Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

More double name confusion

James Smith (footballer) and James Smith(footballer) - aaarggghhh! ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the latter actually notable? What division do Ebbsfleet play in? – Pee Jay 11:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Conference National ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And they are fully professional too [1], so he meets the WP:FOOTY/Notability criteria. If they don't have middle names, we may have to resort to "James Smith (footballer born September 1985)" and "James Smith (footballer born October 1985)". пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely, as a conference player, he doesn't pass notability, and can simply be prodded? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not under the new notability criteria. He plays for a fully professional club in a national league, which makes him notable. – Pee Jay 12:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh... Well that's pretty fucked up. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't have agreed to being accepted as notability criteria then! [2] :) пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, then I misynderstood the criteria - there was no mention of the Conference: the change to point 1 says

1) Playing for a professional club at the national level allows articles on players for important teams such as Anderlecht who play in a league containing Semi-Pro teams, and helps to avoid the difficult task of establishing whether every team in the Peruvian, Guatemalan, Albanian, Taiwanese.... top flight is professional. It also removes the dependence on the status of other teams in the league when considering whether at player is notable and reduces the (admittedly unlikely) scenario of a semi-pro team gaining promotion to league 2 in England, necessitating the deletion of every player never to have played higher than that level.

Something should have been added to exclude the Conference; it was an oversight (of mine) not to notice it. Support withdrawn. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I see now that I also agreed to something to which I hadn't understood the implications (i.e. the likes of Weymouth players now passing the bar of notability)! I'm not going to re-open the debate (cue sighs of relief all round!), but I definitely regret agreeing to point 1 of the new criteria in its current state. - fchd (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear - notability is no longer related to the level of football you've played at, but by how wealthy your chairman is? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He's not notable, yes he's a fully pro but the league he plays in isn't, still loads of part-time teams in the Conference. Therefore not notable Jimbo^[online] 13:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the consensus a few months ago was to change the guideline to simply requiring that the club or the player be professional, not the league itself? The latter guideline doesn't take the differences between clubs within a league into consideration. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the year would be fine, don't need to add month unless more more than one in that year! Also there is nothing on his article, if there was some information put on it, it would be better, but for now isn't it delete material??!! Govvy (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Both were born in 1985..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

At present there is enough information to tell you who he is and why he is notable – admittedly the article needs to be expanded, but as it stands it is a perfectly acceptable stub. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Doh, so much for my reading skills, ye, normally when I see double names, the year is added, but I guess month should be added too in this case, I would keep the month a numerical number as to not make the title so long. Govvy (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What, like "James Smith (footballer born 10/1985)? That doesn't look too good - I'd rather have the month written out (per WP:DATE). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "James Smith (footballer born October 1985)" would be much better. – Pee Jay 11:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too, it may be longer, but it looks much better. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

o well, I got my suggestions, but I keep forgetting that wiki has it's recommendations for everything. Govvy (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I've made the change. However, I did come across a redirect page from Jamie Smith (footballer born 1985) aimed at the Stockport player. If he is known as Jamie, that's another potential DAB. However, the Stockport and Liverpool sites don't use "Jamie"... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm AfD'ing him anyway. Jimbo^[online] 13:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sponsorship

In quite a few club articles I've seen information on sponsors, mostly in the form a long list. Does that really have its place in wiki? I don't quite see the point to list all shirt sponsors of a given club. I understand a menton in the prose of clubs who were the first to have sponsoring in their respective nations, but to do that for every club and list every sponsor does unnecessarily clutter the article, IMHO. Opinions? Madcynic (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In most cases, it comes across as stealth advertising. Sponsorship should only be mentioned in exceptional cases, imo, such as historic ties (PSV and Philips) or record-breaking deals (Real Madrid and Siemens?). A ecis^Brievenbus 13:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's helpful that the information is available. For instance, it helps to date a picture of a player (not as much as the kit design and sponsor together, however). - Dudesleeper | Talk 13:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Flynn

This player seems to fail notability, and I was about to put it up for AfD, but his talk page claims that The article on Ryan Flynn is supported by the WikiProject on Football, and also by the England and Liverpool task forces. So where, when and (given that it seems to fail WP:BIO) why did we give this support? Kevin McE (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Them's just boilerplate templates that anyone can add. Go forth and AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He's was a Scottish U19, appeared in the 4-2 loss vs Portugal. No idea about anything other than that and honestly can't be bothered looking.--Koncorde (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I originally tagged that, with the football template, but only because I tag all Liverpool F.C. related articles, as part of WP:LFC. It doesn't look like he will pass WP:BIO, so I have no problem with it being deleted. John Hayes^talk 22:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

England managers

Hello project! I've knocked up a kind of hybrid article/list about the England managers which I've put at peer review. It's a little strange in that it purports to be a list but has a hefty history section. I'd like to hear the opinion of the project at the PR as to (a) if it's any good and (b) if it'd be a featured list (like List of Manchester City F.C. managers). Cheers everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Archie Oates

Can we run a book on how long it will be before someone creates an article on Archie Oates, the six year old "prodigy" who "could be the next Wayne Rooney"? [3] --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't look that ugly to me, shome mishtake shurely. Nanonic (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style

Has anybody got an idea what the policy is for dealing with editors who refuse to use agreed Manuals of Style? I've had a few "disagreements" with editors in the past, where I've re-edited articles they've created to conform with the player MoS, and they've reverted them back... most recently, Nick Wright (footballer born 1987). I don't want to edit war, and I'm not trying to win an argument, which is why I'm not going to edit that article any further.

WP:VAND#NOT states that not applying a MoS correctly can't be counted as vandalism, but surely wilfully going against the community needs to be dealt with in some way? I'm not particularly talking about the editors in question here, although it would be helpful if others could edit this article correctly, to show it's not "me" against "them", but I'm talking more about the principle. If a MoS can't be enforced, then is there any point in having one? robwingfield ^«T•C» 13:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The manual of style here is not an official Wikipedia policy, so you can't "force" someone to use it. The best course of action in this situation would be to discuss the problem on the article's talk page and try to bring the other editor around to your point of view. Explain why we use the manual of style and why their edits go against it (without being aggressive) and avoid edit warring. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done that many times with those particular editors to no effect, so I haven't bothered this time. I have left a couple of notes on one of their talk pages, though. robwingfield ^«T•C» 17:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There's not really much else you can do other than ask for a Third Opinion or an RfC. I have to admit though, I have had a look at the other editor's edits and can't see much wrong with them, so I would just leave it and remove the article from your watchlist to stop it winding you up :-) Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

To he honest, I've had problems with those editors in the past. Just try education is my best advice. Peanut4 (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review

There are a few football articles at WP:Deletion review now following the arrival of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, just so all you guys knows. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it looks like, from the comments there, that our notability standards are pretty much null and void (in that we have effectively just invented our own rules without asking the community at large). I would suggest we just default back to WP:BIO rules and instead use our rules as a guideline, rather than as the ultimate rules when it comes to deleting or un-deleting articles. John Hayes^talk 17:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I feel it was a little premature to try to apply the new notability so soon with the proposal to devalue the additional criteria of WP:BIO still ongoing. Once a consensus to remove the additional statements there is forthcoming, the whole {{essay-project-note}} structure will have teeth. Until then, any set of statements we come up with will only be upheld if they're added to BIO. If they're used and not on BIO, accusations of empire building will just fly around again. Nanonic (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this it then? The start of the non-league, non-notable deluge? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be a hell of a lot easier if BIO didn't exist and we just went by WP:N but well.. (looks wistful). Imagine it, no quibbles over games played or what level they played for, just inclusion if they've been in multiple WP:RS and everything is verifiable, else bin. I wouldn't normally class myself as a deletionist but really, BIO is just a set of statements to let people who don't pass WP:N to have articles (and I'm only annoyed as I'm watching the football as I write this and it seems Arsenal haven't turned up).Nanonic (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But to be fair WP:BIO is just essentially the same as WP:N but with the additional criteria, where it says "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." John Hayes^talk 18:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if under WP:BIO rules a non-league player is notable (most likely through the base criteria) then yes. This is almost certainly not the case for most of them. And on the other extreme, there are professional footballers, who almost certainly aren't notable under WP:BIO rules (which is the case in these examples above). I've never really liked the rigid rules this project prescribes. For example look at Robbie Threlfall and Ryan Flynn. Both are very similar players, similar ages, similar background, neither has played in the first team for Liverpool. They both go on loan to Hereford this year, one plays 4 games, one gets injured and doesn't. One is deemed notable under our rules, the other isn't. Does anyone really think that if neither play a pro game again that Robbie Threlfall will be notable for those 4 games? I would suggest that most of the coverage in third party sources he has got is for being part of the twice FA Youth Cup winning team, which Ryan Flynn also played in. In reality (in my opinion) either both or neither should have articles. Clearly Robbie Threlfall qualifies under the additional criteria WP:BIO as having played in a pro league, but WP:BIO says that these aren't always a reason for including or excluding an article, and in all likelyhood Ryan Flynn has had as much third party coverage as Robbie Threlfall has. John Hayes^talk 18:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In which case the article needs to be cited and more than just a "holding" page for a player who has achieved nothing, or very little. A Conference player is likely to have numerous local news sources about them (such as Steve Pennington for St. Helens FC the top scorer for a number of years and a winner of the FA vase in 1992 I think) but chances are will never have a wiki as all the articles pre-date the internet. In comparison Flynn and co can all be cited because they're included on various web sources (which is primarily the way of citing these players) despite having achieved the Sweet FA Vase. In the end if the article for a nonleague (or even a league player) is basically just a "XXXX is a football player for XXXXX. He plays in XXXX. He used to play for XXXX and joined XXXX in 2005." and then an infobox - then the article isn't worth keeping (but then it's barely worth AfD'ing it when energy can be better spent perhaps improving it). If the creator isn't willing to make the effort to improve and return to the item then I don't see an issue with removing it. If however the article has been developed then you're really pissing on someones bonfire the purpose of meeting a disputed criteria. Rhodri Giggs for instance doesn't fulfil criteria as a football player...but he does meet is as per Bio because of the media attention he received.--Koncorde (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, there is nothing wrong with creating articles with "XXXX is a football player for XXXXX. He plays in XXXX. He used to play for XXXX and joined XXXX in 2005." and then an infobox. This is an acceptable stub and encourages other editors to add to the article (perhaps editors who couldn't be bothered starting the article themselves, but are happy to contribute to it). As long as the article is genuine and asserts notability then there's no reason to delete it. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant for Conference players who have no perceived notability. It's one thing to create a stub for a player who is perceived to be due to achieve something, and another to create what will forever be a stub because nobody knows who he is beyond a link to soccerbase.--Koncorde (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there are certain cases (mainly younger players) who are on loan to non-league clubs but are professionals the WIKI:BIO criteria could be relaxed if the player in question has a long term contract with his professional club, for instance Alex Cisak is a professional football currently on loan from Leicester City to Tamworth, under WIKI:Bio he isn't notable as Tamworth are only Conference North but he is actually a Leicester player and a professional, plus he is actually playing every game for Tamworth, yet if he went on loan to say, Peterborough United and only made 1 substitute appearance he would meet the criteria as he'd of played a professional game. Skitzo (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Italian footballer married to British TV presenter...

I remember reading somewhere that an Italian international football player was married to a British TV presenter, or said presenter's sister...I thought it was Simone Perrotta but there is no mention of anything like this on his article. Anyone got any ideas? Cheers, GiantSnowman (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not Perrotta, even though he would be the likely suspect, being born and raised in Ashton-under-Lyne after all. His wife is Lorena Perrotta, and I doubt she's ever been on British TV. – Pee Jay 01:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, maybe you mean Gennaro Gattuso; he's married to an Italian-Scottish woman whose sister is British journalist Carla Romano. --Angelo (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep it was Gattuso I was thinking of, thanks Angelo! GiantSnowman (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Players to have played for rival clubs

I'm hesitant to start a category/page for players to have played for both Dundee and Dundee United, as it would be either a very short article or list. Can anybody suggest a way to incorporate it into both club articles? The rivals are based on the same street so has an added bit of interest about literally crossing the road to swap sides. I should add that a few have swapped clubs directly. Wanaka | Talk 11:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could start an article about the Dundee derby. You could then include stats about matches between the two teams, as well as any players/managers to have played for/managed both clubs. – Pee Jay 12:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, thanks. 12:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanaka (talk • contribs)

Yep, that's the best way to go about it. I'm surprised there isn't an article already to be honest! Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mark Perry footballer

I think Mark Perry (Scottish footballer) is more noteable than Mark Perry (footballer), given he has made over six times as many appearance and would thus propose changing the latter to (English footballer), removing 'Scottish' from the former. In addition, there is only one link to the English footballer, apart from user pages, redirects, etc. Any objections? Wanaka | Talk 16:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Should it not be (Scottish footballer) and (English footballer), or with the birthdates, to be neutral? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Matty, have (Scottish footballer) and (English footballer), with (footballer) as a disambiguation. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we should have (Scottish footballer) and (English footballer), although Mark Perry (footballer) should be made in to a redirect to the Mark Perry disambiguation page rather than having duplicate dab pages. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 17:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant a redirect not a disambig - sorry! GiantSnowman (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done Wanaka | Talk 17:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

International goals in player's articles

Thoughts? See Goran Pandev for an example...GiantSnowman (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that it's a bit too much. Maybe convert the important ones (first, tenth etc.) to prose, but otherwise I don't see a need for that much detail. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think also the goalkeeper he scored against should be included. And maybe the weather conditions ;) John Hayes^talk 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You forgot ball colour. English peasant 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

David Healy has a similar arrangement for all 33 goals. Personally I think (when formatted as well as Healy's) it adds detail that you wouldn't otherwise get from a wikipedia article. The referee inclusion is a bit odd though on Pandevs.--Koncorde (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that even that is a bit too much info. And as for the "International matches missed" section straight after it that details how many caps he would have earned if he had played in each game....... Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 22:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the "matches missed". A simple mention of "Healy has only missed 6 internationals in 7 years" would suffice.Koncorde (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's far too much - the Scottish FA, for example, lists a page for every capped player which shows when they scored each goal (see Billy Dodds as an example) - is there perhaps something similar for the other British FAs to avoid this sort of über-information? Wanaka | Talk 09:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rafa

Since adding Rafael Benitez' article to the watchlist hasn't achieved very much, I'm mentioning it here. Londo06's personal opinions are like a bad itch that won't go away. Assistance required, please. - Dudesleeper | Talk 12:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've had dealings with this particular user before over at WikiProject Rugby union. I'll give you a hand if it will help stop Londo06's rampage. – Pee Jay 15:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be the bigger man and just walk away from those jibes.Londo 06 15:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kit left arm darkred.png

I stumbled across Image:Kit left arm darkred.png, noticed it is not used in any articles, and wondered whether it is useful to keep it for any reason. If not, it can probably be listed for deletion. —Bkell (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a right arm equivalent? – Pee Jay 15:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's Image:Kit right arm darkred.png, but it's not used anywhere either. —Bkell (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to include any transparency and is one colour, so could be easily produced without the use of the image. The image is therefore useless and should be deleted. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Dan 1980, delete. GiantSnowman (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've ifd'd them both. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Does this look like a copyvio to anyone else?

