Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 20

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 15

←

Archive 18

→

Turkish names for non-Turkish footballers

I think it's useless to use Turkish names for non-Turkish footballers that neither played for Turkish national team. For example: Kubilay Türkyılmaz, Hakan Yakın, Murat Yakın, Uğur Yıldırım, Nejdet Şahin, Serdar Taşçı. They're the first who came me in mind, but I think there are plenty more. They weren't born in Turkey, and unless in their country of birth's register office Turkish letters (ı, ğ, etc..) are permitted (in Switzerland they aren't), they WEREN'T BORN with names/surnames in Turkish fashion. Obviously, I agree to mention in the article the Turkish spelling ('cause heritage can't be avoided), but not in the article's name or in the bold introduction. What do you think? --necronudist (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, as those are neither their official names nor names used commonly in the media. Chanheigeorge (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, only Turkish-born players should use such a font. Giant Snowman 18:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, per GiantSnowman.--Latouffedisco (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely, and have made page moves to this effect to the articles for Colin Kazim-Richards and Kemal Izzet. I would lean towards all names in en.wikipedia being in the version usually given in English language sources (i.e. generally without diacritics), unless the person concerned is known almost entirely from sources in translation. Kevin McE (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the moving of non-Turkish-born players being moved to article titles without diacritics. However, I would not agree with all players being moved to titles without diacritics. In many cases, I believe the English media leave these out because they simply do not know which letters should have diacritics and which ones shouldn't. If we can reliably source the correct spelling of a player's name (including diacritics) then that name should be used. – Pee Jay 20:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Anglo-American press probably just leave diacritics out simply because they don't have the key on their keyboard to type the letters with diacritics. I would strongly oppose any move to remove diacritics for Argentine players, even though they are annoying to type out, even with the luxury of the Wikipedia markup selection. Carreño is a completely different name written Carreno. E P 22:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I did say the version "usually given in in English language sources": this usually includes acute and grave accents and tildes, but excludes other letter forms. I might have misused the word "diacritic", but even so, I only said "generally without", not invariably. Kevin McE (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree more with the line of EP. So long as the text of the title is in a form of Latin script then that should be acceptable. The title should generally be the player's birthname, or that which they choose to go by. If a player is born to a Turkish family in Switzerland, if that player chooses to include diacritics in their name, though this is not on their birth certificate, then that should be respected. On a similar line, the actress/director Asia Argento was not allowed to be given the forename Asia on her birth certificate by the Italian authorities (she was born in Rome), but that is the name she chooses to be known by and hence this is the title of her article. Dancarney (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As always you start discussing about an issue and after 5/6 answers, you're speaking about something totally different. However... nevermind. --necronudist (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to draw a parallel to back up my point.Dancarney (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a plural you. Nobody ever talked about cutting tildes on Carreños, and that issue about the "common English name" is open from ages, but nobody ever discuss it seriously. --necronudist (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Two guys that you should add to the list: Ronald Gërçaliu (should be Ronald Gercaliu) and Gökhan İnler (should be Gökhan Inler). Unfortunately both cannot be moved "easily" so help has to be requested. Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Why can't they be easily moved? --necronudist (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

'Cos they've had edit history: [1] [2]. Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nuri Şahin should be moved, too. As he writes in his website (Portrait -> Steckbrief) he was born in Germany as Nuri Sahin. --necronudist (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

FA Cup Finals

I spend too much of my time creating/expanding articles about England players, especially those from the 19th century. Where a player has appeared in an FA Cup Final I like to include a summary of the match with special mention of any contributions from the player concerned. One day, I would hope to add a match summary to each of the FA Cup Final articles. Unfortunately, the sources available to me are often in conflict with each other, so I'm not sure which are reliable and what actually happened. Take the 1890 FA Cup Final for example: the Phillip Gibbons book I use (see my user page if you want the details) states that the half-time score was 4-0. There is a website which has an article about every Cup Final but unfortunately it's deemed to be Spam and I'm prevented from linking to it. The address if you want to look it up is hometown.aol.co.uk/captainbeecher/1890FACUPFINAL.html preceded by http://. As it's deemed to be Spam, I've no idea how reliable it is. FWIW, this indicates a half-time score of 3-0, which is supported by the soccerbase summary. Finally the match report at www.fa-cupfinals.co.uk is too brief to be of much help.

Does anyone know a reliable, quotable source either on the web or in a book? Cheers and thanks for indulging me. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Times match report has 4–0, though when I first read it, it didn't make sense because I read it as a description of one goal, not two.

"During the next few minutes the ball was well in the Sheffield quarters, and, in spite of Betts once sending it well away, Walton and Townley returned, and the latter, with a low shot, secured the third goal. Forrest sent the ball to Townley, who transferred it in fine style from the edge of the line to Southworth, and the last-named sent it between the posts. Thus at half-time four points were scored for the Rovers."

<ref>{{cite news |title=Football. Association Rules. The Association Challenge Cup |publisher=[[The Times]] |format=The Times Digital Archive 1785-1985 |page=10 |date=[[1890-03-31]] |accessdate=2008-05-23}}</ref>

The Times Digital Archive is a wondrous thing. You should be able to access it if you are a member of a UK library; see User:Foxhill/internet reference sites accessible with a valid UK Library card for details. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

and having read it again, I could convince myself the reporter had gone off early for his halftime break and then made up the bit between Blackburn's 3rd and the play preceding Sheffield's goal. Anyone know how long they had for half time in those days? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Struway – the sequence of events per The Times is the same as the Gibbons book – I'm still confused, however, as Soccerbase gives actual times for the goals and times the fourth goal at 50 minutes, which agrees with the Spam site. I've decided to invest a few pounds in two books from Amazon: "The Complete Record of the FA Cup" by Mike Collett and "The FA Cup: The Complete Story" by Guy Lloyd & Nick Holt. (Don't tell the wife!) Hopefully, they'll be able to shed some light. We'll see. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Serie C2

Is this a fully professional league? In this discussion it was suggested that it was, but without any evidence. Given that 3/4 of the clubs have attendances below 1,000 [3] (which is generally the minimum needed to turn pro, at least in the UK, and puts it on a par with the Conference North and South or the Scottish Second Division) I am leaning towards it not being so. However, does anyone have any evidence, and if not, should we assume that in absence of any evidence, that it isn't? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that evidence needed to be provided to show it was fully professional, rather than evidence provided the other way round. Though that may have been part of the redundant WP:FOOTYN discussions. Peanut4 (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say it should always be assumed that a subject is not notable unless it can be proven otherwise. – Pee Jay 12:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Angelo said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability#Clubs that "the pro divisions are from Serie A to Serie C2". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm all leagues from Serie A to Serie C2 are fully professional. Namely, Serie C1 and Serie C2 are organized by the Lega Professionisti Serie C (Serie C Professional League). The low attendances can be explained with the fact Serie C is composed by 90 teams, and many of them represent very tiny towns such as Rodengo-Saiano, Carpenedolo and Castelnuovo di Garfagnana. All other leagues are called dilettanti, that is Italian for "amateur", and are somewhat equivalent to English non-league divisions. That's all. --Angelo (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I confirm all. --necronudist (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. Just out of interest, how do clubs with attendances of 300 afford to pay full time wages? Do C2 clubs get television money or large amounts of sponsorship? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind match attendances in Italy are much lower than in England. The minimum wage for an Italian professional footballer is 36,000 € per year, but consider many of Serie C players are on loan from higher league teams, and their wages are thus paid by the controlling clubs. In addition, Serie C teams hardly manage to make some profit, and they are actually maintained by the club owners (usually local enterpreneurs with enough money to afford the club expenses); when they fail to do so, the clubs declare bankruptcy (not that uncommon in Italian football). In addition, a couple of samples: Carpenedolo's owner Tommaso Ghirardi is Parma's chairman, and Valle del Giovenco chairman Giovanni Lombardi Stronati is the owner of Siena. It's not a case these teams are playing right now the promotion playoffs, despite their low home attendances. --Angelo (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahahah confirm all again. It's the Italian way, baby :-) Success or bankruptcy. The same way politicians do :-) --necronudist (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mayo League

Just bringing this here as I admit I know relatively little about football in Ireland other than watching weekly games on Setanta Sports. This league though, the Mayo League only mentions that it has two clubs? Surely that can't be right?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That article has about as much credibility as Jessie Buckley's performance tonight =P – Pee Jay 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! :) (Oh and err "Come on Jodie!" no surprise really) On topic I see the Mayo League article is gone now. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Avram Grant

The poor fella has just been sacked – can we all keep an eye on the article for possible vandalism please. Cheers, Giant Snowman 20:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

World Cup qualification sections on national team articles

I recently removed sections consisting of 2010 World Cup fixtures and tables from a couple of national team articles. I think such sections are not encyclopedic, being solely concerned with current events. These sections seem to have appeared on more or less every national team article, so I'd like to ensure there is consensus before I go and remove the lot. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. All that stuff should be removed. The only thing relating to current events should be the nation's current squad. – Pee Jay 10:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. Giant Snowman 11:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a consistant text for linking it eg "Wikiland are currectly competing for qualification to the 2010 FIFA World Cup" added to articles? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Giant Snowman 12:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Kinkladze peer review

Georgi Kinkladze recently failed a featured article nomination, and is now at Peer Review in an attempt to get it ready for a second nomination. Any feedback or comments would be greatly appreciated. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Dejan Marić

I am writeing to request for the Dejan Marić page to be unblocked , Because i think it will be unfair that no one will be able to edit the page when he becomes a professional in the Montenegrin and serbian leagues, thanks for reading.I belive that the vandal is not stupid enough to vandalise the page again because he knows it will just get blocked.

(talk) 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have recommended this user to bring this issue here as well. The user wants the creation protection of Dejan Marić to be lifted, and has filed a request for unprotection. The article was salted about half a year ago after a number of recreations and speedy deletions, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dejan Marić. I raised this issue at this talk page at the time, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 15#Dejan Marić. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Does he actually qualify for one now? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If the editor can find reliable sources to show the player passes WP:ATHLETE and offers them in support of his unsalting request, there shouldn't be any problem, should there? And if they can't, there isn't any point in unsalting it in crystal-balling anticipation of him becoming notable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am available to unsalt the article, but only in case you can provide me some sources stating the subject has made at least a first team appearance in a fully professional league. --Angelo (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone named Marić, possibly Dejan Marić, appears to have played for FK Igalo (also known as OSK Igalo). Since FK Igalo play in the Third League of Montenegro, I doubt this is a fully professional league. I also can't tell whether the Marić in the lineup is the Dejan Marić of this discussion, and whether the team listed is a senior side. For now I think there is insufficient material for an article, and this case should be treated like any player of for instance Nostell Miners Welfare F.C. or Borrowash Victoria A.F.C.. For this reason I see little use in unsalting the article. A ecis^Brievenbus 09:59, 22 May 2008

(UTC) If you read it says gledalaca oko 1,500 which means attendance of around 1,500 people do you really think 1,500 people would turn up to a children game, it was the senior team playing against FK Otrant last year. Also the league FK Igalo , OFK Igalo or OSK Igalo whatever you know them by do play in a professional league by montenegrin standards.If the team played in England or another big footballing nation it would not be a proffesional league, i was not asking to request an article about Dejan but just for the page to be unsalted for the future. (talk) 11.40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't do crystal balling here. When there is a source that says he has played professional football, then the article will be unprotected. Until then, it will remain protected so that people don't try to recreate it when it is certain that it will get deleted. Woody (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean with "a professional league by montenegrin standards"? Are the standards in Montenegro different from other countries? Is playing football his job, his source of income? If so, then it's a professional league; if not then not. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean it is different standards by Montenegrin income rate. The footballers playing for FK Igalo earn from around 100-300 euros a month depending on how good they are and their contracts, the average monthly salary in montenegro is around 200 euros, while in england it is much more, in montenegro lots of things are cheaper so people can live of their wages , while in england average monthly pays are triple this. plying football is his job because he is young and this is a good income for him. (talk) 16.51 26th May 2008 (UTC)

England national football team results

Just a note that some weeks ago, an IP started to create a table in which to record these results but only managed 1966 and 1967 before seemingly giving up! Thus we now have results recorded in two formats. Should we revert back to the original format or carry on where the IP left off? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the original format; it's readable, and in particular the indentation for matches within competitions helps with the readability. The table layout gives undue prominence to the date and venue as against the important bits like what competition the match is in, which is abbreviated down to an incomprehensible string of letters, and the goalscorer details, which is in so small a font I can't read it without a magnifying glass. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe a table format is the way forward, but not this particular table format. As Struway2 says the table is currently incomprehensible. Giant Snowman 18:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the original format as a) it is, I think, preferable to keep the results in the one format, and b) the particular table format that was used is not favoured by your comments. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Debut details

(Something that has bugged me for a while, and the discussion of WC qualifying tables above spurs me to add it) Prose for younger players, presumably in an attempt to make the article more than 2 lines long, has recently started including almost painful amounts of detail about first appearances: Paul Lennon made his debut for Penny Lane Rovers in a rain-affected League Two match at the Strawberry Fields stadium against Abbey Road United on 25th May 2008, a match that was carried live on LSD TV, as a 72nd minute replacement for George Starr who had incurred a toe injury. The match ended in a 2-1 win for Rovers, with ex-United favourite John Harrison scoring a the winning goal with a 69th header from a cross by Ringo McCartney. I exaggerate, but only slightly. These expanded match descriptions only seem to have occurred on articles of recent debutants (for Stanley Matthews, we are only told what year that he signed pro terms), and seem to confuse journalism and a desire for editors to see their favourites' get a name check, with encyclopaedic intent. I know that it has no status beyond an informal suggestion, but I think the ten year "rule" is a wise principle to act upon, and these details clearly fail to meet the expectation that encyclopaedic remain relevant in the longer term. Is there consensus that we can set about radically reducing them? Kevin McE (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that something similar to Sean Morrison's article is ideal – it simply says what date he made his debut, who against, the final score, and who he replaced as a substitute. I have also included details of his first full start, and will detail his first goal if/when he scores. That is all that is needed, I feel. Giant Snowman 14:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that is far more than is needed, and an example of what I mean. I dare say Sean Morrison hopes to make many hundred professional appearances: I don't think is in any way proportionate or relevant to include this. Would it be your intention that this level of detail for these games is still there in 5 or 10 years time? While his career is only two games old, why does his article need to be more than a couple of lines. He is notable because he has made a first team appearance, but there was nothing notable about his appearance at Gillingham (believe me: I was there). If we don't need minor details of the debuts of Moore, Charlton, Matthews or Finney, why would we want it of a current crop? Kevin McE (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Sean Morrison's details are just about right. And on a par with Bobby Moore, who you quoted. Debuts are important games in players' careers remember. Peanut4 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not strictly true: the Bobby Moore article has "played his first game on 8 September 1958, against Manchester United", much briefer than the Morrison example. Kevin McE (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah. Read on, cos there's more explanation. "Moore joined West Ham as a player in 1956, and after advancing through their youth set up played his first game on September 8, 1958, against Manchester United. In putting on the number 6 shirt, he replaced his mentor Malcolm Allison, who was suffering from tuberculosis." Peanut4 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I think that the level of detail in the Sean Morrison article is acceptable, as it details major landmarks in his career – first appearance, first start, and in time first goal. However, the level of detail as shown in your first Beatles-esque example is far too much. Giant Snowman 17:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd put "first half substitute" instead of specifying the minute, but otherwise I have no issue with the Morrison example. I think it is easier to read if words are used instead of precise timings. "Late goal", not "88th minute goal", "midway through the first half", not "24th minute" and so on. That goes for all sorts of situations, not just players, like articles on cup finals etc. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I'll change the Morrison article accordingly. Giant Snowman 18:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Morrison's is classed as "too much detail". As many of us will testify, we spend a lot of time looking around for this kind of information in the first place, so why would we leave it out and increase the workload for someone else wanting to know? - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I'd rather have details there to read, than nothing like many stubs, e.g. Milan Páleník. The vast majority of articles need more details, not less. Peanut4 (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe many of the not very notable players have far too much detail. Some detail not only their debut, but their second third and fourth goals and how they are scored. At least when players have a bit more meat behind them they lose half that waffle... at least until super-super stardom status, when the fan brigade get into the article... However, in his first game following the ban Ronaldo scored the only goal in the 60th minute of a Champions League away game against Sporting Lisbon on return to his old club. He was given a standing ovation by the Sporting supporters for his muted celebrations following the goal. Following this match, Ronaldo has kept his goalscoring boots on in the away fixture against Birmingham City F.C. The goalscoring continued with a brace against Wigan Athletic F.C. Ronaldo contributed three goals in both the home and away fixtures against Dynamo Kiev, a goal against Arsenal F.C. and another brace against Blackburn Rovers. An injury time winner, coming from a free-kick in the home fixture against Sporting Lisbon... blah blah blah ... in the away fixture against West Ham United F.C., Ronaldo scored in the match but missed a penalty. Good grief!--ClubOranje^Talk 07:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM on Association football in the ROI to Football (soccer) in the Republic of Ireland

A vote is taking place here regarding a 'Requested Move' from Association football in the Republic of Ireland to Football (soccer) in the Republic of Ireland. Reasons are listed that promote the motion. A broad participation would be welcome. Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Deportivo Saprissa World Tour 1959

Is this article worthy? I prodded it, but as usual it's been removed without explanation. Thought I'd ask before AfD'ing. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is notable if the claim in the opening paragraph is true. - Darwinek (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is notable as a stand alone article at all. At best it could be added into the main Deportivo Saprissa article or if that article gets too long into a History of Deportivo Sapirissa article.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the prod-remover did comment on the talk page. The bit about 25 games in 22 countries is rubbish. The reference called Team roster links to Deportivo Saprissa's website, which claims it was the first world tour undertaken by a South American team, but says they played 22 games which were played in 9 countries, as shown in the table in the article, but on their travels they visited 25 different countries. I'd say it's a significant part of the club's history, but not notable of itself, but that's just my opinion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the prod-remover didn't comment on the talk page. The prod was removed by User:SuperSonicx1986, the article creator and not Darwinek who commented on it in the discussion page.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry, misread the history. Though it was Dramatic, not Darwinek, who commented on the talk page. It's been a long day... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Note to self – when correcting something, always best not to make a mistake myself.....:) Still SuperSonicx hasn't commented!♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No date of death

