduce yourself like this? Number 57 16:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Leaky, as I said above: WP:N doesn't apply to content within articles, only article creation. See WP:NNC. You just don't understand Wikipedia policy, it's clear for eveyone to see. Even the message you left on my talkpage, telling me that you could recognise a personal attack when I see one didn't correctly quote policy because I never personally attacked you. And it's no surprise that you don't understand WP:CIVILITY considering what you have said to other people. The fact is you have thrown a strop over not getting your way at St James' Park and have decided that you will now call the sky red whenever anyone who opposed you there calls it blue. It's no surprise that the majority of people to whom you have been trying to make yourself a nuisance have not welcomed you with open arms. Adam4267 (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As to your polemic on my incompetence, WP:FAN (an essay, but relevant here) points to "indiscriminate collections of information" which links to the policy short cut WP:NOTSTATSBOOK which you deprecated. I am aware of many articles where allegations of content being fan-oriented have been used in relation to article content discussions. I referred to the disputed content being not notable, i.e. not sufficiently significant to include. I did not refer to "Notability" per WP:N, so I'm not sure what policy it is that I clearly don't understand since (a) WP:N is not a policy and (b) I didn't reference it. Leaky Caldron 18:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Huddersfield Town current squad

This may have been discussed before, but I'm curious what value Template:Huddersfield Town current squad has? I can't think of another current squad section being hosted on a template, rather than on the club article itself. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps fallout from the recent {{fb squad}} discussion where it was proposed that we might use a clever trick to maintain the squad lists simultaneously with the squad navboxes? As we're not moving forward with that at present, and we've otherwise got consensus not to keep squad tables separate, that should probably be substituted and deleted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

In its current form I agree with Chris. If they decided to go down the Boca route I'd take a different view. —WFC— 17:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

One probable advantage of a template is that the main article and the current season article can use it and they are in step rather than having to update two different articles every time there is a squad change. Keith D (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In my personal opinion the squad template is pointless in a good season article, as it is redundant to the statistics. Besides, in a season article you wouldn't remove someone who leaves after playing in the early part of the season. —WFC— 14:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Tranmere have a template too; in this case, the change was definitely during the recent {{fb squad}} discussion. U+003F^? 11:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Tranmere one is very different to the Huddersfield one. Mediocre formatting notwithstanding, there is a clear benefit in using one template to output data twice, where the alternative is to update twice. —WFC— 14:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Les Cocker

This player had a very interesting career/life, and I'm in contact with one of his sons regarding images, but that's one area of Wikipedia I'm pretty poor at. If anyone with the expertise fancies lending a hand, then please join in at User talk:Wobbyprop. Cheers, GiantSnowman 21:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Have no idea who owns the copyright to this photo but it is easily accessible at [7].--Egghead06 (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Images

I generated list of articles about footballers, without image in infobox on enwiki, but with image on plwiki - maybe somebody will be interested Bulwersator (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow: outstanding work! Can that be generalised to other languages too? This is a huge win. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see interwiki Bulwersator (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

On your page I see the image for Santillana (footballer) as a medieval picture of a small man writing on a scroll, yet when I click on the image it shows me the correct image at the appropriate link. Very strange. Cannot use the Carlo Costly picture as it is a drawing. You put Dušan Radolský down twice. Fantastic work though!--EchetusXe 20:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The File:Santillana.jpg image you are seeing is one uploaded to the en.wiki, rather than the one on Commons. I'm not sure how you can link to a pic on commons if there is a different pic with the same file name on the local wiki. Number 57 21:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Using link= ( [[File:Santillana.jpg|thumb|link=commons:File:Santillana.jpg]]). I moved offending image to commons, so it may be deleted under F8 Bulwersator (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Good work, seen as File:Possible portrait of the Marquis of Santillana.jpg is the version used on the Íñigo López de Mendoza, 1st Marquis of Santillana article.--EchetusXe 23:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Burgess Hill Town F.C.

The article on this Isthmian League club has been speedy deleted! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it. Number 57 16:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Greatest player (or team) of all time (or history) etc...

I just noticed this comment on Pele's talk page asking why, if Maradona was considered (by one ref) the greatest player of all time, why Pele wouldn't be afforded the same epithet. Of course, we can't have two "greatest player of all time" but it begs the question, should this subjectivity be included in the lead of these articles? Or should we find a way of dealing with this extreme subjectivity? Multiple reliable sources will obviously help, but I'm also interested in the phrasing, ie. "many sources have suggested that..." or is that too weasel?

This extends to club articles, particularly those such as Barcelona FC/Real Madrid and Liverpool F.C./Manchester United F.C., where I continually see "most successful club in Z..." without real definition of what Z is, nor any consensus as to what constitutes "most successful".

I don't think there's ever going to be a right answer without just saying "so-and-so says...." but I'm interested to gain some kind of input from the community on this continuing issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's actually 14 refs, gathered in one footnote. It is demonstrably true to say that many people consider Maradona to be singularly the greatest: it would also be factually true, and easily sourced, to make the same statement about Pele, and I can't see how it could be objected to encyclopaedically. Some discretion would be needed: there's no point in citing fan chat or managerial hype, but serious voices making considered comments (not off the cuff interview answers) need not be toned down. Kevin McE (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the players issue is different to the clubs issue. Pele and Maradona are both considered by many to be the greatest ever. As there is no objective way of determining this (as any success achieved is as part of a team) and as those opinions are mainstream ones, there is no problem with conveying this in their articles. With clubs we do have definitive, objective measures of success (number of league titles, number of particular trophies, total number of trophies and so forth), and therefore "most successful" should be avoided in favour of letting the facts speak for themselves. —WFC— 22:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel the problem you have by stating so and so player is the 'greatest of all time' is if you don't provide a section explaining their playing legacy and give a somewhat detailed balance (like Football writer Joe Bloggs said this about the certain player) is then you leave the article susceptible. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should we state that a player "is the greatest of all time", but if a significant number of respected people in the game have said that, we should communicate this. That's a subtle but crucial difference. —WFC— 12:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

For Pele/Maradona, can't we just say "one of the greatest of all-times" or "arguably the greatest of all-time"? TonyStarks (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"Considered by some"? GiantSnowman 19:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Junior Hoilett

I have added information to the Junior Hoilett article recently, however I've noticed that an IP user has twice removed sourced and cited information from the article that I have added. I've added information that Jamaica had been in contact with his representative and father, with a quote from the JFF President, it was removed. More recently, I added that he played in a youth competition captaining a Canada representative team as a child, as well as providing information citations for his recent comments that he'd consider playing for England and both were removed. I don't want to get into an edit war with an unregistered user, so if someone feels it's appropriate to undo the IP edit, please feel free. :) TheBigJagielka (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Reverted & advised the IP against such edits. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It's been removed again. TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The IP is now blocked. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Gerard Dewhurst

Eyes at Gerard Dewhurst please - I have a user adding unreferenced information and I've just reached 3RR. GiantSnowman 19:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It is referenced. Try reading the article. His football "career" (one cap wonder) pales in comparison to his "boring" career as a bank executive. Tony May (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Banker? Nope, cotton trader. GiantSnowman 19:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Undue information for what he was not well known, a mention like added by Edinburgh Wanderer is perfect without giving too much detail.Murry1975 (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As I've said on the talk page. He was not known for being a footballer. You need to put that in the right context. Tony May (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yet that is why he is notable not for being a cotton trader or a banker also the source in article says he was a cotton trader not a banker as you insist. Please show us the source to say he was a banker if he was then fine it will be mentioned but not in detail there simply isn't a need for it.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

After his sixth revert Tony has linked to a pay source (whos who) the artilce itself apparently written by Dewhurst, which if I am not mistaken, I maybe, is a first hand entry then, is that allowed if we cant third party it?Murry1975 (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah so you noticed the source that you were vandalising then? You can go to a library and look it up. Tony May (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a building with books in. Tony May (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Its clearly disruptive editing 6 times reverts isn't on i advised you and you still insist its vandalism you added those sources on your recent edits not on any others even at that its questionable sourcing plus its over detailed. You need to read what i placed on your talk page even if you think you are in the right its still edit warring and its not reverting vandalism in anyway. GS as you are involved so cant do anything as an admin but i would advise you to report as edit warring to relevant board if this continues or if anyone else wants to if it continues.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tony tone it done. How about copy and paste the relevant piece here or on the talkpage. And provide a third party source as is required when adding infomartion the subject has pblished themselves. Glad to see you dont contest your absolute failure to follow wiki rules.Murry1975 (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, matey, I'm fine. My only problem is users like you doing before you thinking. Then get all your footy mates to come along and pile in also without thinking. Who's Who is an entirely valid source. Tony May (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reported you and your chums at WP:AN/I. Tony May (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I reported this at 3RR board [[8] its clearly a content dispute not vandalism and seven reverts is way to much. Hopefully this can be resolved by discussion at the article talk page Gerard Dewhurst.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

He's already been blocked. Adam4267 (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yip i posted it before he got blocked same time as you did yours just different boards not sure which one was looked at.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like I missed all the drama. Let's keep it on the article talk page please. GiantSnowman 10:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Argh. Nobody in that dispute should be proud of themselves, in particular the regulars here (who should be big enough and ugly enough to know that defusing pointless drama improves our encyclopedia far more than winning idiotic content battles). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yip but when he started reverting everyone seven times in all and calling them idiotic trolls and vandals and refusing to except to discuss rather than constantly throwing accusations thats a worse problem and the fact that he refused to cite any sources. If he had bothered to discuss civily there wouldn't be a problem. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

True, I should have gone to the article talk page sooner, but I stand by my removal of unreferenced infomation, and Tony's constant reverting, as well as his accusations of vanalism & trolling are the real issues here. As EW says, if he had presented a source then none of this nastiness need to have happened, but he refused to. GiantSnowman 12:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"Adding unsourced information" is only problematic on a short-term basis if one trusts that the source exists. There was zero need for the project's regulars to get so self-righteous about this, and the end result is likely that we'll get less help in the future. And for what pressing reason did this kick off? Someone took issue with perfectly good edits to a short article, and then brought it here so that the hive mind could "win" by weight of numbers. Daft drama and totally avoidable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to see some related uncited (and rather odd) content take a look at GCR Class 11F#GCR locomotive Gerard Powys Dewhurst and her driver. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