I have had a quick look on Google Images and can't see it listed there, but the author claims that he took the photo on a day that Sheffield Wednesday weren't playing, and Akpo Sodje has been injured for weeks anyway. He also has loads of image warnings on his talk page. Thoughts? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is probably from a "<insert opponents name> picture special" like Leicester do for each game on their official website. Skitzo (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I suspected, but I don't want to jump in and tag it without being sure. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 20:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The only way he took that is if he's an affiliated press photographer. That picture is taken from the goalline, I can pretty much say that for sure. Peanut4 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Low-resolution photo with no metadata information: that is, a picture taken somewhere from the Internet. In cases like these, when the uploader claims to have made the photo himself, all you have to do is to ask him to provide a high resolution version, possibly with metadata information. In any case, the user history is more than a suspect, so I'm gonna delete it if you all agree. --Angelo (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've {{pui}}'d it. Feel free to add comments to its entry at the discussion. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Vincent Ryan

I strongly suspect that this article on Vincent Ryan is bogus. Played for youth club in 1930s aged 5 according to infobox. Even Wayne Rooney was not that good. I suspect infobox has been borrowed from Johnny Carey article. Can anybody verify it ? Djln --Djln (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

He definitely exists. See [4]. But I think some of those details are wrong. Peanut4 (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably the article creator copied and pasted the infobox code from the other article in order to over-write it but saved the article before doing so..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We've all done it. For several months Danny Tiatto was listed as scoring as many goals as Francis Lee... Oldelpaso (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have done a lot of research into Irish players from this era while contributing to Ireland national football team (1882-1950) and Dual Irish international footballers. I cannot find any on-line evidence of him playing for either of the Irish national teams. He is not listed here [5] for example or [6] here. The IFA last selected players from the Republic in 1950. Ryan would have been 15 at time according to birth date given here. As a result I have removed these teams from infobox. Djln--Djln (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

LA Vale

Does this team meet notability? Jimbo^[online] 13:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. The website says they play in the Super Metro League and the LA Premier League. Are these notable leagues? Eddie6705 (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Robbie Williams connection means they have had significant mentions at least in numerous media. Looks to me like they have enough to pass standard grounds for notability, even if they may fail it on a purely football club basis. - fchd (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, they probably meet notability in non-footballing terms, but shouldn't the page be moved to Los Angeles Vale F.C. in line with all other football clubs on Wikipedia? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 13:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the club's official name does not include Los Angeles nor F.C. Jimbo^[online] 14:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a Reliable Source for that? The badge as displayed on the article includes both. - fchd (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

According to who? Their own badge calls them Los Angeles Vale F.C. Also they don't appear to be part of the LA Premier League - check the official site. Do they even still exist? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah found it (finally), a team called "Los Angeles Vale" played in the 2007 Summer/Fall Super Metro Division (links to all Leagues in that period) but aren't on the 2008 Winter/Spring list anywhere. Worth noting is that leagues are organised by the LA Department of Recreation and Parks. Nanonic (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So it appears that they are no longer playing in any league. Their official site (no more than a subpage on robbiewilliams.com) hasn't been updated since the end of last year, so can we assume that they are now defuct? At the very least the page needs to be moved. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not being sure how that particular Sunday League-esque affair works I wouldn't say for certain, they may only play in the Summer/Fall leagues. Oh and at some point they did play in the LA Premier, as players from the team "LA Vale" are still on the awards page but again, not listed for the current season. Nanonic (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On a purely facetious note, is it just me or is that the worst-ever drawing of a Stafford knot on the club badge? It looks worryingly like something I might find in my son's potty..... ;-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks more like something an American president could choke on. A ecis^Brievenbus 15:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If there was a barnstar for having a son with talented bowels consider it awarded. Oh and on an entirely unrelated note, LA Vale brought out a fitness DVD [7]. Without wishing to besmirch Mr Williams good name.. well I won't say it.. but I'll think it. Nanonic (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

While it probably is notable, it doesn't mention much apart from Williams owning it. It probably could just be merged into his article. John Hayes^talk 15:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a move to Los Angeles Vale F.C. for this article. Everyone's comments are welcome on the article talk page. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Done Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 21:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like another Hollywood United F.C.. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Football League Trophy

Do appearances in this competition confer notability? I've known articles to be kept for making appearances in it I believe, and thought I'd bring it up here after Philip Turnbull had a prod tag added as he hasn't played in a fully pro league. He he's made an appearance in the FL Trophy, but is this sufficient? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say it does, as it is a national competition for fully professional teams (which I assume all teams in Leagues 1 and 2 are). – Pee Jay 20:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 21:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cesc Fàbregas height?

There are conflicting numbers on Cesc Fàbregas height. Some sites report it as 1.80m, others at 1.75m. Even interwikis differ.

There is a controversy here. Somebody just updated to 1.80m quoting TimesOnline

Manchester United F.C. (Gibraltar)

Do we have any guidelines on clubs in Gibraltar........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See also Gibraltar United F.C., Glacis United F.C. and Lincoln FC - looks like someone's going on a "Gibraltar football drive"...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltarian Football League says all clubs are amateur, don't know how this fits in with whatever notability we use nowadays. Looking through the other page creations of User:Fodboldfan64, seems they need a note about adding cats etc. Nanonic (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

They are all top flight clubs, so I would say they are worthy of being kept. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lee Roache and Matthew G Barrett

For some reason someone has moved this page to Matthew G Barrett but redirected Lee Roache to Matthew Barrett and then redircted this page to Matthew G Barrett - if that makes sense?!? I can't change it back because the Lee Roache page still exsists. What should I do to move the page back and delete the Barret ones, is there a simple way without PRODing it etc? Jimbo^[online] 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I had already acted on that one, resulting in the blocking of the culprit and the intervention of User:Alexf, who has reverted the page to Lee Roache, although he has not been able, as yet at least, to re-attach LP to his previous history and talk. Kevin McE (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Done now. That was interesting, lots of deletions and restores needed, but all editing history is now back in the right place. For those interested, next time you can use the {{db-move}} tags and an admin will be along shortly. Though I accept this was a complicated case, lots of moves and redirects! Thanks for bringing it up. Woody (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. How come I was able to move Danny Hart's page back from its vandal-shifted location at Leon McLeod (same vandal), but I couldn't for Lee Roache? Kevin McE (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That only had one edit, the one move, the one redirect. The mediawiki software lets you delete simply a redirect on your own. With the Barrett one, there was more than one edit and so it needed an admin to do it. (Who can delete the page whilst moving). BTW, another good place to list these is WP:SPLICE. Woody (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Massive club name edits

Argh, check out what User:Sarumio is doing please. A huge number of edits to remove F.C. from football club names, a number of page moves without any discussion... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but nothing bad has been done. I ONLY removed the word "FC" from info box headings where most English Football Club omit this. FC is included in the name of the article, FC is included in the first line of the article (i.e. Bodmin Town FC are...") and "Football Club" is added on the end of each club's Full Name, so there was no need for the FC in the infobox header so i removed them to make those articles conistant with the bulk of English football club articles. Anybody would think I've been vandalising club names! Pa-lease!

With regards to moving some pages - yes I did - probably about 6 that have A.F.C. suffixes but were down as F.C. For Example Almondsbury Town had an entry under "Almondsbury Town F.C.". It is clearly visible by their club crest that they are Almonsbury Town A.F.C. so I moved it. Sorry if you believe this to be wrong. If it is then blame their club crest! There really was no need to flag this up here. Kind Regards, Sarumio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarumio (talk • contribs) 22:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes, this was the perfect place to flag this up actually. Mass edits and page moves without project discussion is usually discouraged. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask why a vast majority of my edits have been reverted back? For example reinstating "Football Club" to West Ham United in the info header box. I only did it for uniformity. 90% of articles dont have the FC/Football Club in the header. The same with many other articles I had edited. Why remove the Trinity from the Gainsborough Trinity info box header. I was merely correcting the name of the club. I can understand some things need discussion - i was probably wrong to move some pages and I appologise but to revert positive changes back to incorrect information in this manner is plain mean and uncalled for and I didnt need to start a discussion up about Gainsborough Trinity's name to change the info header box. Please explain yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarumio (talk • contribs) 12:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of your edits were reverted in error but please, if you decide to edit hundreds of articles like that in future, discuss the changes here first. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as you may by now have learned, renaming a club by looking at it's current crest is flawed. Clubs have official titles which aren't necessarily reflected in their kit. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OK as above I do appologise for incorrectly, it seems, moving a few afc/fc pages - Cardiff City is an example. I shall most defiantely discuss it before doing so again. But you went over the top with your reverts. As with the Gainsborough Trinity example above - i'd put "Football Club" in the club's Full Title - where it was previously missing or said "FC" and yet you reverted this like it was wrong. I've learnt my lesson, I hope you've learnt yours and use your powers and authority in a more productive way in future! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarumio (talk • contribs) 09:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK so as not to annoy any more people - does anybody object to me making some tiny edits to a select few club's pages. Its not actually changing inofrmation. All i wish to do is - where it says F.C. in the infobox's Full Name - type in Football Club instead and if the InfoBox header has the club's full name or FC after it - to remove this - to leave just the club's simple short name like 95% of all other english club articles. It seems certain people object to me typing the words "Football Club" into a space where it previously said "F.C" which i can only say is bizarre! Any objections will be teaken on board! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarumio (talk • contribs) 12:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In theory what you say seems fine, but could you give an example? John Hayes^talk 12:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this needs to be updated on the Manual of Style page for club articles too? Nanonic (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Examples

1. On Dartford FC's page the infobox header had "Dartford Football Club", I cahnged this to "Dartford" which fell in line with 95% of other football club pages (ie ommitting the FC/Football Club part of their name and just displaying their basic short name! This was deemed wrong and "Dartford Football Club" was reinstated as its short name as well as being displayed as its long full name.

2. Grimsby Town's full name was down as Grimsby Town F.C. - I changed this to Grimsby Town Football Club! This was changed back to its original form? Why - the edit i made was not incorrect! What do they think the F.C. stands for? Why was it reverted? Anybody would think i renamed the club Chinatown City!

3. St Neots Town's infobox header - as stated before - almost all article ommit the FC from the infobox header as this should be their popular short name and the "FC" be included only in the Club's Full Name line. I removed it to be in line with almost every other article and in line with all other UCL Premier Division articles and twice it has been reverted and i cant undersatnd why - its not like theres another St Neots Town that we need to sitinguish it from.

Any comments?

I'd prefer the infobox header to be the same as the article name, i.e. use F.C. or A.F.C. where appropriate. I'd certainly be in favour of some sort of standard. - fchd (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, as to the Full name, the MoS says it should be the full name of the club, in which case there can be no objection to the full name appearing. So long as it is the correct full name, and each one is checked with an appropriate reliable source. Just because it says Template F.C. now, does not automatically mean the full name of the club is really Template Football Club. As to F.C. or not in the header, I'd say that until/unless the MoS is definitive on the matter, you shouldn't change any more without having a look at each article's contribution history to see who regularly edits each article and asking their opinion before imposing your own. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would whole-heartedly agree with Struway2 here. Until a community consensus can be found on what should and shouldn't be in those fields, it's not your position to unilaterally change every football club article you can find to the way you want it to be. Please stop changing these articles until we can come to a consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That is fine! I have stopped. So how do we come to this so called consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarumio (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But now you have started again. Dozens and dozens of edits to mainly Scottish and Welsh clubs this time, all apparenly just taking the F.C. off the club name in the infobox. - fchd (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe ask on the template's talk page, as it's that template which appears to be affected/concerned.Brollachan (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to add that one difference in regards to 'FC' or not is that for instance West Ham have no "F.C." in their club logo, whereas by comparison St Neots has the "FC" in their logo. Perhaps this is one way in deciding whether the "F.C." should be present in the short name. Brollachan (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Or establish a consensus here while you're at it, as this is a broader issue than just one template. As long as the majority of comments are "for" making the changes, then consensus is established "for" making the changes. If the majority are "against" etc., and so on. For my part, I believe that present consensus (as illustrated by the unaltered forms of address, pre-Sarumio) is sufficient, that tinkering with names unnecessarily is creating work for nothing, and is a waste of time on such a small amendment per article. It seems a pointless exercise, as it does not enhance the understanding of the subject one bit, and amounts to nit-picking. By the way, consensus is never "so-called". Without it, Wikipedia does not work. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I caught up with this issue over on West Ham Utd. I would say this:

A - nobody holds a majority on their own. This goes for Sarumio as much as anybody. Nor does the WikiProject Football necessarily have all the best ideas and/or right ideas. But that's just opinions for you.

B - A similar point I made at West Ham. We are "West Ham Utd". If you asked Joe Bloggs in the street he'd probably just say West Ham. If you asked in a court of law they'd probably say "West Ham United Football Club, from this point onwards referred to as West Ham". My point being that there is a time and a place for the full name of every club.

C - how often do you repeat yourself before the reader walks away?

As a few examples (randomly selected I might add):

"Darlington Football Club (also known as Darlo or The Quakers) are an English football team based in the English town of Darlington, currently playing in Football League Two."

"Barnsley Football Club are an English football league team, based in the town of Barnsley"

"West Ham United Football Club is an English football club"

"Arsenal Football Club (also known as Arsenal, The Arsenal or The Gunners) are an English professional football club... They play in the Premier League and are one of the most successful clubs in English football."

As you can see, some of the intro's to these clubs are mixed, but all do a fantastic job of repeating themselves. When you then count in the fact that the infoboxes basically add at least another two opportunities to make a meal of it, plus the actual title of the article you can basically - within the space of about 3" at the top of a page have said "xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx Football Club" or variations at least (by the examples above) 4 times as a minimum...and in the case of Arsenal and Darlington, more like 8 or 9 times (nevermind the remainder of the intro's).

I would say this with regards to the MoS; the infobox should reflect the title of the article for the 'top' name. Seeing as most of the articles have their titles reducted I think it's logical to mirror it in the infobox. Brollachan makes a similar point I believe.--Koncorde (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it seems the template actually says (at the top) "Short club name".--Koncorde (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we are definitely in need of some consensus here. I prefer to see the short name of the club as header in the infobox, but the title of the page should always be the full name, except for common abbreviation for "football club" or versions of the same in other languages for foreign clubs. As for links in articles in players' or managers' infoboxes or national team squads I think the short club name should always be used because it makes skimming through lists of clubs much easier. There's my 2 cents.Timbouctou (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The guy's still at it (including this edit, which broke a link). Removing F.C. from names does not make sense: Southampton is the name of a city; Southampton F.C. is the name of its football club. Can we get an admin to step in on this one please? - Dudesleeper | Talk 12:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly - I've never touched the Southampton FC page or its infobox. The FC was never included in this club's infobox - its in the title of the article, the first line and the clubs full name line. Anyone who still thinks that they're looking at the City of Southampton's page is plain stupid. Secondly - theres no such city as Dundee United so you reverting it back was pointless when its perfectly clear that Dundee United is formally followed by F.C., as its shown in the name of the article, the first line and yes in its Full Name line in the infobox. Lastly, whilst you may see it as a waste of time, its my choice and isnt strictly incorrect as the Template page doesnt say that FC has to be included in the header, infact it leaves it out in the example (which is Arsenal) and the description says "the commonly used short name of the club" which in, for example, Dundee United's case is "Dundee United". Adding FC on the end pretty much negates the need for the "Full Name" line in the infobox. Sarumio (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Also by your last remark - you make it sound like I've actually changed/removed the F.C. from the name of the actual article altogether so that it points to the city/town - WHICH IVE NEVER DONE! Sarumio (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Southampton was an example, but since you weren't responsible for that one, I'll point to this edit instead.