If we have no info regarding death dates, should we presume that former players are still alive? Or should we assume that they have passed on? Giant Snowman 12:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP has guidelines for this sort of thing. In short, it depends when they were born. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

According to this query, we should assume people still might be alive up to age 122, on the basis no-one has ever been proved to have lived to a greater age, but beyond that we can safely assume them to be dead. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Histon F.C. peer review

I've put Histon F.C. up for peer review in order to get third party opinions on a load of disagreements between another editor and myself. All views would be very welcome. Dancarney (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Henderson (footballer)

On the Stephen Henderson (footballer) article, I was wondering whether his Republic of Ireland U15, U16 and U19 stats should be given in the infobox, despite the apps not being available. I would say so, but 86.40.161.10 disagrees. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with him. Maybe as a compromise you could list them all once under 'Republic of Ireland Youth' (U21 still having its own row). Having all those rows with no date or appearance information looks a little untidy. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with ArtVandelay13. Giant Snowman 15:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Provisional squads infos on UEFA Euro 2008 squads

Please take a look at this. It's going to be important :-) --necronudist (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Euro 1968 template

I just came across this template - {{England Squad 1968 European Championship}}. I seem to remember only World Cup squads should have templates, but can't find policy or a discussion to say so or otherwise. Peanut4 (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And another one. {{England Squad 1980 European Championship}}. Peanut4 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion long ago that got rid of non-World Cup templates; however, I feel that we should bring back squad templates for the top regional competitions such as the Euros, Copa America, ACN etc. Giant Snowman 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that the continental cup's would be nice to have – chandler20 21:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)~

Is there not a danger of having half an article with templates. Those players who compete in say 6+ championships and then become managers, could easily be getting towards 20 templates. Maybe even more for those who become international managers. Peanut4 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If we have the option to minimize/hide the template, though, then I don't feel like a larger list would be too difficult to manage. matt91486 (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Peanut, I wasn't in on the discussion about manager templates, but I think they are a bit unnecessary. (And they are probably the ones taking most place) ← chan dler 22:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support the use of Euro and Copa America templates, on the condition that we set a rule that any article with more than 3? templates , uses the template autocollapse feature as was proposed in a discussion I can't seem to find. E P 00:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think all boxes are set to default autocollapse if there are more than one. Peanut4 (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No it's not that feature, all the collapsed boxes collapse again into a single bar with the option to show templates, when you click on that it spews the multicolour pile of autocollapsed navboxes. I remember seeing it and thinking it was neat, but the discussion (circa April 24 2008) seems to have disappeared. E P 00:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

found it E P 00:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel like that any articles with a significant number of templates will also likely have a significant amount of written content, because they will likely be significant players or managers, so the template length will probably balance out with a longer article. I'm sure there are a couple exceptions, but that seems like it should usually be the case. matt91486 (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to stick my neck out, and say I don't think we need them. The consensus was that they weren't necessary, and I don't see why that has changed. Plus if we did have them for continental cups, some African footballers would really have too many (Eto'o for example would have six plus his current club) as their tournament is held every two years. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree, how can {{Shimizu S-Pulse managers}} or the {{Farsley Celtic A.F.C. squad}} be more worthy of a place in our encyclopaedia than the Denmark 92 squad or the Colombia 2001 squad? I think the solution proposed below beats the "we haven't got enough space argument". Is there anything else to oppose continental tournament navboxes with? E P 01:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just came accross this discussion, I find the infoboxes useful. The content is definatly encyclopedic and the tournaments are notable. I think the supercolapse box idea discussed below is a good solution for the articles that have several infoboxes (regardless of whether we decide to keep continental tournament ones). Pbradbury (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Super-collapse template

See the navbox below for what I am on about, I like it, it seems a good solution to the problem of massive stacks of navboxes. We could even divide it into two, Trapattoni club navigation boxes (in a standard colour) and Trapattoni international navigation boxes (in another colour). If we start using super-collapsed navboxes as standard for all articles with more than say 3/4 collapsed navboxes, the problem of too many navboxes goes away doesn't it? I think we should discuss using this kind of thing no matter whether we allow continental tournament navboxes or not (we would obviously have to get rid of the [v] [d] [e] gubbins though) E P 00:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

PAGE OVERFLOW

{{navbox}}

If we have that approach, I would suggest one collapse box for "managers" positions, one for "Championship" squads, and one for the current squad.

Hopefully like this. Peanut4 (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree with that, except we need to get rid of v.d.e on the super-collapse boxes because it has no purpose, and we need to get rid of the awful violety colour, maybe using different colours for international and club. I would also suggest calling the international one Giovanni Trapattoni international squads rather than championship squads for clarity. Anyone else have a view? E P 01:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Too many boxes is just distracting, so I like the super-collapse boxes, but think it should only be split in two – one for managerial roles, one for player roles (is that what you mean by Championship squads) I don't object to a current squad being tacked on the bottom, but don't really see why it can't simply be included in super-collapse box.--ClubOranje^Talk 07:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be split into club squads and international squads (whether as a player or a manager), with the manager's current squad (if a club manager) outside the supercollapse box. – Pee Jay 07:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC) The system that Peanut suggested is fine. – Pee Jay 07:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Really like the idea. Ofc there have to be a specific number for when you colapse them. Oranje, well it's probably because the current squad is current, the other templates are "past" (the exception being Current club managers) ← chan dler 08:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Understand that, but the notability factor is that one has managed (played for) the organisation, and the squad template is there as a quick ref, still easily accessible. Granted it is likely noted in the text, but currency has nothing to do with it really – encyclopedia, not news and all that. As stated, don't object to being separate, but...--ClubOranje^Talk 08:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just have to ask another thing i thought about, is there a guideline or something in with order they should be placed? I'm pretty sure I've seen articles with both oldest 2 newest and newst 2 oldest. ← chan dler 08:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I really don't see the need for yet another navbox. Does anyone actually use them or are they for decoration. It seems to me to be a bit of fancruft; I doubt they are used as a navigational tool. I would also strongly suggest that we turn off the colouring for them, or at least try and make the colours accessible. Some pages are now incredibly garish. Woody (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I use the squad lists for navigational tools. Peanut4 (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Same here, I also use template for navigation. Giant Snowman 11:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So you find this conglomerate a useful navigational tool? A template for every two years? Woody (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I brought that point up above. It's the current squad lists I find the most useful navigational tool. Peanut4 (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't really talking about current squad lists, or manager lists for that matter, simply the Euro/World Cup/Other tournaments ones. Anyway, they are up at TFD now anyway. (See below section). Woody (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If the Michael Owen Links were super-collapsed, I would have no problem at all, people who don't like them wouldn't ever even have to look at them. I have used the World Cup navoboxes as useful navigational tools, but anyone who claims that it's even possible to use something like {{Vauxhall Motors F.C. squad}} as a navigational tool needs their head testing. IMHO unmaintained current squads are far far worse than Euro squads because they contain misinformation, players move on and players move in, a current squad that was current in October 2007 is not a current squad, it's misleading. How is it we are allowing unmaintained navboxes for teams full of non-notable players, but barring accurate squad details for the second highest tier of international football? Surely there's something wrong here? E P 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Vauxhall Motors squad is pathetic. What's the point? You can only flick between two players. That is surely a template perfect for TfD? Peanut4 (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Super-collapse may well be the route to go. I would definitely break them up into areas, time to bring it to a vote? CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a vote is extraordinarily premature; the thread hasn't been open 24 hours yet. Let a consensus form or not, then go to a vote. If you do continue to vote, I suggest an addition of ":3. Tackle the use of navboxes and mitigate the need for these in the first place. Woody (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the vote is premature, it was discussed over a month ago here on a page which was directly linked here. Super-collapse templates have been in general use on Wikipedia on articles such as Giovanni Trapattoni since early May, and the use of these templates cuts out the problem of huge piles of navboxes, which would be difficult to directly combat in Trapattoni's case without deleting the manager templates. E P 14:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I know about that discussion, I was in it, I was talking about this discussion, which has been open for only a few hours. I simply think we are hiding the problem of navboxes, not tackling the actual issue. Hence why I more-or-less abandoned this particular project a while-back. Woody (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that you more-or-less abandoned this project because there are too many navboxes? or did I misinterpret what you said? How do you propose we directly tackle the problem? As far as I see it there would be no support for deleting World Cup navboxes, no support for deleting top level current squads, little support for deleting managerial position navboxes, probably a lot of support for deleting unmaintained current squads and those virtually useless non-league current squads. That would reduce the pile by one, but only on articles that only have one navbox anyway. Once we have got some kind of consensus on the super-collapse issue I will propose a lower limit for current squad navboxes and managerial position navboxes (club in a fully professional league would seem a sensible cut-off) and a mandatory deletion policy for misleading and unmaintained current squads. E P 14:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I abandoned it because no-one is tackling the actual issues, and because this project is now little more than a clique of fans separate from everyone else. All I see is hot air, and votes, with little consensus. This project now spends more time on debating notability, moaning about WP:ATHLETE, and trying to hide problematic navboxes, than it does improve its articles such as Georgi Kinkladze. Woody (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree Woody (but also agree at the same time). I do see the WP:FOOTY as a bit of a clique, but we do build consensus. The problem is the project only represents a small fraction of the editors, who edit football articles, and quite often they have their own opinions and will revert edits against policy. What we need is to build policy, and store them on pages on the WP:FOOTY pages so they can easily be referred back to. Peanut4 (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, you don't like debate about notability criteria, neither do I but the place for it should be here, not on each individual AfD over and over again. But back to the issue of navboxes, what is your alternative? how do you propose we get rid of the navboxes you dislike? and which navboxes would you keep? E P 15:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peanut4 that we need the discussions, I just don't see why they have to be re-hashed every other day. The initial posts at this discussion summed it up perfectly. What I suggest is: remove the optional colour parameter, make them uniform and accessible to all. Delete the non-world-cup templates, delete the templates that serve no navigational purpose, i.e. Tier 3 and below whose contents consist of black-links. Then, go get every article in those navboxes upto featured status.

I think it is of note that you won't find the talk archive I link to above in the talkpage archives; no-one has bothered to update them. You will find a three month old featured nomination in the "Articles needing a review" section which no-one has taken down since its closure, nor been bothered to comment on. Everyone seems to have forgotten that we are here for the content, not for a bunch of garish navboxes. Woody (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, we're digressing a little. But I suggested to store the decisions away somewhere easy ot find, so that we don't re-hash them as regularly as it seems at the moment. And I apologise, because it was me, who started this debate.

As for writing articles, we all have our certain areas we tend to concentrate on. But when you look at the importance rating of Football articles, I would expect some high importance articles are forgotten about because they tend to be central articles, e.g. the poor state of The Football League. Yes Premier League, FIFA World Cup and importantly Association football are all featured, but how would a suggestion of re-starting the "Collaboration of the month" article go down for those important articles? Peanut4 (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Super-collapse !vote

Proposal: Any article that includes more than three navboxes should be super-collapsed

Options

OK this is a bit complicated, some articles already use the super-collapse template in a different way to the proposal above.

1a. All navboxes and succession boxes go into one supercollapse template as is already used on the Trapattoni article

1b. Super collapse into two sections, excluding current squad. As proposed

1c. The same proposal as 1b except there is a third super-collapsed template for stuff like honours and awards (which would include all honour templates such as FIFA 100 and all succession boxes)

2. Another alternate super-collapse proposal.

3. Reject the use of super-collapse templates.

!Voting

Support 1c E P 14:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Support 1c CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Support 1b (Though I don't think they should be used when a player has 5 or fewer boxes) ← chan dler 14:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Support 1c Agree with above in that maybe only used when over ceratin number of boxes Pbradbury (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could set a supercollapse threshold, any more than 2 managerial, 2 international squad or 2 honours/awards templates or succession boxes and they go into the relevant super-collased templates? That way we get an absolute maximum of six un-super-collapsed navboxes/sucession boxes, which would be pretty rare. E P 14:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution. Pbradbury (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a threshold for 3 boxes is way to low. ← chan dler 15:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Support 1C. Good proposal, still I think we should make another one regarding non-FIFA World Cup squad templates. By the way I also think 3 boxes threshold is too low. - Darwinek (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Support 1c. Agree 3 box threshold is too low, but leave that debate for another day.Londo 06 15:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Support 1c. Giant Snowman 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Weakish support 1c. But delete the succession boxes. Peanut4 (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How about deleting all the succession boxes and all the real vanity templates such as {{World Soccer Magazine 100 Greatest}}, {{World Soccer Magazine World Player of the Year}}, {{IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper}}, {{Major League Soccer MVP Award}} so we can do away with the super-collapsible awards section altogether? These are definitely clutter in my book and should already be adequately covered in the relevant articles. E P 18:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that suggestion. Just take a look at the previous example of Michael Owen. Are all those really necessary? Some can be adequately covered by a category, because it's simply 100 randomly selected people. At least the BBC Sports Personality is an ordered list. Peanut4 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with the deletion of those navboxes, but I'm sure you'd cause uproar amongst the American editors if you tried deleting anything to do with the MLS. Yet another case of us Europeans trying to impose ourselves on them, I'd imagine. – Pee Jay 18:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Support 1b – Succession boxes should go too. – Pee Jay 18:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Support 1c – seems like a good solution. matt91486 (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I do strongly disagree with getting rid of at least the MLS MVP box, though. The MLS has to sort of bridge the gap between football convention and realizing the differences of the sport in the United States, and the MVP in American sports is a huge deal. The others, I'm less adamant about. matt91486 (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

PeeJay isn't suggesting getting rid of the info altogether. Simply put the info in the article, and get rid of the navbox. It's not anti-MLS, since he suggests similar other navboxes be deleted. Peanut4 (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know it's not anti-MLS. I just think it needs to remain a convention of American sports articles even if it's not necessarily a standard of football articles. I wish the MLS were just set up the same way as the European leagues, but it's not, unfortunatey, so it helps to keep things together. matt91486 (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Supprt 1c Eddie6705 (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Supprt 1b To get rid of succession boxes. Some editors, for example for articles related to Turkish football use both manager templated and succession boxes, and revert all your tentative to delete them, using the argument that they are in many articles. See here the article about Branko Stanković (That's ridiculous, isn't it?) and the history page [4].--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Support 1b One proposed grouping make sence Gnevin (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Support 1b Succession boxes should go too. And vanity boxes as per EP suggestion above. Personally I think a magazine vote for player ofthe year is worth nothing. put it in their article, but don't give it more status than it deserves--ClubOranje^Talk 11:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
1C Alexsanderson83 12:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Support collapsible templates, as long as it is not used as an excuse to add more unnecessary templates to the article just because they seem to be invisible. Neier (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
1c Fronsdorf (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

Right, it looks to me like there is a good deal of support for the use of the super-collapse navbox. Something between 1b. and 1c. although I can't see much likleyhood of any player having enough vanity navboxes to warrant a super-collaped awards template after I get around to TfDing the magazine award templates etc. I suggest we start gently rolling it out as and when we come across articles with lots of navboxes, no strict threshold, just common sense. Better to do it this way than rigorously enforcing compliance. I would say that we should stick to the layout International squads collapse bar top, managerial positions second (if any) and current squad at the bottom. It would be good if we were consistent. If anyone has any last minute opposition please comment below. E P 22:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews invitation

Wikinews needs people to write news and match reports for Football (Soccer). To sign-up, please go here. Please let me know if and when you sign-up here. Kingjeff (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Gareth Barry

Hi, I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at the article and what I guess you could call an edit war and weigh in with his opinions. Yonatan ^talk 18:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not like a real war. However, my interpretation of This transfer discussion is there is no consensus for inclusion of transfer rumour or speculation. Remove the rumour and politely point out consensus policy. I've added a note to discussion page too.--ClubOranje^Talk 04:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Noticed that in the last hour and a bit there's been at least five edits made which could probably be considered vandalism. Not sure if anything needs to be done but I though i'd better let someone know anyway. Exxy (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Chris McGroarty (Scottish footballer)

Should the Chris McGroarty (Scottish footballer) article be moved to Chris McGroarty? As there aren't any other notable Chris McGroarty's at the present time, so the 'Scottish footballer' tag isn't necessary. Ck12 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

On the flipside, would anyone object to me moving John Ritchie to John Ritchie (English footballer)? I created John Ritchie (Scottish footballer) earlier today and there are now five on the disamb page – I doubt there is enough to clearly justify the English footballer having the simple named page ahead of the disamb entry. •Oranje•·Talk 14:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, go for it! Giant Snowman 17:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

After moving a page, please also edit the links that go into the page (by clicking on the "What links here" on the left hand side). Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Loan start

Tom Heaton has signed on loan for next season at Cardiff. Should he be included in the current squad now or not until say 1 July? Kosack (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Now is fine if the deal is confirmed- everyone's 2007-08 season is over. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

cld be fine to add a note about it there --StaraBlazkova (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The key phrase is "next season". Next season starts on 1st July. The FA is very restrictive on what matches may be played in the close season (effectively the month of June). So wait. By all means add some prose to that article about the intention. Kevin McE (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think waiting to 1st July would be correct, but we'd be fighting a losing battle trying to keep to it. - fchd (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We could also add a subsection "New signings". I've come across it in a number of articles, and it solves a lot of problems. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The "New signings" section idea has been looked at here a while ago, and it was basically decided that any such information should be restricted to articles about the club's season or an article containing list of transfers. – Pee Jay 12:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the transfer window doesn't open until 1st June... •Oranje•·Talk 14:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Or even 1 July. – Pee Jay 17:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? Wow, that means another month of reverting early transfer moves then :-( •Oranje•·Talk 12:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The real template clutter

I have nominated the first three vanity templates for deletion here, feel free to comment. If there is consensus for deletion I will root out some more. E P 15:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's perhaps of note that these basketball templates are up for deletion here. It sounds like the nominator will nominate similar World Cup roster templates for deletion if these go through, so it might be useful to be preemptive and discuss the issue now, even if it's basketball related. matt91486 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Standard for the finals articles?