How is one meant to know whether a source exists or not? True, it did in this case, but that guarantee is not always there. I also refute the accusation that I brought it here to 'win' any kind of edit war - I did so for more eyes, for someone to help find sources as appropriate. I even notified Tony about the discussion. GiantSnowman 10:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You're supposed to assume that if an editor in good standing is adding biographical detail to an article on someone who has been dead fof fifty years that this material was gained from a reference rather than simply made up. There was no pressing need to revert this user in the first place. Then you took it to WT:FOOTY (which led to the unfortunate interventions of Murry1975 and EW) before the talk page. Not only that, but your comment at WT:FOOTY was "I've reached 3RR", which has the implication of meaning "please could someone else revert for me". But seeing as the article has (eventually) benefited from the new material, Tony has been unblocked and is editing again, there's not much point in dwelling on it. Everybody makes mistakes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've already said I should have taken it to the article talk page first, so trout me for that. However, it's hard to AGF when an editor insists on an edit war, and labels numerous editors as "vandals" and "trolls." He was invited to provide a source multiple times - none was forthcoming. I didn't ask anyone to revert for me, I brought it here for wider attntion which, as you say, it has thankfully now received. GiantSnowman 11:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now substantially revised the article to incorporate the Who's who content (easily verified by anyone with a British library card) plus my own books. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Great work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. GiantSnowman 10:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It is rather symptomatic of the attitude that prevails here. Experienced FOOTY editors would do well to think carefully about the sound advice provided by Chris. Like it or not, there is at times a lack of good faith assumed (and yes, I have been guilty of the same) but there is something pernicious about a number of editors in the same project always looking for back up from each other. It can, and in this case did, backfire. Leaky Caldron 14:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Table order

Just something that has bothered me with tables generated by {{Efs start}}, {{Efs player}} and {{Efs end}}, why is the totals column output first rather than last as it usually is in other tables? Keith D (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what the reason was although i have to say my preference would be to have it like that anyway. But that may just be me.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

While we're here, I recall a discussion on a new template for squads listed on team's main pages. A trial was proposed too. What was the outcome?  Omg †  osh  23:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The usual bikeshedding. No real consensus for a move in any direction right now. FWIW I've just recreated category:football squad templates in order to properly categorise this mess of overlapping code (the efs templates weren't categorised at all). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Football|Australia=yes| class=A | player=yes

I have noticed that on Australian Football (Soccer) player articles that they have this template in there talk page which links them to WikiProject Football/Australia task force. I thought that was pretty neat and that I may want one for India yet I have no idea how to make one. If anyone can help that would be great. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It's connected to the task force. Australia has a task force in the WikiProject Football so they use it. Most countries don't have a task force. I think there's only a point in having one if there is a big enough user base. Do you know many editors who would be interested in an India Task Force? You can see all of the possibilities for the banner here Template:WikiProject_Football. Cloudz679 20:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ya I was on that page last night, did not really help. Did a few things in my sandbox and failed. As for members on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/India task force, we only got 4 (3 of which are operated by me for organization reasons) and there are other regular users who I shall notify in time about this. I think the task force should have 10-15 members soon. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Loads of countries have them. Argentina, Australia, England, Italy to name just a few. see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects. Have you looked at Creating_task_forces. You need to create all the appropriate assessment categories and associated code for the banner. You really need to see if there are more people interested as well. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone point me in the direction of the discussion here regarding the India task force please? GiantSnowman 21:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

GS, not sure what you mean, it's right here (despite the ambiguous title!) Cloudz679 21:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

ooooooh it shouldn't have been created without a prior discussion.....? Rushes to CSD ;) Cloudz679 21:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Bingo, per this - "Creating a task force involves a great deal of work, and is very time-consuming to reverse if an inappropriate or misnamed group is created. It is generally inadvisable to create task forces without prior discussion—particularly regarding the name and scope—on the project's main talk page." GiantSnowman 21:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a hell a lot of work and its a good thing when multiple editors wish to support it. Lets not rush to say there isn't support. Are there any other users who have expressed an interest collaborate on such a issue.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait let me get this. I needed to prior have this approved here before creating the task force. If so than sorry about creating it without permission but there are other Indian Football users on here, I just need to notify them. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well i suggest you see if there is enough editors willing to be a part of it. If there is then we can move this forward. You and one editor isn't a task force at the moment.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by discussion & collaboration. Like EW says, 2 editors does not a task force make. GiantSnowman 09:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

FC COPENHAGEN PEOPLE

Sorry to bother again,

just a pointer: should not this category (found it in Martin Pringle), even if it is not deemed for deletion, be at least rephrased? It does sound odd, in comparison with (for example) CHELSEA NON-PLAYING STAFF.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. I'd take it to CfD: shouldn't be in the least bit controversial. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Most possibly a HOAX

I found this user Srbica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who created an aticle, Srbislav Erdeljan, which has wrongly atributed sources (no article neither at Playerhistory neither in Transfermarkt) and to which I cannot find anything confirming any info of which states in the article. All I found was a bunch of social sites acounts. A probable hoax in my view, but I brough it here first so it could be confirmed. FkpCascais (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Not listed here [9] for any of the years claimed. Almost certainly a WP:HOAX. I have flagged it, but not for speedy. Feel free to mark it as such if you wish. Leaky Caldron 22:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged it for CSD - about to go to bed so will let another admin do the deed. GiantSnowman 22:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've also welcomed the user in question - let's AGF for now. GiantSnowman 22:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the help. FkpCascais (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Nélson Marcos

Hi there teammates,

i have added some info - see BETIS section, with refs, could not find any in English :( - which, albeit a bit controversial, is related 100% to the subject's football career. Can this be deemed unencyclopedical? Methinks not, but if it is, please remove it and sorry for any incovenience (i.e. unintentional vandalism ;)) on my part.

Happy weekend all - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry to bother, gee i never learn... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vasco, using non-English sources as references is no problem. I hope I didn't inconvenience you by not replying within the 10-hour limit you set! For more information, see WP:RS. Regards - Cloudz679 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Inter Milan Article Name

I was looking for information on AC Milan and Inter Milan. AC Milan I found with no problem but for some reason Inter Milan article title is written in Italian F.C. Internazionale Milano and I thought I had either been transfered to Italian Wikipedia site or a different football club. Please could someone change this article name to Inter Milan or Internazionale as the current name is daft and is creating widespread and unnecessary stress, panic and confusion. Why is it in Italian? - we are not all Mourinho's who can read different languages! --Medic [ talk ] 14:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"creating widespread and unnecessary stress, panic and confusion" I have to say I find that difficult to believe. Also, I don't see why you would have to be able to read another language to understand the name; it's hardly הפועל תל אביב. If you want to move the article, open a WP:RM on the article's talk page. Number 57 14:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't even see the title as a problem. A.C. Milan isn't English, it's Italian (Associazione Calcio Milan); the Man Utd article is at Manchester United F.C., so why shouldn't the Inter article be at F.C. Internazionale Milano? – PeeJay 00:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Presumably on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME.  Omg †  osh  03:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So we should move Manchester United F.C. to Man United too? – PeeJay 08:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I really only posted as it looked as though you were struggling to see how there could possibly be a justification, so I thought I'd help you out. Those two cases are clearly very different by the way: no-one says or writes "Internazionale Milano" in English, while "Manchester United" is the commonest written form.  Omg †  osh  10:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no o on the end, two editors! ;) other than that most just call them Inter Milan in English, even if there full name is used its not common, the page already is a redirect. On which how did Medic not find it? This would be my concern. "the current name is daft and is creating widespread and unnecessary stress, panic and confusion. Why is it in Italian?" The same way Spanish team names are in Spanish, its not Royal Madrid for Real Madrid. I am deeply concerned that it has caused you "stress panic and confusion", but am at a loss as Inter Milan redirects to the article.Murry1975 (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a redirect target from both Inter Milan and Internazionale: hard to see any real operational problem. Kevin McE (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As a quick, easy and often reliable source of information – my buddy Wikipedia is usually 2nd to none. The fact is that when I landed on the page F.C. Internazionale Milano I thought I had either been transferred to Italian Wikipedia site or brought up the page for a different football club. Any football fan reading this who does not enjoy arguing but has a passion for contributing positively towards the Wikipedia project will agree that it should be corrected. If on the Italian Wikipedia they want their article in the Italian WK:COMMONNAME for the football club (whatever it is) then that’s up to them. I’m still learning the basics so would appreciate if someone could make this happen - I’m sure it will only take a few seconds to do. --Medic [ talk ] 15:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I know you're new here but we don't work that way. Your page move rationale is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GiantSnowman 15:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, Roda JC Kerkrade has been again wrongfully named (my humble opinion), when RODA JC sufficed 100% well. Yes, i know it is the OFFICIAL name of the club right now, but hundreds of article names here don't match the club name verbatim. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking of this article. The name takes up over two lines in the intro. Should it maybe cut down a bit. Adam4267 (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify from my last input - my rationale is the basis of WK:COMMONNAME as per a previous contributor to this discussion. And as per another contributor earlier in this discussion, I (as well as them) am also at a loss as to why Inter Milan redirects and is not the article location. I suspect any UK football fan would feel the same – as this is the English encyclopedia. In my last 30 years of following football in the UK, every media outlet, journalist, pundit or website has referred to the football team as either Inter Milan or Internazionale. I suspect everyone who is reading this agrees with that. This needs to be altered unless Wikipedia’s new policies are: WP:LetsConfusePeopleAndDontChangeWhatsWrong OR alternatively WP:LetsDiscussAndArgueTheTossRatherThanTakeAction OR my personal favorite WP:NoMoreCommonsense--Medic [ talk ] 18:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Medic one thing might show different, common name isnt always used, its a misconception, (Taiwan anyone?). The other point you actally made yourself you called them internazionale, their common Italian name. This may be English language wiki but it isnt England centric wiki, have you found out their common name in the US of A? Or any other English speaking country? As ways pointed out Man United are not really a peace organisation for males ;) but a common name for the club, once we here short common name we automatically think of the club. As pointed out we use official names as well as common names. AFC Bournemouth are only usually called Bournemouth, Brigthon and Hove Albion are usually Brigthon. Sporting Clube de Portugal are called Sporting Lisbon, which is not quite right, there are two (major) clubs from Lisbon with spoting in their name yet only one has Lisbon (Lisboa) in it (and its not SCP). There is nothing wrong with Inter Milan redirecting to the article. Commonsense would be that Inter Milan is mentioned in the first line of the lead and it is.Murry1975 (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Medic, the club's name is F.C. Internazionale Milano. There are several shorter terms used to describe it; Internazionale, Inter, Inter Milan, Milan. The page can't be at each of these titles, so it is at the official name and each of the shorter terms redirects to it. And even if it were to be at one of the shorter terms, which would you choose? You might think it should be Inter Milan but I say it should be Inter. Adam4267 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Murray1975 your argument is simply daft. You mention Taiwan like it’s the name not used for the Wikipedia page when there is Taiwan on our English Wikipedia – God knows what the title of the Taiwan article is on the Mandarin Wikipedia – To be honest it doesn’t matter because I, like a lot of other English speaking people, use the English Wikipedia and know of Taiwan as Taiwan and so can subsequently find the article entitled Taiwan which includes information needed – like when I considered setting up a business over there – which would have brought good economic benefit to the UK and also employment to Taiwanese people – this is one of the benefits of having a factorial encyclopaedia that has relevant entitled articles that are easy to find and identify and subsequently there is a WP:COMMONNAME guideline to support this, a quote from this guideline "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable".