Again, Blackpool is the name of the town. - Dudesleeper | Talk 19:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OK so Blackpool is also the name of the town! Shock Horror! Whats your point? Whats that got to do with anything? Sarumio (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarumio, you seem to have a lot of energy for editing football articles. Why not try to bring a B class article up to featured rather than these endless minor edits which really are neither here nor there and for which you still don't have a consensus? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to shout, try to stay calm. The Rambling Man (talk)14:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand my use of caps theres - in this case im really not shouting - merely stressing those couple of words so people actually take in what I've just said as bending the truth to make it look worse than it is, is unnaceptable in my opinion. Sarumio (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

But by now you should have realised that there's no consensus for your editing patterns? So stop making them! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Emirates/Arsenal Stadium

As you may know, UEFA refers to the Emirates Stadium as Arsenal Stadium when the stadium is used in European competitions. However, my question is whether we should follow their lead and pipe links in articles such as UEFA Champions League 2007-08 knockout stage from Emirates Stadium to Arsenal Stadium? Would this be against Wikipedia policy for any reason? – Pee Jay 10:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A similar situation applied in the 2006 FIFA World Cup and all the links were piped in exactly the way you describe..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would avoid doing it personally, because Arsenal Stadium is the official name for Highbury (and thus that's where that article is located). If it was something markedly different like the Allianz Arena being renamed Fussball Arena München by UEFA then there wouldn't be a problem. Trust UEFA to confuse us all by calling the new stadium the official name of the old one.. Foxhill (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How interesting that you begin a separate discussion about this without informing me... As I have stated before, UEFA refer to the stadium as Arsenal Stadium because they are obliged to. Emirates are not an official sponsor and as such, UEFA cannot mention their name. This does not actually change the name of the Emirates stadium, it is just referred to by a different name by one organisation. All matches are still played at Emirates Stadium. At most it may be of interest to note in a footnote that UEFA refer to the stadium in a different way to everyone else, although this is covered in the artcile for Emirates Stadium. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Ashburton Grove should be used per convention that sponsorship names are not used for stadium articles, and to avoid the confusion that Foxhill mentions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely that just adds further to the confusion...? Nouse4aname (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not if the article itself is also moved :) пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha Ha! I think that may be entirely different discussion altogether! Nouse4aname (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Nouse4aname I would say that it should be listed as the Emirates Stadium, that's its official name. That is what I saw written on the stadium last year, its what would be written on an insurance document with Arsenal.Londo 06 12:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ashburton Grove is just the name of the site the stadium was built on, not the name of the stadium. Jimbo^[online] 09:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is no sponsor than the stadium would have no name - as Jimbo says, Ashburton Grove is simply the location of the stadium, and is used by people and companies, such as the BBC, who don't want to give Emirates extra publicity...GiantSnowman (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

England's 50 Greatest Goals

Just discovered this article and after reading the descriptions of the individual goals I think my POV-ometer went off the top of the scale and exploded ;-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROD it, or alternatively WP:AFD it. This article is a blatant violation of WP:N. --Angelo (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the person who created the article know that the England football team was around well before 1966? Jimbo^[online] 09:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the list was apparently generated by Sky viewers, not just dreamed up by the article's creator....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely the point of this list was so that Sky could show clips of the goals. What's the point in the article without being able to actually see the goals. Delete. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 09:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not really the issue. I don't really think making an article for each TV poll in the world is a good idea: do they have evident coverage from reliable secondary sources which are independent of the subject? (Citing WP:N) Personally, I think no. --Angelo (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's sort of what I meant, Angelo :-) Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 09:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FA Cup 2003-04

Can anyone else have a look at this and see how many errors are on there. I've spotted a few. Not sure what the best option to do is - either tag it with cleanup or some such like, AfD it because it's plainly wrong, or work painstakingly through to correct it all. Peanut4 (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a transposition of at least two competition years' 4th and 5th rounds do not match. 5th Round is possibly(?) OK but 4th looks like it is in part at least from another competition year. If you look at how flaky the FA archive is for sorting out results for a particular year this may explain the source of the problem but does not excuse a pretty sloppy piece of work and I tend to agree it has little value as an article.Tmol42 (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been through and sorted out (I think) Round 1. This was a right mess, some of the 2003-04 results mixed in with the 2004-05 data, and match numbers all over the place. Will tackle some more later on. - fchd (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC) - Edit - 2nd Round Results now sorted. Have I ever mentioned how much I hate the use of the blinking ndash? Does any one ever use that when collating results anywhere else except Wikipedia, or do people, like me, use the simple hyphen character? - fchd (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RSSSF have a lot of the attendance data if anyone's looking to add it. Nanonic (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FA Cup 2004-05 was in a similar state when I first came across it. It only took me a few hours to get it up to scratch, but I had to root around on the FA's website for the actual draw numbers for a while. – Pee Jay 18:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all incorrect information (I think!). I'd rather it be incomplete than wrong. Adding a few categories and templates too. Peanut4 (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

YCFC stats and records

I'm not particularly keen on canvassing, but if anyone has a moment could they please comment at the WP:FLC for List of York City F.C. statistics and records? Getting a bit worried about gaining the required four supports in the 10 day period, but currently on three now, including the nomination. Also, you could check out the peer reviews of Fulfordgate, History of York City F.C. and KitKat Crescent if you like! Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it won't be failed due to lack of support unless it has been up for well over 20 days. Receiving 4 comments in 10 days is now the exception to the rule. Woody (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a slight change but otherwise it's great work. Any club who paid £100,000 for Barry Conlon needs support, so have added such. Peanut4 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Injury time goals

In standard notation, would a goal scored in the first minute of injury time at the end of the first half be written as "45+1", "45'+1", "45+1'" or "45'+1'"? User:Theilert believes that "45'+1'" is the correct notation, with an apostrophe after each number, while my position is that there should only be one apostrophe, and that it should come after the number of minutes added on (i.e. "45+1'"). Opinions please. – Pee Jay 22:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The traditional venue for such disputes is Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

45+1; using an apostrophe to signal minutes is not an English practise (though it is used in other languages). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. When using latitude and longitude co-ordinates, it's common to indicate minutes (as opposed to degrees or seconds) by a single apostrophe. But I agree on the edit warring. Not really worth it.. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that its not worth it, but what you say is that; where there should be minutes, an apostrophe can be added instead. Like 45 minutes + 1 minute of added time = 45'+1' ? lil2mas (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest looking through the previous years competition articles to see which format has been consistently used, although I would lean towards the 45+1' format - as in 45+1 minutes. 45'+1' seems to strike me as meaning 45 minutes plus 1 minute. It's one of those quibbles that pops up now and then in the wider world as FIFA don't always use the +1 but use the ' (prime) and UEFA don't always use a minute symbol in their match reports but other competitions and the media do. Nanonic (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone show me a British media site (not an international one like UEFA or FIFA) which actually uses apostrophes to show minutes in football games? I don't believe I have ever seen it beyond European games on television. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian does [8]. Nanonic (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the inconsistency in different UEFA-reports. I saw the 45'+1' in the UEFA MatchCentre. Most media, English aswell as Norwegian, are showing only (45) or (90). But in cases with 5 minutes of added time, I think they should write (95), but then you have a problem in first half injury time, since (50) could be in both halves of the game... Then 45'+5' (90'+5') is the best option to me! lil2mas (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It may seem like a lame edit war, but to be fair it is useful to come to a consensus to be included in the MOS and prevent further edit wars in future. My vote would be for 45'+1. No need for two primes as the first one makes it clear that we're talking about minutes. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 23:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See, my problem with that option is that, since the prime symbol refers to minutes, I would read "45'+1" as "forty-five minutes plus one". This, to me, sounds like poor grammar, which is why I prefer "45+1'", read as "forty-five-plus-one minutes". – Pee Jay 23:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. OK, 45+1' it is then. Definitely no need for two primes though. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 00:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like peace has broken out and not wanting to distract from this worthwhile discussion but the reason why all this inconsistency exists out there with use of ' and " is because they are not intended to be used to define minutes and seconds relating to time but relate to mins and secs in geometry. They have over time (!) been co-opted from their other day to day use which is to describe measurement of longitude and latitude and have progressively replaced min and sec or m and s. For what its worth my vote is for 45 + 1' in the same way as one is more likely to use 45 +1m and not 45m +1m.Tmol42 (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with England national football team managers

This article is well developed, and getting close to readiness for its second Peer Review. Need help in two ways:

Anyone got any info, memories, RS on media campaigns to sack, retain or recruit England managers? No OR please!
Will need a copyedit soon from someone who's not been involved in developing the article. Any volunteers?

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind CE'ing the article but I won't be able to do it till next week as I'll be offline from Friday lunchtime till next Monday.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Slacker. Any help any time would be good - the intention is to take it all the way to WP:FAC anyway so I'm sure you'll have plenty of time to contribute!! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

NYTimes, [9] "The English lost to Norway and the United States in soccer a few weeks ago. Manager Graham Taylor must go, the headlines say." and no doubt you can find the turnip pic somewhere.. (like this one [10]) and more on taylor here. McClaren's obituary already penned has a couple of useful paras. More on Erikkson and of course The Sun putting a donkey up for England manager. If memory serves me straight they also vilified Terry Venables and handed 'Robson Out' badges to fans ahead of the 1990 world cup. Nanonic (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Some really useful stuff there, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite having created the article myself, even I would AfD...

Please keep in mind that when I wrote this and several other football articles I was searching through squadlists - but this was back in 2005 and no first-team professional development has been made since then. Would someone please AfD Sam Alsop? Doing it myself, as the article's creator, would seem something of a back-to-front way of going about things..! Bobo . 03:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've PROD'ed it. No need to go through AfD for what would appear to be a faily uncontroversial deletion...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. As I say, I created it very early on in the player's tenure at the club and there was no telling at the time whether he would retain notability by achieving appearances or not. Bobo . 16:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Will the real Danny Williams please stand up...

Currently we have three football bio articles for different Danny Williams:

Since the football manager was also a player, this seems a bit of a daft way of naming the articles, so I propose two page moves as follows:

Danny Williams (football manager) → Danny Williams (footballer born 1924) Y Done
Danny Williams (footballer) → Danny Williams (footballer born 1979) (currently a redirect back to Danny Williams (footballer)) Y Done

(Danny Williams (footballer) to become redirect to Danny Williams dab page) Y Done

Link fixes Y Done Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 17:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have any objections/thoughts? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No objections whatsoever. Proceed. – Pee Jay 12:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Do it. Seems common sense to me. Woody (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

FC Sion

Please add to your watchlist ASAP, this page is being constantly vandalised following the signing of Essam el-Hardary from Al-Ahly. GiantSnowman (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F.

Is this really the WP:common name? I requested a page move (found here) since I'm tired of hopeless names of articles on Portuguese football clubs (e.g. Associação Naval 1º de Maio and União Desportiva e Recreativa de Algés). The problem with AAC - OAF is that Associação Académica de Coimbra is the name of the University of Coimbra's student union. As such I also (rather ambitiously) requested a page move of Associação Académica de Coimbra to Coimbra Academic Association (found here), including sub-pages like Associação Académica de Coimbra - Secção de Futebol to Coimbra Academic Association - amateur football section. However, neither RM is attracting any attention apart from me and two Portuguese people who think that the articles are under their official (portuguese) names. I would be thankful if someone would like to contribute to the discussion. Sebisthlm (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you can definitely use Académica de Coimbra, as I think the name is by far mainly used to refer the football club. --Angelo (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem was that that title would have led to dab-problems with the articel on the students' union. Anyway, the RM is now closed and since no-one cared to contribute we're stuck with Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F.. Sebisthlm (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Académica de Coimbra containing the football club article and a {{Otheruses4}} on the header linking to the students' association? --necronudist (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was sort of my idea. {{Otheruses4}} is a good idea, but I'm not sure how (or if) to go about it when my RM just was closed as a no move. Seems a bit like sour grapes to go ahead with a page move anyway. Sebisthlm (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Pretty silly, yeah. If they don't wanna move it...let's keep the stupid uncomfort. --necronudist (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Mario1987

User:Mario1987 has created a load of football biographies. Some of them are O.K, but the majority are inaccurate, include false information, incomplete, based solely on one source (the often inaccurate transfermarkt.de) Myself and other editors have given him advice on how to improve his contributions on numerous occasions but he just blanked his talkpage and carried on the same. I have fixed up/AfDed all the Argentine players but a look through the other players he’s created show loads that assert no notability. Out of the 200 odd players he’s created it seems barely any of them have a complete player history or assert notability, the ones that do are generally because of the work of other editors. The inaccuracy and incompleteness of his work is now attracting snide comments from German Wikipedans. A quick run through some of his contributions show that only 1 of the 13 his Armenian players asset notability and only 1 of 24 his Azerbaijani footballers. This isn’t to say that they aren’t notable, just that the article creator couldn’t be arsed to do it. The only batch of his contributions to have been fully vetted seem to be Argentine players, I sent 9 for AfD and fixed the rest to show notability. The reason I bring it up is that I can’t think of a solution other than following him around cleaning up the mess, but I’m not prepared to do it when he won’t listen to any advice at all. Any suggestions other that issuing warnings? English peasant 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If you've tried to reason with him and he still keeps adding articles without asserting notability then you should warn him, and if he still doesn't listen report his actions to an admin and request that he is blocked. It may seem a bit harsh, but if he's causing as many problems as you are implying then I think it's appropriate. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 17:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable suggestion. If he doesn't listen and he's basically vandalising the project, then go to Admin. Peanut4 (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I will try one more friendly warning about accuracy & notability, and request that he go through his contributions and make sure that they assert notability. If this doesn't work I'll use the vandalism templates. English peasant 20:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked would indeed be a bit harsh. Constant clean-up and vetting of wiki pages is standard fare. Asking for him to be blocked on the basis that you are having to do some work because he doesn't follow Notability guidelines that are even disputed within this project is a bit cack-handed. Looking at some of his edits and articles, he's made plenty of stubs for players who are notable. The fact it has required a second editor to go in and fill in the blanks doesn't make him a problem, if anything he's providing a helpful prod.--Koncorde (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking for anyone to be blocked, I'm asking what can be done to stop him from ignoring all advice. 1/4 of the Argentine players he created were not notable by any Wikipedia standard and were deleted, I guess that ratio is the same for the other 200 odd articles he's created. Most of the articles he has created omit all but the current club from the "senior clubs" section of the infobox, (making it appear that for example that the Brazilian player just appeared aged 28 in Germany). All of the information is there in the external link he nearly always uses (transfermarkt.de), he just cant be arsed to type it out. He wants to take credit for creating all those article without having done the work properly. I'm not against stub creation and I know occasional mistakes are inevitable, but completely ignoring all advice and making loads of articles that are inaccurate, incomplete and often about completely non-notable players annoys me. All I'm asking is what I can do to make him listen? As the German bloke who fixed one of his misleading and inaccurate articles said "I know, the english Wikipedia is satisfied by having such (non-)articles, but I'm not". Why should it be other peoples responsibility to clean up his mess? English peasant 02:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally I'm not "having to do the work" to clean it up, I'm interested in Argentine football, so I cleaned up the Argentine footballers, the rest are just sitting there virtually unchanged and still inaccurate and not asserting notability. If you want to spend weeks of editing time cleaning them up go for it. No-one else seems to want to do it. English peasant 02:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that I should clarify my comments above as they seem to have been misconstrued. When I suggested a block I did not mean a permanent block, merely a temporary block. My intention was that such action may "shock" him in to realising that his edits are disruptive and to take onboard advice given by other editors. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also cleaned up quite a few of this user's articles, and I understand your concern. I have made similar mistakes about notability when I am begin with WP:Football, and I don't believe he is trying to make work for others. My guess is that he believes starting a stub for all squad members of top-flight clubs is helpful, but as we know it is not always the case. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, we all make mistakes, but when we continue making the same mistakes over and over again after other people have pointed them out and given advice on how to avoid them and why they should be avoided, surely they are no longer "mistakes". He's ignored everything I've said and also comments by Muchness, Aecis, Gene Nygaard, No57 and several others, and the snarky remarks he gives in response to peoples comments. The only thing that he seems to have taken on board is that 0 (0) in the infobox might lead to a PROD/AfD, so he now leaves appearance stats blank English peasant 02:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes we all make mistakes. But if people are pointing them out on his talk page, yet he ignores the warnings, that's the problem. Peanut4 (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability question

Does this now mean, Conference National players are notable?