I was sitting here, looking through some articles and noticed the massive differences in UEFA Cup finals, UEFA Cup Winners' Cup finals and European Cup and Champions League finals. As you can see they are have different formats (CL and CWC looking pretty similar though). I would suggest that they (and Copa Libertadores, CONCACAF Champions League, AFC Champions League, CAF Champions League, OFC Champions League which don't have templates for their finals, or a own article but the lists are there) use one single format. Using the format the CL template have I created {{Fb finals}} (which ofc can be changed if the current format isnt the consensus) with a demonstration of the first 2 and lastest 2 of the three UEFA competitions here User:Chandler/UEFA Finals. It might not be the ultimate thing for finals with two legs and replays etc... But maybe something extra can be made for those, that's just a first draft so to speak. ← chan dler 22:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

First thing I noticed, the years need endashes, i.e. 1955–56. Peanut4 (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need them? I mean the articles are 1955–56, and I don't know if there's a easy way to convert -'s to endashes. As I used [[{{{competition}}} {{{season}}}|{{{season}}}]] to fast link the seasons don't know if there would be a easy way to fix that to endashes ← chan dler 22:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Err, yes. See WP:DASH. Peanut4 (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, doesnt WP:DASH really say that the articles should be under 1955–56 and if they were, there would be no problem. But now European Cup 1955–56 does not exist, nor is it a redirect. ← chan dler 23:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the bit above the naming policy you need to read. The point really is if we're going to use the templates, then they need to be right. You won't pass an article at FA or FL if it doesn't have the correct dashes. I'm pretty sure there's a way of correcting the template, because other templates are similar, but I don't know how to do it myself. Peanut4 (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Found one. The template {{English football seasons}} uses such a way of using dashes. I still don't understand the code though. Peanut4 (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm so... I think I've fixed it now. Though now one problem is let's say it would be used for a competition that was spring-fall and not fall-spring (Football Competition 2008 for example), though I guess this should be pretty easy to fix ← chan dler 23:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Just realised another one. Is the "nationality line" an optional or necessary criteria? Obviously it only needs to be optional, if the template is used for domestic competitions. Peanut4 (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fix'd now ← chan dler 00:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Now its also fixed so you can use it for spring-fall competitions ← chan dler 10:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Can someone with the right tools move Graham Mitchell (footballer) to Graham Mitchell? It seems the latter is protected and there is no need for the former page's disambiguation. Peanut4 (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing can be done. Request for move please. Raymond "Giggs" K o 04:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giggs for Temporary (talk • contribs)

Actually, it can be done (as an uncontroversial move) – I just have! пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you help. Very much appreciated. Peanut4 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

U18 international tournaments

Hi. What do members of the WikiProject think about the notability of 2005 UEFA-CAF Meridian Cup and 2007 UEFA-CAF Meridian Cup? I'd suggest that the main article is probably notable, but one for each iteration too? --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Category standardization

Sorry for throwing so much out there at once, I've had a lot of free time the past day or so.

I've been looking through some of the football categories, and there doesn't seem to be a very standard way of looking at category names.

Some use footballers, some use players.
Some use periods in abbreviations, eg. F.C., some don't and just use FC or CD, etc.

Can we figure out a way to standardize this and then move all categories to the new set way? I honestly have no real personal preference on either question, but it's getting to be difficult to guess categories when making new player articles, especially for the Spanish leagues. I'd just like a standard system implemented. matt91486 (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing that always jars for me is the use of Category:Wikipedia F.C. footballers, effectively 'football club footballers', which isn't very coherent. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think they should belong in two distinct sections, with each one having a variety of uses. First is Category:Wikilish footballers and Category:Wikiland international footballers. The other is Category:Wikitown F.C. players and Category:Wikileague players. As for the club using F.C. or FC, etc, it probably ought to be the clubname as used on the main article. Peanut4 (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peanut's suggestions. Giant Snowman 16:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that instead of Category:Wikiland international footballers it should be Category:Wikiland national football team players, to match the article on the national team of that country. – Pee Jay 19:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need to match the article name? x international footballers is a perfectly good name, much more intuitive than what you're proposing. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can't argue with that. Just throwing it out there, tbh. – Pee Jay 20:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That proposal sounds good to me. If there seems to be a general consensus on it, perhaps we can start getting the categories moved over in the next few days. matt91486 (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Several new non-FIFA World Cup templates were created, I have nominated them for deletion here. You can find there also a link to previous consensus about the templates. It is very likely that new templates will appear with upcoming Euro 2008 – all should be deleted per our consensus or the guideline should be changed by wide discussion and vote. Cheers. - Darwinek (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look up stairs youll see a discussion going on...... ...... ← chan dler 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That discussion is on how to present multiple navboxes in an article, and I don't see a prevailing view that we should suddenly start including navboxes for all the federation championships, just because we can make them seem to disappear. Neier (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A number of the England templates may warrant attention on the name front as I created them out of the first creation, and so a move towards Euro 2000, Euro 2004, etc. replacing European Championships.Londo 06 16:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Article on "six plus five" proposal

I was thinking of writing an article on FIFA's "six plus five" proposal. It's caused quite a bit of political controversy given that it goes against the EU's free movement of workers rule. Would such an article be too newsy, or is it worth creating? JACO PLANE • 2008-05-27 13:14

Not necessarily by itself, but perhaps as part of an article on Foreign players in association football – this could detail all the arguments for/against, and past and existing rules in various countries. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have said that a section on the FIFA article and/or the article that Number57 suggested would be ideal, there's no real need for a seperate article. Giant Snowman 13:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, so I'll get down to working on a Foreign players in association football article soon then. Does anyone have any good sources about the history of players moving abroad? JACO PLANE • 2008-05-27 19:04

The international career of Dutch forward Beb Bakhuys ended when he moved to France with FC Metz, I can't remember where I read that (maybe on the RSSSF source) but I have read it somewhere. Giant Snowman 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This source states that the J.League has a quota of three foreign players. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I confirm Bep Bakhuys' international career ended when he moved to France. That was also the case of Swedish players in the 1950's when they moved abroad and also for most Yugoslavian players.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Beb (not Bep) Bakhuys' career with the Netherlands was indeed cut short because he went abroad. Same for Faas Wilkes. I know the Dutch football association was staunchly opposed to professional football at the time, but I'm not sure whether the players were suspended because they were professional or because they didn't play in the Netherlands. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Going to be collecting references on User:Jacoplane/Foreign players in association football, will get down to writing the actual article on Friday probably. JACO PLANE • 2008-05-28 10:32

See this 6+5 rule, I put it in category:FIFA because I couldn't think where else it should go. It definitly needs moving to a better name and some content adding on how the proposed rule conflicts with EU freedom of movement & anti-discrimination legislation E P 22:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Serie D

We need a template to tie in the Serie D seasons that have been detailed, just like the templates for Serie A, B, C1 and C2 seasons. Juve2000 (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What kind of template are you talking about? If you mean we should make a single Serie D template with all the 168 league teams, my answer is "no, we don't need it, better to leave a template for each of the nine league rounds". --Angelo (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he means something like {{The Football League Seasons}}. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the seasons template, not a team template. For example, Serie A's template is – Template:Serie A, and I would only include the seasons where we have created a detailed page for that season, and then edit it as necessary. I'll try to create it, but first I have to learn how these templates function. Juve2000 (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else was going to bother, {{Serie D seasons}}. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Assistance required

Got my work cut out with this user. Any assistance would be appreciated. - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

From his talk page: "Monday june 1 = I worked for 55 mins. WOuld like to know were do I clock in and how much it is exactly that we all get. I know its no much but I just wanted to help. I not doing it for the money." – that's just as well then ;-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Another example of that world-famous protestant work ethic. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha! That's possibly the funniest thing I've ever seen on this page. Qwghlm (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

He's now experienced an interesting form of self-enlightenment: he thinks the "The Free Encyclopedia" text in the sidebar should have been his first clue that we don't get a wage. - Dudesleeper / Talk 03:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was just him copying something that User:Ironholds posted on his talk page. Obviously he has a bit of a persecution complex, as he seems to think anything said to him is a pisstake. – Pee Jay 08:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Summer Transfers and National Team page

On national team pages such as Germany national football team and Portugal national football team, players like Jens Lehmann and José Bosingwa have their future club listed next to their name. Lehmann is with VfB Stuttgart and Bosingwa is with Chelsea F.C.. On the UEFA Euro 2008 squads page it says Lehmann is with Arsenal F.C. and Bosingwa is with F.C. Porto. I cannot help but think on the team page and the Euro Squad page the club should be the same, preferably their current (just past season's) club. Any thoughts??? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Contracts generally run until 30 June and the transfer window opens on 1 July...says it all for me. •Oranje•·Talk 08:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In general, I agree. However, sometimes clubs can release a player from his contract after agreeing a fee with the buying club in order to allow the player to join his new club earlier than would normally be allowed. – Pee Jay 09:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In competitions, is a worldwide standard to use the club where a player played last season before the tournament. FIFA, UEFA, magazines, newspapers...trading cards too! --necronudist (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Transfers just cannot be made official before the 1st of July, so the 2007-08 team should be used. --Angelo (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Luton Town

BBC are reporting today that they have been docked 10 points]. A minor edit war has broke out at The Football League 2008-09, as the article doesn't exactly state whether the deduction applies to the 07-08 season or 08-09 season. D.M.N. (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call it an edit war. But I've left Falastur2 a note on his talk page. I've added a reference to the BBC story on the The Football League 2008-09 page, and also note the FA statement on the Luton website, which clearly states it is for the 08-09 season. Peanut4 (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

League season article format

Could someone have look at Tunisian Ligue Professionnelle 1 2007-08. One user seems to think that this is a good layout. I think it unreadable and changed it to this, but was reverted and accused of vandalism. Thoughts? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely under Fair Use rules the club crests can't be used in such an article anyway.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I had suspected that but it's not an area I'm particularly confident about. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Premier League 2008-09 League table

Just looking at the League Table for the 2008-09 table, there seems to be a problem with the "qualification or relegation" section. I haven't heard of the rules changing so that the top 3 get automatically into the champions league groups and only 1 space for the qualifiers, and aren't 5th and 6th suppose guaranteed UEFA cup places, (when there are no current cup winners etc)...I would change it myself but I don't know if it has been changed and I just haven't heard about it, Cheers, Prem4eva (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the League and FA Cup winners who get the other UEFA Cup places, so the 5th and 6th wouldn't be guaranteed them. And they have changed it so the top 3 teams get directly into the Champions league, remember that isnt until 09-10 (CL season) ← chan dler 12:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, Thanks Prem4eva (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Fulchester United FC

I know nothing about football (soccer) in Canada but this team surely isn't notable..........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Amateur team...named after team in Viz magazine...undoubtedly an AfD. •Oranje•·Talk 15:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

↑ Straw Poll ↑

I got told off for starting a straw poll to quickly last time, so I waited a few days to start one on the template issue. After waiting the discussion has moved up towards the middle of the page so I'm not sure anyone is still watching it, based on my own habit of mainly looking at the recent discussions at the bottom of the page. I'm just leaving this note in case anyone want to support/oppose above, thank you. E P 21:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Finding information on Everton Weekes's football career

I'm currently working on Sir Everton Weekes, who most people here will recognise as the champion West Indian cricketer. I have learnt that he also represented Barbados in football. As I know slightly less than sweet fa about football, I'd be grateful if someone could help point the way to where I might find more about his football career (I don't have any specific dates for his international football career but it would have been in the 1940s.) Cheers --Roisterer (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Article format quality of AFC Club Competitions articles

After working on the 2008 versions of AFC Champions League and AFC Cup, I found that all of the article format quality are very bad. The practical one has been introduced in the knockout stages of those article. I hope the format could be improve since 2009 version. Thanks. Raymond "Giggs" K o 06:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

FA Cups

User:03md has created several new seasons of FA Cups for 1980–81 to 1982–83 and 1986–87 to 1991–92. There's nothing wrong with these articles being created, apart from the fact they all appear to just be copied from the current season's article. Any suggestions what to do? I'd rather them be deleted and have no information, rather than blatantly wrong information. Peanut4 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

They can definitely not be there with incorrect information like this ← chan dler 22:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all the incorrect info, leaving little more than the most basic of stubs. They're barely worth keeping in their current state, but as I said above, there is nothing wrong with these articles being created, so if anyone wants to try add more info, or try another approach, feel free. Peanut4 (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The same user has created articles for Football League Cup 2003-04 and Football League Cup 2004-05 largely based on info from the 2006-07 season. Again totally incorrect information which serves only to demean the encyclopedia. Peanut4 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

FLCs

I've got a couple of articles currently at FLC which have thus far attracted pretty much no interest. Anyone care to take a butcher's......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

2011 Copa América

An IP user has changed the 2011 Copa América from three groups containing 12 competing nations to four groups with 16 nations, but without adding a source for it. There was a rumour that CONMEBOL were considering increasing it to 16 teams for the 2011 competition, but try as I might I can't find any official confirmation anywhere that it is deinitely happening? I don't want to just undo all the edits yet just in case it is correct, so just wondering if anyone from here knows? ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Park

Hartlepool's Victoria Ground article has its own stadium infobox, rather than a template (the groundsman field being the only difference from the template that I can see). I'm guessing this should be converted, in case it leads to other cute and colourful examples, or is it worth keeping? - Dudesleeper / Talk 02:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Groundsman" and "Safety officer" are not relevant and should be removed. Further, the colours used are not very accessible. – Pee Jay 03:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football league vs Template:Infobox Sports league

Just cross posting here as I don't think the template talk page gets much traffic – question about infoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Templates#Template:Infobox football league vs Template:Infobox Sports league -- Chuq (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

J. League

The first three league levels of Japanese football have articles, sort of – the J. League first and second divisions are divided into one. Basically, I'm wondering how many articles we should have. Should the regional leagues each get their own article? Should there be just one large article on all regional leagues? What level should teams be notable above? I think that we allow teams in certain leagues fairly low, but I'd say that a club would have to be at regional league status or above to have notability. Any thoughts? Players obviously should be notable for either J. League or J. League 2, I'd guess? matt91486 (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anything below JFL needs an article at this point. We may need some criteria about how far into the Emperor's Cup a low-level team must go before it qualifies for an article; but, on the whole, I don't think that there is enough info to justify any of the leagues or teams which aren't at JFL or either level of the J League. A mention at Football in Japan seems sufficient to me. Neier (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving Category:Fooian football clubs from Category:Football (soccer) clubs to Category:Football (soccer) clubs by country

I have created the category Category:Football (soccer) clubs by country in which to place all of the "Fooian football clubs" categories, rather than having them all in the Football (soccer) clubs parent category. I have already moved all the countries beginning with A and B to the new category, and I have requested that a bot be created to move the remaining categories. However, it has been requested that I get a consensus for this move, so if anyone has any comments about this, please raise them here. – Pee Jay 10:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't think why not. Agreed. --Dweller (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else? Not sure one person counts as a consensus. – Pee Jay 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys. Just need a few more replies. – Pee Jay 09:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm onboard the recategorization. It would be nice if the bot could also tag the names of all the teams-per-country categories for renaming, to match the rest of the sports on Wikipedia; and WP:NCCAT#Sport. I got preoccupied before getting around to tagging these earlier this year (or maybe late last?); but anyway, baseball, basketball, and afaik most others are in "sport teams in country"; not the "Fooian sport teams" like these are currently named. Neier (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention for Euro squad templates

What exactly should these templates be named as? I've seen "Euro", "European Championship" and "Euro Cup" (which is clearly wrong). I would go for "UEFA Euro", as this is what the articles for the single tournaments are named. So, would "[insert team name] Squad UEFA Euro [insert year]" do? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Time ago has been decided not to do those templates. --necronudist (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was a mass of them recently kept at TfD. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Very confusing, there used to be a post every other day on here about non World Cup squad templates being deleted. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 13:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that "[team] UEFA Euro [year] squad" be used as the title. – Pee Jay 13:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Except for the 1960 and 1964 versions, where "[team] [year] European Nations' Cup squad" should be used, to match the main article. – Pee Jay 13:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would name them as the World Cup templates [nation] Squad [year] UEFA Euro ← chan dler 14:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing that would have to be fixed to is, if you look at for example Jürgen Klinsmann, they say Euro 1988, 1990 FIFA World Cup Winners (3rd Title),1994 FIFA World Cup , Euro 1996 Winners etc. They should all be named in the same format (plus 3rd Title should be added to the Germany 96 template) ← chan dler 14:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that title is that it's unintuitive. Obviously the template's title would never have to be used in prose, but I believe that "[team] UEFA Euro [year] squad" is more intuitive than "[team] squad UEFA Euro [year]", which makes it the better choice. – Pee Jay 14:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that there is a – in that sentence. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? – Pee Jay 14:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not "[team] squad UEFA Euro [year]", it's "[team] squad – UEFA Euro [year]", which reads better. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. Yes, that does look better, and should be used as the template name. – Pee Jay 15:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I agree that that way sounds better, I maybe even the World Cup templates should be moved to [team] FIFA World Cup [year] squad ← chan dler 14:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Or even "[team] squad – [year] FIFA World Cup"? – Pee Jay 15:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