Furthermore your mentioning the USA like football it is a major sport in that country when everyone knows that it is about the 10th most popular sport and has a following of a tiny fraction of the amount of people in the UK – perhaps the millions of people who care about the correct title should make way for the 3,472 Americans (who might BUT MIGHT NOT) know of the football team Inter Milan as FC Internazionale Milano. For the past 30-60 years every media outlet, journalist, pundit or website has referred to the football team as either Inter Milan or Internazionale. To be honest I shouldn’t have wasted my time replying to such pathetic non-sense. And Adam4267 it might be worth you checking out the WP:COMMONNAME guideline also, then come back on here and retract your waffle. Not that it matters but I'm a former Premiership Football Scout.--Medic [ talk ] 19:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Now keep it civil. Republic of Chinas common name? Taiwan. The USA has more English speakers than the UK, Russia has more English speakers than the UK its not about major sport its about common usage . You might have to explain how you are falling to source the common name and find if it differs from the title of the article. You say that you were shocked to find Internazionale Milano, yet you call them Inter Milan and Internazionale, this is my point of suprise you complain that its not an English name yet use an Italian one yourself. I have show you examples in wiki of how these things work, you have showed only your opinion that its wrong. Wiki is as you have grasped an encyclopaedia, not some where for opinions. Now stop the waffle yourself and show how you are backing your points.Discuss.Murry1975 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Medic. I've started a requested move at Talk:F.C. Internazionale Milano#Requested move. Feel free to add your opinion. Jenks24 (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The debate has been relisted for those who have not yet commented. Number 57 16:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandefjord BK

There have been a small edit war on the article Sandefjord BK regarding the External links. I have tried to explain my views about this on the other editors talk page, but he haven't responded and keeps undoing my edits. I would love it someone else could have a look on this (and the article edit-history) to get a second opinion on this, not just me versus him. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the official fan club would be a relevant link for that section but a link to the Norwegian Wikipedia article is redundant since this is already featured in the language menu to the left. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Added the WP:ELYES and the WP:ELOFFICIAL guidelines to the artcile talk page and to Rexamo's talkpage yesterday, again today the editor reverted. I have requested that they now takes it to the articles talkpage if they wish to alter it. It appears to be a one article account, which is fine, some people have a very narrow area of interest but it is not fine that they are not following guidelines or engaging in discussions, I will template a welcome on their page and hope this brings them into the project more and gives them a more rounded approach.Murry1975 (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and input. Hopefully this guy will be back as a positively contributor! Mentoz86 (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Financial Budgets Teams

Nowdays football is quite all about the money so wouldnt it be a good idea to add the budgets of the clubs (top 20 leagues?) for next season in the Teams section?

like this in the dutch version of Eredivisie 2011/2012, in the table Teams , header "Begroting" 1

I think it would be very intersting for European matches to look up how "big" or "small" the opponent is, financial wise, as a Dutchman(clubs have very small budget in comparison to the top 5 leages) its always fun to know if you beat a team with 4 times budget, but its quite hard to find the data so a list on wikipedia will be very handy. And of course its nice to see in a national league if a "small" club is doing well in comparison to their financial budget, or a "big" club is failing.

But in the Netherlands its mandatory to publish your financial plan for upcoming season, dont know if its mandatory in every league in Europa, so collecting the data will be problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.206.224 (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you've highlighted the problem at the end there - not nearly enough reliable sourcing will be available. GiantSnowman 10:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Linking players to club websites when the player has no wikipedia article

I noticed a small number of players who don't have a Wikipedia article mainly youth players who are yet to meet notability guidelines are being linked to their profile on a club's website. This is what I mean:

Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
35	DF	ENG	Conor Coady

Is this something that should be discouraged or is it ok just thought I bring it up before have mass changes like this. Heres an example of current edit like this Leeds. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I would discourage it as

1. it appears to violate WP:LINKFARM, and
2. will not work with the new Fs player2 template format.

But that's my take.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also discourage it. The links should be to red links. If they aren't notable yet, nothing wrong with still having the red link or having no link. Links like that belong in the external links section and buy integrating them into the text like that, it creates a weird impression regarding link credibility. --LauraHale (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:REF#Avoid embedded links says 'Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the body of an article, like this: "Apple, Inc. announced their latest product..."'. So no. If the player is not yet notable, they shouldn't really be linked at all; it only encourages people to create articles that then have to be deleted. Wouldn't have a problem with the link being formatted as a reference, as with Monty Gimpel at that Leeds page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Football clubs on remote islands

Establishing notability of middle and lower tier clubs used to be a challenging issue until I learnt that teams that have played in the national cup are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. It is a simple criteria that generally works well but cracks begin to appear in the case of remote islands (or less remote islands where exhorbitant travel costs to the mainland are faced). Last summer I visited the Azores and took a lot of photos of football grounds with the view to later preparing WP club articles for the island teams.

The island of São Miguel has around 18 clubs (refer Ponta Delgada Football Association) of which 3 currently have articles. A few clubs have competed in the Taça de Portugal (Portuguese Cup) but many have not. In this respect they fail the WP notability test.

However some clubs have played in the Série Azores of the Portuguese Third Division (fourth tier) which is part of the national level of the league structure. Do they then achieve notability under the WP notability test?

All clubs have fully enclosed grounds with 3G pitch, terracing, seating and floodlights including those that play at the District Level (fifth tier). I have photographic evidence in support. Facilities are generally much better than Step 5 and 6 (Level 9 and 10) club grounds in England.

Given these facts can I assume all clubs on São Miguel down to District Level (fifth tier) are notable? Or do they stil fail WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG? I do not want to undertake any abortive work.

If you accept my position on the notability of clubs in the Azores it then leads on to whether clubs on other islands such as Guernsey and Jersey are notable if their ground facilities are of a sufficiently high standard.

I know that comparisons are frowned on in some quarters - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - but for me the following table provides plenty of food for thought in terms of fairness and consistency:

Island(s) Population WP club articles Potential articles Comment Guernsey 65,000 3 7 1 FA Vase entrant. Jersey 92,500 2 17 1 FA Vase entrant. Isle of Man 80,000 26 1 1 FA Vase entrant. Faroe Islands 50,000 23 FIFA member Greenland 56,000 8 1 Åland Islands 28,000 5 3 Finnish Cup entries São Miguel - Azores 140,000 3 15 A few Taça de Portugal entries.

The table provides just a brief snapshop of winners and losers! Surely we can oversee a fairer notability system for island clubs? (Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 11:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)).

You seem to understand this, but it's worth reiterating that just because certain articles don't exist doesn't automatically mean that they shouldn't. Equally, just because articles do exist doesn't automatically mean that they should.

In the case of clubs from São Miguel, it would surprise me if only three clubs have played in the Taça de Portugal. My understanding is that all clubs in Série Azores have been eligible for that cup since 2007, meaning that they would meet this Wikiproject's notability essays. If we're going by the population representation argument, I would expect at least half of clubs in that division to come from São Miguel. Even if some decided that entering was not financially viable, surely more than three have had a go over the last five years? —WFC— 15:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As WFC has touched on, the criteria you refer to whereby appearing in a national cup is deemed to denote club notability, is a WP:Footy essay, and this is not the same as meeting WP:Notability or indeed WP:NSPORT. Eldumpo (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Malmö FF managers FLC

Hi! The FLC of one of the lists I've written has been left with no input for almost a week. I would deeply appreciate any given feedback. Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Excessive copyrighted material

The page Club León has been tagged for a year for excessive use of copyrighted material, most likely due to the Historic Badges section. As far as I know about fair use logos, only the current logo qualifies under fair use, but I would appreciate consensus before removing the other logos. Cloudz679 14:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the fair use part, however if it was the badges they would of been tagged themselves not the article surely. Why don't you ask the tagger. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks EW, I managed to track down the tagger and have asked at his talkpage. Cloudz679 15:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Fabrice Muamba

Just a quick note that this will likely to get a lot of views and edits tonight when more information comes through about his health. Could this article be protected for a day? – Lemonade51 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I second this. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Results by round

On the recent Premier League articles there are results by round charts, including the league position. The Premier League doesn't have "rounds", so i decided to create a new one replacing the word 'round' with 'match', but it appears it's 100 times more difficult to do than i thought it would be. Someone had already pointed this out the talk page to no reply, so i'm not the only one who thought this. Is there anyone here who knows how to do this without too much difficulty?