If so, can I get previously deleted articles reinstated? Jimbo^[online] 13:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide evidence from a reliable source stating that the club someone has played for is fully professional (or was at the time he played there), then yes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How do I go about getting an article undeleted? Jimbo^[online] 13:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Through WP:Deletion Review. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Do FA Trophy games count if a player has played for a pro national-division side against another national side - a bit like how the Football League Trophy makes players eligible? Jimbo^[online] 14:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if both teams contesting the matches are fully professional (the criteria states: "Have played in a competitive fixture between two "FPNL clubs""), so playing in a game between, say, Oxford and Kidderminster is ok, but not Cambridge United versus Droylsden. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but where on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability does it say the FA Trophy counts? Criterion 2 doesn't just say Have played in a competitive fixture between two "FPNL clubs", it says Have played in a competitive fixture between two "FPNL clubs" (in the FA Cup or League Cup, non-English equivalent, Continental or Intercontinental club competition). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And Ashley Barnes (for one) has been recreated under these conditions. Any thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I assumed they were just examples; we have counted appearances in the Football League Trophy before. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

But not the FA Trophy...? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but now the criteria has been expanded to include some Conference teams, it would appear to make sense that FA Trophy games between them count (as in previous seasons the Football League Trophy had semi-pro Conference entrants). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) I've just gone through the discussion above (again) and the wording on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability is the wording agreed to. Someone suggested adding Football League Trophy, but this was not done (though IMO it probably should have been); perhaps the suggestion wasn't noticed. The discussion at no point gives the impression that the competitions mentioned are only examples. Struway2 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a world of difference between a player for a club like Anderlecht and a player for a Conference team. It is not possible to word things in such a way that all eventualities are covered without making a document as long as the Maastricht Treaty. I maintain that run-of-the-mill Conference players should not have articles. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I created Ryan Waddell a while ago but since realised that merely being a professional (without playing a senior game) might not be notable enough. Should this stay or go? 12:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanaka (talk • contribs)

It should go; he hasn't played in a fully-pro league. You could help things by CSDing it (WP:CSD#G7) :) пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought - done. Wanaka | Talk 14:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

.....and I've deleted it ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Baker (footballer) – calling all Spurs fans

I originally posted this on the article talk page, but haven't had a response, so I was wondering if anyone here could help me out:

A Peter Baker played for Sheffield Wednesday for six months in the 1957-58 season, making twelve appearances.[11] Is it possible that this is the same Peter Baker, perhaps on a loan deal? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Might not be a Spurs can, but I'm sure I can help! I take it you haven't acquainted with the Neil Brown site? Great for post-war Football League players' stats. By looking at his profile on the site, no, it isn't the same one. By looking in The PFA Premier & Football League Players' Records 1946-2005, I can see that the one who played for Sheffield Wednesday is definetley another player. Luckily, he also has a profile on the Neil Brown site. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just beat me to the same answer and same source. It is also clear from the THFC site that he broke into the first team as a regular from the start of the season in question.Tmol42 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers guys, I'm sure Mr. Neil Brown will come in very handy! Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've created a stub for the other Peter Baker at Peter Baker (footballer born 1934). What are people's thoughts on moving Peter Baker (footballer) to Peter Baker (footballer born 1931)?

Peter Baker (footballer) is probably more notable than Peter Baker (footballer born 1934), and I know that as per WP:D this might mean that if the article was at Peter Baker then it should be left there, but does the same go for articles with (footballer) in the title?

Personally, I would say that a page move would be a good idea as both players were around at about the same time and both played for Spurs early in their career, so it would be very easy to confuse the two (as I almost did!). What does everyone else think? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 21:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your arguement would hold some greater sway if both players had been professionals alongside each other at Spurs but I doubt if there is likely to be confusion given Peter Baker (footballer)'s legendary status at WHL so I would prefer the status quo with a wlink from the current Peter Baker (footballer), to Peter Baker (footballer born 1934). Happy to bow to concensus though Tmol42 (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I'm also guessing that you're a Spurs fan, and I would argue that as Peter Baker (footballer) was virtually a one club man he is not all that well known outside of THFC and "neutral" fans could easily confuse the two – especially younger readers (since neither men have played for over forty years).

Like you I'm happy to bow to concensus, which is why I started a discussion here. Does anyone else have an opinion on the matter? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 22:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm always a fan of dabing all people unless one person is "much more famous" than all others. And adding "born 1931" is not much of a hassle anyway. So I support moving the former player to "Peter Baker (footballer born 1931)". Chanheigeorge (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

One won the double, one was a bit-part player who made 39 appearances before dropping into non-league. I'd say the double winner is much more notable and should be at (footballer). I've added hatnotes to each article pointing out the existence of the other. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So we've got two votes each so far. According to WP:D "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title". I don't like making controversial edits, especially page moves, so I would rather have some more opinions before a decision is made to move the page. More comments please! Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Since we haven't reached consensus here I have requested a move. Please repost your support or opposition at the article talk page. Any new comments from other users would be very welcome there too. Cheers Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarumio edits again

Okay, so now User:Sarumio is claiming Rotherham Utd was founded in 1925 (contrary to the article) and Ipswich Town was formed in 1888 (contrary to the official website). I've reached my WP:3RR limit and I'm sorely tempted to block but I'd rather not as I'm too close to the subject matter. Are we now to assume that the "formed" date in the infobox refers to the date when the club changed its name to its current or what? I could do with some chillin' out and some advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A citation would solve the problem. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 22:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite a black and white issue. I would say Ipswich Town were formed in 1878, but Rotherham United in 1925. Ipswich Town are clearly a continuation of Ipswich A.F.C., hence 1878, but Rotheham United are the combination of two distinct clubs which presumably different foundation dates. A difficult one to be honest.

Besides all that, I can see why Sarumio is being such a pain. Peanut4 (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't the official club websites say when the clubs were formed. SWFC.co.uk certainly has an extensive history section. I agree with Peanut on the merging issue, but that said, if the Rotherham United site has an extensive pre-1925 history section then I would be happy to go with the earlier date. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 22:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Are we now to assume that the "formed" date in the infobox refers to the date when the club changed its name to its current or what?" - What a strange thing to say! No of course not - the two changes I made (to Ipswich and Rotherham) were not just name changes - they were mergers. And I've already told you that I'd look into Ipswich further before changing the article again. I changed the RUFC foundation date again and again (despite your reverts) because RUFC wasnt formed in 1870, Rotherham Town was, RUFC WAS formed in 1925! Its a fact I'm afraid! And look at the foundation dates given for Havant & Waterlooville, Hayes & Yeading Utd, Carlisle United, Dagenham & Redbridge, Molesey, Walton & Hersham, Solihull Moors etc etc etc - its the foundation year of the merged clubs isnt it! I shall look further into the Ipswich formation date before acting but can't see a valid reason why there is a difference between Ipswich Town (which is a merger of two clubs in 1888 (one of which was Ipswich AFC in 1878)) and any other merged club's foundation date . Sarumio (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it boils down to the fact that all these articles have history sections which incorporate the pre-modern day club representation. It's more a case of yet another attempt to start making wholesale changes across Wikipedia without bothering to gain any consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No thats not what it boils down to at all. And I do not need consensus on the formation date of RUFC. Its not really an issue that i see up for opinion. The club was formed in 1925 - simple. Fact. No one asked for consensus to put 1870 in the first place so why should I find consensus to CORRECT it!Sarumio (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion alone shows that you should discuss this issue. Heaven knows what you'll decide to change next under the guise of a minor edit but it's down to the diligence of a number of WP:FOOTBALL participants who watch a number of pages that your editing is kept under some control. What you need to do is establish that a formation date in the infobox which directly contradicts text in the main article is acceptable. Or write separate articles for the clubs before they "merge" or "rename". Then there'll be no confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You may also note this reversion, by another editor to yet another of your article improvements - particularly in the edit summary - linking individual years - please see WP:DATE. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually agree with Sarumio on the Rotherham issue - two clubs of more-or-less equal standing merged to form a new entity in 1925 - e.g. rather like Dagenham & Redbridge not that long ago. Opinion is certainly divided on how to treat them statistically, but there would be ample scope for seperate articles on Rotherham Town & Rotherham County pre-merger. - fchd (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Same here. 1925 is the year Rotherham Town F.C. and Rotherham County F.C. merged to form the current club (I created one of the articles more than 2 years ago!). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really disputing that fact, I'm just concerned over the use of the infobox yet again. Separate articles would resolve the discrepancy in the history section versus the infobox - it needs to be made clearer in my opinion. Even if the current infobox was to say "formed 1870 as..." and then "reformed 1925 as..." and had suitable citation or explanation within the history section. Plus there's there are the edits which go directly against the manual of style and the template instructions, but that's another issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the year when the "Rotherhams" became "United" being 1925, as I believe that speaks for itself. United are a continuation, but of two clubs, not a single previously disbanded or dissolved club. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's 1925 or not, there is an issue with Sarumio's continued mass edits, without gaining any consensus. I agree with TRM, that such global changes should be discussed first. Peanut4 (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Sarumio has made some poor edits in the past without gaining consensus, but I have to agree with him on this one. Rotherham United were formed in 1925. We should assume good faith on this particular edit; despite his poor track record he seems to be making some more useful contributions of late. I also agree that he does not need consensus to change the date to 1925, but this should be referenced and the article should not contradict the infobox, with any information relating specifically to Rotherham Town or Rotherham County being moved to the relevant page. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether User:Sarumio is editing in a correct manner in the majority of edits is a question either for individual editors who see the need to revert, or in more serious cases one of the resolution processes or perhaps the Admin Noticeboard. If the user makes one correct edit, that should not be lumped in with any perceptions as to his general behaviour. A correct edit is a good faith edit and should not be criticised. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing a correct edit is fine, but perhaps you haven't familiarised yourself with Samurio's style of mass edits without consensus in issues that are subjective and ought to be discussed. Samurio has had plenty of good faith directed towards him/her but it's wearing thin. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It amounts to bullying if you ask me! Raising this topic on this talk page being a prime example of you harrassing me for no good reason. Everyone above has now stated above they agree with the corrected RUFC formation date and I assured you on your own talk page that I'd look into the Ipswich one before changing again. I explained it to you numerous times why i was changing the RUFC date and you refused to listen and instead of answering my questions and thinking about my reasons you came back with a one line warning demanding I stop or you'll block me! Maybe you should put more effort into catching real vandals of articles who deliberately try to wreck them with nonsense. All i've tried to do is improve articles, add more correct information, standardise certain headers and information to make it more encyclopedic, and all I get from you for every single type of edit I make is grief, threats, demands and reverts. The last couple of days, I created probably about 100 Infoboxes for all the remaining Step 5 clubs that didnt already have one. If people choose to now edit them, I will accept that, Im not going to watch over every last one with an iron fist and revert every last change that happens to those infoboxes, i dont own them or have control over them and some of them will be "properly" vadalised in a malicious way (unlike mine), nor shall i demand consensus when every last piece of info is changed. Let this be an end to this debate.Sarumio (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I bring the discussion here because here is where we solve issues like this. I'm not suggesting your addition of infoboxes is a bad thing, but editing and wikilinking club foundation dates with no edit summary, against the infobox guidelines and claiming a minor edit is not the way to do it. And let me assure you I put plenty of effort into catching vandals. I also put plenty of effort into people editing correctly and in accordance with policies. I'm happy to end this debate but you must realise that many editors other than me have reverted your changes - you just removed that part of the discussion from your talk page, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

F.C. in infoboxes reversions

I note that Sarumio is reverting changes to infoboxes regarding addition of "F.C.", pending consensus being reached. Where is that consensus discussion taking place? I'd like to read the issues and then add my opinion. --Dweller (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I do contest! I have not removed any more FCs from headers since the consensus was deemed necessary. I removed it from Barnsley because whilst the consensus is still to be reached the FC should neither be removed nor added and it was added to Barnsley - an article that previously didnt contain the FC in the inofbox header from what I can tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarumio (talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But the majority do (or did, until they strangely began disappearing), so for consistency's sake F.C. should appear. - Dudesleeper / Talk 13:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I note a reversion at Barnsley F.C. this morning with edit summary (FC not to be added or removed from Infobox Header until consensus achieved!) Look, this is very entertaining, but my question is Where is that consensus discussion taking place? --Dweller (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

With regards to what Dudesleeper has said - No they do not! And they never did. So don't make things up or cover up the truth by implying that I changed the majority. I actually changed the minority. For example - of the 92 League clubs, i'd estimate I changed around 15-20 (ie removed the Fc from the infobox header). The majority (the other 70ish) actually originally ommitted the FC (and it was a similar story for the clubs with Infoboxes in Non-League) and this is why i originally tried to make the inormation dispalyed in the infobox header conistant. So "for consistancy's sake" as you put it the FC should be removed, now that only 2 FL clubs include the FC in the header (now 3 that Barnsley has been tampered with, whose infobox had never conatined the FC in the first place - ie wasnt one that I had previosuly changed!) but i won't push the issue any further with the editors of Blackpool and Burnley as they've stated their reasons for wanting it included and whilst I dont necessarily agree with it, I'll accept it.Sarumio (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So to answer his question, where is this discussion Sarumio? John Hayes^talk 14:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Got tired waiting and struck it lucky looking for it. For anyone else interested (and I suggest as many people as possible do contribute) the debate is at Template_talk:Infobox_Football_club#InfoBox_Header_-_F.C._inclusion. I think. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you know?

Another football-related fact has appeared on the front page, thought I'd let the powers that be know so they can update the Did you know? page accordingly. BTW, thanks to Peanut4 for this one...GiantSnowman (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Done and well done! Nanonic (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Did we catch England national football team managers on DYK on Feb 19th? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I must have been asleep that day, duly added now. Nanonic (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Was also one about game 39 the other day too. Peanut4 (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I caught that one at the time, it's one of those currently showing on the Portal (the latest ones are auto-displayed). Nanonic (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

editor creating articles about non-notable players

Can you guys try and converse with this guy. He keeps creating articles on non-notable players - I've posted to his talkpage a number of times with no effect. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Left a couple of words on his talkpage. --Angelo (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling test

The article on Samuel Eto'o has a section entitled "Honors" (sic). My first instinct was to change it, as he isn't American and doesn't play in America so there's no reason to use the US spelling, but then it ocurred to me that he isn't British and doesn't play in Britain either. So, any thoughts on which spelling is appropriate.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As neither variant of English has a strong reason for the article it should be based on the original variant used in the article, per WP:ENGVAR. John Hayes^talk 16:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Which was en_GB per [12] I'll change it. John Hayes^talk 16:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the fact that he's based in Europe mean that UK English should be used anyway? I can't remember ever seeing US English used in translations on the continent. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 17:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

According to my interpretation of WP:ENGVAR I'd say no, it only mentions national ties. John Hayes^talk 17:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it again, I think it does:

"Strong national ties to a topic

An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. For example:

European Union institutions—(British or Irish English)"

Although this may be open to interpretation, I think that the same logic could be applied to all European football articles. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think it's pushing it a bit, but I have no problem with it. John Hayes^talk 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said, it's open to interpretation, but that's certainly one way of looking at it. I'm not saying that this is the correct interpretation, but it's certainly one! Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 00:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Old Trafford peer review

Hi guys, I've just submitted Old Trafford for a Peer Review with a view to getting it to FA standard. I hope I can count on you lot to contribute to the review process. Thanks. – Pee Jay 23:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've had three decent responses to this Peer Review, but I'm going to need more if this article's going to get to FA. That is, unless the article's perfect already :P – Pee Jay 11:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This Peer Review has now been archived, so I suppose the next step would be to take the article to FAC. If anyone has any comments to make before I make the nomination this evening, please leave them on the article's talk page. – Pee Jay 07:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

...and another one!

Currently we have two football bio articles for different Jimmy Mullens:

Since the football manager was also a player (and was arguably more notable for being a player), this seems a bit of a daft way of naming the articles, so I propose two page moves as follows:

Jimmy Mullen (footballer) → Jimmy Mullen (footballer born 1923) Done
Jimmy Mullen (football manager) → Jimmy Mullen (footballer born 1952) Done

(Jimmy Mullen (footballer) to become redirect to Jimmy Mullen dab page) Done Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have any objections/thoughts about these moves? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look hard enough, I think you'll find plenty more where these two came from. Steve Torpey is one that springs to mind. Peanut4 (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

They still need to be sorted out though, don't they? If anyone else knows of any other articles like this then feel free to add them here, and I'll volunteer to sort them out. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve Torpey

Proposed page moves for Steve Torpey articles: (thanks to Peanut for pointing this one out)

Steve Torpey → Steve Torpey (footballer born 1970) Done
Steve Torpey (footballer born 1981) – No change

(Steve Torpey to become dab page) Done Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have any objections/thoughts about this move? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to seek permission for every move? It seems pretty straightforward. As Woody stated above, be bold. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose not, but I was just being polite and checking if anyone had any objections. It's OK being bold, but it's a waste of time if someone else is going to revert your edits straight afterwards because they don't agree... Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He's a footballer and he was born in 1970. There's not too much there to disagree with, even for Wikipedia's strictest wardens. - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done a couple more. But need to possibly look at Jackie Milburn, Jack Milburn (footballer born 1908) and Jackie Milburn (footballer born 1921). Peanut4 (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest moving Jackie Milburn to Jackie Milburn (footballer born 1924) and leaving the others where they are. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced of that suggestion. Jackie Milburn is almost certainly far more famous than the other two, but I'd certainly say Jackie Milburn (disambiguation) or Jack Milburn (disambiguation) needs setting up. Note Jack Milburn currently redirects to Jackie Milburn. Peanut4 (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree; Jackie Milburn should be left where he is as he is far more notable, but a DAB page is needed for the other two. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry you're right. Jackie Milburn is far more notable than Jackie Milburn (footballer born 1921), so no need to move the article. We definitely need a dab page though. I would suggest listing all three articles at Jackie Milburn (disambiguation) and setting up Jack Milburn (disambiguation) as a redirect to it. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Players with "(soccer)" in their page titles

Here are a few footballers/soccer players with the same names that needs further dab:

Eddie Lewis

Chris Brown

BTW, should we dab with just "(soccer)" or "(soccer player)"? I'm leaning towards the latter, it sounds better even though it's longer, and also, "American" is actually an adjective of "player" rather than "soccer", and sooner or later we will be creating pages like "ABC (soccer player born 19XX)", so this seems a bit more consistent. Thoughts? Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely go with (soccer player) rather than (soccer), just as we use (footballer) rather than (football).