One other thing that should be "corrected" is now it says "[year] FIFA World Cup" and "UEFA Euro [year]" which looks pretty weird. ← chan dler 15:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the general naming convention for tournaments though. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it still looks weird. It would be be easier to read if they both had [comp] [year] or [year] [comp] ← chan dler 15:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but I think we have to call tournaments by what they're called. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm going back here again, Englands templates are located at the best spot imo {{England Squad 2000 European Championship}} they will also be easy to use together with {{Spain Squad 1964 European Nations' Cup}} so they form in order... Maybe the Categories even should be renamed to fit in here for example, so they are ordered by year. ← chan dler 00:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument here. The templates can be made to sort correctly within their categories by use of a sort parameter, so choosing a name just because it sorts better is not a good idea. We should choose a name that is intuitive to the people writing the articles, not the people categorising the templates. – Pee Jay 00:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That template does not correctly identify the UEFA tournament though and doesn't specity whether it's football or another European Championship. Peanut4 (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no other templates for other Sports, and the World Cup templates does not specify FIFA or Football. PeeJay, sort yes. But they don't look as structured if the World Cup templates are called [team] Squad [year] World Cup while the Euro templates are called [team] UEFA Euro [year] squad. If you compare Category:Germany national football team templates and Category:England national football team templates I think the England category looks much better ← chan dler 00:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I repeat that time ago has been decided not to do those templates just to avoid having tons of templates like Philippines at the 1956 Asian Nations Cup or New Hebrides at the 1973 Oceanian Cup... Consider it, please. --necronudist (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Then why didn't you contribute to the TfD discussion? – Pee Jay 15:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that there is no use to have a New Hebrides at the 1973 Oceanian Cup template. So we should avoid continental tournaments. Templates are already too much without them. --necronudist (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Like it or not, but the decision has been made. Euro is a major tournament, Oceanian Cup isn't. We've only decided to allow european templates, not continental templates in general, so I don't see where you're coming from. BanRay 15:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, baby. I don't care about your decisions, I won't ever make a template in my life. I was just reporting what was decided time ago. I don't see what you want from me. --necronudist (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your "report", now, since you don't care, you may want to go comment elsewhere. BanRay 16:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I go wherever I want. Are you searching for troubles, dude? --necronudist (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's why I come on here, seriously, are you trying to act hardman here or what's your point? Just try and keep the tone down please. BanRay 23:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, a bit of civility here. To be fair, necronudist was only re-iterating previous policy not to have Euro templates. Be it for whatever reason, that policy seems to have been reverted. Let's not resort to mudslinging. Peanut4 (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Juse another question about the templates also, what decides which colors are used for background and text. One reason if you look at Davor Šuker Croatias 98 squad is red/white, while their 02 is white/red. Now what actually decide the colors? Is it suppose to be Home shirt color? But having that for example would for some teams create different colors because teams change colors, or at least from one blue to another blue ← chan dler 16:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Home kit colours, and if that changes, the template changes (but it's not worth changing for different shades of the same colour). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No I understand that though, let's say Germany which has used white (at least for as long as I know) even though they haven't had white in their flag for a long time, let's say in some years they'd have something like their away shirt for home, would we change all their old templates? A current example would be Greece chaning their home color to white from blue (because they won the last euro champ. in white I guess), their only template {{Greece Squad 1994 World Cup}} is blue. ← chan dler 17:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be the colour of the home shirt they used at that particular tournament, IMO. Either that or their most recognisable home colours. – Pee Jay 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. For example, historical Austria templates would be white, whereas the current one should be red. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd always prefer the lighter colour to be the background, and the darker colour to be the text. It just makes it much, much easier to read (for me at least) – fchd (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Though that would give many many teams a white background, France, Italy etc. And I don't think that represents it totally right ← chan dler 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think these templates should be kept only until the end of the European Championship, and then deleted. They have some sort of usefulness right now, but this level of usefulness will definitely fade away once the competition is over. This is my opinion. --Angelo (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What about changing Portugals colors to red and green (or red and white, if red + green would be to hard for colorblind ppl) as it is the color on their home shirts, rather than the current colors ← chan dler 23:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

New Maradona

New Maradona. Notable or not? Peanut4 (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

NO. Keeping this would allow to create articles about New Yashin, New van Basten, New Pelé and New Maldini. This stuff is barely good for magazines, but definitely not for an encyclopedia. --Angelo (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's well sourced, though. An AfD could be difficult. I certainly don't hear as much about new van Bastens as Maradonas. matt91486 (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. New Maradona is a frequently used phrase in football. It is something of an obsession for Argentinian football in particular. I haven't heard the phrase used with other former players, even in countries where there is a relatively small player base that has produced a great player (eg New Dalglish, New Cruyff or New Puskas). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Look man, I've just read some Sicilian magazines describing Fabio Liverani as "the new Corini". Sources do not establish automatically notability, they must be reliable and cover the subject in deep detail. This is definitely not the case. --Angelo (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The reasons I worked to improve the article is that I remember the English press going on about Ortega, then Aimar then Marinelli as the "new Maradona" giving the expression at least 10 years of regular usage in British football terminology. The other reason that it is a rare exception to the dull fact laden football articles we have here, it's actually fun. I challenge anyone to find reliable mainstream English language sources touting more than a dozen Italian players as the "new Maldini" or a dozen Russians as the "new Yashin". E P 21:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why I brought it here first. The "New Maradona" has certainly had some usage and so I think the page does too. The first thing I did was search for New Botham or New Ian Botham but couldn't find either. Botham was the only player I could compare it to, and he's in a different sport, well at least for the purpose of this analogy. Peanut4 (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

About Paolo Maldini: Leandro Grimi [5], Sergio Ramos [6], Patrice Evra [7], Michele Canini [8]. These are the first I've found, but I'm sure there are many more around. --Angelo (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If this article was called "Nuevo Maradona" and mainly consisted of Spanish language links, I'd be less inclined to keep it, being Spanish language terminology, we have no articles on "Golazo" or "Sombrero" which are common expressions in Argentine football. The Maradona article has lots of mainstream English language references, establishing the phrase as part of English language football terminology, the links Angelo provides refer to "nuovo Maldini", not "new Maldini". E P 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia and not a Wikipedia version for the English-speaking countries, so nobody forbids you from referring to sources from countries other than the UK and the USA, am I right? And, as you know, sources from Italy are usually written in Italian (average Italians ain't that proficient in foreign languages, btw). In addition, none of the words you mentioned could stay here, but merely because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not because they're Spanish words. Paella and Botellón are Spanish words, but I'm not gonna delete these articles just because they're in Spanish. --Angelo (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlike "New Maradona", however, "paella" and "botellón" are not neologisms used in the media, but common nouns. – Pee Jay 22:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the English language has been ripped off from elsewhere, therefore Paella is in common use in the English language as is Omelette, "nuovo Maldini" is not. That is a pretty big distinction. Also I can't really see how Paella fits into a discussion about English football terminology. E P 22:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the new Romario! Can I has article? ← chan dler 22:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Only if that fact is reported by a reliable source. – Pee Jay 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Does my old coach saying it in '97 count? xO ← chan dler 22:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest: new Maradona – 18,900 hits; new Pele – 13,500 hits; new Botham – 1,230 hits; new Maldini – 956 hits; new Larsson – 903 hits; new Puskas – 261 hits; new Yashin – 99 hits (and most of those are about the ice hockey player).

For my money, a new Maradona article (and a new Pele) is notable, not the rest. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Quickly looking through those Google hits, I would say "New Maradona" and "New Botham" are notable, but none of the rest. Those two have generic stories or articles about the term. The others only relate to specific examples. Peanut4 (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have heard the new Botham tag before, but only really used frequently about Andrew Flintoff. The Maradona thing is notable because there has been a succession of players (Ortega and Riquelme in particular) who have been described in that way, but haven't quite lived up to it at the highest level. Over the last 15 years an entire production line of Argentine talent has been weighed down with 'the new Maradona' tag. -- BBC. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with those news searches is they rely on the age of the internet. The new Botham was applied to basically anyone who knew which side of the bat to hold and could bowl, as England searched to end their doldrums. One BBC source certainly quotes at least 11 new Bothams. Peanut4 (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this article and possibly a 'new Pele' has inherent notability as it is something of a selling point in many newspapers. I agree with the sentiments of the other editors with regards to follow ups. Alexsanderson83 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than creating a wad of separate articles, how about incorporating it as a sub-section into the relevant player article? The 'New Maradona' might be better placed in Diego Maradona, for example. •Oranje•·Talk 07:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a meaningless article. One day someone will be considered better than Maradonna and it will become more meaningless.By all means mention it in the players bios if you feel like belittling their own accomplishments, but I think all those players are notable enough in their own right to not need the noise.--ClubOranje^Talk 09:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Yugoslavian footballers

Should we add the category Yugoslavian footballers to former Yugoslavia players articles? There is already Category:Soviet footballers for ex-USSR players, for international players or not. For Yugoslavia we have Category:Pre-1992 Yugoslavia international footballers which is fine for international players, but what can be done for non-international players such as Bogdan Turudija? When they played football they were Yugoslavian (and also Serbian or Bosnian or whatever, that's right) but currently only categories such as Cat:Serbian footballers are used. Any opinions?--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds sensible to me. We also have Category:East German footballers which serves the same purpose. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, Latouffedisco. --necronudist (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, I will add the category to internationalists first, then other players.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Internationals side of things, as that is who they officially represented, and while I have no opinion either way personally on the non internationals, you may find a few minor edit wars and reverts based on my experience of trying to correct various notable persons country of birth to what it was then – even with a qualification such as SFR Yugoslavia (now Croatia).--ClubOranje^Talk 09:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, edit wars are spread among former Yugoslavia people, that is why I just add this category without deleting cats such as "Croatian footballers" or "Serbian footballers", and I hope it would be enough (or not?) to avoid this... But this cat really need to be populated: most of these players played their entire career when Yugoslavia still existed, it is probably more understandable and sensible to add this category.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

unreferenced football player articles

Hello all,

I just wanted to call your attention to a set of pages maintained by Messedrocker that have recently been updated -- unreferenced biographies of living people. This is a big problem on Wikipedia -- there are over 14,000 biographies listed that are unreferenced!

I've been working on this category, and have noticed that a vast number of the articles are about footballers. Maybe project members would be able to help out with finding sources for some of these articles? Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 08:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

League Cup templates

Do we need both {{Football League Cup seasons}} and {{League Cup Seasons}}? I don't think so. Peanut4 (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The situation has been dealt with. – Pee Jay 09:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Jones

I'd appreciate it if someone with the means could verify Jones' stats for Rovers. 250 league appearances in two years obviously isn't correct. - Dudesleeper / Talk 11:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The article itself states "Jones went on to player well over 200 league games for Rovers before joining Brighton." – this leads me to believe that perhaps the league stats are correct, but the years are not. Maybe he was 1926 to 1938, not 1928? Giant Snowman 12:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look in Football League Players' Records 1888–1939, and his Blackburn years were incorret. I've corrected them as according to the book. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

GS: Yeah, I wrote the prose this morning based on the infobox, with a view to amending it accordingly. Thanks for the info look-up, Matty. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kit question

I've been working on the ES Sétif article – I've tried to update the kit colors based on the version in French wikipedia, but I'm having problems getting one of the sleeves to show up properly – any hint on how to fix this? Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I tried to fix the kit. Please, check if it is correct now. --Carioca (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks! Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Flags in club infoboxes

A common occurrence in club articles is a flag next to the chairman and manager in the infobox. I have a habit of removing these, citing WP:FLAG. However, it seems I am frequently reverted, and upon undertaking a random sample of club articles they seem to be extremely common, perhaps indicating a de facto consensus. Opinions on the matter welcome. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In my view flags used in club infoboxes for manager and chairman ARE acceptable; however, flags in player's infoboxes to represent which country the team they used to play for in is a big no-no. Giant Snowman 17:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with GiantSnowman. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what flags in player infoboxes can look like in Internet Explorer:

So I tend to remove them. No problem in the club infoboxes though, as the chairman/manager fields have their own rows. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with Oldelpaso. What use really are the flagicons? It's style over substance as far as I see it, otherwise you could make a case for flags everywhere. I certainly remove them from player infoboxes. Peanut4 (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with flags... --necronudist (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have an understanding for flags, though only if the player have played in clubs abroad, thus showing that the clubs are not from the same league etc. Though I think it looks better without flags, I dont add or remove flags when I (dont) see them ← chan dler 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of them in club lists for exactly the reason ArtVandelay points out. They screw up the infoboxes, plain and simple. Qwghlm (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

People still using ie in 2008, that's our real problem. BanRay 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat difficult to solve, though. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bojan Krkić or Bojan Krkic?

Is his name definetely "Bojan Krkić", and not "Bojan Krkic"? By looking at a google search, most websites give the c without the accent. Also, his profiles at the Barcelona website and playerhistory do not include the accent. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He was born from a Krkić, indeed. Are diacritics admitted at Spanish birth register? --necronudist (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: we at PH aren't so attentive to diacritics, his Serbian father is without accent too. --necronudist (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a fact that Krkić is a Serbian name and is spelled with the ć. It doesn't matter how many lazy sources spell it otherwise. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 19#Diacritics in article titles and talk:Nikola Žigić, where it was decided to have the article at the correct Nikola Žigić despite the number of lazy sources spelling it "Zigic". - MTC (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Krkić is a Serbian name, diacritics and all, but Bojan was born in Spain, and presumably registered in Spain. Therefore, as necronudist says, we need to consider whether or not "ć" is a legally accepted letter on Spanish birth registers. Anyone got access to Bojan's birth certificate. – Pee Jay 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bojan's father was also a player by the same name who is notable enough for his own article – see Playerhistory, but what should it be listed under? Bojan Krkić, Sr.? Giant Snowman 12:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of Bojan Krkić (Yugoslav footballer) or Bojan Krkić (footballer born 19XX) ← chan dler 13:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Bojan Krkić (footballer born 1965), with Bojan Krkić, Sr. as a redirect (this form seems to be used very often in the English media). There is already an article about him in the Italian wikipedia, by the way. it:Bojan Krkić (1965) --Angelo (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Host countries in the infoboxes

I want to propose a small change, which I think will make the infoboxes look better. If you look at for example UEFA Euro 2000, 2002 FIFA World Cup, UEFA Euro 2008 and UEFA Euro 2012 (can't come to think of any other shared championships at this moment). They all have

[host country 1] / [host country 2]

What about changing this to {{flagicon}} [host country 1]<br />{{flagicon}} [host country 2]

[host country 1]
[host country 2]

This is how the shared top goalscorers are presented. ← chan dler 21:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good suggestion. It seems nice and more consistent. Salt (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan dos Santos

page: Jonathan dos Santos

I created the page for Giovani dos Santos' brother, but i need help, i'm certainly no expert at making articles, but i was surprised that there isn't an article about him, so i did my best to make it, and would appreciate someone to carry on from where i left off. thelastone36 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't an article about him because he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE criteria. Hence it's been prodded. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Eric Hayward

I'm looking for an admin to move "Eric Hayward (footballer)" to "Eric Hayward", since the current occupant of the latter link (via a re-direct) is a Salvation Army bandleader. I would hope appearances in over 300 League games and two FA Cup Finals makes the former more notable. - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

All sorted hopefully, let me know if I missed anything! -- Chuq (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) again

Fasach Nua has unilaterally began adding tags to every national football team article, violating WP:POINT and WP:CONSENSUS from the discussion of this issue several weeks ago. He did the same thing regarding club crests in German football club articles a few days ago, and has resumed unilaterally "saving" WP from problems that only he percieves. I would appreciate it if an admin could block him for enough time to prevent an edit war over this issue, as discussion with Fasach Nua has proved impossible in the past. -- Grant .Alpaugh 14:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Fasach Nua to pop over here to have a chat about it. I agree that his editing style is currently a little antagonistic but I also agree that if WP:FOOTBALL want to complain about what he's trying to achieve, WP:FOOTBALL should arrive at a decent and actionable consensus for this issue which is compliant with the general policies of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but the way Fasach Nua has been going about this and the German football crests issue has not been productive or cooperative in the slightest. -- Grant .Alpaugh 14:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of that Grant, but I'm hoping to extend an olive branch. This edit warring (for that is what it has become) is doing nobody any good. Give it another chance and hopefully we'll get somewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll – Unreferenced tagging for famous player sections

In response to the edit wars being caused by Fasach Nua, let's just establish a simple consensus here, so that we can move on, and take appropriate action against anyone who tags/de-tags against a clear consensus. Therefore:

The question

Are Template:Unreferencedsection tags appropriate for the whole sections present in many football team articles that list the articles for 'famous' player?

The question applies to famous players, not notable players, as non-notable players should have no article that could be listed in the article at all, per WP:ATHLETE. MickMacNee (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes

Yes, I am rapidly coming round to that conclusion, to avoid the accusation of Original Research. At the very least there needs to be a set of defined criteria, but with some flexibility for extreme cases e.g. Perhaps George Best or Duncan Edwards at Manchester United may not pass on a number of games played, but it would be folly to exclude them as examples of the club's most famous players. - fchd (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

comment – If you look at the Aston Villa article they do it quite well, using that as a template George Best would qualify via, European Footballer of the Year, Football Writers' Association Footballer of the Year or English Football Hall of Fame

Although I try not to get involved in arguments of this nature as I don't think they take WP forward, I personally dislike the lists of notable players attached to club articles. The one on Southampton F.C. regularly has names added who are not notable for anything they have done for the club, but in the absence of defined criteria who am I to say that Jelle van Damme is not notable whereas C. B. Fry is. I would prefer to replace the list with a list of players who won international honours whilst at the club. If they were only notable for their contributions to the club, this should be covered by an entry on the List of Southampton F.C. players. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've also come around to this conclusion over the past weeks. While my football related edits tend to not exceed the boundaries of Mexican football (and at the national level at that), I have personally decided to remove the "Notable Players" and "Notable Managers" sections. Instead of listing a "notable" list, I've turned to a table of all the managers with their stats listed. It looks better and doesn't have the smell of bias. The records speak for themselves. As far as notable players, I've removed this section entirely for the same reasons that others have listed; it's simply subjective to a large degree. A list without qualifiers is simply a list. There should be criteria that are clearly defined, and it should be evident why a particular player is noted as being notable. This goes back to the point that if a player is truly notable, then there should be reference to his/her actions in the body of the text. Otherwise, as I said, it's just a list of names..cosme. (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No

No per my discussion comment – MickMacNee (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No if any editor believes a famous/notable player section contains players that are not worthy of inclusion, they should attempt to define some consensus based inclusion criteria on the article talk page, then remove any players that fail the inclusion criteria (x number of appearances, goals, members of championship winning teams etc). Simply pasting {{Unreferencedsection}} onto dozens of articles adds nothing in terms of content. E P 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No per above and below. There is a better way of going about this than mass-tagging. -- Grant .Alpaugh 14:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No per discussion. Giant Snowman 15:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No Mass tagging and pointy editing is not the way to go in the midst of ongoing attempts to get things sorted out. It does not contribute to a positive atmosphere here. Wiggy! (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No per discussion and comments. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

I don't believe a full section tag is appropriate because every section I have seen that Fasach has tagged does contain at least some famous players purely by measure of the idiot test, therefore, no-one is ever going to remove an entire section on WP:V grounds. Also, tags are meant to be constructive, to spur improvement (of the section), however, a full section tag makes no attempt to identify which players are in dispute, and no-one is ever going to reference every player in a section, therefore the tag will never get removed, which defeats its purpose – to improve. A better approach is to tag individual players, or open a discussion on the relevent team talk page.