This is it just in case anyone was wondering:

Round	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38
Ground	A	H	H	A	H	A	H	A	H	A	H	A	A	H	A	H	H	A	A	H	H	A	H	A	H	A	A	H
Result	D	W	D	D	D	D	W	L	L	D	W	L	D	L	W	L	L	D	W	L	D	W	D	L	L	D	D	W
Position	8	1	6	8	8	8	6	8	11	9	8	8	8	9	8	10	12	12	9	13	13	11	12	13	15	15	15	14

Updated to match(es) played on 10. Source:
A = Away; H = Home; W = Win; D = Draw; L = Loss

I know this might not seem like a major issue, but i think it's something which should be corrected. At the top of the Aston Villa season article it says "15th (round 28 of 38)". I also seen a section a while ago titled "position by round" or something, which i changed to 'match'. It then stems into other things like the examples above and it could become accepted on Wikipedia that all of a sudden English football leagues have rounds. Bobbymaestro (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's really a minor issue? Why doens't the Premier league have rounds? Sure they have. Maybe they don't use that wording, but its a round, a spieltag, the games of a week, a weekend, whatever. I wouldn't bother. -Koppapa (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

They don't use alternative wording for it in English football, it's not done this way. Bobbymaestro (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be overly difficult to change it. The template it uses is Template:Fb_rbr_header this defaults to the word Round. Now it can be changed to Match, but is there consensus for this. Im not so sure its a pressing issue.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Changing a template which could be used by different leagues is not the way to go. In the Ukrainian league it is definitely Round (тур) and not match. Template changes should have consensus - or else go create a Fb-rbr-header-English template. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

But thats my point there isn't consensus for it. Even if you do create a new header which is fine would it be widely used. So the answer is yes it can be sorted by replacing the header thats whats causing the issue. Your other changes won't actually solve the issue. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a group of admins/planners/wannabe_managers on this project who are anti-template and anti-round for that matter so a one-fit-for-all template is as useful as bag of squashed crisps.... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not just introduce another optional parameter where one could choose which word is to be used? (The default word which shows up when the param is not filled out should be chosen on whichever one occurs more often in these tables) --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The default would have to be round, how easy would that be to do.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The proposed formation of a Finland task force

Some of you may be aware that a few weeks ago I started an initiative to form a Finland task force in order to try to improve the standard of articles on Finnish Football and to overcome some of the inconsistencies that we currently face - in particular the naming of Finnish League and Cup articles.

We now have 5 members which in my view is enough to take the Task force forward and I am optimistic that another couple of Finnish contributors will join once we are properly up and running. A lively debate has taken place on the Talk Page of the project which has helped to stimulate interest.

My sincere apologies for not following the correct protocols - I am still learning about the MOS and the ways that WT:FOOTY work. For example I do not know how the Assessment section of the task force should be implemented.

There is an awful lot of work to develop Finnish football articles to an acceptable standard but a very exciting development is the discovery that the Suomen Urheilumuseo (Finnish Sports Museum) holds pdfs of annual Finnish Football Association year reports from 1907-1975. These contain details of league tables, cup results etc and provides a wonderful historical digital resource (that we can view online) that currently is virtually untapped. They can be viewed on http://www.urheilumuseo.fi/Default.aspx?tabid=2986 Suomen Urheilumuseo (click on the "Suomen Palloliiton" link).

I put forward our initiative for discussion and hopefully your endorsement. (Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 13:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)).

I'm more than happy to join/help out as I can, but woukd it not perhaps be more useful to have a Scandinavian/Nordic task force, covering Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland % Faroe Islands? GiantSnowman 13:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of a Scandinavian task force, or, to be more politically correct, a Nordic one (if we were including Finland); and in that case, could we add the Faroe Islands too, please? Jared Preston (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, suppose Nordic is more accurate, and forgot about the Faroes (sorry!). Now added to my first comment. GiantSnowman 13:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the sound of a Nordic football task force. I have nothing against a Finnish one either, just thought it should be brought up here before it was created. – PeeJay 14:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A Nordic task force sounds good, don't forget the Åland Islands! Cloudz679 14:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder: we already have a Swedish football task force. Perhaps a merger? – PeeJay 15:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitely. Otherwise we'll have six (or seven for all you Ålanders out there!) seperate ones, when one will suffice. GiantSnowman 15:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm the initator of the Swedish task force and I would be open for a merger with the Finish for the creation of a Nordic task force. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the Sámi! Number 57 15:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I would support a Nordic task force on the grounds of avoiding duplication and repetition. In a Finnish context the downside is that there will be a lack of contact with the grassroots - the unsung heroes that update players statistics, club details, league tables and insert daily cup results. It would be really advantageous to "bring them on board" and this was one of my objectives with the proposed Finland task force. In this respect I question whether a "non decision making" sub-group might be formed - the Finnish Football Discussion Group (or other suitable alternative title) - that reports to the Nordic task force. The project page of the Discussion Group could accommodate the Finnish Football Assessment, Finnish Football Focus Articles and most importantly the Finnish Football Information Resources - a library of links and sources. In my view it would be difficult to adequately cover this level of detail for 6 Nordic countries on the Nordic task force project page. Any thoughts? (Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 10:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)).

I think that a Finnish Sub-group (and Swedish, Danish etc.) is getting a bit too complicated & overly bureaucratic. However, no issues dividing links per nation - have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links, it's already in place there. GiantSnowman 13:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to against the flow but I think that if the Finns want their own task force, they should be able to have it. There is no reason to create an umbrella one for all the Nordic nations. If individual clubs are allowed to have their own task forces, then a country like Finland, with all its clubs, league, players, national teams, etc. can have its own. I mean we wouldn't dare merge the English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh football taskforces under an umbrella UK/Great Britain one (sorry, I know Ireland is not part of GB/UK but I don't know the politically correct term for that region off the top of my head). In fact, with all due respect, I don't think the suggestion of a broad Nordic task force should have even come up. Just my two cents. TonyStarks (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The difference between the Nordic countries and the British ones is that this version of Wikipedia is in English, therefore there will be more activity in groups covering English-speaking nations. The Nordic countries probably have fewer contributors and so it makes more sense to merge them. – PeeJay 11:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

British Isles task force, you mean. Well, I agree, if there is sufficient support for an independent Finland task force it would be possible to go ahead, but if both groups (Finland and Sweden) are willing to compromise, maybe this could help Denmark and the rest of the countries in the enlarged scope. Of course in your example of the British Isles there is representation in terms of separate task forces already. Final words from me, that I believe the creation of a new Finland taskforce or a merger with the existing Swedish football taskforce would both be beneficial to Wikipedia and I believe it is up to the creator of the proposed task force and the existing one how to proceed. Cloudz679 12:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why a Finnish task force can't exist on its own, rather than needing to be a part of a 'Nordic' one. Taiwan has it's own task force, so does Netherlands, but has only 4 listed members. Eldumpo (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, my point exactly. Again, nothing against a merger if users want to go that way, but if the Finns want their own, they can have their own, provided they have sufficient members that are willing to participate (which seems to be the case). TonyStarks (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel that a Nordic taskforce has more potential, and Finnish Gas seems enthusiastic about it - so what's the problem? GiantSnowman 14:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Lyrics of a club's official anthem in articles

AEK Athens and PAOK have got the full lyrics of their official anthems in the body. I think WP:NOTLYRICS is quite clear, but I'd like a second opinion about whether to remove them or not. (I already removed the lyrics from this article, some parts of which didn't look official at all) – Kosm1fent 18:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with your position and would also note that the transliterations and translations are not done by recognized experts. They should be moved to Wikisource as suggested. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh good. Thanks. – Kosm1fent 19:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Boogiejuice at FC Bayern Munich‎

This is related to an editor who isn't quite clear on the concept of WP:RS. The editor adds the references, some very weak, to the talk page and then adds information about Leeds supporters rioting in Paris to the article. I don't see what the actions of Leeds supporters has to do with the opposing club's article. Feel free to respond here or at either FC Bayern Munich or Talk:FC Bayern Munich. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Uruguay 2011-12 in season page

Hello and Thank You for allowing me to post.

Did this page become a non-priority? This used to be updated within a day and nothing has been updated since February.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.179.3 (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Which parts of 2011–12 in Uruguayan football have not been updated? In any case, you might either drop a line on the talk of the article's main contributor, Largopajero (talk · contribs) or, even better, add the desired information by yourself. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Archieford Gutu, spelling right or wrong?

Doing some edits to Kalmar FF new african players i noticed that Archieford Gutu have two ways of spelling his first name, either its Archieford or Archford, depending on what site you use. Wonder if someone can clear it up and if a move is necessary. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 18:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As fifa.com for example uses both, i guess Archford is just the short-form. Article should stay at the long then i guess. -Koppapa (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Free HighBeam accounts

Hello all – free HighBeam 1-year accounts are being given out at Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications. This might come in useful for this WikiProject's devoted editors. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Full list

Currently at 35 - I've tagged a couple, but have limited time and would appreciate some help. Thanks, GiantSnowman 13:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What needs to be tagged? I looked at about half, most had some kind of reference in the "External links" so I removed the templates. Cloudz679 19:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If no sources can be found, use {{BLPPROD}}. If references are there and no notability, take to PROD/AfD. If references & notability are there but it could do with more, use {{BLP sources}}. If external links are present then convert to in-line citations if possible and then remove the unreferenced tag. GiantSnowman 19:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And if it should be BLPPROD but was created before March 18, 2010, Timmy?? - Cloudz679 21:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, find a ref! Cloudz679 21:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And what if no reference can be found, how do we proceed to delete the article? For example, I can't find anything for Mohammed Ibrahim (footballer) and the article was created before the BLPProd cutoff deadline. Can I just try deleting it through AfD? TonyStarks (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That would seem to be the logical conclusion. AfD for him. Cloudz679 11:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Live match reporting