Eddie Lewis

This is a tricky one; because Eddie Lewis (soccer) has played most of his football in England there's a case for moving him to Eddie Lewis (footballer born 1974) and Eddie Lewis (footballer) to Eddie Lewis (footballer born 1935), but that may be controversial.

Otherwise I would suggest:

Eddie Lewis (footballer) → Eddie Lewis (footballer) (No change)
Eddie Lewis (soccer) → Eddie Lewis (soccer player)

Chris Brown

I would suggest:

Chris Brown (soccer) → Chris Brown (soccer player born 1977)
Chris Brown (goalkeeper) → Chris Brown (soccer player born 1985)
Chris Brown (footballer) → Chris Brown (footballer) (No change)

– Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 01:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Eddie Lewis the American player has spent much of his career in England, and actually, the first incarnation of his page is at "Eddie Lewis (footballer)". So that's why I suggest "Eddie Lewis (English footballer)" and "Eddie Lewis (American soccer player)" as their respective pages so there's no ambiguity. I think just using "(footballer)" and "(soccer player)" as dab is not very good as they basically mean the same thing. Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what I propose to do:

Eddie Lewis

Chris Brown

I'll be bold and move the pages later today. Chanheigeorge (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely to fit in with the changes to Eddie Lewis you should move:

and maybe even?

Chris Brown (footballer) → Chris Brown (English footballer born 1984)

Just seems a bit odd that you want to use (American soccer player) for Eddie Lewis, but not for Chris Brown... Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to, but there are two American soccer players named Chris Brown. So those two are dab by birth year, and I don't include their nationality there. The other Chris Brown is the only English (so far), so I use nationality for his page. I don't think you need to include both nationality and birth year unless it's absolutely necessary for dab purposes. Chanheigeorge (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

General style

What about (and I'm just writing this off the top of my head..)

John Smith (footballer)

If there is someone with the same name from another code of football:

John Smith (association footballer) (or John Smith (soccer player) if they are from the United States)

If there is someone with the same name who is also an association footballer:

John Smith (English footballer)

If there is someone with the same name, sport and nationality

John Smith (English footballer born 1950)

Although with the last two, I think Wikipedia may have some general conventions which shoudl be taken into account. -- Chuq (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to put (association footballer) rather than just (footballer). Americans don't use the word "footballer", so it's not ambiguous (unless people use "footballer" for other versions of football…). - MTC (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "association footballer" is just not a commonly-used term, so I think it's strange to put it in as a dab. I'd much rather use nationality, birth year or position instead. Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would rather just use "footballer" but most people know what sport someone plays rather than their birth location or birth year. If you have:

John Smith, an Australian rules football player, born in Australia in 1971
John Smith, an rugby league player, born in Australia in 1972
John Smith, a footballer (association football), born in Australia in 1973

It will be a lot easier to differentiate by code rather than by date of birth. I only propose "(association footballer)" if there are other players of other football codes with the same name. -- Chuq (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clear from this discussion that we should have some sort of "manual of style" for naming conventions. Obviously Wikipedia has guidelines on the subject, but it would be helpful if we could list some football specific examples of page names as well as a priority order in which they should used (eg should forward and defender be used before D.O.B.) along with situations in which they should be used (eg when players of different codes of football exist should we use association). Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 00:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should settle this once and for all instead of having the same discussions over and again for different footballers. Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Sorry, I came in late and just kind of jumped in without being aware of the history of the situation! -- Chuq (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't think we should go down the route of using playing positions to dab, as these are just too fluid. Say for example there were two players called Duncan Edwards we needed to dab. The one who played for Man Utd played in defence, midfield and up front with pretty much equal frequency, so which position would you use to dab him....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, in fact I've just spotted one of your requested moves from last month on the same subject. The problem is that there are already a lot of articles that are disambiguated like this, so we will need to locate them and fix them all... Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm alright with using positions if the player has a primary position (namely GK, DF, MF, or FW). Paul Robinson (goalkeeper) is a totally fine page title, and then we also have Paul Robinson (defender born 1978), Paul Robinson (forward) (also born in 1978) and Paul Robinson (footballer born 1982) (also a defender). For me, this looks like a pretty good way to dab. My current method of dab is first nationality, then birth year, then position. But of course, people are going to have different opinions, and that's why we need a central place for this discussion. Chanheigeorge (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Robinson is an interesting case study. We currently have four players with that name, two who play in the same position and two born in the same year. Disambiguating that lot is tricky. In my opinion the current solution is a bit messy, but on the other hand I'm not sure of the best way to go about it. Suggestions? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate squad numbers

According to the official Sheffield Wednesday website they currently have two number 29s and two number 34s!

Richard O'Donnell was previously assigned the number 22 shirt, so I believe that this is a simple mistake (who'd have thought Premium TV would make a mistake?(!)), and since he's currently out on loan this isn't so important anyway.

However, Matthew Bowman has been assigned the number 34 shirt all season although he hasn't made an appearance so far this season. Now that Ben Sahar has joined on loan, he has also been assigned the number 34 shirt, and made his first appearance wearing the shirt yesterday. Since both players are currently at the club, how do we get around the problem? We can't really have both players listed as number 34, can we?

Does anyone know if this has happened before or how it was dealt with? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If they are both 34, then they have to both go down as 34. However if Matthew Bowman hasn't played yet, I guess he will end up with a new number. At the moment I'd revert Bowman's number to nothing or a dash. Like you say, there are plenty of mistakes on the official websites though. When we signed David Brown, they listed the one at Accrington, rather than the one we'd actualy signed. Then had both down. Now that they've fixed it, they've taken away his goal. Peanut4 (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, so I'll go ahead and make the changes. Cheers, Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a similar situation but with a Swiss/Belgian club whose official website had about half a dozen players all with the squad number of 13 (unlucky for some i.e. me!) so I just put them all as blank until the site was updated correctly. GiantSnowman (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how they can both have been given no 34 as that's against FA rules? They state something along the lines that squad numbers must be registered with them at the season's start and that play must retain that number until the start of the next season. If a player leaves then that number can be recycled to a new recruit but a player can't just be bumped up to a new number if he's already got one. I'm suprised that the squad list on the official club site has been changed at all - last time I looked at ours it was about four months out of date!! 12:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladeboy1889 (talk • contribs)

Sportske Novosti award

User Timbuctou has been adding a link to Sportske Novosti award to some players like: Raúl González, Frank Lampard and Kaká among others. This is some kind of award from a Croatian sports newspaper. Being non-league, I feel this should be reverted but prefer to ask before a mass deletion. -- Alexf⁴² 18:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I created the article about the award and linked to it on players' profiles that it has been given to. If enough people think this should be removed from those players' Honours section I won't mind, but I don't think there's any reason to do so since many other non-league awards are normally featured on player pages. Timbouctou (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Should be deleted, like every non-league award. --necronudist (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Also consider the context, for example if a player is voted best player in the country they play in, or are from, it might have some relevance to them, but I don't see what impact a Croatian newspaper has on Kaka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrphayes (talk • contribs) 23:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's what I thought. Timbouctou, would you please revert the awards from those players? Thank you. -- Alexf⁴² 00:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's a non-league award, and if the award itself is notable enough for an entry, why it shouldn't be linked to from its individual winners. One of the references - for Thierry Henry's win - comes from Arsenal.com itself, so it has a big enough impact on the players, to earn news from the clubs themselves. Peanut4 (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Arsenal will say anything to make their players look good :P – Pee Jay 00:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That confused me too Peanut. I think that by non-league they are referring to the fact that it isn't awarded by a League or FA (correct me if I'm wrong) rather than non-league. Personally I don't see how this is relevant as long as the award is notable, but I'm not convinced that this one is. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 00:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah you mean none-league rather than non-league? I think I understand now. I also agree with your second sentence. If the award isn't notable it should be AfD-ed, rather than go the clumsy way round and ask for all links to be reverted. Peanut4 (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think that the link reverting was referring to the links to the article that have been put on the winning players pages, which would still need to be done. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 01:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The links have been deleted. Wikipedia is now a happier place and Raul can sleep peacefully.Timbouctou (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to the Shed campaign

Ant thoughts on this one please? Seems clearly not notable to me. Perhaps it could be merged to Chelsea F.C.? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree; no third party sources at all. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that all of the external links seem to call it Return to the Shed campaign, I would say it should be merged with Chelsea F.C. or maybe Stamford Bridge (stadium). Certainly not notable enough to deserve its own article. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Alan Irvines

There are two (Scottish) footballers called Alan Irvine - Alan Irvine and Alan Irvine (footballer born 1962). Should the Preston manager be moved to (...born 1958) and the current page a dab link? Wanaka | Talk 12:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes. GiantSnowman (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Done Wanaka | Talk 12:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In all this enthusiasm for page moving, it looks like you're unaware that when you move a page to a different name and the old name remains as a redirect, you only need to fix any double redirects manually. However, if as has happened in this case, you move Alan Irvine Preston manager to a different page and then turn the Alan Irvine page into a dab page, you've broken every single valid link to Alan Irvine Preston manager. As it says when you click the Move tab, "You are responsible for making sure that links continue to point where they are supposed to go." Perhaps the mover may want to go back and make sure they do. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops - what's the easiest way to fix it? Move it back again? Wanaka | Talk 13:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if non-admins can move back onto an existing page. Either ask an admin nicely to move them back, if that's what you want, or go to ~~Alan Irvine born 1958~~Alan Irvine, click on What links here and disambiguate each article manually (might not be too many, start with Preston squad template and that would probably eliminate quite a few). Unless someone more knowledgeable has any better ideas? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely the best thing to do would be to pipe all of the exisiting links to the new page name. It's not a difficult task if you use AWB – I'll volunteer to do it if you want. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, thanks for this. Wanaka | Talk 14:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'll get on it now. It'll take a while, but it's not difficult. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Done Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

well done, thanks for taking the trouble! cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - what should have I done in the first place then, to ensure I don't make a mistake again? Wanaka | Talk 16:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong as such, but you should have repaired all of the broken links after moving the page. You can do it manually using the "what links here" function, but that takes ages. As you have made over 500 edits to Wikipedia you can apply for use of AWB which makes the task much more simple. It's also useful for making other repetative edits to multiple pages, but you need to be careful when using it as you have total responsibility for any changes that you make using it. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

When you move a page and leave the old name as a redirect to the new one, all you need to do is check for double redirects, which is explained here, and if there are any, change them to point to the new name. Or when the old name becomes a dab page, you have to check what pages link to the old name and change each link to point to the new one, like Dan1980 helpfully did. Which is easy but tedious, especially if there are a lot of pages linking to the moved article, and easier with AWB, but still tedious. There is a help page here. It's all part of the learning process. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

NCFC away kit

I've been doing some long overdue maintenance on Norwich City F.C.. I noticed that the article's details on the club's away colours was out of date and have updated it. However, I have never known how to do the funky little mini kits in the infobox. I'd be grateful if someone could fix the old red kit for the one that can be seen being modelled by Darren Huckerby and others here. Cheers! --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Done - you can find the strip templates at Template:Football kit and colours at Web colors. Btw, socks aren't visible in the pics so I've guessed at white. Wanaka | Talk 13:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Scottish League

I noticed several articles for players in the Scottish Third Division have been nominated for deletion. I think that these players would have been notable enough, given that they are playing in the Scottish Football League. Thoughts? 15:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck12 (talk • contribs)

I agree, and noticed a player I created who was at Scottish Premier League youth level and played several times in the Scottish Second Division was deleted last month. 15:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanaka (talk • contribs)

They are not notable enough. Scottish Divisions Two and Three are nowhere near being fully-professional (I would guess that Airdrie, Raith and Ross County are fully pro in Division 2, but none in Division 3). Crowd-wise (which is usually a good indicator of equivalency), Division Two is around the level of the Conference North/South, whist Division Three would be NPL/Southern League/Isthmian Premier. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a guide to Scottish Div Three crowds - there have been at least two gates under 200 this season. In comparison, Dover Athletic, a step 4 non-league team in England, drew 911 on Saturday....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely crowd size should be measured with respect to the population? Da-rb (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but no, I don't think so. If we did that we would end up classifying teams from very small countries (such as teams from the Falkland Island Football League) as the best supported in the world! Anyway, crowd size is not the way that we measure notability, it is just a useful guide. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article from 2008, from the Times, no less, in which Berwick Rangers manager Michael Renwick is quoted as follows:

“

As a manager, dealing with part-time players and trying to get them to work my way has been frustrating, difficult. I only had three years part-time as a player but I trained every day. That’s the type of standard I’ve got. I only train with my players for three or four hours and that’s not enough to play at the level we’re playing: we’re playing against three full-time outfits in the second division. Some players work away, some have families and find it hard to fit in more training.

”

There ya go - there are only three full-time teams in Scottish Div Two, and logic would suggest there are fewer than that in Div Three ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So are we saying that only players who have played for a full-time club are eligible? At least that would make it a bit clearer, although I'd still say second and third should be valid as they are within the league structure. Wanaka | Talk 16:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they are in the same league structure is irrelevant; in several countries all leagues are run by the same organisation, so in those cases even players in the bottom tier would be made notable if we were to apply that criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, given that the project has so often !voted to delete articles on semi-pro players in England, I see no reason why semi-pro players in Scotland should be treated differently just because their league happens to be governed by the same body as one fully professional division. I can maybe understand relaxing the "fully pro" requirement when it comes to players in a league which is semi-pro but also the top level league in a country with a high standard of football (e.g. Belgium) but I see no reason to relax it to allow in fourth-tier players..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Football top goalscorers

Does anyone see anything worth salvaging with this article, or is Afd the best option? - fchd (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For me, it's AFD right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD for me as well. The first sentance says it all. Eddie6705 (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, as the article eloquently (!) puts it: Because of the diversity of matches (friendlies, international, competition) and the difference in competition per country and division, it is hard to make one list of all-time top goal scorers of soccer. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

QPR youth wing - deletable?