So I believe we then get to the actual point he is trying to make by mass tagging all sections irregardless of his knowledge of each team, is that a formal wikipedia standard/test over and above verifiablility is required for him to be able to tell if a listed player is indeed famous (note: not the same as notable). The correct way to do this of course is to open a discussion in an appropriate forum and gain consensus on if it is needed, and if so what form it takes. Even better, he should propose a guideline to be applied accross all football team articles (notwithstanding expansion to other sports). Therefore, whichever way you look at it, the section level tags should all be removed as they currently serve no purpose as explained above as used in this context. If neccessary, instead of useless and inflammatory tagging, Fasach or others can take the more appropriate steps detailed if he genuinely wants to improve these articles, and not merely disrupt wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to MickMacNee opening comments I don't know why he suggests that "no-one is ever going to reference every player in a section", it is only your opinion that these are famous people on these lists, someone with only a passing interest in soccer may not know who the famous Andoran players are, indeed one could argue that the Europeans might not know the famous South Americans and Americans might not know about the Europeans. Everything that is likely to be challeneged needs a citation, and the concept of these sections is alien to many people, inclusing myself

He has stated that I want a test "over and above verifiablility", this is untrue I would accpet verifiablility, as would policy, and the consensus of the project.

MickMacNee speaks of the idea "to open a discussion in an appropriate forum", obviously the MoS is not the forum, as discusssion there just gets ignored, the Wikiproject Football is not the forum as it gets doesn't get dealt with there no matter how often you try. I would appreciate it if could point out the appropriate forum he is speaking of.

He suggests that "he should propose a guideline to be applied accross all football team articles", yet he has not addressed why WP policy is unacceptable when it places the WP:BURDEN on the person who has made the entry to provide the relevant source and reason as to why it is added there. This especially startling considering request when I did make a suggestion it was met with this rant.

The proposal is designed to stifle discussion, it is flawed, the thread title and opening comments have been inserted simply to undermine my position, posting a block request on this page without basis for one, is only an attempt to imply wrong doing on my part, the first line of the poll is "In response to the edit wars being caused by Fasach Nua...", is clearly a loaded statement designed to imply that there is the tags are cauing a problem, which clearly they aren't. I would have much preferred that the issue was addressed rather than the symptoms Fasach Nua (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that these sections need attention. To justify their existence, they should have defined inclusion criteria, so as not to be arbitrary, subjective lists with no verifiability. However, mass tagging is not a particularly productive way to go about resolving the issue. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I that a no then? MickMacNee (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A yes/no is an oversimplification. Adding such a tag may be appropriate if accompanied by an explanation of concerns on the talk page. Mass tagging without discussion is usually not appropriate. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

He is mass tagging without discussion, he abandonded the resulting discussion and resumed tagging resulting in edit warring and drama, with no progress on the actual discussion. He has asserted he wants to see consensus before he stops re/tagging, and without consensus anyone de-tagging is not breaking any rules either bar 3RR, so here it is, a simple way to move on. MickMacNee (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The editors here are aware of the need to do some work on the notable player sections and have been trying to work their way towards a solution. Pointy editing on this and other issues is not helping to create a positive, solution-oriented atmosphere. Wiggy! (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The role of a maintenance tag is to mark something in need of maintenance which these sections clearly are. The burden of proof is defined by policy, and it is the role of the person who uploaded to justify what they have added, idiot test is neither policy, guideline or anything else which would in any way mean we would take notice of it. If there is a process ongoing to address the problem, then the tagging can only serve to increase participation, and fix any problems sooner. These tags were allowed to be removed as a disscussion was going on however, the discussion was killed off by a minority of editors making off topic attacks, and refusing to engage with the debate, until the situation has been satisfactoaly addressed, the topics are in need of maintenance, and the tags should remain. If people are truly serious about meeting the standards set out in wikipedia policy, then a resolution should be quickly made, and tags shouldnt be there for long.

This debate is not a simple yes/no issue, as has already been stated, the sections to which they are added are unreferenced, so they are factually accurate. The removal of the tags only serves to allow the dabate to fade, as we already saw before, I would believe the best approach would be to resolve issues with WP:V, and then remove the tags. To unilaterally remove these tags only serves to damage WP, and this project in particular. If you examine the featured articles Arsenal F.C., Dover Athletic F.C., IFK Göteborg, Leek Town F.C., and Scotland national football team, they have all addressed the verifcation problems associated with these sections, and to remove these tags without dealing with WP:VERIFY, only serves to bar a sizable portion of articles in the remit of this project from ever reaching GA or FA status.

If we were to follow Jimbo Wells advice here "pseudo information ... should be removed,aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information", Fasach Nua (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the discussion, FN, is the criticism of the way you have gone about this. If you refuse to abide by WP:POINT or WP:CONSENSUS, then the discussion has no value. You have to agree to the results of the discussion or it amounts to a waste of time. I hope that this turns out to be productive, but to say that the last discussion devolved into "off topic comments" simply because people criticised your methods is disingenuous. -- Grant .Alpaugh 15:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As any wiki regular knows, anyone who uses 'Jimbo said' in an argument, is taking the wrong path. This yes/no poll does not apply to the debate about WP:V regarding these sections, it merely refers to your use of the tags, which as you can see, per the way you describe your use of the tags, is not the way they are actually used by anybody else. They are not to be used as a tool to start mass discussion, they are for specific improvements for specific articles, and as explained, even in that case they are next to useless compared to inline tagging or talk page discussion. Mass placement of tags is not a replacement for a centralised discussion notice, which you failed to provide either. Mass (i.e. guideline/MOS level) improvement requires a different approach. You've frankly made a massive error in understanding the collaberative way articles are developed, and gone about your mission in a disruptive way. And for the record, but unrelated to this poll, for the articles named, I see no improvement, and in fact, only the Goteburg article has a credible famous player section. The rest merely have lists and categories of players, which have existed on wikipedia since year dot. . MickMacNee (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt that there is a need to patch up the player sections and there are some good possible solutions that have been discussed. I just don't think there is a need to beat people over the head with policy at every turn and to do it in such an aggressive and disparaging manner. A lot of folks are here for the fun of making something and you can't just disregard that, rules or no. I've seen all kinds of articles improve radically over time and watched the gradual improvement in the contributions of various editors as they become more practised. There's nothing wrong with letting that process and the project mature gradually. People will come around to the rules over time, everything doesn't need to be fixed by tomorrow, and its important to respect and encourage the enthusiasm that drives folks to contribute here. Telling them repeatedly that what they are doing is a bad thing or needs to be ditched on some sort of minor technical violation is a non-starter. Your approach needs to add an element of respect for the people part of the equation. Wiggy! (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I said this last time it was discussed (only a couple of weeks ago), but such sections are completely POV, unless there is some sort of criteria attached to it. Even the the criteria is likely to be subjective. What does notable mean? All players are notable by WP:ATHLETE criteria to all league clubs anyway. Adding a second level of notoriety is dangerous and WP:POV. Peanut4 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the poll, this is not the issue. MickMacNee (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

But it is. If any such section is properly done with full criteria, then there would be no need for any user to tag the section, particularly with {{unreferenced}}. Peanut4 (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't, unless you agree with Fasach that making a WP:POINT is how you start a discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is quite within their rights to delete any unreferenced POV. I don't agree with Fasach's with of starting it, by mass edits, if that is how he's done it. However, as well as bringing this discussion here to complain about his behaviour, I would suggest altering the "Notable player" sections because this isn't the first time it's come here. To avoid it coming back yet and yet and yet again, then let's get these sections cleaned up. Peanut4 (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It was first raised at the MoS talkpage, here, then it was then raised at this project talk page here, and the discussion was ignored in both instances. Having tried to discuss the issue centrally, and failed on two instances, I tagged the pages for maintenance. User:Grant.Alpaugh removed the tags off the pages, and raised a discussion at WT:FOOTY which did have some decent ideas, however when the thread became stagnent and was archived, I readded the maintenance tags, so that sopmeone looking for something to do could easily find these articles and could deal with the maintaince problem, this takes us to the start of this thread. Fasach Nua (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT makes it clear that the onus is on the person that wishes to include information. The notability of a player is often a matter of a point of view. If a player is truly notable then there will be sources claiming as much. Better to leave players out of a list than to include players for whom there is no source. Rather than hold a poll here about whether these sections should be marked -- which is meaningless under WP:CONSENSUS "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted." -- why not improve the articles so that there is no need for the templates {{unreferencedsect}} and {{fact}}? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Seasons" templates

As we're on the subject of templates, what do people think about the "... seasons" templates. I've just converted the years in {{Serie B}} to match {{The Football League Seasons}} and {{FA Cup Seasons}} as I thought it was a pretty good way of doing it. However, it seems a couple of editors aren't happy.

What do people think? Should we adopt this as our standard, or is this better? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The style used for {{Scottish Football League Seasons}} is much better. The links are all aligned, which makes the template more aesthetically pleasing, and it makes it more obvious that the Wartime years are excluded when they are greyed out as with the Scottish Football League Seasons template. – Pee Jay 20:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually prefer visually the second one. But I likewise prefer having the greyed out seasons for the war years. I'd prefer adding that to the second template, but otherwise using that option. matt91486 (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

One problem with them all is that they need endashes, rather than normal dashes. It shouldn't make much difference to the layout though. Peanut4 (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't we eliminate this typographical historic nonsense – does anyone in the real world ever use endashes for things like this anymore? As far as I can tell, normal dashes as per the key on the normal keyboard is used virtually exclusively these days, both in things like 2007-08, and when reporting scorelines such as 2-1. - fchd (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and my position is definitely for {{Scottish Football League Seasons}} because it aligns the years correctly in decades. Using the small font is just a minor con to ensure they align. Peanut4 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Scottish Football League Seasons}} Definitely! ← chan dler 21:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now been told that people only like the {{Scottish Football League Seasons}} because it happens to start with a full line. Do people mind ones like {{The Football League Seasons}} which starts halfway along the line? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind it at all. I've used the same style for {{Manchester United F.C. seasons}}. – Pee Jay 13:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer full lines at the start over full lines at the end, but I'm certainly not going to lose my mind over it being different on some. But if we really wanted to standardize, I think full lines at the top look better than the bottom. matt91486 (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The "new" layout looks awful. The "older" one was clearer. CapPixel (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Codswallop. The {{Scottish Football League Seasons}} style is much clearer. – Pee Jay 16:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The font is smaller and there's no real need to divide the seasons in decades. The only thing that's ok is the grey seasons. CapPixel (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dividing the seasons into ten-year blocks makes the navbox much easier to navigate than dividing them into seven, eight or nine-year blocks, as many other "Seasons" navboxes are. True, the font is smaller, but that can be changed. Other than that, there's really nothing wrong with this style of navbox. – Pee Jay 08:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with {{The Football League Seasons}}. It starts in the middle of the line because the league started in 1887 and we're dividing into decades. Which in my opinion is hugely more preferable than 7/8 year blocks, which take too long to find the correct year. These are navigational aids not just something nice to stick at the bottom. Peanut4 (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that these templates should age. But I find easier to navigate the "other" layout. CapPixel (talk)

FWIW, I agree with Peanut4 and Pee. A decade on necah row makes navigation far easier. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Then ok. Since majority seems to agree to change the seasons, then ok. But I would leave the font larger. It's easier to read. CapPixel (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately large font won't fit all the text in on a row of 10. Peanut4 (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Click here. CapPixel (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Jordi Cruyff

Cannot help but think that his last name should be the same as his fathers....Johan Cruijff. Your thoughts please. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. In most English language sources, Jordi's surname is spelled with a Y, mainly because that's how it was spelled when he was with Man Utd. – Pee Jay 22:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 19#Diacritics in article titles. I think this boils down to whether Jordi is Dutch, in which case it ought to be Cruijff, or Spanish, then maybe it maybe Cruyff. But according to the previous discussion, it should mirror his actual name. Peanut4 (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that PJ's reasoning holds water, because his father's surname is far more often spelled with a Y in English language sources as well (146,000 vs 91,000 on Google, English language only), although he did not play for any English club (the Y spelling was on the back of his shirt for his English language clubs in the USA. Wiki article titles often show place of origin orthographics rather than common English use, although the player's own charitable foundation provides the Y spelling in its English-language site, so if there is to be uniformity, I would suggest that it would be on the Y spelling. The main grounds for differentiation would be that JC Snr played much of his career in the Netherlands, while Jnr has never been based there as a professional, but that is not a very strong reason either. As long as the redirects are there (and they are, for both generations), I don't think it matters that much. Kevin McE (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to side with whatever FIFA has the player listed as in their English language version, on the basis that is what their FIFA registration most likely is. But that's just me.--ClubOranje^Talk 09:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be both Cruyff, 'cause that's the common spelling, due to the IJ issue. --necronudist (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if this is the IJ issue to, but other dutch footballers have ij instead of y (Wesley Sneijder for example) ← chan dler 19:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Sneijder is another example of the IJ issue. So is Dirk Kuyt, as it happens. Before he moved to Liverpool, his name would almost always have been spelled "K-U-IJ-T". – Pee Jay 19:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, can't remember now (but they'll probably show it in the match highlights soon), if it says Kuyt or Kuijt on his shirt right now? ← chan dler 19:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Pierre van Hooijdonk? Peanut4 (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And what about Feijenoord ← chan dler 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we know what the situation is with Feyenoord. Although their stadium is still officially known as Feijenoord Stadion, the club's name officially uses a Y. – Pee Jay 22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, and what about Frank Rijkaard? ;) ← chan dler 00:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much in the way of consistency with these articles at the moment, with the exception of Feyenoord which seems to fall into a different criteria. Are some of these entries wrong? Should we be Anglicising the IJ? Or should they be Cruijff, Rijkaard, van Hooijdonk, Cruijff, etc? Peanut4 (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think something has to be done for consistency, right now in the dutch euro 08 team, we have Ooijer, Mathijsen, Sneijder and Kuyt. ← chan dler 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So does the BBC Report though. Peanut4 (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just meant the inconsistency, I know that's how it's reported all over. But we really shouldn't base the article names on the media, I think we should have the correct name. I mean if we'd only go by English language media no Swedish player in the NHL would have å, ä or ö in their names. Ofc this probably is a bigger issue than just for wp:footy.. if it were to rename all ij's from y to ij... I would at least be for changing the article titles for all players to ij, just for the same reasons i'm for å, ä and ö's instead of a and o's in nordic names, č and ć's instead of c's for slavic names etc. ← chan dler 01:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

List of former Scottish Football League clubs – wider opinion sought on point raised at FLC

Should this list include Meadowbank Thistle, or is it generally considered to be the same club as Livingston? I notice the two "incarnations" do not have separate WP articles, not that that's necessarily an indication of anything........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. It's the same club with a different name. Ideally Clydebank (II) shouldn't be on there either, as they are still in existence as Airdrie United. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not the same club, though – it retains the old club's registration, but its identity – name, location, fanbase – is different. That's what a football club is, not the company's registration. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from the FLC page) My view is that if you change location and name then it's effectively a different club, a different identity – the Livingston situation is almost identical to MK Dons in that respect. To me, the fact that Meadowbank Thistle don't have their own article is an oversight. ArtVandelay13 (talk)

It's also worth pointing out that when teams in North America move, which is more common, the old identity is consodered defunct, and that Airdrie United's history [9] is all about Airdrieonians, with no attempt to co-opt Clydebank's. Livingston, meanwhile, consider 2005 to be its tenth anniversary [10]. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Dundee United are celebrating their centenary next year as they were formed in 1909, although they were intially called Dundee Hibernian. They merely changed their name in 1923, without moving, etc. and are definitely the same club; it's a bit trickier with the likes of Meadowbank/Livingston and Airdrie Untied/Clydebank, as Clydebank have been resurrected and continue outwith senior football... •Oranje•·Talk 13:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Meadowbank are exactly the same organisation as Livingston – there was continuity of staff, players and most importantly of all legal league status. While a change of ground and name are major events in the history of a club, it does not make it a new organisation. - fchd (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A club is much more than the organisation and legal status though – they are not the things that people support. Frankly, for a list of former league clubs not to reflect that there used to be a team in Edinburgh called Meadowbank Thistle would be incomplete. Now, by way of a compromise you could have a separate section for teams that changed identity (i.e. location and name). I think that's fairly unnecessary, but these teams have to be on the list – they're part of Scottish football history. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Having a whole separate section just for two clubs who moved location/name would be silly, in my opinion. I've added Meadowbank into the main table, with a note explaining/clarifying their situation ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Darron Gibson – flags, Wolves