I've recently noticed live match reporting at, 2011-12 UEFA Champions League, 2011-12 UEFA Europa League and 2011-12 FA Cup to mention a few. The usual appearance of this is to report the score of the game with goal scorers and card with absolutely no references and with a text saying "in progress" under the score. To me this seems like a breach of WP:NOTNEWS. If it is, what can be done about the problem? The users concerning themselves with this are usually IP's but sometimes registered users and usually very stubborn. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Has been discussed many times. Due to the IPs there is nothing that can be done. It's not worth the effort reverting, as most info is correct anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This has been brought up here numerous times, and the outcome seems to be that's it's regarded as not ideal but does no real harm, although the 'In progress' tag should be added. Hopefully someone can point you to the last discussion. Eldumpo (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Im strongly against the live reporting. Personally i think they should be reverted what if the game isn't completed and they don't finish it. But i agree its got to the point where its not worth the trouble. The template has been nominated a couple of times and kept, the template encourages and makes its seem legitimate but it always comes down to its not going to solve the problem by removing it. They are stubborn and several convos i have had always come down to if its discourages then why is there a template for it. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What about this "On the next matchday" stuff, like in 2013 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship qualification Group 4? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic, original research per WP:SYNTH, but yet these "factoids" always appear. I'm against them. Anybody else? Cloudz679 20:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I reckon out of date articles, unreferenced articles and articles with dead links are far worse. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the latest figures, there are 211 articles which need updating and nearly 5,000 with dead external links! Cloudz679 09:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In regards to dead links. Its always going to be a problem. The stats sites frequently change and for instance in Scottish football, Peterhead,Inverness,Berwick,Rangers, Raith and Dundee United have all changed their websites this season alone. Berwick have changed 3 times. Its just an ongoing problem.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I too am strongly against live reporting, but there is something that can be done: lock the articles on match days. Also removing the match in progress template would help since the question is frequently raised as to why the template exists if there desire is not to update during play. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That isn't how our encyclopedia works. The end result of barriers like this is not an increase in average article quality. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A related issue, that could seriously mess up player stats, is a recently observed habit whereby editors apparently spend Saturday afternoons watching Sky sports news or similar, and then update each goalscorer's infobox as goals are reported. Sometimes appearances are updated, sometimes only the goals, very rarely is the update date adjusted. This could very easily lead to duplication when an editor with interest in the club updates sometime after the final whistle/over the following days. I doubt there is much that we can do to prevent this... Kevin McE (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not and cannot ever be a canonical resource for statistics. Nonetheless, our low barrier to entry has resulted, in the last decade, in our average accuracy being high. The system is, against all odds, working. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Kevin you have a fair point but who would update some of these articles if it weren't for the IPs (generally) who are dedicated to it. I agree with Chris, our system isn't particularly good at all but somehow it works quite well. Although I think having a bot which could assist people with updating multiple articles is a good idea. Adam4267 (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Case in point

Back when I started having an interest in contributing to WP:FOOTY I got my editing skills by being involved with those so called high profile live update areas. And of course a flame war erupted with the highly regarded admins putting the new editor in the corner that no live updates can be performed with the usual reasons but mostly because there was not reference article in the Report link area. Once the official report would come from UEFA the joy of now officially allowing the update would settle any on going issues. But let's have a look at those official reports... Ah, the wonderful moments of the 2009–10 UEFA Champions League were well recorded and updated. But if anyone were to have a look 2009–10 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round#Matches the report link for the first game is as follows: Report Hibernians vs. Mogren - Well, it doesn't tell you very much, does it? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Two things

Firstly, can an admin restore Britt Assombalonga which was prod-ed a few weeks ago. He's made a professional appearance now, and I seem to recall that version was reasonable. Secondly, I'm trying to duplicate note 17 here so it appears next to both Assombalonga and Connor Smith's names. Anyone know how to do that? HornetMike (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the notes bit. U+003F^? 11:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Be careful of any restored version of Britt Assombalonga. It was created more than once by a serial sockpuppeteer whose method of operation is to copypaste players' club profiles and other copyvio content into articles. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Restored - please update as appropriate. Thanks, GiantSnowman 11:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that guy actually notable? Who did he make a professional appearance for? Adam4267 (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

He made his debut for Watford in the Football League on 17 March. GiantSnowman 19:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay I added that to the article. I was just unsure because it hadn't been updated even though the article was re-created. Adam4267 (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly did you think an undelete had been requested? There are some pretty absurd examples of editors failing to AGF or even engage their thinking apparatus at all on here recently. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Football records

Hi, can I create Template:Football records linked with Football records in France, Football records in England, Football records in Italy, ... and create missing countries like Football records in Germany for example ? Thanks for answer. (French WP user) --Guiggz (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Association football records created. --Guiggz (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Luigi Moure - AfD all over

Has not played in higher than Segunda División B (and a grand total of 53 games at the age of 30!). User:El rayo que no cesa is a really committed fellow in Valencian football, so he creates, creates and creates articles on footballers who hail from that region and/or represent several clubs in the community.

I have already messaged him once about this (politely, he has done that always too), seemingly to no avail. Now, i have sent him another briefing...

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

PRODed. ~ Kosm1fent 15:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks mate! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

India task force

Hey sorry to bother again, just want to say and ask for help. By the way we have now reached 5 contributors and I am expecting more to join soon. Anyway I brought this up before how if you look at the talk page of say Matthew Ryan you will see that he has that template of the scope for Wikiproject Australia which says at the bottom that this "This article is supported by the Australian football (soccer) task force." Now I for one think that this is pretty cool and a good way to keep track of all the Australian players and would love to have that for India but I honestly dont know how to and I would spend the time myself to figure it out but my time on wikipedia will be limited for a while now and with the Indian league beginning again next week I will be busy updating every page so if anyone is willing can anyone do that for me while using this picture as well... File:Indian Football.jpg. Thank you so much. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

3 of the 6 are you. So really that 4 editors.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh ya, I actually forgot I used IndianFootballPlayersWiki. I should start using that account again as that keeps track of only players. Anyway yes that is 4 but that for me is still enough. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Putting the task force to side for one moment, why do you have so many accounts?! You do know that is normally not allowed, right? GiantSnowman 18:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I use them to keep myself organized. Its not as if I use all 3 all the time. And also I had a conversation about the accounts last summer, it was okay as I only go onto these account twice a day (for each) and the only thing I do on those accounts are check the watchlist. For example the IndianFootballPlayersWiki has every single I-League player on its watchlist. I dont want to have so many watched pages on my Arsenalkid700 watchlist so I use IndianFootballPlayersWiki to keep track. For the FootballinIndiaWiki I have every single Indian Football Club on the watchlist. Basically it is just to keep myself organized and it has worked so far. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

None of those are covered by WP:SOCK#LEGIT, as far as I can see. GiantSnowman 19:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You could say that it does count under WP:SOCK#LEGIT, through Maintenance as that is why I have the account. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That refers to automated tasks etc., not because you don't like having a long watchlist. GiantSnowman 19:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont see where it says that and also what is the problem with me wanting some organization. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

At the very least you should only have one listed as a member i.e. your main one. Its misleading and unnecessary. Im really not convinced having the three accounts are considered legit in wikipedia terms. And if it is then you need to mark User:IndianFootballPlayersWiki as belonging to you. Either way I would be happy to help set it up for you but i would either like more editors to be willing to take part in your task force or acceptance from others here that 4 editors is enough.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

List of songs that teams regularly walk out to on matchdays

Do you folks think there's room for a list like this and, if so, what should it be called? I don't think anthems is quite the right word. Famous examples that immediately come to mind are You'll Never Walk Alone, Z-Cars and Hi Ho Silver Lining. If this is a goer, anyone know of a good source? U+003F^? 19:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Celtic Song, Celtic and Everton. Adam4267 (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This would be a start. Though it fails WP:RS and the list is a few years old so you need to individually find each club's entrance theme. Plus would the list be exclusive to British clubs? – Lemonade51 (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

GQ made a list for all English league teams this season, and would suggest an article title of List of football entrance music U+003F^? 20:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, is the compiled list going to be the current music played by clubs or just comprehensive (full list)? I mean for instance I recall Manchester City using 'Nightmare' by Brainbug during the Sven era. But before and after that it was 'Right Here Right Now'. – Lemonade51 (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, Is any of it going to be referenced? It should be to a reliable third-party source not a YouTube video or similar. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the songs played are non-notable. The wouldn't be much info anyway besided a naked list. -Koppapa (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, it's obvious that for anything like this to be viable the entries will be cited reliably. There is, possibly, some mileage in this, Z Cars is a deffo, and should be easy to cite, but I know that, for instance, Ipswich have changed their "walk on" music many times lately. Who has walked out to specific songs beyond the odd three or four you mentioned? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is without strict and reasonable notability criteria, every ip who comes across the page will add his team to it. I don't think the list would work unfortunately, despite it being a good idea. Adam4267 (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

My lot have been appearing to The Rockford Files since, well, the time of The Rockford Files, and for me that music is strongly associated with the team. Which led to my initial question. But I agree that such a list would likely end up as under-referenced tat unless you could come up with stringent entry criteria. U+003F^? 21:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No reason why you couldn't make a decent GA of it, as long as you had a decent historical angle and then some citations for modern usage. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

See Music at sporting events Adam4267 (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A pretty waek article in my opinion. -Koppapa (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd struggle to think of any British examples other than the handful already mentioned which are likely to be mentioned by reliable sources (loads of teams seem to use "Right Here Right Now", but I bet you'd never find a source for any of them), and TBH I think such a list would eventually just become a dumping ground for uncited crap..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That can happen to just about any list to be fair. List of diets, for example. —WFC— 01:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Dozens of them [10] --Egghead06 (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I knocked up the list anyway, for my own benefit. In the English leagues, Insomnia, O Fortuna and This Is the One make three appearances but, as Chris said above, Right Here, Right Now is favoured by four teams. U+003F^? 12:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

League Notability inconsistencies

A debate on the Turkish Regional Amateur League is highlighting gross inconsistencies in the way that we currently cover the notability of leagues across the world.

In terms of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability essay I put forward the case that it would be much more meaningful and fair if the second criteria on League Notability was changed. It currently reads

All leagues that are a country's highest level are assumed notable.

and I suggest that it be replaced by

All leagues that form part of the first five tiers of a national league system are assumed notable.

(League Octopus (League Octopus 13:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC))

I don't know. Seems too much for me. Many smaller countries dont have 5 tiers maybe. -Koppapa (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about the leagues themselves, the players, or the clubs? We have articles on leagues down to level 15 or something in England. Number 57 14:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

In this context I am just talking about the leagues themselves - sorry I tried to keep it brief. We go down to Level 24 in England at the moment.(League Octopus (League Octopus 14:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC))

Definitely not - top level leagues in countries like Samoa and Guam are barely notable, let alone 5th level. GiantSnowman 14:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a valid point in too many English clubs being 'notable' though. Adam4267 (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an OTT reaction to a silly AfD. We should only assume notability where it would be silly not to, such as in the top-flight leagues which will inevitably attract daily media coverage in most countries. Other than that we have to weigh up what we know about the subject. In this case, it seems likely that the league itself (if not all the teams in it) is notable, but that certainly wouldn't be the case for a theoretical Faeroese fifth tier. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Assumed notability still needs to be proven, let's not forget. GiantSnowman 15:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There's some nuance there. If one can demonstrate that sources are unlikely to exist, one can argue that the subject is not notable (per Wikipedia:V#Notability). However, the mere absence of sources on a given article revision is not demonstrative of the absence of their existence. That's the whole reason we have a presumed notability threshold: otherwise we would simply have a bot go around deleting any articles lacking the required number of references. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So an article which meets the presumed notability criteria basically cannot be deleted even if it isn't actually notable. Adam4267 (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I quite plainly said the opposite in the second sentence of what you just replied to. The important factor here is that there needs to be some demonstration that one has actually bothered to look for said sources and come up blank. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

How can we know that everyone who creates an article has actually bothered to look for sources though. Also surely if there are no sources for something then it just isn't notable, despite the fact that it may meet the notability criteria. Adam4267 (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I accept that we would not want the fifth tier of countries like Samoa and Guam included but it could be covered by a little more prescriptive approach below linked to regular top 100 FIFA rankings)

All leagues that form part of the first five tiers of a "major" national league system are assumed notable.

