Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions on 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 20

←

Archive 23

→

Career statistics tables

Could some kind soul pretty please improve my (pardon my French) piss-poor attempt at creating a career statistics table at Sean Morrison? Cheers, Giant Snowman 11:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've had a bash at it. What do you think? – Pee Jay 12:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers man, you're a star! Giant Snowman 13:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Scillonian football clubs

Garrison Gunners and Woolpack Wanderers - are they at all notable? They're essentially little more than pub sides which people have only heard of because journalists occasionally write "novelty" pieces about how the Isles of Scilly have "the smallest league in the world". Would it be better to merge both into one article about the league, as that's what has the (marginal) notability......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking yes. The Guardian article isn't even about the league - it just mentions it as an answer to a question posed by a reader. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say merge the two into an article about the league, with seperate sections on each team which cover titles, any famous players etc. Giant Snowman 13:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and redirected both to Isles of Scilly Football League and I'm cooking something up there (Isles of Scilly Football League actually redirected to Garrison Gunners). x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Rob Styles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of IP vandalism following his recent erroneous penalty award. Could do with semi-protection. Am I ok to request it here rather than official channels? Seems to get a faster response here. Beve (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Done! Article needs some work and TLC, especially with weasel words. Qwghlm (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hasan mede

I noticed the creation of the above article, which at the moment is just an infobox, if the stats in it check out then he's notable enough for an article but it needs moving to the correct capitalisation the addition of at least a short bit of prose and checking of his appearance stats. I'd fix this myself but i'm a bit busy and i'm not sure what stub or project templates you guys would use for it so i thought it best to mention it here. Cheers Basement12 (T.C) 16:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think that is a real person. I searched his name in Google and there was only 6 sites in total and none which linked him to any type of football let alone Fenerbahce. He isn't on the Fenerbahce.org's squad list. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur, and as such, have prodded it as a hoax. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree; a player just 17 with first-team appearances would be menioned somewhere, so almost definitely a hoax. Giant Snowman

Given the author and only other contributor blanked the page as soon as the PROD appeared I'm surprised it gets to hang around for 5 more days. --ClubOranje^Talk 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, him blanking it meant that I could speedy delete it per WP:CSD#G7. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Good-oh. I thought there was a page blank by author thing somewhere, but couldn't easily find it this morning. Thanks --ClubOranje^Talk 23:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Referee notability?

Hi, what are the notability criteria for referees? Jonny Ditlefsen refereed in the Norwegian Premier League (first tier), but is up for AFD. The league itself is professional, but referees in Norway are only semi-professional. Punkmorten (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never been good at formulating notability criteria, but from a European perspective, I would say that referees who officiated at a World Cup or European Championship or in the Champions League or UEFA Cup are notable, as are fully professional referees in a country's top-level league. That would mean that Jonny Ditlefsen is not notable and worthy of deletion. – Pee Jay 21:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We can always fall back on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:N. If there are none (and I see none) then he is not notable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

SK Schwadorf

Bit of assistance from someone in the know, please. SK Schwadorf, formerly based in Schwadorf, Austria, have just relocated to Südstadt and have been renamed Trenkwalder Admira in the process. Should the SK Schwadorf article stay as-is (minus the "current squad" section), and just create the relevant new article, or redirect to the new article and carry the contents over? - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we know anything about it? Did they keep history, league place, etc? matt91486 (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The description page on www.bundesliga.at cites 1906 as the year the club was founded, which is indeed the foundation year of Admira Vienna. The official club page also begins its historic review with the beginnings as Admira Vienna. There is no word about a merger with SK Schwadorf, though. So, I would propose to keep the SK Schwadorf article minus the current squad section and integrate any other changes into VfB Admira Wacker Mödling. A title change might also be useful, but I strongly oppose the name "Trenkwalder Admira" because Trenkwalder is the name of the company of Admira chairman Richard Trenkwalder. What about FC Admira as a simple replacement instead? This is the most common name for the club in Austria anyway, and Soccerway does also refer to the club by this name. Hockey-holic (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Jarnail Singh

Semi-protected for one week. Drop me a line if there are any other problems. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the article is almost entirely negative - it seems that whenever he has made a controversial (in heavily biased fans' views anyway) decision, that details about it have been added - should we remove all this rubbish? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Chelsea FA review