Myself and User:PeeJay2K3 are having some problems with above article. All I am interested in doing is making better articles but it is this sort of pedantic enforcement of MoS that ruins Wiki. Any comments

- Regarding flags. First of all I am not a big fan of using flags willy nilly but I think that in this, and similar cases, it is justified. It helps distinguish between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. PeeJay may know the difference between the two, but not everybody else does. I wish had a pound for every time I saw a Wiki article were an Irish player was linked to the wrong national team. It is not just a problem with Wiki. This Man Utd site incorrectly refers to Gibson as an Northern Ireland U21 international. In addition I cannot find any particular guideline against using flags here.
- Regarding Wolves. The clubs own website is called www.wolves.premiumtv.co.uk and it displays the word Wolves prominently. So if the club use the name why can’t it be used in Wiki. Even the Wiki article on the club states that the club is well known by this name. Djln--Djln (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding flags, they are a no-no in player's infoboxes. However, I see no problem in using the colloquial 'Wolves' to describe that particular club. Giant Snowman 17:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing against using "Wolves" in the main text of the article, but to use it in the infobox (a slightly more formal setting) is a bit inappropriate, especially when the infoboxes of Matt Murray, Jody Craddock, Seyi Olofinjana, Michael Kightly and Jay Bothroyd all use "Wolverhampton Wanderers". – Pee Jay 17:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, in infoboxes the full "Wolverhampton Wanderers" should be used; keep "Wolves" for the article itself. Giant Snowman 17:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say using flags is a no no in infoboxes. If that is the case why were these Germany, Israel and Northern Ireland etc designed in the first place. Plus what difference does it make if Wolves is used in infobox. Your answers just prove that you being pedantic as I suggested. Please give a proper logical explanation and don’t just quote MoS Djln--Djln (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And your logical explanation as to why we shouldn't abide by the MoS is...? - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FLAG#Use of flags for sports people is what you're looking for. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Where flags are used the table, it should clearly indicate that the flag represents sporting nationality not nationality

MoS are just guidelines. They are not law and cannot cover every single issue that exists. Does the way I used the flags not fall within the above guideline anyway ? I have used the flags to help clarify Gibson's sporting nationality and to show that it changed Djln --Djln (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have overlooked the bit about infoboxes, i.e:

Flags should not be used on sports peoples individual infoboxes

This appears to be fairly non-negotiable. The bit you quote refers to squad lists. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Can someone please explain why flags are allowed in some places and not in others. The MoS guidelines are confusing and contradict each other and I don’t find them particularly helpful. The Darron Gibson article is now being vandalised by several editors, making petty and trivial changes that have undermined its quality. Some of the info, unrelated to flags, has been removed and when I tried to restore it I was threatened with blocking. This is very disillusioning and not particulatly fair. Why do so many editors have to be pedantic and resort to threats. Is there no room for civilised discussion. This the ugly face of Wiki that destroys the fun. I will leave article as is for now. Hopefully in a few days thing will have cooled down and I can repair the damage. Djln --Djln (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, you were threatened with a block because you have made four reverts of people removing the flags in less than a day. If you find the above statement confusing (Flags should not be used on sports peoples individual infoboxes) then I'm quite concerned. And I would seriously not advise returning to the article to "repair it" in a couple of days; accept what you've been told and move on. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
At worst, you have just proved my point by your threatening and insulting behaviour. Or at best you have just misunderstood. This statement clearly (Where flags are used the table, it should clearly indicate that the flag represents sporting nationality not nationality) the one you have quoted. That is the confusing issue. Just compare the article before I initially edited it and tell me I did not improve it. I can live with the article not having flags although I think it is better with them. As I seem to be out voted I will accept the majority view even if a satisfactory explanation has not been forthcoming. However this does not explain why whole chunks of the text have being altered for the worse. This is what needs to be repaired. I don’t object to people improving it further but that is not what has happened. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll explain again: The statement you are referring to refers to tables (as it says). Tables are not the same thing as infoboxes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick point on "Wolves". I really think we should use the full name, Wolverhampton Wanderers, certainly in the infobox and the first use in the article. Otherwise it is far too informal. Otherwise we'd have Man U, Sheff Wed, etc, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the samples you gave, which are abbreviations, the word Wolves is widely used within the English language. It is also widely used beyond the scope of any other club nickname I can think of. I would even suggest that it used far more used than the clubs full name. So much so that even club uses it more prominently on the their website then the clubs official name. While I would discourage the use of nicknames in articles, I think this an exceptional case Djln --Djln (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You could, however, say the same about West Brom. – Pee Jay 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

West Brom again is just an abbreviation and the Brom part is not used elsewhere unlike Wolves Djln--Djln (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree there. I'd say West Brom is used in place of West Bromwich Albion just as much as Wolves is used in place of Wolverhampton Wanderers. – Pee Jay 22:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The same can be said of Spurs. I don't necessarily disagree about using them, but I would rather the full formal name be used first time. Peanut4 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"xxxx in association football" articles

From browsing through 2004 in association football through to 2008 in association football, particularly the national league winners section, it seems every article uses a different style – from multiple columns vs single columns, flags or no flags, colons or dashes – I'm happy to change them but don't know which format is preferred by the majority. Suggestions? -- Chuq (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I swear this was brought up last week, but I'm having trouble locating it. Thanks for sorting out the Eric Hayward move, by the way. - Dudesleeper / Talk 02:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the 2007 in association football#National champions (which I'll admit I did) as each continent isn't just a big list that doesn't fit on a single screen like this. Someone tried to insert flags into it, but I thought it looked hideous. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the flag look nice, but in general I do hate flag clutter so I'm certainly willing to let it go. I replaced {{col-break}} with {{col-3}} which spaces the columns evenly. Apart from that I'm happy to modify the other years to match the 2007 article if no-one is against this layout? -- Chuq (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Case for Merger

Should these the articles 1950 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA – Group 1) and 1950 British Home Championship be merged ? Both articles are about the same set of games with the 1950 BHC doubling up as a 1950 World Cup group. I never nominated articles for merger before, so I’m not aware off procedure. Djln--Djln (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed – they clearly cover the same ground. If the consensus agrees, I suggest that the articles are merged at 1950 British Home Championship, with the other page becoming a re-direct. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Definitely the correct course of action. – Pee Jay 19:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed with Daemonic Kangaroo that they should be merged to 1950 British Home Championship being the annual competition.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Djln has now completed the merger, and has done a great job. Only one quibble – does anyone know where there is a report/summary of the Wales v. Ireland game on 8 March 1950, or where the Wales squad is listed? Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

League play-off games and goals

Are these included in the stats within the infobox or not? I ask as at least two Football League players have play-off games and goals included in the stats – Richard Garcia and Stephen Gleeson. With Garcia there was disagreement at the time over whether to include the stats with two uses reverting each other, but it has been left to stand with the games/goals from the Play-Offs. I thought though that they weren't included in the stats? Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

From past discussions, it's been decided that they shouldn't be and my opinion is they shouldn't be. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So would I be ok changing the stats for those two? No idea about any other players, they were just two that I noticed. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Play-off games aren't part of the regular league season and so don't count towards league games. A league is one where each team plays an equal number of games. So I'd say you would be free to correct the players. I think a fair few Darlo players' have them included. I've already corrected Ben Parker and Guylain Ndumbu-Nsungu as they are on my watchlist. Peanut4 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe clubs would include those games inside their league appearances. Alexsanderson83 20:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Some clubs possibly would, but it's impossible to know if every club would. - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The statistical publications in the UK – e.g. Rothmans, Soccerbase, etc, don't include them, so it makes sense for us to be consistent with that. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've amended the two players I mentioned above. I will also have a look at other Hull City and Stockport County players.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Under current practice, it seems like they should be excluded. It begs the question though as to why? They are a direct follow on from the league season and are used to settle league outcomes (i.e. promotion). In my opinion, they are just as relevant in a player's career as the games leading up to the play-offs. - fchd (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Leagues tournaments in Mexico, Argentina, Uruguay and elsewhere the league championship is/has been decided with a playoff or playoff series. appearances(goals) from these games are included in player profiles in most local sources. We should not exclude these games on the basis that soccerbase (which doesn't even cover football across the pond) wouldn't include them. If it is decided not to include them for English teams, it should be made clear that English playoff games are not "league games" not implied that all playoff games are not league gamesE P 19:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Different leagues, use different systems. English play-off games aren't part of the English leagues and don't count towards league statistics in all leading sources. That's not to say, the same doesn't apply in other countries. Peanut4 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

van, le, de, di, dos

No, not The Sound of Music, this is about naming conventions. I'd always assumed, that when a surname begins with van, or similar word, it is written in lower case in the full name, but capitalised when the first name is omitted – e.g. Marco van Basten, or Van Basten. But on Wikipedia, we always seem to use the lower case variant (such as on squad templates), and it's always looked odd to me – most media I've seen uses the method I described, as apparently does Dutch Wikipedia. Thoughts? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your way is the right way. --necronudist (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the nationality of the individual. IIRC, Dutch uses lower case at all times, except at the start of a sentence, whereas Italian names are capitalised (e.g. Alessandro Del Piero or Daniele De Rossi). – Pee Jay 12:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it depends on the national customs... neither all Dutch have always the lowercase tussenvoegsel. Dutch players of Belgian heritage have them uppercase. --necronudist (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

On a related topic – in Defaultsort, a player named John van Smith would be sorted under Smith, John van; what about players such as De Boer, Dos Santos etc.? Giant Snowman 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about this too, at least with English clubs – I mean, aren't Arsenal fans likely to look for Van Persie under V, not P? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the English custom should be kept...but I'm not so sure. For my stuff usually I use native sorting method, even with many footballers born in different nations. But this is an English Encyclopedia (I don't agree, but...), so I don't know. --necronudist (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As the tussenvoegsel article says, people in the Netherlands are sorted in telephone directories as though the tussenvoegsel were not present (e.g. "Smith, John van"), but in Belgium the names are sorted with the tussenvoegsel left in. I would assume that other countries that capitalise the surname prefix, such as Italy, would also sort names including the surname prefix. – Pee Jay 14:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes we do. However, I think that keeping the England customs should avoid problems and misunderstanding. But, I repeat, I privately use the national standards. --necronudist (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with page move vandalism

User:ShotsDRIFTWOOD has just made some page moves that are blatant vandalism. Please could someone revert as I really need to log off now. Thankyou. --Jameboy (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to take that to WP:ANI. Not exactly your bog standard vandalism there. Peanut4 (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. Woody (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He's still at it. Peanut4 (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No hes not, I've blocked him. Woody (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. Much appreciated. --Jameboy (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of article

I've just created this article. I have some questions on the article's name. Is the current name "Copa Argentina de Fútbol" a suitable one? It is the official name but it is in Spanish. Should I translate it into English? Or just call it "Copa Argentina"? Salt (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I don't see any need to translate the name..cosme. (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you've done the right thing – you could always create the English name equivalent as a redirect to the proper (Spanish) name. •Oranje•·Talk 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Help required from someone with deletion powers

I'm wondering if someone who has the ability to delete articles can help me. Someone added a load of circular links to the Kalamazoo Outrage page, in the player roster. Could someone please do me a huge favor and delete all the circular redirects for all the players EXCEPT for Terry Alvino? When people add circular redirects it makes keeping track of future PDL-MLS draftees almost impossible. Thanks! --JonBroxton (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, there are a few options here:

Change the redirects into full articles about the players
Remove the links to the redirect pages from the club article
Delete the redirects, leaving redlinks on the club article

Personally I think #1 is the best option, unless there are notability issues, in which case #2 the best alternative. -- Chuq (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer the third option of that's OK – of the Kalamazoo players only Terry Alvino fits any kind of notability guidelines, and the redlinks are actually useful for this purpose as it helps with back-linking if and when any of the players turn pro. If someone could delete the articles for every played EXCEPT Alvino, but leave the redlinks, I would be very grateful! --JonBroxton (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that's a good suggestion, but just wonder is it suitable to create red links for some footballer who cannot fulfill the notablility criteria at the moment. Since a red link seems to be suggesting a article on the subject should be created, but it is obviously not because the players are not notable at the mean time. So maybe #2 is a better option for those players who can't reach the notability threshold. Salt (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances I would entirely agree, but the thing about the PDL specifically is that it is a development league, and the only players who are notable NOW are ex-pros like Alvino. However... the useful thing about redlinks in the context of this league is that 60-70 or so of the players who are playing in the PDL *this* year will play in MLS *next* year after the MLS draft, and as such will have articles created about them. Keeping the redlinks in place now makes adding PDL stats to their future pro bios much easier because the structure is already there through the "what links here" function. You can just move the player's name from the roster to the 'notable former players' section when they turn pro without having to spend hours searching for the right player and the right team. It just helps keeping track of pro players' PDL careers SO much easier. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So... um... is someone willing to help me with the Kalamazoo Outrage page? The whole project shouldnt take more than 15 minutes for an experienced editor.--JonBroxton (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Shirt name

Hi! I would like to ask the members of this project what they think about the idea to add a column "shirt name" to the UEFA Euro 2008 squads? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I see no use in having such a column. Sorry! Giant Snowman 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No great advantage, and opportunities to argue about diacritics and capitalisation (I hate that some of these shirt names ignore the rules of capitals for proper names) Kevin McE (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. I think shirt names are specific for a tournament. E.g. maybe it is interesting to see that Fernando Torres uses "TORRES" as shirt name (in 2004 and 2006 he uses "F. TORRES"), but David Villa uses "DAVID VILLA" and Andrés Iniesta uses "A. INIESTA". Maybe it is also interesting to see that Giourkas Seitaridis uses "GIOURKAS" as shirt name in 2004, but uses "SEITARIDIS" in 2008. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't see any reason whatsoever to include this column. Peanut4 (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I can't see what encyclopedic value this would add -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the same, although don't let that put you off proposing other ideas here. •Oranje•·Talk 08:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much faith in shirt names, especially since David Beckham played the 1997 Charity Shield as "Beckam".[11] I think Bentley's (pictured in link) tops that, however. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Amusing as those errors are, shirtnames are important, and should be used – for example, as the display name in squad templates. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree on that, kinda, for example it would be unnecessary to use "F. Torres" if there isnt another Torres in the Squad, but "David Villa" might be more useful. And if a player uses his first name instead of his last name the first name could be on the template. ← chan dler 15:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[Re-indent] – having shirt names on templates is not the issue, the issue is having a shirt-name column on squad lists. Giant Snowman 15:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2008 Group tabels

A little idea I thought I'd run by here, at the moment we have the group tables in the group articles, the main article and I've seen some national teams with the groups in. Now it would be easier to just update the group table from one place, but I don't really think its necessary to create separate templates for these groups. So what about adding <noinclude></noinclude> around everything in the group articles except the group table and then use {{:UEFA Euro 2008 Group A}} etc. in UEFA Euro 2008? ← chan dler 18:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but it seems like a lot of effort for something so minor. I will say, however, that I don't think the tables should be included on national teams' articles. – Pee Jay 18:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to just update from one place even if its just used on one other place. ← chan dler 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I went ahead and did it ← chan dler 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scottish football clubs in the FA Cup

Ten days at FLC with nary a comment other than one little grammatical quibble, anyone want to have a look before the FLC fails due to lack of interest.........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League season listing

I don't know about you guy's but wasn't the old format on the UEFA Champions League page better when it had the most current season at the top of the list? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All timelines should start with the current season last on the list. Peanut4 (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Peanut4 – oldest first, newest last. That's how it is virtually always shown in printed sources as well. - fchd (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. – Pee Jay 21:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys I read a lot of what gets written on here (usually by the same group of people) and there seem to be some very definate opinions about things without much explanation. The question asked was, do you think it was better? You didn't answer that question you simply said it should be done in a certain way without an explanation. I could make a case for why it should be done that way. However I could also make a case for why it should be done the other. Personally I don't have a strong opinion, but probably prefer most recent at the top. But please stop stating things as defacto fact and try and enter into the spirit of this by providing some reasoning behind your argument. BTW I don't buy because it's always been done taht way. Paul Bradbury 22:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

For a start try Wikipedia:Timeline standards. It's a given fact that timelines and such lists should start at the, well, start. Secondly Madrid's win in 1955 has an effect on 1956, on 1957, etc, etc. But Madrid's win in 1957 has no effect on 1955. The past dictates the future, not the other way round. You wouldn't write a history of the Champions League starting with the most recent season, so neither would you write a list on the history of the Champions League starting with the most recent season. Peanut4 (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree, although I can still see value in writing it the other way around (for both lists and a prose), I think as a standard that makes sense. Just asking for explanations instead of opinions. Paul Bradbury 23:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

English seasons

As a result of a minor edit war on the Premier League 2008-09 page, I thought it best to bring this point up here. Am I right in thinking the current unwritten rule is that English seasons run from 1 July to 30 June the following year? And is it a good idea to include this somewhere in each season-orientated entry. Peanut4 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes to both counts – seasons begin on 1st July, and it would be advisable to have such a fact present on season articles. Giant Snowman 21:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not sure if the English season has an officially-defined end date, but I know each new one officially starts on 1 July. Some people say that there is a "pre-season" period from 1 June to 30 June, meaning that the season proper would start on 31 May. However, the pre-season stuff has to be included somewhere, so I usually stick it on the end of the previous season. – Pee Jay 21:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The official end of the season in England is 31st May. The period of June is a "close season", officially neither belonging to the previous one or the following one. I'd certainly be favour of standardising our approach though, leaning slightly towards including it in the previous season. Explanatory notes are certainly a good idea though. - fchd (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wereld van Oranje

{{Wvo}} is used to add external links to articles about dutch players (example). I don't think these kinds of links add anything of value to the article, yet I'm seeing them being spammed across lots of articles. Personally I only include the official website and club profile as external links. Anything else (like career statistics) should be in the references. JACO PLANE • 2008-06-9 07:17