("Major" to be determined by countries with a regular top 100 FIFA ranking)

Just a thought.(League Octopus (League Octopus 16:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC))

No, those rules are just completely arbitrary and not relevant to notability. How about All Leagues which meet WP:GNG are assumed to be notable. Adam4267 (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Any league (or topic) which meets GNG wouldn't benefit from this type of guideline. The point of having a guideline would be to cover leagues which would not meet GNG. Cloudz679 17:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If a league does't meet GNG then why would it be on Wikipedia? Adam4267 (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the WP:FOOTYN essay on league notability is fine as it is. For lower leagues that that, use WP:GNG; the rest do not deserve an article on Wikipedia anyways. – Kosm1fent 19:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So would you say that the English League Levels between 12 and 24, which are not eligible for national cups but have articles, should be deleted. [11] Adam4267 (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

(Are you refering to me?) If they don't meet WP:GNG, yes. – Kosm1fent 20:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

(I was) That's a whole lot of leagues though, probably over 100. I don't know what the process is for starting something like that. I'm pretty certain those leagues don't meet GNG as the article says that the lowest national cup is the FA Vase open to level 11. Adam4267 (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think one deletion discussion featuring all leagues that don't meet requirements will do. They are not too many. – Kosm1fent 21:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The lowest one I found is at level 21 and 22 Bristol and Avon League. Would be a good candidate if anyone is interested. Cloudz679 21:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be pointed out, of course, that defining that league as levels 21 and 22 is 100% OR, as the FA only define levels down to 11. Everything below that simply exists in an amorphous mass of "other leagues", from which some fansites have worked out levels based on tenuous details of which teams have been "promoted" from one league to another. Much of our English football league system article is complete OR. In the past, articles on very low level leagues have been kept at AfD pretty much on the sole grounds of "it is part of the English league system" but I can certainly see an argument in favour of getting rid of some of those which are really little more than pub leagues. I don't know what the level of coverage is in other parts of the country, but certainly in my area even the free local paper doesn't cover anything below the Premier Division of the West Midlands (Regional) League other than in a micro-dot sized results box...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue that I would raise is that many of the "lower leagues" of the English league system have a tremendous history - some dating back more than a 100 years. They provide the link with the past that enables us to see clearly the roots of many English clubs that are now high up the league pyramid. In my view we should not be looking at just the current status of a league but we should also take into account its past history - effectively its contribution to "the history of English football", however small. When I have prepared a lower league article the most important and fascinating aspect for me has always been its history, the changes in its status, the changes in administrative area and most importantly the notable clubs that benefited from its "nursery" environment that propogated their growth. I would like to think that it is possible to incorporate a suitable notability criterion within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability essay that gives regard to this historical aspect. (League Octopus (League Octopus 10:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)).

Don't forget that WP:FOOTYN is an essay, not an official notability guideline, which means that an article (expecially one about a football club or league, which are not covered by WP:NFOOTBALL) may still be deleted if the subject doesn't satisfy WP:N. Moreover, such an addition would go against the spirit of WP:FOOTYN, which provides some flexibility, namely accepting the notability of football personel/clubs/leagues of a relatively high stature "as they would have received significant coverage as outlined in the general notability criteria." (WP:NFOOTBALL) WP:GNG prevails over all notability guidelines. I trust there are reliable sources citing the alleged "tremendous history" those leagues have? If yes, those leagues may pass WP:GNG. If not, they do not deserve a place in Wikipedia; not everything we like does. – Kosm1fent 13:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A backcloth to this debate is the desire to seek simple clarification on what is notable so myself and many many others do not not spend hours producing or updating articles that will eventually be deleted. Such clarification works much better if there are simple common sense and consistent criteria for us to follow and respect. Reference to all the prevailing general and football WP notability criteria above unfortunately leads to an increasing sense of uncertainty and confusion. Probably some WP Administrators/Experts do not appreciate what a confusing quagmire ordinary Editors face. With regard to the above question available league sources covering historical aspects are variable in terms of quality and often require further research. (League Octopus (League Octopus 14:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)).

There is an extremely simple yardstick which would completely alleviate this problem if only people actually followed it: when creating an article, ensure that you have sufficient sources looked out in advance to demonstrate the subject's notability. The GNG trumps any other notability guideline. It is only if one goes creating articles without providing sufficient indication of secondary coverage that we need to fall back on the other guidelines, all of which (ideally) exist only to provide sensible heuristics and not to supplant the general policy on what makes a subject notable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Returning to the original example - Turkish Regional Amateur League - I have made some quick amendments and added references. Does it now meet the WP:GNG yardstick described above? I could remove the red links in a couple of minutes if that is helpful. (League Octopus (League Octopus 16:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC))

I have left my comment there, I don't believe it to be notable. However, Chris is right. When creating articles make sure that they are notable before you actually spend lots of time on them. With regards to the English league situation is there a general agreement that all the legaues below level 11 should be deleted? Adam4267 (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

League Octopus - no, that does not meet GNG still in my opinion. Note that after a tip-off from Soccer-holic (talk · contribs) I have contacted three Turksish-speaking editors active on football articles (Nmturkey (talk · contribs), Aozm (talk · contribs), Omerlaziale (talk · contribs)) to help search for sources/notability. GiantSnowman 17:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

@League Octopus: Doesn't look that way, I'm afraid. There needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and those two websites currently in the article are not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I reckon the input of a Turkish editor will be helpful; maybe there is enough coverage in Turkish media, we just have to find them. – Kosm1fent 17:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

@Adam4267: Well... not "all" per se, just those with no or inadequate references. (I haven't checked each and every one's quality – If all of them are bad, "all" it is!) – Kosm1fent 17:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

With reference to contact being made with Turkish-speaking editors and the fact that there are 169,000 Ghits on Bölgesel Amatör Lig (Turkish Regional Amateur League) it suggests that an article can be created which meets WP:GNG. This then leads to the point that adequate time should always be given to allow articles to be developed to meet WP:GNG. This does not appear to be the case with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Regional Amateur League. This seems very unfortunate and unfair. (League Octopus (League Octopus 08:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)).

Ghits alone is not an appropriate measure for assessing notability per WP:GHITS The number of search results has nothing to do with quality, which has to be of a high standard. – Kosm1fent 14:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Leader after each Gameweek

In each league season, such as 2011-12 Premier League, I think that a chart that illustrates what team is leading the standings after each "gameweek" should be included, similar to the Lap Leaders chart used in articles such as the 2011 Australian Grand Prix or the 2010 Canadian Grand Prix (the location of the example in both is at the bottom of the Grand Prix's info box). Post what you think. Editadam 11:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "gameweek" - some teams may play once in week 1, twice in week 2, no times in week 3 etc. etc. GiantSnowman 11:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Editadam, is there a reliable source for your illustrative chart? Cloudz679 11:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that there is "no such thing": the official Premier League Fantasy Football game certainly uses game weeks. A better reason to oppose this sort of thing is that it is yet more of the sort of almanac-style statistical trivia that we should be trying to avoid overburdening articles with. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Premier League Fantasy Football game is not the same as the Premier League. English football does not operate in rounds, gameweeks, matchdays, etc. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No where does it mention in the Premier League handbook that games are allocated into "rounds" or "gameweeks". So this can't really be implemented. If you look at Section E for instance, fixtures are not set at a fixed date -- they are subject to change because of television and/or teams competing in a UEFA related match or the FA Cup. It's difficult to label it as something because teams could be playing catch-up/games in hand, distorting matters. Furthermore, "Matchdays" refer to the day of the game. – Lemonade51 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Does the template I made for creating player articles considered a stub?

When I saw that I was practically the only full time Indian Football editor I created a template that I would follow when I created articles for Indian footballers (or foreign if they play in India). I have used it to create around 70 player pages (all of which are under the age of 21 and notable) and when assessed it was called a stub. I expected a "start" assessment or a "C" one, never a stub. Here is the template (User:Arsenalkid700/Indian Football Players Template) and here is an example of a few players I have used the template with... Alwyn George, Pawan Kumar (footballer), Manish Bhargav, and Sanjiban Ghosh. If the editor is right and they are stubs then can someone please tell me how to fix this because the reason I even came onto wikipedia is to improve the Indian Football articles (and other articles I come across) and turn them into at least "C" assessment articles and as far away from a stub as possible. Thank you and cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Beside stats and infoboxes, they only consist of 2-4 sentences. That's short, therefore a stub i guess. -Koppapa (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment is a very subjective thing, and the vast majority of our articles (not only in WP:FOOTY but across the whole of Wikipedia) are incorrectly assessed at this point. I wouldn't worry too much over whether something is Stub-class or C-class; it's the content that matters, not what grade someone has given it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment is indeed subjective, so I don't see how it can be claimed that "the vast majority of articles are incorrectly assessed" because firstly, as was mentioned, assessment is subjective, and secondly, I doubt anybody has actually read such an amount of articles. However, content does indeed prevail. The question about the template is fairly easy to answer. A template, which you may have created, can be a useful way to create similar pages. However, it is what we can learn specifically about the topic which is what we are interested in, in assessing articles.