I removed the speedy tag ({{db-club}}) from QPR youth wing as it appears some evidence of notability is given. The creator had very carefully added ref tags but omitted a {{reflist}} so the tags weren't visible (I can never get those ^*^$*^ things to work either). I'm asking here whether that's a valid article on a named hooligan group or whether it's just a name for a few hooligans who happen to be purported QPR fans and happen to be young. I'm not very familiar with QPR's fanbase (discaimer - I know nothing about football as I support Newcastle United), so I thought I'd ask people here for their opinions. Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 21:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I support Blackpool so probably know even less about football.... Howver, having been heavily involved in a recent spate of edits on the List of hooligan firms article my concern is that this could well be a case of a blocked user User:JackQPR yet again trying to evade his block by creating articles and content about the QPR Youth Wing. The edit pattern and content being added is virtually identical, even down to the sources being added as the banned sockpuppeteer who has used numerous other accounts to make these edits. The whole issue started with JackQPR because the sources they were using did not verify the existence of the "QPR Youth Wing" in fact it was not mentioned by name at all. The article List of hooligan firms is now fully protected because of JackQPRs actions simply because of the sheer volume of edits they were doing under various usernames. Of course it could well be that this is not connected at all. However, I have asked the Admin who was involved with the blocks and article protection to check.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Football infoboxes and more mass edits

In a similar vein to a couple of topics above, can I add one about User:Simon nelson. He makes a lot of good edits to player stats, but continually ignores warnings regarding the use of (loan) in infoboxes. The current MOS, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players is not to use italics. Yet despite numerous warnings he continues to add italics. Any suggestions as what to do? Peanut4 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say there is a reasonably good case for this being a pretty good use of italics, myself. - fchd (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much that, but mass edits against the current MOS. If we want italics for (loan), then it should be discussed there rather than mass edits be made. Peanut4 (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If we're discussing Simon nelson, I should point out he's also very keen on removing youth club information, non-league clubs, and the like from infoboxes. His rationale appears to be that if soccerbase don't mention it then it doesn't belong there, even if sourced elsewhere in the article. He stopped editing for a time, coincidentally during that period a User:SuperClarets82 was making the same sort of edits to the same range of clubs, for which he/she was eventually blocked. And he ignores talk page messages. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And while it may fall on deaf ears with Mr Nelson, I've given him a word of advice on his style of editing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Welsh based players

Could someone tell me if there are any rules on the flags of players playing for Welsh clubs currently in a national team? Personally I feel it should be like the Wales national under-21 football team where a Welsh flag is next to the club as the teams are based in Wales, ruled by the FAW and players require international clearance to move from an English club to a Welsh club, but some people have put an English flag next to the club name such as in Scotland B national football team. So could someone tell me if there are any actual rules on how it should be. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 00:02 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say English flags for Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham, but the amount of times and for the variety of reasons, that this question keeps arising, I'd be tempted to say get rid of all flags from football articles! Peanut4 (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to disagree with you Peanut (there's a first time for everything!) and say that clubs in Wales, even if they are in the English league system, should have a Welsh flag. GiantSnowman (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there's good arguements for both, but I can't imagine using an English flag will go down well with Cardiff fans, so for article stability I would sway towards using the Welsh flag. I'd rather not see it used at all in this context though to be honest. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 01:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Very true, and under WP:FLAG guidelines I think it does say that flags shouldn't be used if its ambiguous...GiantSnowman (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd definitely use a Welsh Flag for Cardiff/Swansea/Wrexham, as they are in Wales and solely affiliated to the FAW. The awkward one will be The New Saints, who are affiliated to the FAW, play in the Welsh Premier League, but now of course play in a ground in England. - fchd (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just base this on the football association that the club is affiliated to. Therefore, Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham, Merthyr Tydfil, Newport and Colwyn Bay would have Welsh flags, as would The New Saints. – Pee Jay 07:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Similar problems arise when a player switches to play for another country that he was born in... I think we should avoid flags where possible (do we really need flags in international squads to show that 90% of the players play in the home country?) and stick to the suggestion above. Wanaka | Talk 10:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, if the reader wants to know which country Cardiff City play in they can go to the article, it's not really relevant to the article in question. John Hayes^talk 11:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly, the flags are unnecessary. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Club season articles

At some point I intend to start individual season articles for Sheffield Wednesday (similar to Arsenal F.C. season 2007-08), however, I notice that there is no manual of style for such articles.

Any tips on what should/shouldn't be included, any good examples, etc... Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a Bristol Rovers one which is a GA, that's probably a good start...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We drafted a Manual of Style for such articles, which is loosely based on Bristol Rovers' format (which in fact gained GA status), but the proposal was not approved, mainly due to opposition from a couple of other editors. You can use the draft if you want to, I think it's a fairly good start. --Angelo (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just contributed on a similar theme on the Tottenham Hotspur Talk page Current seasons/ Recent Seasons and mentioned a few pages I picked up on which had good standard / different approaches. Would be interested in thoughts on MOS orotherwise too. Tmol42 (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers guys, that's plenty to get me started. It'll probably be a while before I get around to starting them anyway... Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthony da Silva (Tony)

I am unfamiliar with this footballer, but the title of his article seems to employ an inappropriate use of parentheses. Would a move to Tony (footballer) be appropriate? – Pee Jay 15:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd maybe move it to Tony da Silva instead. GiantSnowman (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

or Anthony da Silva which according to his club's website is his name. Incidentally, the website lists "nicknames" for all of their players, but I would suggest that they deserve no more than a mention in the lead of each players article and should not be included in the article name. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

depends what he's best known by and usually wears on his shirt, in my opinion. As per Luís Carlos Almeida da Cunha, better known as Nani (footballer), for instance. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, but the problem is that we don't know what he normally has on the back of his shirt. My point was that since the club's website has given ALL of their players one word nicknames, I would suggest that it is unlikely that they all wear the nicknames on the back of their shirts. In any case, the current article name is unsuitable, so we should move it to something else. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Originally it was called Tony (Anthony da Silva), which is just as unsuitable, and has been renamed three times since. As there are no other Anthony da Silva's, I'd go with that, as the French Wiki article does. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This picture (link) seems to indicate that he does wear the name "Tony" on the back of his shirt. Therefore, it would stand to reason that Tony (footballer) would be more appropriate. – Pee Jay 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 17:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wanderers F.C.

Could someone more able than me edit the shirt colours on the Wanderers article - the colours are shown here. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That could be difficult, methinks someone will have to create a kit from scratch rather than use an existing template as pink, orange and black hoops are not exactly common...GiantSnowman (talk) 01:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done Image:Kit body wanderers FC.png, I'll do the arms in a bit. See if it looks right. Foxhill (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks great, well done!GiantSnowman (talk) 01:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - as GiantSnownman says, that looks great. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Was any consensus ever reached with the notability criteria? The main reason I ask is the AfD for Dale Roberts (footballer born 1986). Peanut4 (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a consensus amongst project members, but not by the wider community which is why it's current status is as an essay rather than a guideline or policy. John Hayes^talk 16:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion can now be found here. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Duncan Edwards

Anyone else care to give this article a PR before I despatch it to the land of FAC......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Associação Académica de Coimbra

Although football section is the only one of the article, but the moves to bad English translation is not well discussed, should the moves first be reverted? Matthew_hk t c 20:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Someguyudontknow

Has been doing edits like this. Those navboxes definately dont belong in the titles section, I'm not sure we need a vast pile of navboxes at the bottom of international team pages. English peasant 22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. Let's get them removed. – Pee Jay 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Portly Vale F.C.!!!!

Portly Vale F.C., ~~James Higginson~~, Rob Heath (footballer), Wes Taft and Aaron Fedtschyschak. Quite now these articles have remained on wikipedia I don't know. I would put a speedy deletion tag on them but don't know which one would be appropriate so have brought it here to ask what deletion tags should be placed on them?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 04:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just realised there is also this Template:Portly Vale F.C. Squad and that James Higginson was an old article about a former cricketer so I have reverted all the nonsense on that article. Also the user who created the Rob Heath article has also just created this article, Brown Edge F.C. for which I have put on a CSD tag.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 04:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you could justifiably tag them as A7, as there's no claim to notability other than playing in a league which doesn't even have an article..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All gone. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also listed this wonderfully encylopedic photo from (and presumably of) the same user at WP:IfD. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hicks & Gillett

Recentism and controversy aren't the best an article on Wikipedia can get, especially when multiple subjects are involved (ah, I couldn't resist the uninspired urge ;-). The section on Tom Hicks detailing the co-ownership has now reached four paragraphs; Gillett's is numerically identical but lacking the former's substance. Would there be support for the integration of this dispersed material into a single article, possibly titled Ownership of Liverpool F.C. by Hicks-Gillett, or have the bulk of text absorbed by History of Liverpool F.C.? Perhaps even initiate an article dedicated to that aspect of the club, extending to the co-owners predecessors. My prevailing concern is that content quality won't be sustainable and the BLP dimension (and I'm convinced that will be an inevitable consequence of the unrest) won't be as monitorable were it centralised in/as one article. Opinion would be really appreciated. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 07:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no real need for a seperate article, I'd absorb the info into the Liverpool FC history article. GiantSnowman (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That does appear to be the most constructive course of action. Thanks for the reply. I'll compress the sections to a maximum of.... two paragraphs with a "main article" link directing readers to History of Liverpool FC. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 15:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Input Needed: KDSL and Ontario minor-league/semi-pro football/soccer leagues

I have flagged KDSL as "not notable" twice and each time an anonymous editor has removed this flag without explanation. Fair enough, maybe he knows something I don't know.

I'm asking those of you familiar with professional soccer leagues: Is the Kitchener and District Soccer League notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia? If it is:

Are there other Canadian semi-pro football/soccer leagues that also deserve the same?
Please improve the quality of this article and demonstrate notability.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure what the notability criteria are for leagues, perhaps someone else here might be able to help you out with that. However, removing a prod tag without explaining why seems to be poor practice. I would suggest asking the author to explain why they think that the article meets notability criteria and if he doesn't respond list the article at AfD. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 21:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Football is greivously under-developed in Canada compared to Europe and other places where the game is dominant. There is no league structure in place that a European would recognize and most football here is played at a recreational level. The KDSL is a city-based rec league. There are very few pro/semi-pro teams in the country. Wiggy! (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Anfield or Anfield Stadium? Another move against consensus?

User:Mojska has moved Anfield to Anfield Stadium, much to the chagrin of User:NapHit who is just trying to get it through PR and FA. Can I obtain the project's opinion on this undiscussed move before I act please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it TRM, further inspection of Mojska's talk page suggests to me he is a sock-puupet as User:Aitias has reverted a sandbox request, over the renaming issue. NapHit (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It has to be Anfield per WP:COMMONNAME. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Should be reverted to just 'Anfield'. GiantSnowman (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 3!) Definitely 'Anfield'. I've never known anybody refer to it as 'Anfield Stadium'. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It was also a cut and paste job, so I've undone his work. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If the name is shared by the neighbourhood and the stadium then the stadium ought to be at its official name (like Arsenal Stadium and the Boleyn Ground, to name but two similar examples). If the name is plain Anfield then Anfield (stadium) would be a better choice. Qwghlm (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's always been just Anfield to me, no other official name. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Arsenal's local area is called Arsenal? I thought it was just the tube station... and that that had indeed been named after the team? The derivation (I thought) was from the club's origins associated with the Royal Arsenal miles away in Greenwich. --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Qwghlm, since the stadium is named after its location, Anfield, Liverpool should be moved to "Anfield", and the stadium article should be at Anfield Stadium or Anfield (stadium), IMHO. AR TYOM 13:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is very clear. Hundreds of millions of people all over the world have heard of the stadium, but not realise that there is a place with the same name. The Anfield article should therefore be about the stadium, with a disambiguation hat-note pointing to the relevant article about the place. --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, per commonname it can only be Anfield. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Dweller on this issue. English peasant 13:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Has to be Anfield per WP:COMMONNAME and per WP:Naming conventions, which says "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Third Division

A quick question before I head off to vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Scott (footballer). Is the Scottish Third Division a fully professional league? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not. East Stirlingshire are well known for having paid their players £10 a week! пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, having just read the book "Pointless", I can say that the whole division really is on a par with the Isthmian League..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Barton Rovers F.C.

Please could someone else keep an eye on this article. An IP keeps adding a "club legend" called "Keiron Gaffney" to the article and I've now reached my 3RR limit. Such a legend is Mr Gaffney that Googling his name gives zero results!!! ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You should have warned him after each edit. I know it can seem a bit pointless with IPs, but once he gets to level four if he does it again he can be temp blocked for a month. Problem solved :-) Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Two footballers with similar name

There is an English footballer at Ian McDonald (footballer) and a Scottish one (that I just created) at Iain McDonald. As they have similarly-spelled names, I've added one of the 'otheruses' messages at the top of each page to point to the other - is this acceptable? I think it would be better than creating a footballer disamb page for both, given that you'd need one for each spelling. Wanaka | Talk 15:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Ian Ferguson will give you some guidance. - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there are only two players then the solution used by Paul Gallacher and Paul Gallagher (a message at the top of the article) would probably be best. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Though as Iain McDonald doesn't have any footballer-type disambiguation in his title, so the reader might land there looking for some other Ian McD entirely, you could consider a message something like "For the English footballer, see Ian McDonald (footballer). For other persons of similar name, see Ian McDonald." The latter being an existing dab page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

England national football team managers Peer Review

Hey, while I hate to "spam" or canvass the project, a lot of work has now gone into this article, it should become (hopefully) one of the more significant articles produced by WP:FOOTBALL so all comments etc at the now open peer review would be gratefully received (and acted upon as fast as a speeding bullet...). Cheers, y'all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know

Just been updated with a hook from Rodger Wylde. I've nominated another two articles and I notice that there's at least one more football nomination, so there should be a few more over the next few days. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 00:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus required

Okay, most of you will be aware that User:Sarumio has made a number of edits to infoboxes to remove the "F.C." or "FC" from the clubname parameter of the {{Football club infobox}}. A number of different editors have objected to this, as exhibited by reversions to Sarumio's edits. Sarumio has agreed to cease his edits until WP:FOOTBALL reach a consensus. So this is it folks, a chance to reach such a thing. Please discuss below what you think should be in the parameter in question in the infobox. Your time and energy in this is much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Before this starts up again, let's just clarify what we're talking about. The parameter in question is, as TRM says, the clubname and not the shortname. The documentation says:

clubname — The commonly-used name of the club.

There is no mention of short or abbreviated name in the documentation of this parameter. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the clubname parameter should match the title of the article, i.e. if the title has "FC", "F.C.", "PFC" etc in it, the infobox should list the club the same way. AR TYOM 18:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you there, Artyom. The documentation says "The commonly-used name of the club", and who in their right mind would commonly refer to West Ham United as "West Ham United F.C."? IMO, the clubname parameter should match the article title, except without the "FC", "F.C.", "A.F.C." gubbins. – Pee Jay 18:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right, actually. But yet in cases when the club is named after the city it's playing in, using the club name without the "F.C."s will probably not look good. In an example like FC Barcelona one might argue that the club is widely-known, perhaps even more than Barcelona itself. But if we consider FC Moscow, for example, using just "Moscow" for clubname parameter is really confusing. AR TYOM 19:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's my comment from the template talk page:

I don't see why we have to have uniform usage of F.C. in the infobox (or not) across all football articles. Obviously it is important that we include it in the article name, but not in the infobox. I would say that the common names of Manchester United, Sheffield Wednesday, Preston North End etc do not include FC, however there is an argument that teams such as Blackpool FC, Barnsley FC, etc are commonly refered to with the FC, so why can't we just use the names that are most common for each club on an individual basis rather than trying to put square pegs in round holes?