By the same token, would you be asking for the removal of soccerbase.com from thousand of player articles' external links sections. There might, however, be an argument against this specific site, which apart from being in Dutch, offers, as far as I can make out, only data about appearances for the national side. Kevin McE (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Tbh, I wouldn't be opposed to deleting links to Soccerbase. That site is fraught with errors and inaccuracies and, personally, I only ever use it as a last resort. – Pee Jay 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I also wouldn't be opposed to soccerbase links being deleted, for both the above reasons, and the fact that soccerbase is a commercial site without official connection to any football governance body.--ClubOranje^Talk 07:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Soccerbase is particularly bad at Scottish lower league level with several clubs at least seven or eight managers out of date. PeeJay, what other sources do you use instead? •Oranje•·Talk 07:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually like to use club-specific stats websites where possible. – Pee Jay 08:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

theFA.com as listed on many english players' sites also only gives data about international stats--ClubOranje^Talk 08:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple clubs with the same name

Birchills United have announced they are changing their name to Bloxwich United for their first ever season at Step 6. We already have an article on Bloxwich United, but it is a completely different (defunct) club and (other than playing at their old ground) the current club has no formal connection to it. Should the current club's content be merged into the article and the article rewritten to cover both clubs, or should their articles be kept separate? And if the latter, what form of disambiguation is best....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in the same way as Crystal Palace F.C. and Crystal Palace F.C. (founded 1861) ← chan dler 11:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Gets my vote. Sorry, gets my !vote. Sorry, I agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What he said. – Pee Jay 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the current club's website they specifically seem to have chosen the name Bloxwich United A.F.C. Would having both Bloxwich United F.C. and Bloxwich United A.F.C. as separate articles (with appropriate dabbing hatnotes and Bloxwich United as a dab page) be acceptable.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Giant Snowman 13:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that sounds the best solution for now. - fchd (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

One thought though, are the new version notable enough for an article yet? They've not played at Level 10 or above, and while they may be up for promotion as winners of WMRL Div One, but applying the same standard to clubs as we do for players, until they've actually PLAYED at a notable level, perhaps they're non-notable at this point? - fchd (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I don't really care either way, but the word from the club is that they've definitely been accepted into the Premier Division, so it seems a bit pointless to delete the article now and then recreate it in six weeks' time. It's not like the case of a youth team/reserve player, where there's no guarantee that he'll ever actually crack the first team squad, in this case we know for a fact that (barring some ridiculously unlikely turn of events) BUAFC will definitely be playing step 6 football in August.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There's also two independent, reliable, in-depth sources in the article, meaning that it passes WP:N..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Leeds City Vixens L.F.C.#taggs

Could someone try and understand what User:Roosterrulez is trying to do here exactly? And he's clearly just trying to retaliate against me after this. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments needed

Can members of this project have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Templates#{{fb end}} Gnevin (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal selected images

I nominated some images for the portal at Portal:Association football/Selected picture, but I don't think many people watch that page, so I thought I'd leave a message here. JACO PLANE • 2008-06-12 19:48

Numberless players

What should the number be shown as for players who have not been designated a squadn number? I would say "––", but User:Spurs 2008 says "--" looks "more better and professional"... I find that quite ridiculous to be honest. Opinions? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and that is the convention I use. I don't see how two minus signs are more professional and more better isn't even grammatically correct so I am not sure I would trust their reliability on the use of a long dash over a minus sign anyway. Just my 2 cents. Paul Bradbury 19:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not "—" (one character versus your two)? But yeah, definitely not what Spurs 2008 suggests. JACO PLANE • 2008-06-12 20:01

I go against the majority here, and prefer "--", i.e. hyphens. Just my personal preference. - fchd (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of "--". It looks quite poor and unprofessional. I much prefer a single "—" emdash. Peanut4 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, one dash is better than two. Giant Snowman 21:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think -- two dashes is better than one. It looks better.

Excessive level of detail on kit icons

I always thought the football kit icons were meant to give a general idea of how a kit looks, without too many of the bells and whistles on modern shirts. However, look at the ones now on Charlton Athletic F.C.. Should this be the way to go? (If it is, we might just as well have dedicated pictures for each club, as the sponsorship details will differ almost every time). - fchd (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There really is an excessive level of detail on some kits. Details in the actual design of the kit are OK, I would say, but adding club/country logos and sponsor logos is overdoing it. – Pee Jay 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, sponsor logos and decals should NOT be on kit icons.--JonBroxton (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, should certainly be no badges, logos, etc. - the idea is that kit designs should be generic enough to be used for more than one team. •Oranje•·Talk 18:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

something that might have to do a bit with sponsor etc, off the top of my head I can come up with Lyon (sponsor) and Russia (numbers) where their desgin is "cut" by the sponsor/numbers but here in WP they are not cut what to do about things like that? ← chan dler 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

From Template:Football kit/doc:

To create a new pattern template follow the examples below. When you have created a new pattern please add it to the list below. Do not create patterns for minor details on a kit, the template is for showing basic team colours. It is not supposed to be an accurate drawing of the kit.

Crystal clear. Get rid. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 18:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty with far too much detail. But they're the worst two I've seen. Peanut4 (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, get rid of them. As pointed out above, if the kits were "personalised" for each individual club, there'd be no point having the basic patterns, as every team would be different...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So, so horrible that I had to change it straight away. Dancarney (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, my work has been undone, and the user has left an upset comment on the talk page. Dancarney (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Kits should only have basic colours & designs. Giant Snowman 13:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed Crystal Palace has the same issue..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And the England national football team, all done by the same user in good faith. - fchd (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The new Crystal Palace home kit does need a (logo and ad-free) template making for it, however. Is anyone able to do this? Dancarney (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for England away. Dancarney (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's about time the whole template was overhauled as it's totally out of hand. With some clever templating we could have more than one colour specified which would greatly reduce the number of templates – i.e. white stripes, black stripes, blue stripes images etc. could be replaced by a general 'stripes' image and the colour is specified as an optional secondary one if need be. Qwghlm (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd have a look at the teams competing in Euro 2008. Sure enough, quite a few are, in my opinion, including too much detail, such as logos. I've changed most of the ones I could, but I think new templates could be needed for Germany and France. Additionally, my changing of the Italian kit was undone, apparently it was "a vandalism". I think this sort of nonsense needs to be kept in check otherwise it'll get out of hand. Dancarney (talk)

Referees

You are trying to improve the quality of notable players, clubs and sttadiums articles. Surelyyou should do the same for the referees of the game, or don't you care about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.23.219 (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We care, we care!. It is probably just most people have more interest in the players, managers, clubs etc. Feel free to contribute by improving referee articles. You will find it easier to track your own edits etc. if you register a username and edit under that. Just click Log in / create account in the top right corner.--ClubOranje^Talk 10:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are several articles about referees – see Category:English football referees. Unfortunately, unless a ref "screws up" they don't generate a lot of comment, so there are few reliable sources. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Football League article

Someone has posted a rather hypothetical approach at Scottish Football League#Beyond 2008-9 which has no sources or references, and seems to be nothing more than soomeone's grand idea. What would be the most appropriate action? •Oranje•·Talk 10:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and delete it! I just did. Qwghlm (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

Can we mention commentary changes for clubs? EG ITFC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itfc+canes=me (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not that significant which radio station provides the local commentary. If Radio Suffolk is mentioned then it'll need to be changed of course, but if it's not there, it probably doesn't need to be. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Forrest (footballer)

I've put this article up for peer review. Is there anyone who would like to have a look, as I think it deserves better than a "Start" rating. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

third kit in {{Infobox football club}}

Don't know how active the templates talk page is, so i figured more ppl would be here. What about adding the option for a third kit in {{Infobox football club}}, many clubs have third kits and it doesnt take up that much extra space, see this test. ← chan dler 04:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me – I'd say be bold and add it as an optional kit in the template. •Oranje•·Talk 12:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK: couple of minor qualms: Would it make the infobox considerably wider in many instances? Is it appropriate to describe kits as home, away and third? Many clubs are not so predictable, and might wear the home kit for away matches, and the third kit where there would be no clash if they wore the away kit. But it's a good idea in principle. Kevin McE (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well on my screen it's about 30px wider when you have the thirt kit. Well what team's wear might be different, and ofc some clubs have Home/Away/Euro Away. But i still think third is the best name, you could however add another option {{{third-name|third}}} or something like that, so ppl could name it "Euro Away" or "Alternative away" or something like that on a article-by-article basis ← chan dler 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd go one further and let all three strips be renamed. Some clubs might use home/away/third, some might use first/second/third, etc. •Oranje•·Talk 17:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll go and add parameters for that, eventhough I don't think most clubs think of / bother explicitly saying "these are not our home shirts, these are our first shirts" ← chan dler 19:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think having a third kit is a great idea, three kits isn't that much bigger than two on my browser. And I think they should be called First/Second/Third. Giant Snowman 19:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

European Cup / Champions League seasons template

We have {{Champions League Final}} for both the European Cup and Champions League finals (1956-current), but for the seasons we have {{European Cup Seasons}} (55–56-91–92) and {{UEFA Champions League Seasons}} (92–93-current) Wouldn't it just be better to merge them into one or the other. Or split the finals template, so we have consistency. I would at least be for merging the seasons templates ← chan dler 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree on merging the season template. It's not like UEFA differentiate a whole lot between the old EC1 and UCL, albeit some news media do. I think a hint in the season article for the first UCL should be sufficient to explain what's going on. Madcynic (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Kettering Town F.C.

Anybody understand what's going on with Kettering Town F.C. and Former Kettering Town F.C.? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a fork to me. The Kettering Town F.C. page looks also to have a lot of unnecessary detail on. Peanut4 (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually the whole thing looks a mess to me. Peanut4 (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically it would appear that User:Footballfan07 was making a mess of Kettering Town F.C. and kept being reverted. As a result, he moved the article to Former Kettering Town F.C. and started a new one the way he wanted. I've deleted his "new" article and moved the old one back over it, tidied it up, and left him a little note. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Should probably delete the redirect too, as I can't really imagine anyone searching for "Former Kettering Town F.C." when searching for "Kettering Town F.C." – Pee Jay 19:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Former football league members

I brought this up a short while ago and it seemed that no-one was particularly in favour of its existence. However, it then went to TfD and was kept with one keep and one delete vote. Was it just that people ignored the TfD, or does anyone believe it should be kept? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just been wondering about this. Mainly because it seems to be lacking a few teams recently relegated from the Football League. I can't really see what purpose it serves to be honest. Peanut4 (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My main problem is its size, and the fact that it will continue to grow reasonably quickly. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the content of the template can easily be covered in the form of a category. Giant Snowman 20:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Captainbeecher

The above user has recently been making rather a lot of edits to player articles regarding FA Cup shocks most of which are referenced to a site that he himself appears to have created. See, for example, his latest edit to John Devey which is referenced to http://www.freewebs.com/captainbeecher/number18.htm. I suspect that this is the same guy who created the FA Cup Final articles such as that at hometown.aol.co.uk/captainbeecher/1890FACUPFINAL.html preceded by http://. As these articles are deemed to be Spam, I cannot link directly to it.

Most of the edits appear to be accurate, although the language verges on the PoV such as "sensationally beaten". Should his references be removed? I've copied this query to his talk page. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I will defend this statement myself as I regard spam as being something that bears little reference to the statement it is being pointed at and is being done purely to advertise without providing any further reading benefit to the reader. The vast majority of bios I have edited {and may I point out here that most of the edits do not appear to be accurate-ALL of them are – and are also carefully researched against newspapers of the time were either mere stubs, containing virtually no career details of the player at all, or were heavily overloaded with detail from a particular players time with one particular club, virtually ignoring time with other clubs that was often more significant or thirdly, the detail in some cases was just plain wrong. To provide examples. Adam Haywood-his club details were wrong and only his Arsenal appearances were added. While Peter Meehan's bio, dealt solely with his time at Southampton, ignoring completely that he was a title winner with Sunderland and a cup finalist at Everton. Every edit I have made is 100% accurate and deals only with games that at the time were major events in football. For example the Millwall vs Aston Villa game was the first ever time the sporting life carried a banner football headline, a feat not repeated until Crystal Palace defeated Newcastle seven years later {'sensationally beaten' was how the Times put it and it is my oversight not to have referenced that}. If the edits were incorrect or the reference to which they are pointed did not provide further information of interest to a reader then I would agree that it is spam but not only are the edits correct, but they add more information to what are often little more than stubs and also point to further reading for the reader. In addition I would also state that these edits are being provided by an accredited soccer historian, though that is a point I only raise now when the validity of my edits is being question, hence my not adding a bio to my own home page. In closing I state that if the references are removed than all the text that has been added should also be removed, which will revert many player bios back to the mere stubs they were. Captainbeecher (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Even so, it is very bad form to add references to your own site(s). If they are considered relevant enough, others will add the links. - fchd (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Very very bad form. A conflict of interest. Self promotion. And beside that, can you explain how the site you link to meets WP:RS please? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the pages that John Devey or Adam Haywood link to and form an opinion of your own. I'm more than happy to share the research I find in newspaper libraries regarding these players with Wikipedia but find myself between the devil and the deep blue sea. Much of the information I have sourced it not available on any other internet website, otherwise Im sure it would have made wikipedia by now. I have supplied information of players before but seen it deleted because the source, often a newspaper from 18?? has been challenged as not being reliable. yet this information is good enough for books on the subject {I am a researcher whose information is collated in books e.g. The F.A. Cup The complete story by Guy Lloyd and Nick Holt. My efforts and expert knowledge on the competition is credited on page 415 of said book while many of the previously unpublished soundbites contained in it were researched by me, some of which now appear on wikipedia {many without source or reference I might add – wouldn't it be cat amonst the pigeons if I asked for those to be sourced with a reference from elsewhere or face removal?}. So in answer to the question, tell me how anything published in wikipedia meets WP;RS? It becomes an individual opinion what is a reliable source and what is not and I can assure you that there are dozens of statements on wikipedia that have come from official histories and actual club websites that when investigated are actually incorrect. So sure, I'm linking to a web site created by myself but at least it's an accurate historical record.Captainbeecher (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Captainbeecher can be right...Reliable doesn't work like: FIFA = reliable, anonymous website = not reliable. It's a matter of sources and accuracy in researching. Maybe it isn't reliable, but I think a different approach is needed discussing this issue. --necronudist (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought this obvious – if one's website is dealing with factual claims (e.g. who won what or what place a team finished) and it is accepted by the rest of the community, then I don't see a problem – I am thinking of users such as User:Richard Rundle, who is one of our most invaluable contributors. However for subjective or PoV claims (e.g. this was a "shock" or a "thrilling" match) or ones that are disputed (e.g. someone was a "legend"), then it is very poor form to use one's own website as a source. So delete the PoV and keep the factual ones. Qwghlm (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If the information on your website is also in the above mentioned book (or other books) why not cite the books? They are likely to be more regarded as reliable due to the publishing process, than a personal homepage could have been slapped together with fantasy information (not to infer your page has been, just that many homepages are, hence the WP:RS issue). Even better if you can reference an additional source or review of the book which gives some backing to its authenticity. Reliable source does not need to be easily verifiable, just verifiable, and if that means a trip to the library for someone, so be it.--ClubOranje^Talk 06:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The question of reliability could be resolved with a page on the site about sources, explaining how the information has been collated. Or perhaps an "about the author" page. To continue the example of fchd, something like http://www.fchd.btinternet.co.uk/sources.htm. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I see no problem if the sources you use for your website are cited in your website.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but doesn't WP:SPS go against that by saying that generally, Self-Published Sources should not be used? D.M.N. (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a self-published source. If the problem is that he is adding his own website, another person can add it. But I think we're desperately searching a way, a little obscure rule in the middle of nowhere, to say he's wrong. Bad approach, this isn't discussing. --necronudist (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The guy did say that he has stated original newspapers as source but that these sources were deleted because there couldn't be checked {If I read it right. I've visited the site and to be honest found the content very interesting. There doesn't seem to be any money to be made in the site {re advertising} so i fail to see a problem here. Just as long as the links are credible to genuinely factual and informative material. All I would ask is that when placing your own site as a reference you also site these newspapers as well.Norniron (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2008 controversies

This article seems to have been created in advance on the assumption that some controversies would probably occur, and so far all it has to report is that there was one questionable offside call and one dodgy penalty award. Does that really merit a full-blown article.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not in my opinion. It's clairvoyance to create it in the first place, and surely any controversies worth mentioning would be covered in articles higher up the chain? --Jameboy (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree this doesn't deserve an article, if anything some of these should be mentioned on the main euro page but i don't think those "controversies" deserve even that to be honest Prem4eva (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The title almost suggests WP:OR especially when you consider how early it was created. It should be contained within the relevant UEFA 2008 pages. Peanut4 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Degree of controversiality is POV. One man's controversy is another's clear cut decision. Should it include controversy about whether Greece should have played 3 up front? About which goalie Germany should have chosen? Lots of marginal decisions, otherwise footie fans and pundits would have nothing to discuss, but they are not encyclopaedic. Kevin McE (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Games ending with penalty kicks

When we post the scoring details of games ending in penalty kicks, it is not always obvious which team kicked first. Can someone think of a simple way to note which team was the first to kick without confusing the reader with too much detail? Juve2000 (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it significant.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably not overly so, but in the case of team A kicking first and team B missing one, the final penalty count ends at 5-3 due to the final penalty not being required and team B only has taken 4, whereas if team B kicks first and has a miss, the total count would reflect 4-5, both having taken 5. in the first example, not knowing who went first may leave the impression 2 were missed. Juve2000, could you point to an example where this would be used?--ClubOranje^Talk 09:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the example I was thinking of when I made this comment. Assume team A and team B are at 4-4 going into their 5th penalty. Team A misses and Team B scores, thus all 10 penalty kicks are listed on the wikipedia page. When reading the data, I cannot tell if Team A kicked last knowing it HAD to score, or if Team B kicked last knowing a goal would mean victory. And to answer a previous question if its significant, probably not to most, but you can make that same arguement about 80% of the data.Juve2000 (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that – by point to an example I meant show me a page where it shows penalties being taken so I can see how it is currently presented and consider a solution to the issue. --ClubOranje^Talk 06:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Examples: 2008 UEFA Champions League Final#Match details or 2008 Scottish League Cup Final#Match details. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree it would be worth indicating. Perhaps by specifying 1st kick / 2nd kick above each team's list. I tried a mock up of numbering the penalties, but it looked a bit manky.--ClubOranje^Talk 08:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Coventry City articles