Looking at one of the example articles, Manish Bhargav, all a reader learns from this is A) that this guy signed a football contract and B) that he started his football career this year. Definitely a stub as far as I can tell. If Arsenalkid700 is interested in contributing higher-quality articles, may I recommend trying to bridge the gap between "very little meaningful content" and "some meaningful content". A C-class article looks like this, do you know any Indian football articles which look anything like that? Cloudz679 15:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Your template's fine, in general. It gives the basic structure of a footballer biog, though you could usefully add a reminder to put a reference for the stats, but the difference between stub and any other grading is what goes between the headings. A start-class article would need more prose content than in those very short articles you mention above. For young and inexperienced players, it's hard to write enough to get to start class, let alone above start class, because they won't usually have done much to write about. To see what assessors expect of a C-class footballer article, it might be worth looking at Category:C-Class football in England articles, though remember to check the date the assessment was made in the edit history to make sure you're looking at the assessed version of the article. As examples, this version of Simon Ainge, the current version of Jimmy Easson, and this version of Mark Albrighton (it did have an infobox as well) have all been assessed as C-class. But there's nothing wrong with creating stubs with references; they're a good basis for you or anyone else to expand from, and that's how Wikipedia grows. It's much easier for most editors to add content to a sensibly structured article than it is to start from scratch. hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Issues for me:

• Place of birth should not be in opening brackets, per WP:OPENPARA
• Headings should not be capitalised i.e. 'Career Statistics' should be 'Career statistics'
• Career stats table should be referenced directly
• Career stats table should not include assists
• I'd also change the wording in the intro but that's personal preference more than anything else

Other than that, looks good, though I'm struggling to see why India needs its own template when we have the worldwide Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. GiantSnowman 18:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The template is not for other users. It is mainly for me (why I have it under my username). Others can use if they want to. It makes it easier for me to just go to that template, copy and paste and replace most parts to information about the player, that is all. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Also thank you guys for your thoughts, I will keep them in mind and will try changing things in that template I made for myself. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You're doing a great job AK. I'm sure having a dedicated Indian editor will be great for the project. But I think what everyone else has said so far (especially Giantsnowman above) is correct. The template you made is really good but that has little to do with the quality of the article as that's related to how in-depth it is. Here's a similar example of a young Scottish footballer with only a few appearances (Dylan McGeouch) that is a start class. At that stage of a player's career there's generally little to write about, but just getting them started is great because you can add more later. Adam4267 (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Adam. I can see now how they are all stubs. Also I just looked at rookies from the 2012 MLS SuperDraft who's articles are similar to mine and can now see how they are stubs. Thanks for the example of Dylan also, nice to see an article about a promising Scottish footballer. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

1977 Football League Cup Final

This match went to a second replay, and whilst that info is included in the infobox, only the first two games appear when viewed. Is there an input error, or can the template not deal with a third match? I see 1979 Scottish Cup Final has done things differently, but this means less info is shown. Eldumpo (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If you look at {{Infobox football match}}, you will see it can only cope with two games (or legs). Number 57 22:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ballon d'Or

I think we need to consider permanently semi protecting this article. I ask here rather than RFPP because the edits don't constitute vandalism.

I'm not particularly bothered that an established editor reverts a good faith series of edits every few days, that's not too much work. But it would be less bitey to protect the page and respond to queries about why we only go up to 2009 on the talk page, than it is to keep the door open for numerous, good faith editors to waste their time trying to figure out table syntax and "update" the list, before promptly being reverted. Editors on the wrong end of the latter probably won't come back. —WFC— 01:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What happened with getting an edit notice added, per the talk? Was that tried? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, that suggestion was roundly ignored. Clearly one or the other needs to happen. —WFC— 15:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was about to go and create one, but then I thought about it a bit more. We have numerous reliable sources conflating the awards; we have a rather anaemic article for the "new" award; we have plenty of well-meaning editors looking to improve the article by including material drawn from reliable sources. To be quite honest i think we're swimming upstream here for a rather nebulous gain in terms of a normative separation between two awards that plenty (possible even most) reliable sources treat as being one and the same. I think it's maybe time we just stopped fighting and merged the pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You may well be right, but doing something now need not prejudice the outcome of future discussion. Judging by the talk page there is active opposition to your suggestion, and therefore there would need to be a full discussion about it, one that may well drag out. In the meantime, should we knowingly continue to piss off these well meaning editors? —WFC— 23:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

So are we basically saying that the Ballon d'Or and the FIFA Ballon d'Or are the same award and should be merged, while the FIFA World Player of the Year award should be treated as defunct? – PeeJay 09:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

would a merge but a clear distinction on the page showing when the award changed not be a good idea. So it could be split into two sections. Edinburgh Wanderer 10:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Stats table

Can someone help me add a European column to Djamel Mesbah's stats table? I'm horrible with these stats table. He has one appearance for AC Milan in this seaon's CL. Also, does anyone know if there is an Italian League Cup as indicated in his table? If not, is there a way to remove it? Thanks in advance. TonyStarks (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to replace the League Cup column with a European column, change the YN parameter in the {{Football player statistics 2}} rows to NY. Stands for NO League Cup, YES Continental. If you want a European column in addition to the League Cup, change the parameter to YY in both {{Football player statistics 1}} and {{Football player statistics 2}}. If you were starting from scratch, don't use those templates at all, use a wikitable. As to an Italian League Cup, there's none on {{National football (soccer) league cups}}, if that's any indication. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah thanks, that was easy! I just changed the YN to NY and updated the rest. I appreciate it. TonyStarks (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Be wary about using {{Football player statistics 1}} - following feedback at #While we're on the subject... I will be sending it to TFD this weekend. GiantSnowman 11:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What happens to all the 3000+ transclusions, if the template gets deleted? does someone/something go round changing them before the template is physically deleted, or what? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No idea - is it possible for a bot to convert? GiantSnowman 22:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Pepe (footballer born 1983) - Brace yourselves!

I have removed yet another biased addition (late into the Messi incident) and now, the most important: i have added info regarding last match, without pov, without bias and with sources (the expletive found there is not my words, it's Pepe's, so i don't think it's a violation of WP guidelines, and i don't think they'll last 30 minutes, those "fair playish" Real Madrid fans will see to it...Maybe it would be a good idea to watch this article.

Speaking of overzealous "fans", has anyone heard of my countryman Eládio Paramés? He's Mourinho's spokesperson it seems, and each time he tweets it's worse than the last time, a really sporting chap... Cheers! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Now i promise, this was the last one, sorry all! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If any admins are about

please could they restore the deleted Haydn Hollis, who played in the league for Notts County earlier this year, per Soccerbase. thanks in advance, Struway2 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Done - can I leave it in your very capable hands to update and tidy? GiantSnowman 18:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, especially as at the moment it's just a copypaste of his Notts County profile... I'll overwrite that with something now, and add more later. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Admin help possibly needed regarding edits from IP 80.78.78.134

An unknown editor, most likely being a fan of Albanian team SK Tirana, added all results of the club to the respective Albanian league season articles. As this is not the scope of these articles - the results would rather belong into separate club season articles - the edits should be rolled back. However, doing each one of them manually would be a rather time-consuming and tedious job. So... have admins the possibility to mass revert edits from a single user, and if so, would one of these be so kind and lend a hand? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of (but then I'm just a noob) but WP:ROLLBACK is available to all... GiantSnowman 18:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes Indeed, rollback is available to all registered users via Twinkle although rollback rights are required for the installation of Huggle etc... Anyway the IP has been reverted. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually not he has done it on every single season article.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm about to go for food but why not leave a note on the IP's talk page explaining. GiantSnowman 19:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ive already done that. Duck reverted most and i did a few as well.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Do street leagues count as notable?

I am saying this because I am trying to do a clean-up on Indian Football articles and I came across this article The Street League which is about an amateur Street League which is not funded by the national association of India. Obviously I think this is not notable but I want the opinion about this article and other street league articles from you guys. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fails WP:GNG, so not notable to me. GiantSnowman 18:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks mate, shall put it up for deletion then. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sean Cunningham (soccer)

Sean Cunningham (soccer) was deleted after an AfD a couple of weeks ago, but yesterday he made his debut for Stabæk Fotball in Tippeligaen (Source), which makes him notable. Could any admin please undelete this article? At the same time, is it possible to undelete Sean Cunningham (footballer) (same guy, wrong articlename), and move it into the article-history of Sean Cunningham (soccer). Just want to check if it's anything useful there. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

When to use Football and when to use Soccer?

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Martin Rennie‎. He's a Scottish footballer who is the manager/coach at MLS side Vancouver Whitecaps FC. It has indicated "soccer" and "coach" for many years. Yesterday an anon decided to change it to "football" and "manager" which I reverted. Editor Stuart Jamieson then came back and stated that The relevant MOS says to use Football/Manager however I don't see anything here, which is where he pointed. I don't want to get into an edit war so shall we create an guide for it? Is there an informal guide already? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said on Talk:Martin Rennie there is no MOS guidance here for the use of Soccer/Coach, all the MOS guidance is written with football/manager in it - Martin has been referred to in many news articles as a "Football Manager" (particularly because of his nationality) some of which I've posted on the talk page. The fact that his current Job title is "Head Coach" doesn't change the fact that he is a "Scottish Football manager", if his job and title changed to "refuse collector" tomorrow he will still have been considered a football manager. If there is any doubt then surely local consensus should be formed - I've offered a compromise position and asked Walter Görlitz to engage in the DR process to resolve this if it takes an RFC then so be it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:ENGVAR (specifically WP:TIES) would determine that British English is used as he is Scottish, hence "football" as opposed to "soccer". Number 57 14:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to be notable for anything outside North America so I would have thought soccer would be most appropriate. Hack (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As to coach/manager, there's nothing in the article to suggest Mr Rennie has ever worked as a football manager in the British meaning, but there's plenty to show him to be a coach. As to soccer/football, I'd agree with Hack. Mr Rennie is indeed Scottish, but his notability in Wikipedia terms is entirely due to his work in countries that call it soccer, and the article has been stable with that usage since its creation, so I'd argue the national ties were insufficiently strong for WP:TIES to override MOS:RETAIN. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Striking what I got wrong, sorry. It did say manager originally. Struway2 (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