To expand on that, I am suggesting that the majority of club infoboxes would not use F.C., but clubs that are commonly referred to with F.C. on the end should have this included in the infobox. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that sounds about right. John Hayes^talk 19:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with User:Artyom - the title of the infobox should be the same as the title of the article (less any disambiguation needed to split different clubs of the same name). Therefore I am in favour of the F.C. being included. - fchd (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask why you don't include the A/FC in clubs' names on your own site Richard?Sarumio (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Originally, in the pre-Internet days (remember, the FCHD has been underdevelopment for nearly 20 years), it was unclear which clubs were F.C. or A.F.C. (or indeed anything else). It's still difficult to find what suffix the likes of Mitcham Wanderers would have had. If i was starting from scratch now, I may have done things differently. Also, I don't have the issue of differentiating Barnsley F.C. from Barnsley the town, or Manchester City (Council) or Manchester City F.C. - fchd (talk) 15:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The infobox header doesnt have that issue either though, the article title has already dealt with that issue! Sarumio (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The infobox header has that issue to exactly the same extent as the article title and the first sentence of the lead. If you want to remove F.C. off the infobox header, will it be the article title next? I still think there is a very, very good case for keeping all three the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs) 17:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Will it be the article title next!" Thats just being silly - of course the FC cannot be taken away from here - The FC is included here to disambiguate alot of clubs from town/place names and for consistency reasons all clubs should include FC but the infobox is inside the article and not being used to disambiguate from anything so does not have the same issue as the article title at all so doesnt really need FC attached to it. Sarumio (talk) 18:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The FCs are not used to disambiguate, they are included because clubs' official names have them. If the official club name does not have FC in it, then the article about the club will also be named without FC (in case the name coincides with existing article, something like "(football club)" will be added perhaps, but not FC). AR TYOM 18:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, i may have explained myself poorly. My point was you couldnt take the FC (or whatever) away from the article title of alot of clubs (as Richard was implying would be next),because thats the name of the article on the town, but this isnt vital in the infobox header as its not being used to disambiguate from the twon name here Sarumio (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, of course it's not "vital", but in my opinion, keeping the article name, first line of lead, and infobox header the same, makes a far tidier article. - fchd (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also in favour of F.C. etc. being included. And afterwards, changing the documentation to make it less vague, since commonly is hard to objectify. Also, those with access to Fox's awful Soccer Channel experience hearing Tottenham Hotspur F.C. or the like on a regular basis, when they've exhausted the clubs' nickname. - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(Copied and pasted from my views expressed on the template page) - I still don't think the common name/short name of the club includes FC regardless of what the club is called. You can see that the club is preceded by FC by looking at the Full name of the club where it says Blank (Association) Football Club! The article title includes FC for disambiguation purposes. The infobox header is inside the actual article which is after the title of the article (and the first line of the text) establishes that FC follows the club's name, so theres no need to re-iterate that a Football club has FC after its name! We've already gathered that much. We want the common name of the club and in almost all circumstances this will not include FC. You dont here many people say "Yeah i support Barnsley FC", they say "I support Barnsley", or "Did you see Blank FC beat Blank FC last night?". Again when they read out the classified results no club is read out with FC after its name incase people think that Man Utd were playing the entire town of Barnsley for instance, instead they say "Manchester Utd 2 Barnsley 2. The commonly used/short name of any club is just those words that precede the "(Association) Football Club" - i'd say FC before the club's name is an exception and Dudesleeper - this isnt for the benefit of Americans - no one would speak of TH as Tottenham Hotspur FC in England in everyday speach! Sarumio (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's where you are wrong, we are meant to assume that the reader of the article knows nothing about the subject, so this isn't for the fans, this is for everyone, including Americans. John Hayes^talk 08:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

'Wrong' is the 'wrong' word to use, he simply has an opinion. The pages should establish the details. The "infobox" is merely a companion. We all know West Ham is the commonly referred name of West Ham Utd F.C., and any argument that attempts to suggest people would confuse the borough with the club is a bit barmy.--Koncorde (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

But why does the infobox header need to be a "short name" or a "common name" anyway. Why not the proper name, as in the article title? - fchd (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that no-one in England calls Arsenal, Arsenal F.C. However I would like to see this consistent, and I don't know what Spanish fans, call Barcelona, or Italians Lazio, etc. NB UEFA seems to use full names e.g. Arsenal F.C., FC Barcelona, SS Lazio, or the like. I'd say we ought to use full names to make the project inclusive to all. Peanut4 (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case we should use the {{PAGENAME}} attribute, to simply replicate the page title into the location where the parameter was. This will save editing every article. John Hayes^talk 08:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It would have to be made into a conditional parameter whereby, if nothing is set, the {{PAGENAME}} attribute is used. This would allow for circumvention of any disambiguators in the article title. – Pee Jay 08:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Very true. Sounds like a good plan to me. John Hayes^talk 08:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll second this proposal. AR TYOM 15:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated on a previous occasion: how often do you repeat yourself before the reader walks away?

As a few examples (randomly selected I might add):

"Darlington Football Club (also known as Darlo or The Quakers) are an English football team based in the English town of Darlington, currently playing in Football League Two."

"Barnsley Football Club are an English football league team, based in the town of Barnsley"

"West Ham United Football Club is an English football club"

"Arsenal Football Club (also known as Arsenal, The Arsenal or The Gunners) are an English professional football club... They play in the Premier League and are one of the most successful clubs in English football."

As you can see, some of the intro's to these clubs are mixed, but all do a fantastic job of repeating themselves. When you then count in the fact that the infoboxes basically add at least another two opportunities to make a meal of it, plus the actual title of the article you can basically - within the space of about 3" at the top of a page have said "xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx Football Club" or variations at least (by the examples above) 4 times as a minimum...and in the case of Arsenal and Darlington, more like 8 or 9 times (nevermind the remainder of the intro's).--Koncorde (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And your re-wording of the intros would be...? - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll let Koncorde answer you, but I get the impression that he is suggesting that there's no need to repeat "Football Club" again in the infobox. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but my question still stands. - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as Arsenal are not in casual conversation referred to as Arsenal FC and seeing as Football Club and F.C. are used with gay abandon throughout the remainder of the intro, title header and other layers of the infobox - we're egging the pudding by trying to include it again. The repeated and laboured use of terminology because of what some fear will be some kind of confusion between Liverpool and Liverpool on the basis of an infobox is bizarre (not saying you btw Dudesleeper, but it has been mentioned as a reason for its inclusion). As yet I've not actually seen a genuinely logical reason for the article to repeat itself. A Consensus on less verbose intros would be nicer than having yet more references to Football Club and F.C. within the starting inch of an article.

In addition; as a "can of worms" type of consensus issue, if the decision is taken to enact the whole 'F.C' thing, then surely every article and template and should then be retroactively fitted with F.C. - such as

and then obviously revisit and put the full European names in for

Seems there was a happy consensus a long time ago, before someone got their knickers in a twist over what Sarumio was up to.--Koncorde (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Koncorde! Sarumio (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure this will go down as well as a pint of spew, but I think the majority of infoboxes are better off without FC in the title. A few exceptions to this with good reasoning, but I think the common name amongst fans rarely includes FC, and its hardly likely that anyone is going to get confused by FC ommission since the page title, introductory sentence and fullname parameter will all state the fact that it is actually a football club. Perhaps we could say whatever the teams are called during the BBC classified results check would do just fine? English peasant 00:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is logical. Evidently according to the scores today, the BBC doesn't feel the need to inclue FC every time it mentions the club:

Burnley 2-2 Watford

West Brom 3-0 Plymouth

Sheff Utd 0-2 Charlton

Southampton 1-1 Ipswich

Colchester 0-1 Wolves

Preston 0-1 Crystal Palace

Scunthorpe 2-1 Coventry

Barnsley 0-0 Sheff Wed

Cardiff 0-1 Leicester

Norwich 1-2 Blackpool [13][14]

N'ary even a mention of a City, Town or Rovers--Koncorde (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's get this cleared out. The infobox has to be official, and to be official it has to include the FC in it. Infoboxes are located at the start of the article, when the potential reader might still not be aware of the subject discussed. The templates, which should therefore also include FC's, as you suggested, are always located at the bottom of the article. The reader will perhaps know that the article is about football by the time he gets to the bottom of the article, so including FC's in the templates is not necessary. And we're not saying here that FC's should be included every time a club is referred to; having them on, let's say, UEFA Champions League 2007-08 is silly (this is in response to the scores from BBC above). AR TYOM 11:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The name is mentioned "officially" elsewhere often about 3 or 4 times in the space of an inch at the top of the screen. If they can't tell what type of article they're 'reading' before they've got past that top line then we're dealing with the dumb, deaf and blind (as evidenced by "Darlington Football Club (also known as Darlo or The Quakers) are an English football team based in the English town of Darlington, currently playing in Football League Two."). The actual "infobox" guidance itself states that the name at the top of the infobox is the common name, which doesn't include F.C., FC or any combination there-of.--Koncorde (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the particular example about Darlington Football Club:

"Darlington Football Club..." - okay
"...(also known as Darlo or The Quakers)..." - nicknames, good
"...are an English..." - I didn't know they were from England (could've been Australia, for example)
"...football team..." - links to sport (in case I don't know what football (soccer) is, I can check it out
"...based in the English town of Darlington,..." - the team can be English, but not be based in England (at least it might be a thought of someone not familiar with football); Darlington in the name may have just been a name (like Arsenal), but this portion of the sentence clarifies that it is a town
"...currently playing in Football League Two." - the league where the team plays has to be provided, and it's a coincidence that the league name also has the word "football" in it. If it was FA Premier League, for example, nobody would've written it as "English FA Premier League".

Thus, this introduction is fine. There is still no reason not to display FCs in the infoboxes. The infobox guidance is just a guidance which can be changed when there is a consensus. AR TYOM 10:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But the infobox already gives the expanded version of "FC" (and others) in the fullname parameter. I understand your argument that there is no repetition from the lead to the infobox, but when the infobox says the same thing twice (albeit in two different ways), it seems to be a bit much. – Pee Jay 10:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. As for the intro to Darlington. Much of the information given does not need to be given within the space of 2 lines of text and repeated in an infobox for good measure. I think a lot of the intros are verbose for the sake of including every possible combination of terms in order to cover every possible confusion, and instead make the intros unwieldy and hard to penetrate for casual readers.--Koncorde (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To PeeJay: Someone convincingly pointed out in this thread that the infobox summarizes the article, thus it should include the FC's. The fullname parameter is there, in my opinion, to clarify what PFCs, AFCs, and countless other abbreviations used in other-than-English football clubs mean.

To Koncorde: Well, this is an encyclopedia that we are dealing with... AR TYOM 14:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is. But it's being written by people who have different priorities that results in repeated data and information for the sake of trying to create a mini-article for the intro, rather than simply an introduction. I'm not entirely sure how true encyclopedias get around the problem. I would guess at something such as "Darlington F.C. are a Football Club based in England. They currently play in the countries 3rd tier". However it was obviously decided to call the article the shortened official name, then a consensus for all the articles to give the full name of the club and then to repeat itself as often as it wants to thereon. The Infobox was then tacked on at a later date. Now if the Infobox is meant to summarise the article then it works one of two ways - either it replicates all the information a second time (probably 5th or 6th time given the current attitude to repeating information for the sake of piping) or it condenses commonly referred to information.

The issue you currently have is that the Article is called one thing, the top line of the article invariably introduces the club with the full name, and from that point onwards the club is referred to by the shortname/common name. I would question the use of "Football Club" when F.C. would suffice in most intro's. That would then standardise both the naming of the article, the intro line, and the infobox if so desired (and give a stronger argument) over the current mixed bag.--Koncorde (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Koncorde, don't get me started on the lack of City, Town, Rovers etc. Every time my own team's score is mentioned, Bradford City, they seem to miss off the City. Sorry but Bradford is another team, and it's often to the BBC's detriment, because it messes with the computer's head often getting the division wrong. If you start to miss off parts of the team name, you're heading for possible trouble. As for F.C., I can see where you're coming from. However, we're talking about one minor addition at the top of an infobox here. It's not the most important point to get some wound up about. Peanut4 (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

See, I agree with you there - Manchester can't just be Manchester, it has to be Manchester Utd or Manchester City. However it doesn't need to be Manchester United F.C. or Manchester City F.C. because:

A - the article title states F.C.

B - the intro states F.C. (often multiple times)

C - the infobox states F.C. on the clubs "Official Name" section below.Koncorde (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This became a little bigger of an issue than it needed to be a while ago. No, "F.C." shouldn't follow the club name throughout the article. I'm often seen piping links to exclude them. To omit the "F.C." from the infobox makes no sense to me, since it's supposed to be a summary of the article. Also, my query about how to avoid "F.C.", "football" and "football club" being repeated throughout the intro didn't get a response. There are enough intelligent editors around that make me think we'd have found a solution before now.

In response to Koncorde's post directly above this, the infobox states full name, not official name. Its full name is the A.F.C., F.C., etc., written out in, well, full. - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It states "clubname", and underneath the emblem goes "fullname". Ergo my point regarding repeating oneself. There is also an option for "shortname", but that isn't used very often. And I didn't mean F>C> throughout the article, but that it should therefoe follow the club through any other charts/lists etc rather than piping it down to the "Shortname".--Koncorde (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Alan Brown (footballer)

I've just finished a major expansion of this article and would be grateful if someone could have a look at it to copyedit it. I've reassessed it as Start class because I wasn't sure, does anyone think that it is worthy of B class? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 00:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Made some small grammatical changes; feel free to amend. Overall, it reads well, although there isn't much wiki-linking...do any of the players, etc. have articles or have you avoided red links? Links to some of the grounds and other info would be informative, as would images, which I suspect would be needed to raise to B class. Wanaka | Talk 10:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, what is this in the refs section: "99 Years & Counting - Stats & Stories - Huddersfield Town History". Is it a book (if so, who wrote it, what's the ISBN, etc), a web article (if so, what's the URL) or something else entirely....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It would appear to be a book. User:JRRobinson added a lot of Huddersfield stubs, of which Alan Brown (footballer) is one, for which this was the only reference. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added the full details of the book in the references section. In-line citation(s) to the book would be better. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there will be any to be honest. Before I started editing the stub it basically said where he was born and who he played for – it didn't even mention his managerial jobs or death. All of that info is covered by the refs that I have added anyway.

Wanaka, most of the players mentioned didn't have articles so I tried to avoid the redlinks. I don't have a problem with redlinks usually, but when you've got five all in the same sentence I think it looks rubbish. Feel free to add links if you want. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help guys. Having re-read the quality scale, I've upgraded it to B Class as I think it passes the criteria. (I don't think images are necessarily needed for an article to be B class although some would obviously help!) Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 13:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a good article and one I'll look at it to improve others I regularly monitor. Wanaka | Talk 13:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Croatian-Australian Socceroos

Surely the content of this article could be covered in either List of football players with dual nationality or in a category? GiantSnowman (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the article title doesn't fit too well. Shouldn't we replace Socceroos with "football internationalists" or something like that? For example List of Celtic F.C. players is named like it is for a good reason and not List of Bhoys players -Lemmy- (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the article itself, tbh. IMO, it should be AfDed. Btw, what is it with this word "internationalists"? I'd never heard it before someone suggested it for the title of List of Rangers F.C. international footballers. – Pee Jay 21:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just finished reading a book on Scottish football and that used the word "internationalists" to refer to capped players. Maybe it's a term used solely in Scotland.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It would seem so... – Pee Jay 08:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's the standard Scottish-English word for capped players, what the English-English call internationals. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Makes sense. However, since it's not a dictionary-defined word (at least, not in this context), I would suggest that it be avoided from now on. – Pee Jay 10:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The list of Croats or decendents who have represented Australia and vice-versa. I think it could be moved to become a sub-cat. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that "internationalists" sounds awful. The only time I've heard it used is in terms of Internationalism (politics). Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 00:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've sent it for deletion, cheers guys. GiantSnowman (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it used in Australia as a term for someone who believe in the expansion of the international game. May be a crude interchange for the term expansionist but I have heard the term used in the UK as well as someone who believes in the international game, nothing to do with whether they have play international football, been capped, etc. That application seems to be a Scottish thing. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes

I know that this isn't exclusively football related, but I thought that this would be a good place to bring this up.

What do other project members think of this article? The whole idea of it seems unencyclopedic and bordering on breaching WP:NPOV to me.