I'm interested in what people think of Coventry City 2007–2008 Championship Match Facts and Coventry City 2007–2008 League Cup Match Facts. I am concerned at the ever-increasing level of detail and recentism in Wikipedia football articles. Do we really need line-ups for every match? Any comments/suggestions welcome. --Jameboy (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The results etc could be merged into Coventry City F.C. 2007-08 season or whatever the standard naming format is for club season articles. However, I agree that the level of detail is excessive, and would support a prod. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would back that up Number 57. If links are provided to either BBC reports or Soccerbase, on the Coventry City F.C. season 2007-08 article, then that would provide all these facts anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To get a firm consensus on this, I've opted to nominate the 2 articles for deletion. The discussion is here. D.M.N. (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be far too much detail on the Coventry City F.C. page too – every single Cov player who's ever played an international, tables of greatest no. of appearances for every season since 1968, etc. Dancarney (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Howard Webb

There is impossible to edit Howard Webb but tere is lie in Euro 2008 section. "Polish prime minister Donald Tusk, who was at the stadium, said he felt like he wanted to kill Webb [23]." – it's not true. Polish prime minister wasn't in Austria – he was in Poland at that time. he said before Euro2008 "It's enough to see matches in TV for me." – ("Wystarczy mi oglądanie meczów w telewizji"). At the stadium Was polish President Lech Kaczyński and he said "It's not way to win a match!" ("Tak nie wygrywa się meczu"). In Howard Webb article as the sours is Sunday Mirror shown – i don't think it's an reliable source!!! XtraVert 2008-06-15 23:51

I have removed thetext "...who was at the stadium," as it is not actually supported by the citation. No comment on the Sunday Mirror! But I'll look for a BBC citation or something. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow up: I've swopped the citation for one to The Scotsman and expanded the quotation to make it clear that Tusk was describing his emotions rather than making a death threat or something! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly he didn't say he wanted to kill Webb, he said he wanted to kill. John Hayes^talk 11:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixtures

The fixtures for the English 2008-09 season were released yesterday. They are copyrighted to the Premier League / Football League, yet several seasons' articles in Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2008-09 season have already included all the fixtures for the current season. What legal position does wikipedia have to including these fixtures? Peanut4 (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't even understand how you could copyright fixtures, It's just lists of "Man U – Man C [date]" And there was ppl can't remember who, took out the upcoming fixtures (not the played ones) for "copyright issues" last season, So after they are played they are free or what? ← chan dler 01:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how they can be copyrighted, they are only dates. I guess I can't help you.Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From the bottom of here:

Copyright © and Database Right 2008[/9] The Football Association Premier League Ltd / The Football League Ltd / The Scottish Premier League Ltd / The Scottish Football League. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any way or by any means, (including photocopying, recording or storing it in any medium by electronic means), without the written permission of the copyright/database right owner. Applications for written permission should be addressed c/o Football DataCo Ltd, 30 Gloucester Place, London W1U 8PL.

- Dudesleeper / Talk 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But the question still remains, are you really allowed to copyright things like these... I mean they are just dates, between teams. Do we have to do some sort of thing like they do in Football manager / Pro Evo Soccer etc. for clubs they don't have licenses and call the matches "Merseyside Red – Man Red, 13 sep 2008, English Top Division"? ← chan dler 02:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

They are the property of the relevant authorities, but it seems to be one of those things – like waiting until July 1 to include transferred players in squads – that isn't clamped down on around Wikipedia. - Dudesleeper / Talk 02:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not qualified to comment on the legal basis of their copyrightability (sic), but I know from people who have run fansites that they are vehement and litigious protectors of their copyright material. So be careful. Kevin McE (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not possible that it could fall under some sort of fair use? They would probably have similar copyrights for these fixtures (and I still cant understand how you could copyright fixtures) and pictures like this one File:Premier League.svg — chan dler — 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

According to leading statto Tony Kempster, the Premier and Football Leagues require a payment of "over £9,000" to reproduce their fixture lists. I somehow suspect they wouldn't be able to do this if it was not possible to copyright fixtures, therefore we must assume that it is.

Well lets not recreate tha whole thing, just team for team, and beat the system, YEAAAAA! — chan dler — 07:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From talking to the guys who maintain the Gillingham fan site, the leagues also charge a smaller (but still substantial) fee to reproduce a single club's fixtures....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Still don't understand how something like "23 september vs Arsenal" can be copyrighted — chan dler — 07:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

< Yes, the fixture list are copyrighted and thus should be removed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But how are upcoming fixtures considered copyright protected and have to be deleted from here, but played fixtures are allowed to stay? And again, can someone try to explain how something like this is copyrighed — chan dler — 07:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Matches which have occurred are a matter of historical record ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough... But still how can it be possible to copyright listing matches — chan dler — 07:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

They are regarded as the intellectual property of the respective leagues. Fortunately, I think it's just the Premier League, Football League, Scottish Premier League and Scottish Football League who reserve this right, so we can still list the fixtures of Serie A and La Liga clubs. – Pee Jay 07:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We couldn't do a "PES" and list the matches "North London vs. West Midlands City, 15 October, English Top Division", and get away with it could we?.... Still think its really strange that you could copyright fixtures :P — chan dler — 07:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly that would look completely ridiculous, and could also be considered to be misleading readers by including false information (ie there is no such team as "West Midlands City") ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, just trying to beat the system ;) — chan dler — 07:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Any legal system that would allow you to copyright something like that is a stupid legal system. Just more proof that Britain is Stupid. Also, just for the sake of argument, how can news agencies discuss upcoming fixtures? Surely they don't have to pay thousands of pounds in order to say "Rooney will miss the following games due to injury: Arsenal (A), Man City (H), etc." Again, if that's the case, I have a punch in the crotch with somebody's name on it. -- Grant .Alpaugh 08:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

News agencies can discuss upcoming fixtures because they pay the Premier League (and other leagues) exorbitant amounts of money for the license to publish the fixtures. – Pee Jay 08:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Guess we'll have to settle for filling in matches after they happen, maybe we could do something like this. (Here after the first match has been played) and ofc Link to the clubs page where they keep the fixtures, or if the club dont have them to the Premier Leagues page — chan dler — 08:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Fb match2
|bg1= f9f9f9;border:solid #f2f2f2 1px;font-size:90%;
|comp=[[Premier League 2007-08|Premier League]]
|home=[[Sunderland A.F.C.|Sunderland]] {{flagicon|ENG}}
|away={{flagicon|ENG}} [[Liverpool F.C.|Liverpool]]
|style=background:#ccffcc;
|score=0 – 10
|venue=[[Stadium of Light]]
|attendance=49,000
|referee=
|date=2008-08-16 15:00
|home-score=
|away-score=[[Fernando Torres|Torres]] {{goal|8}} {{goal|50}} {{goal|60}} {{goal|83}} {{goal|90+2}}<br/>[[Dirk Kuyt|Kuyt]] {{goal|15}} {{goal|22}} {{goal|45+1}} {{goal|56}} {{goal|75}}
| goalscorers = yes
}}

Upcoming Premier League Fixtures are the intellectual property of the Premier League. For upcoming Premier League fixtures see Liverpoolfc.tv

Some related discussion here ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What if you'd not specify which league or which date, just have it say "Hull – Chelsea" etc. — chan dler — 08:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Would that not be tantamount to subterfuge? – Pee Jay 09:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why people are so desperate to get the fixtures onto WP (seemingly by any means necessary) in the first place. I mean, it's not like there aren't 273 other places on the web where fans could get the info...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: a simple thing to do would be to provide a link to the fixtures on each team's 2008-09 season page. Like this: Hull City A.F.C. season 2008-09#External links. We just need to decide which source to use as standard (and where to place the link in the article, and how to format it, and whether this is a good idea...). Beve (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the UK now – there's a thread on a well-known English football forum about a French High Court ruling here – fchd (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As a Swedish law student I'm certainly not an expert on British intellectual property law, but I would be very surprised if prohibiting people from reporting on upcoming fixtures could be legal. My guess is that what's prohibited is reproducing fixture lists for commercial use, and not forbidding mass-media and others to report the fixtures on a non-commercial basis. Might I also point out that even if something is copyrighted it's still allowed to quote or in other ways use parts of the protected material (for educational purposes it's even allowed to copy pages and pages of books). I might also point out that there is no legal form to achieve copyright (such as patents for example) so anyone can "copyright" anything, if a judge would agree is another matter... I'd say we go about as usual. Sebisthlm (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a news story about this very subject. I quote some relevant chunks:

“

The Football League wins a case against Littlewoods in 1959, successfully claiming copyright in the printed fixtures of their clubs

”

and

“

when [BSaD, a Watford fansite] received what Grant and Rowson felt were threatening legal letters demanding the removal of offensive content they were shocked. They refused, their server was contacted and BSaD was taken off the internet until Grant and Rowson backed down. The heinous material that caused the problems? Watford FC's fixtures for 2005-06. "We were extremely surprised and did feel bullied," Rowson says. "We do the fanzine for the love of writing about football, with about 1,000 regular hits weekly. We never thought the outside world was even aware of us." That was reckoning without the keen commercial enforcers at DataCo. This is a company owned by the Premier and Football Leagues, whose job is to charge for publication of the fixture lists, as well as the increasing volume of other data, including match statistics, to which the clubs claim copyright. The operation makes £7m-£8m for English and Scottish professional clubs, paid by 22,000 newspapers, bookmakers, websites and broadcasters here and worldwide. The fee is standard: £266 plus VAT to print the fixtures of one English club. Newspapers printing the fixtures of all clubs, plus a delivery fee, pay around £6,000 plus VAT to DataCo. BSaD, oblivious, printing their own club's forthcoming fixtures, were asked for £266 plus VAT or told they must take them down.

”

So in essence the concept of the clubs claiming copyright over their fixtures has been upheld in a court of law, albeit fifty years ago..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that all the people arguing in favour of including fixtures seem to be doing so on the basis of "I think the system is stupid", "someone might be able to challenge it" or "I can't see how this could work" – the quote above proves that the leagues have, in a court of law, successfully proven their case for owning copyright on the fixtures and therefore we must abide by that, however "stupid" we think the system might be...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris sums it up well. We may not like the situation, but we are bound by it. The fixtures are copyrighted, and the ability to copyright them has been upheld in court. Thus edits adding them need to be reverted. The law is an ass, but contesting it should be done by joining a lobby group such as the Football Supporters Federation or writing to your MP, not on Wikipedia, where the goal is produce content which can be freely reproduced without copyright wrangling. NB: See [12] for the full BSaD story. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems no-one here have read the actual cases (I haven't, but I'm certainly curious), so no-one can say how the copyright of British football fixtures are to be interpreted. If a court has upheld the copyright in the case of a League club (who for example has a contractual relation with the League), it doesn't necessarily apply in our case since judgments can have broader or more narrow applications on other areas or subjects. Even if some form of copyright protects this material, the UK have freedoms of speech and information etc, so discussing or writing about future fixtures can impossibly be all-together prohibited. All we know is 1. the fixtures are not completely free (in some way copyrighted) and 2. the fixtures are not completely protected (so that they can never be uttered on Wikipedia). Now, we could take the cautious approach that ChrisTheDude advocates, that we might infringe on a diabolical copyright, so we'd better not risk it, or we can go about our business thinking that the copyright couldn't in a sensible society apply to us (which I would guess it doesn't) and wait for the League to come to us if they think we infringe on their copyright. On a side-note, if we were to have this preemptive approach shouldn't we stop referring to clubs and competitions by their name (both Manchester United and Euro 2008 are protected)? Sebisthlm (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Material copyrighted as "all rights reserved" is incompatible with the GFDL. Discussion of fixtures is not prohibited, but publishing them in full is. Manchester United and Euro 2008 are trademarks, not copyrights. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You're of course completely right (I was perhaps a bit careless with my examples), but that doesn't affect my point, since trademark rights are even stricter. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how trademarks, as symbols of the origin of a product or service, are relevant here. We are not claiming to be a football club or tournament, nor are we claiming endorsement.

Playing devil's advocate by publishing the fixture lists and waiting for a takedown notice is not an option, simply from a licensing point of view, as every page states "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" at the bottom. In any case the default position of the Wikimedia Foundation is to comply with any copyright requests. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh) This is what happens when you make careless examples. I'm not asserting that trademark rules are applicable here, I'm just saying that trademarked and copyrighted material both are protected and that we despite this protection use trademarked material. Since the legality of using these fixtures are uncertain, I don't think the way to deal with this issue is to apply self-censorship as a preemptive response to a legal issue we at this point can't evaluate properly. I haven't read the GNU Free Documentation License either but I'm not saying that we should continue doing something illegal and stop only when we get busted. I only say that, as we don't know if we are infringing on copyrighted material, it's not our job or in our interest to unilaterally censor ourself by judging our actions illegal. Sebisthlm (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the legality of using these fixtures (based on case law) is not uncertain – it's a breach of copyright, and by having this discussion here we are recognising that copyright. Unless someone wants to take a test case against DataCo, I think we need to act with extreme caution, and not list them. - fchd (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to argue with apparent intellectual property law experts, I'm not informed enough on the subject at hand or what kind of company DataCo is (it seems to be something like SPECTRE...). Let's just say I'm not convinced that this is as clear-cut as you seem to think. Sebisthlm (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Watford fans case, DataCo don't seem to have a problem with publishing results. Their problem seems to be with printing upcoming league fixtures. Therefore shouldn't the upcoming league fixtures just be hidden and then added when the result is known? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the emails from DataCo says: I can also confirm that there is no problem with showing fixtures and their results once the match has been played. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't just hide fixtures because they are easily visibile by looking at the source code. They must not exist on this site in any form. – Pee Jay 19:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems we agree that we're not going to test the relevant authorities and anyway case law also suggests WP would have to pay to use them. So I presume we should just delete fixtures when we see them. Anyone know what the copyright is one Cup fixtures? Peanut4 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The F.A. do not enforce any copyright over FA Cup/Trophy/Vase fixtures. Don't know about the Football League Cup though. - fchd (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I presume the FA run the first three, and the Football League run the League Cup and Football League Trophy? If it follows from above, it wouldn't surprise me if they copyrighted those fixtures. I've not looked yet, but guess last week's draw is at Football League Cup 2008-09. Peanut4 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should test the water! hehe, as Sebisthlm said "Might I also point out that even if something is copyrighted it's still allowed to quote or in other ways use parts of the protected material", can't this have some similarity in quoting books, or writing articles about books where you probably have to use copyrighted material as the source/reference... Also if things like non-commercial has any relevance, a perhaps similar case (though I've never studied law so I might be wrong) I know of just because I'm a big hp-fan is a case between Warner bros. and RDR where as I have understood it seemed to be Ok when I was posted freely on a website but they've sued when I was suppose to be printed into a book (though the last I've heard no verdict have come in this case yet) — chan dler — 20:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I say we shouldn't. It could get Wikipedia in all sorts of trouble if it's seen by DataCo. – Pee Jay 20:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Media outlets pay several thousands of pounds to pay for the licence. There's no test case to guide how much court damages could be. Then you've got court costs on top. The fixture lists aren't available under a free lience, so I can't see why and how WP can use them in the current format. Peanut4 (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The following comes from an email I received from the Football League one year ago on this very topic (expands on some of the above): --Jameboy (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

“

The issue of copyright in fixture lists was resolved by the High Court in the reported case of The Football League Limited v Littlewoods Pools Ltd. A copy of the case report can be found under case reference [1959] 2 All ER 546. The simple rational for the court's decision was that The League was entitled to copyright in the chronological list as a result of the fact that it was produced by the skill, labour, judgment and ingenuity of The League. A fixture is no longer copyrighted when the match has kicked off it is now a matter of public record and history. The League also acquires further intellectual property rights through the Database Directive.

”

Here is a letter to a Football Forum site I found with little difficulty via Google just now and sent I believe this time last year which is what WP can expect to receive I guess! Tmol42 (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

“

We write on behalf of the Football Data Co Limited which is the appointed licensee of the FA Premier League, the Football League, the Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football League ("the Leagues") in respect of the licensing of certain intellectual property rights of the Leagues, including those in the fixture lists for this season August 2007 – May 2008 ("the Fixture Lists"), for use by third parties.

We have noticed that your website http://www.arsenalfcweb.co.uk/Fixtures.php is displaying Football Fixtures. In order to display the Fixture Lists you must obtain the necessary licence from the Press Association.

We wish to make you aware that we have a good faith belief that your present use is an infringement of the Leagues' legal rights and that all such unauthorised use must cease immediately. Please confirm by return your agreement to this and give your undertaking to cease all such infringements on any and all of your web sites. Pending your response the Leagues' rights are fully reserved.

The Leagues have appointed the Press Association as their official agent for the licensing and distribution of the Fixtures List. If you have inadvertently infringed our clients' copyright please take immediate steps to contact the Press Association (Email customer.services@pa.press.net) to obtain the appropriate licence. Please confirm to us by e-mail that you are now seeking an appropriate licence. Because of the time sensitive nature of the Fixture Lists you are required to remove them immediately from your site pending the granting of a licence.

We thank you for your cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Stubbs

NetResult A Division of Projector NetResult Ltd Mulberry House, 583 Fulham Road, London UK SW6 5UA

Head Office: Projector NetResult Ltd, Harley House, 2 St Johns Street, Hereford, UK HR1 2NB

”