and it said football up until removed by an I.P. in October last year. Prior to Cascade Surge, Martin had been managing Youth teams (as best I recall) and although the early versions of the article say he was working for a software company I'm sure he first came to the U.S. running football training camps for a Charity (something he had already been doing around the U.K) - I might have at least one offline source for that but can't check it till tomorrow, there are probably others I have access to that will take longer. as for his notability in that Charlize Theron did nothing notable in South Africa only becoming noteable in the U.S. and despite occasional challenges to consensus - it is still held that the article should be written in South African English - I don't see anything to suggest her case is out of the ordinary in the way that WP:TIES should be interpreted. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest does anyone know if there is a reason that the navboxes for Cleveland, Carolina, and Vancouver (any others?) use manager in their titles rather than "Coach"? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Same goes for Scandinavia, the managers could be counted on one hand in total, all others are head coaches, still the templates and categories says managers. And when you first have a pattern on wikipedia, all the other editors follow it due to consistency. So this is merely a factual error, which you are trying to get even further be starting to call the head coaches for "managers", which they aren't. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That's an Ad hominem, I'm trying to maintain that Scottish football manager who is referred to as a manager in multiple sources should be called a manager in his biography even if his current job title is "coach". I'm not trying to call all head coaches managers but I believed that the project MOS suggested that football/manager is the default position with a consensus (both of sources and of editors) being found locally to decide when to use Coach over Manager. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Correction. He's a Scott who is the head coach of an MLS side. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Correction. It's Scot. And that's only slightly different from what I said " his current job title is 'Head Coach'". Sorted? 22:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that rather a lot of time is being spent on arguing semantics which could be put to better use on tidying up the article itself. Great chunks of it are unreferenced and/or full of fluff; e.g "These unprecedented levels of coaching success did not go unnoticed", "the opportunity to coach the Carolina RailHawks . . . was too much to for Rennie to resist" and "Rennie attributes much of his coaching success to the leadership and psychological lessons he learned during a hugely successful career in the corporate world ". At the end of the day, of course, it's not for me to advise anyone (other than those who work for me) how to spend their time. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree. I don't like messing with content, but this one smells bad and needs to have a lot of copy editing done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a general guideline of when to use "football" and when to use "soccer". Should we follow the lines of WP:TIES, if they're from a country that uses the former term, they should use that term, or should we focus on their current situation, such as European, South American, and African players and coaches involved in North American leagues, and conversely North American players playing abroad? Again, since English isn't the first language of some of these locales, it may be more difficult to call. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In those cases simply use the same word that the player's national team uses. For instance, with a Ghanaian player, I would check out his country's national team, and call the sport whatever that page happens to call it. —WFC— 19:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be that difficult, I think WP:TIES should be used whenever talking about the person (describing them or the field they are in for instance) the local term should be used when talking specifically about a local event within their life - So X is an American Soccer Midfielder... ...In 2003 X received a transfer to English football team Y. The problem is that there is little consistency in any articles. For instance, using Coach/Manager as an example: Manager is used in some articles where Coach is both the WP:TIES appropriate term and local appropriate term see Bertie Vogts for instance. Every other variety exists as well Eddie Firmani - WP:TIES all the way through, Ricky Hill referred to as a Coach despite having been a notable U.K manager first (though it does mention manager in the local context for this). Adrian Whitbread is pretty much O.K. though the lead should probably be tweaked, etc... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear.

1. WP:ENGVAR is complicated, and is rarely blank and white.
2. It is black and white regarding Martin Rennie‎, who is notable wholly in the context of North American sport and as such is a soccer coach. End of. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see with that view is that many sources refer to him as a "Scottish Football Manager" who has taken the job as "Head Coach" and we should be going with the sources. a quick search throws up the Philadelphia Inquirer, Major League Soccer, Victoria Times Colonist, NBC, Vancouver sun, Scotland on Sunday, and more... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

List of association footballers who died while playing

Following on from Muamba's tragic incident, there has been an increase in IPs on this article over the past week, including one today who is adding players not eligible for inclusion. I've tried explaining on his talk page but he's ignoring me, so further eyes would be appreciated. GiantSnowman 10:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Watchlisted and I have also executed an RPP. Cloudz679 12:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No pun intended, FYI the page has been protected. Cloudz679 08:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Costa Rica

Came across Derrick Johnson (footballer); is the Costa Rican Primera División as professional as it (the article) claims or not? Jared Preston (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The league is not listed as being fully professional at WP:FPL, but it's not listed as not being professional either .. it's not listed at all. The league article itself says it's professional but does not provide a reference to back up that claim. Maybe one of our Spanish speaking members can find more info on the topic. TonyStarks (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Their sponsors seem to think so see here. I can't find anything official on the club's & leagues official websites warning Limon FC website has some bizarre Caribbean Music. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's professional or not: we've a long-standing consensus that the top-flight league in a country is notable. This is an especially easy call when it comes to Costa Rica as they've qualified for multiple World Cups and most of the current squad are based domestically. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes the league is notable, but playing in it does not always make you so. GiantSnowman 09:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris, Jared wasn't asking if the league was notable, he was asking if the league was full pro because as he wanted to establish whether Derrick Johnson passes/fails WP:NFOOTBALL. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I didn't want to nominate the footballer for exclusion until someone suggested that the league is professional or not. Jared Preston (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say that this particular player meets WP:GNG, although the article doesn't reflect that. There seems to be plenty of information on him from various sources, [12] and I'm sure local sources which don't seem to show up in my search would have info too. Limon appear to be a pretty small club in the Costa Rican Primera División aswell, so it is likely that players for bigger clubs would recieve more coverage. Adam4267 (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of those sources are about Derrick Johnson; on Google 'Derrick Johnson' has "About 15,200,000 results (0.50 seconds)" while 'Derrick Johnson Costa Rica' has "About 82,800 results (0.30 seconds)" and a quick look through them finds nothing but standard database profiles and tranfer speculation about him moving to MLS. GiantSnowman 14:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well in the link I gave above where I typed in 'Derrick Johnson Limon' (his club) gave sources from Goal and others which look to be about him. This Derrick Johnson probably isn't as notable as the other, but that doesn't mean he isn't notable. Adam4267 (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the article can satisfy the GNG if someone has the time to look for sources. I noticed that his last name is often spelled Jhonson in the Costa Rican press, but we might need to search for both spellings. Also, he was included in the preliminary list of players for the 2011 Gold Cup so he is among the better prospects in the Costa Rican league. Jogurney (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Potential page move

An editor has suggested a page move at Talk:Steve Ball and has invited comments. I haven't commented on it myself because he likes to start puerile arguments with me, but I'm sure some people here will put him straight on what to do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Template for club season?

If you have any views on having a club season template, or what it should consist of, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Season article task force#Template for club season.3F. Thank you. Cloudz679 08:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Copa Argentina = Professional ?

Hi, I got a question from User:181hamburgerwcheese: "Now, my concern: List of professional sports leagues - I know for a fact, along with its prived evidence, that the Primera División, B Nacional and B Metropolitana of Argentina ARE professional... but the Copa Argentina (obviously being equivalent to the FA Cup), what if a player from the D Metropolitana plays one game in the Copa Argentina, does that make him professional instantly? Despite having played a lot of games in a non-professional league (D-Metro), respectively, would you class it as notable? It is a professional tournament due to being a national tournament... but...?"

My knowledge of Argentine football is very limited (to say the least). Can anyone here answer the question? --Jaellee (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, those players aren't generally notable. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability -Koppapa (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

They can be notable if they play in the Argentine Cup against a professional team, but that really goes on a case-by-case basis. They are not notable in any way, of course, if they play for an amateur club. – Kosm1fent 17:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"It is a professional tournament due to being a national tournament" - not true at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Playing in that Cup might very well be their opportunity for notability (say, if they score a decisive goal), but then again, I support the idea that we shoul proceed on a case by case analysis. Ipsumesse (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Bugger :(

The following: the website that i use most for Portuguese footballers (or hailing from another nation but having spent several seasons in my country), ZEROZERO.PT, in its English version (which obviously i insert here) was called ZEROZEROFOOTBALL.COM.

However, late in 2011, the version changed its name to FOOTBALLZZ.COM but, when you clicked in the link in a given player, it still led you to his page there. This week or so, i found out it is finito, kaput, if a player has the link as "ZEROZEROFOOTBALL" and you click there it is not working...

Could anybody lend a hand with this stuff? I would greatly appreciate it folks, tons of players in Primeira Liga - i have already taken care of Vitória S.C. and S.C. Braga - and Liga de Honra (those will have it for sure) and abroad (more of a grey area there, but i know for sure many Portuguese players compete in Romania and Cyprus).

That said, to anyone who clicks on the ZEROZEROFOOTBALL.com link on a player of their choice, and finds the link "dead", please don't remove it altogether, please go to FOOTBALLZZ.COM and insert the (last) name of the athlete in the search engine of the site, that will lead you to the proper, functioning link. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of the old link and the new link? If it is just that the 'zerozerofotball' part has changed to 'footballzz', and all the rest (i.e. page ID) has remained the same, then we can use WP:AWB to change. GiantSnowman 08:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Certainly: have a look at the "wrong" José Bosingwa (see here http://www.zerozerofootball.com/jogador.php?id=85&search=1), then the "correct" one (here http://www.footballzz.com/jogador.php?id=85&epoca_id=0&search=1&search_string=bosingwa&menu=esc). --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• So it's gone from http://www.zerozerofootball.com/jogador.php?id=85 to http://www.footballzz.co.uk/jogador.php?id=85 i.e. it is the domain name only that has changed. I can have a go at fixing that tonight for you using WP:AWB. GiantSnowman 14:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Those wiki debts keep evergrowing, will never be able to repay you :) --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Haha, no problems! I take it they are primarily on Portuguese footballers? Cos I can just scan through Category:Portuguese footballers and get it done in no time if that's the case. GiantSnowman 14:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yup, the vast majority yes (99,99999999%). But as i said above, several foreigners who have played in the country for a good amount of time also have that link. But, if you only "take care" of the "domestic ones", that'll be a HUGE help! Thanks mate. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Since this website is used so frequently, doesn't it make sense to create a template for the url link (like we've done with soccerbase, FIFA, etc)? Then when the url changes, it's really easy to update them all at once by modifying the template. I can create the template if it would be helpful to you. Jogurney (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good idea, but then would we need a bot to replace the old links (to both 'zerozerofotball' and 'footballzz') to the template, or would that be possible with AWB? GiantSnowman 16:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I created a template called Zerozero profile which can be used. I suspect it is possible to convert these urls to the template, but it might be easiest with a bot. Jogurney (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bot request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 47#Bot needed to convert links to a template. GiantSnowman 20:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Full list of all pages which use this site can be found here - we may need a bot to do it, would take too long on AWB I feel. GiantSnowman 18:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)