That's before I even get started on the fact that it is orphaned, most likely far from complete and (in places at least) poorly referenced (very important when you consider WP:LIBEL)... Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, it should be an article, rather than endless, ugly lists. But I think it's a waste of a page - I'm sure an incarcerated sportspeople category (or something similar) was binned recently. Wanaka | Talk 20:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My guess is the football section, counts for less than 1 % of all those locked up or at the least found guilty of a criminal offence. Peanut4 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What do we reckon then, is it worth listing at AfD? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, Flush it down the GutterTmol42 (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with list articles per se. I also don't think there are inherent POV problems. So long as entries are verifiable (and if for living people, I'd say verified) why delete it? --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Dweller, the description of the crimes look to be neutral and there are plenty of references. If it gies for AfD I'd vote Keep. GiantSnowman (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But why is such a listing in any way encyclopaedic? The fact that they are sportspeople and the fact they have been commited of crimes are unrelated (unless we are talking on-the-field assaults or something). What use is a list? - fchd (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've listed it at AfD, so please feel free to add your opinions to the debate. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

List of European Football Championship national team droughts

Is this article really encyclopaedic? Usually we would focus on tournaments that teams have qualified for, while this article focuses on the ones that teams haven't qualified for. AfD, anyone? – Pee Jay 13:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how useful the article is, and it provides little context, but what I don't like is the use of the word droughts. It doesn't really explain to a reader who knows nothing about the subject what it is. John Hayes^talk 14:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely unencylopedic. I am prodding it. --Angelo (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm surprised it went unnoticed for nearly 2 years. – Pee Jay 15:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

FBK Kaunas to Hearts

Does this topic really merit a full-blown article in its own right......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, maybe mention on the Hearts article though as they are the 'parent' club. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not. Peanut4 (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Regionalliga

Is the Regionalliga (football) fully professional, or how is its status? Punkmorten (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

They have been fully professional since 2000 according to this article. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The very same article says "The Bundesliga and 2.Liga are strictly professional. The Regionalliga and below are "amateur". The DFB plans for the Regionalliga to become completely professional, but still waffles on this issue. However this is clouded by the existance of the Vertragsamateur (contract amateur). Basically this arrangement allows the player to receive a salary from the club, along with fringe benefits (apartment, car, job, etc.). I guess you could say it's a bit like NCAA football and basketball :) ". Punkmorten (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of full-time players in the Regionalliga, there may be the odd promoted club who isn't fully professional, but it's largely pro. How do we treat the Regionalliga as far as notability? There are 10 Bayern Munich II players who have been prodded, but they are Bayern II is playing in the third level...--Balerion (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the same situation as the Conference National in England. It has 20 or 21 fully pro teams out of 24 but dozens (possibly hundreds) of players who have never played above this level have been deleted because "nearly fully pro" doesn't satisfy the requirements of WP:ATHLETE...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not like we need to include nearly-professional people here when we have tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of football biographies which already meet the criteria. So how do we treat articles about players who never played above the Regionalliga? Punkmorten (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Regionalliga and all leagues below are officially amateur leagues BUT almost all the teams work under professional circumstances.It's not unusual that a sound player from the Bundesliga signs at a Regionalliga club, the same with coaches/managers (e.g. Ralf Rangnick).A few Oberliga clubs (the league below the Regionalliga) such as Darmstadt 98, VfB Oldenburg, Chemnitzer FC, Eintracht Trier or Preußen Münster who have some tradition and a quantitative good support are likely to have professionals under contract.I esteem a good player at a big club in the Oberliga can earn 5,000 Euro a month.The Regionalliga and some parts of the Oberliga can be treated like professional leagues.-Lemmy- (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me the dilema is that we're watching an evolution in German football. If the DFB is moving to certify a third fully professional division, it's got to be based in changes taking place in the current Regionalliga that are driving the demand. So, at this point, the Regionalliga is a mix of professionals, semi-pros, and amateurs, but clearly has been evolving towards a greater degree of professionalism.

I gather that the question here is with respect to whether or not playing in the Regionalliga makes a player notable in the context of Wikipedia. In and of itself, probably not. But I would count it towards notability. Married to other criteria, it could help move a player along to notability. Once the 3. Bundesliga is in place as a fully pro league, then I would guess that players there become notable as pros and would come to be treated as such here.

As a rule of thumb with respect to clubs, I've been treating German clubs at the fourth tier and above as noteable. That includes any side that has played at that level historically. I'm using Hardy Grüne's Vereinslexikon as a guide. His approach is to include all clubs that appeared in the fourth tier or better, alongside participants in German Cup play. As I recall, East German clubs must have played in the DDR-Oberliga (I), DDR-Liga (II), or East German Cup to be included. Player notability is based on at least one appearance for the national side. Adding the 3. Bundesliga would just make club notability one layer deeper, making room for all the existing articles. On a project basis, that works for me for now, as its manageable and leaves lots to do without taxing my brain TOO much. Wiggy! (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify then, when this new division begins, it will presumably be fully professional and its players will be considered notable then, correct? matt91486 (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks to be how it is shaping up. I'll sniff around and see if I can find additional info. Wiggy! (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are playoff matches League games?

For the purposes of the infobox/stats tables. Case in point is Lee Bullen, who played three playoff games with Sheffield Wednesday at the end of the 2004–05 season. Soccerbase lists these matches under the Other column, whilst ESPNsoccernet lists them as League games. This has led to a difference in the figures quoted in the infobox and the figures in the stats table at the bottom of the article. Which is correct? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always counted them as not being league games. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely 'Other', go with Soccerbase for league games. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, cheers. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 20:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the Mexican league playoff matches or the US MLS playoff matches? I assume both should be excluded from the infobox on the basis of the comments above. Thank you. Jogurney (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say these are distinctly different to the English playoffs, and should be included. In the history of Argentine football whole league seasons have been contested in cup style formats (there is no Argentine cup competition), to exclude this data on the basis of a statistical techniques used by a European website with no American coverage, would be both extremely difficult and also misleading. I think it is important to distinguish between promotion playoffs and Championship playoffs in the US, Mexico, Uruguay etc. English peasant 19:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Similar question for Australia where a "finals" series follows the home-and-away (similar to MLS playoffs). I wouldn't say there is a clear distinction between these playoffs for a "championship" and for promotion/relegation type playoffs in England/Italy/etc - all are extra matches at the end of the regular season. Either way, I don't think any decision should be based on what a stats website says - most player articles will rely on a number of sources to complete career statistics. - Tomperc (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that rules generally state teams must play the same number of games within a league, so play-offs - whether for promotion or forced to decide a championship, etc. - would count as 'Other'. Wanaka | Talk 13:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Lee Bullen from the original question, consider adding another column in the stats table for just playoff matches, such as for Zeljko Kalac. This could help to clarify the appearances that are or are not included in the infobox totals. - Tomperc (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of italics in infobox

OK, I notice that Peanut4 brought this up a few months ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players, which doesn't seem to be a good place to get replies, and as such there was no response, so I'm bringing it up here instead.

There seems to be a real split over the use of italics in infoboxes when (loan) appears after a club name. I have to admit that I have used italics previously as I think that it looks better, but having read the Manual of Style (text formatting), it seems that the only legitimate use of italics for "(loan)" would be for emphasis.

My question is; is the use of italics as desribed above in keeping with the main Wikipedia Manual of Style? Does it really qualify as an emphasis? Hopefully we can come to a consensus here and then maybe post the discussion back to the player article MoS talk page for future reference. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 01:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My own personal feeling is it looks ugly. Don't know why, I just think the small text in the infoboxes isn't suited for italics. And like you say, does it really need emphasising - I don't think so. One of the other reasons I brought it up was the use of names in italics - though that is far less prevalent. Peanut4 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there's no needs, it just makes the infobox look uglier. GiantSnowman (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely say there's no need for names to be in italics; they're not books, films or ships... I'm still undecided on the loan issue, so I'm happy to go along with consensus. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The text in the infobox is already pretty small, italics probably make it even more difficult to read for the partially sighted English peasant 01:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Player names in italics seems to mostly be an affectation of a couple of editors we know quite well with links to Tamworth....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that some people like to bold the text in the playername parameter. I assume this falls in the same category. – Pee Jay 09:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is very clear on bold text – it should only be used for the article title in the lead, table headers and definition lists. It also states "avoid using boldface for both the article title in the lead section and the caption of the lead image", and I would say that this is an example of that. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) My personal opinion is that a mixture of fontstyles looks untidy, and italics certainly are more difficult to read at small fontsize. As to emphasis, we already use the arrow-indentation and the word (loan) stuck on the end of the clubname, wouldn't have thought it needed any more emphasising. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the next question should be "Why is text in the infobox at "small" setting anyway. From an accessibility viewpoint, I don't think any text should be below the basic "100%" size as set in the user's browser. - fchd (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that the small font is used to save space. If infoboxes used the standard size font they would be huge and take up most of the page. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Totally agree, Dan. As you are aware, infoboxes are allowable in articles as long as the don't "dwarf" the main content in the article (the exact word used in the policy/guideline). I think you will realise the space impact that normal text will have in an infobox, and its place in the article, when you experiment with it (I have, in a sandbox once, and it's pretty emphatic!). The infobox would either expand horizontally, if allowed to by the template setting, or vertically, thus becoming much longer than the information contained in stubs, for instance. In some extreme cases, vertically-set infoboxes would risk fitting only one word per line into each infobox sub-heading, ending up looking pretty weird and definitely overbearing when viewing the article from a neutral critique.

There's no other reason for small text, and unfortunately, politically correct accessibility desires must take a back seat on this, I feel. I have no particular views about italics in infoboxes, other than to say that I think a loan deal is important enough, and different enough from a permanent move, to warrant emphasis by the use of the text setting. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Scottish football champions

The Rambling Man's done his usual extremely thorough job reviewing this article, but does anyone else have anything they'd like to add before I whack it across to FLC.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably going to get shouted down now, but shouldn't it be at List of Scottish football champions? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, what do people think? The equivalent article for my side of the border (an existing FL) is at English football champions... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would go with "list of", as that's effectively what it is. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've moved the Scottish one, although I'll leave it to someone else to decide if the English one should be moved as well (not to mention all the others in Category:National football champions.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that they should all be at List of... Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

England national football team managers is at FAC

Just a quick note that England national football team managers is now at FAC. The link is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/England national football team managers Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wembley Stadium matches

A prod was quite rightly (in its current state, at least) added to the above. At present, it's a highly-selective list, but I'm mentioning it here in case it could be considered for expansion. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian Lee

This article is really in need of some attention from an editor who knows a bit about the subject. I've already tidied up the infobox which was a state, but there also seem to be a large number of scurrilous quotes on there, and I'm not convinced that the citations are from reliable sources. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Shocking! I'll take a look and tidy up. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's in a real state! Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 22:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a very negative article as noted by an IP on the talk page last September. I've cleaned it up. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work! Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 01:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Simon nelson

Just a quick note to let you know that I've now blocked this editor for a week. I'm hoping it'll do him some good with understanding why removing youth club information and editing against the manual of style despite a fair few warnings. However, please remain vigilant, particularly around the Burnley F.C. article and the club's players. I have a suspicion that there is more than editor doing the same thing... (e.g. User:SuperClarets82). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

there now seems to be an IP editor Special:Contributions/92.10.114.201 doing exactly the same... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And a few Burnley players among his edits. Peanut4 (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

are there rules about editing anonymously to circumvent a block? Struway2 (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. But can he be tagged as a suspected sockpuppet? Peanut4 (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That could be tricky as multiple computers can use the same IP address, and it'd be hard to prove the IP address belonged to a banned user. GiantSnowman (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Winner first for finals?

For finals played at a neutral venue, would it not be logical to list the winner's score (& stats etc) first? 2005 Football League Cup Final#Match details lists the losing team Liverpool's details first. I know that one team is nominally the home team, but such information could be very difficult to source in some cases, especially where this is no clash of kit. Therefore, as our Match MoS hasn't been defined yet, I propose that we go with "Winner first" for final match details played at a neutral venue. --Jameboy (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. When the nominal home team is known, I think it should be listed first to correlate with statistics from other sources. If the nominal home team is not known, and the teams subsequently can be listed either way, then by all means, put the winners first. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sebisthlm. When the nominal home team is known, and they usually are, based on which team was drawn first or the structure of the tournament, that team should be listed first. – Pee Jay 18:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if it is known then it should be stated as such (either in the article text along with a citation, or in a comment somewhere). Otherwise it is not clear why the teams have been listed this way round.--Jameboy (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The many Les Smith's

Frankly, I don't know if I've cleaned up or created an even bigger mess, but anyway: the original article named Les Smith (footballer) had combined information about three different players, so created a disambiguation page, and created short articles about three of the four Les Smith's. And then I discovered that the other two already had articles, using the name Leslie Smith. So then I had to redirect them. Feel free to revert my edits if you believe I've made a mess of things. --Badmotorfinger (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Having the re-directs and disambig page is absolutely fine, but if they're called Les or Leslie, the pages should follow suit, i.e. Les Smith (footballer born ...) or Leslie Smith (footballer born ...) as per WP:COMMONNAME. Peanut4 (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right. As far as I can tell (ie according to Hugman), the player born in 1918 was commonly known as Leslie, while the others were known as Les. I'll try to fix that. --Badmotorfinger (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone could sort this out; I was having a terrible time yesterday trying to add one of them to Recent Deaths. matt91486 (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability Precedent

With the closing of the afd for Dean Bouzanis, with the result keep, I think it's important to note that a footballer with no professional games can be notable, if they have significant coverage in secondary sources as he (or Freddy Adu before him) had. While to me this has always been the case (from my interpretation of WP:BIO), I think it is worth noting in WP:FOOTYN that a footballer can still be notable without playing a game if they pass BIO, as I feel some members here will almost always !vote delete on such an article as soon as they see no professional games. I'm not suggesting that suddenly all sorts of non notable players get articles, but that there can be exceptions. John Hayes^talk 11:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, in exceptional cases like Freddy Adu for example. -- Alexf⁴² 11:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but as Alexf has said, it should only be in exceptional circumstances. The player should be widely known to qualify as being a notable footballer who hasn't yet played football. For what it's worth, I still don't think Bouzanis qualifies, but there you go. Let's see if he plays any league football in the next six months... if not, I for one will be nominating for deletion again. robwingfield ^«T•C» 13:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

For sure, only exceptional circumstances. John Hayes^talk 13:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I missed this debate, but I would have certainly been on the side of Delete, and will continue to voice this side of the argument on any similar cases. It would have to be a very, very exceptional circumstance before I would change my way of thinking. - fchd (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I too am on the side of delete. Common sense should have been applied here; Bouzanis is not a notable sportsperson by any stretch of the imagination. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bouzanis clearly does not meet the sporting criteria for notability, but I do not know the Australian press well enough to pass comment on whether he has notability in his home country. The problem, and it is an issue far beyond WP:FOOTY,and involves all of WP:BIO, is that radios and newspapers will interview and write features on young people in the expectation that they will eventually become well known. Thus a prediction of future notability by a journalist leads to the article, which is then cited here as evidence of notability already established. When do multiple expectations of fame accumulate to become fame? The oft-cited Sonny Pike was, I suppose, famous for having had the potential to become famous. Kevin McE (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite true. By writing about them they ARE well known, so they don't write articles in the expectation they will be so. They write articles in the expectation that they will one day be highly successful. matt91486 (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The main point to remember here, I guess, is that Bouzanis was deemed notable at AfD because of all the sources that existed, and therefore this should not be used as any sort of precedent for players being kept solely on the basis that they're on the books of a big club/have a squad number/might have once warmed the bench..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I just want to point out that it is possible for an article to be kept, if it has sources, even if the player has never played. John Hayes^talk 12:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In which case what happened to the Rhodri Giggs article? Something fully cited that someone prodded.--Koncorde (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:FA Cup Giant Killers

I don't have time to nominate this for deletion, so I'd appreciate it if someone could pick up my slack. Thanks! - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. robwingfield ^«T•C» 08:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Progression of British football transfer fee record

Does anyone else think this article requires a new title? And if so, what should it be........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it should be a List of..., IMO. Perhaps something like "List of expensive football transfers in British football". The word "expensive" in my suggestion perhaps should be changed, though... I don't like it :) AR TYOM 10:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"List of record transfer fees in British football".......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. AR TYOM 10:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Pedantically, it's not really a list, but a progression, but I guess I agree to the rename because it's a little obscurist. Incidentally, every time I see that fee for Veron, I think it must be a hoax. Unbelievable. --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a progression partly because of the inflation. It would be useful perhaps to include the fees corrected for inflation on the page, so that the real progress is seen, not just the nominal one. AR TYOM 11:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "Progression" is the correct word. Keep it where it is. - fchd (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just found this price inflation calculator, which would be useful for calculating the equivalent price 'today', e.g., 2008. This would need a touch up every so often, but would be useful for an estimation, e.g., the 1902 record of £520 would be the equivalent of £44,000 today. Wanaka | Talk 12:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't that OR, though....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  - It also throws up some interesting equivalents. According to the deeds, the house I now live in cost about £2000 new in the early 1950s. Put that figure in for 1952 and you get £43,260. I'd like to see the reaction if someone walked in the estate agents this afternoon and offered £43,000 for one like it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  - I don't think that correcting transfer fees for inflation violates WP:OR, because it's hard to compare monetary figures from different periods of time otherwise. It should be mentioned, however, which inflation calculator was used. AR TYOM 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)