Chelsea F.C. has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Marskell (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Template fix required possibly

Could someone who fully understands such things investigate why Template:National football squad player which hasn't been edited in the last month produces odd results now in pages such as this (well, pretty much any page that uses it actually). Didn't do that last week. Seems to have shunted things over a column. Perhaps one of the sub templates has made it skewy. Thanks--ClubOranje^Talk 10:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed the problem. Some pillock decided that it would be a good idea to remove the "No." column from Template:nat fs start and replace it with a "Goals" column. The change has now been reverted. – Pee Jay 10:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy King - Leicester player

Mattythewhite he is welsh as he plays for their U21 side so please don't undo the move. Skitzo (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I moved his article to "(footballer born 1988)" rather than "(Welsh footballer)" is because it is uneven to have three Andy King articles that read "(footballer born 1956)", "(footballer born 1970)" and "(Welsh footballer)". Keeping them consistent across the board would make more sense. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

no that was done because there was more then 1 english andy king, he is welsh so having that in the name is a better disambiguation, we don't need to have them all named in the same style unless there is more then 1 of the same nationality. Skitzo (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

also the 3rd 1 has only just been created, by you, and to be honest it should probably be afd'd as there is so little content as work-in-progress articles like that should probably stay in the sand box until you have more info. Skitzo (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the article suitably passes WP:N and WP:BIO, so I don't see any problem with it. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the primary differentiator should be, but if it is nationality, then I would have thought Andy King (Welsh footballer), Andy King (English footballer born 1956) and Andy King (English footballer born 1970) would be correct. If the primary differentiator is year of birth then we would have Andy King (footballer born 1956), Andy King (footballer born 1970) and Andy King (footballer born 1988). Do we have any disambig guidelines or precedent we can refer to? --Jameboy (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that the primary disambiguator was the year of birth. A player's nationality can change, provided that they haven't already played for a national team, and is therefore not an ideal disambiguator compared to year of birth, which will never change. – Pee Jay 20:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes and it has in this case taking him from English to Welsh, in every other case I've seen, nationality has been the primary differentiator, so move the other 2 articles to include the word English, seeing as they are retired so their nationality isn't going to change, nor can this Andy King as he has played at U21 level. Skitzo (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would opt for Andy King (footballer born 1956), Andy King (footballer born 1970) and Andy King (footballer born 1988) on more common precedence. However there are plenty of differentiations between the two naming options. Peanut4 (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Leeds United A.F.C. Reserves and Youth Team season 2008-09

Surely this isn't notable? Peanut4 (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree. We already have people who dislike senior teams' season articles, so surely reserve teams are a step too far. – Pee Jay 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable, deffo a candidate for deletion. Giant Snowman 20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. Peanut4 (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Cheesebrough

I have declined a speedy request for this article, apparently about a footballer who played for Burnley, Leicester City, Port Vale and Mansfield Town in the 1950s. Would anyone would like to lend a helping hand with it? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added an infobox and an external link. Peanut4 (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added quite a bit more after a quick Google search. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Bruce @ FAC

Anyone from the project want to take a look before it expires......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Spam links?

User 78.105.4.86 (talk · contribs) is adding external links to the "official PFA team page" for various clubs. These club links seem to add little value, although I'd say there may be an argument for keeping the player profile and interview links that he's also added, as these seem to offer a little more info. What do people think? --Jameboy (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just took a look at the official PFA page for Gillingham, and under the heading "Gillingham interviews" is a link to an interview with Junior Agogo. They've also got Derek Stillie still in the squad list and Sean Clohessy with squad number 189. If they're all that accurate then I can't really what having them as xlinks adds..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

hmmm. I'm less sure about the player profiles now that I've realised they want Joe Public to write them. --Jameboy (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say the player profiles looked okay till I read that above addendum. I don't think the interviews add much per WP:EL but would probably be fine as a source for any general addition to the article. Peanut4 (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an admin has reverted the whole lot. Oh well. --Jameboy (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Cup 2005-06

I don't feel it is necessary to have the year shown in every footballbox when the year is obvious as it is with this article, but I thought I better check here as to whether it is okay or should I change it back. Darryl.matheson (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would keep the years in match dates, for completeness. A non-football fan landing on the article may look at the title and assume that the competition ran from January 2005 to December 2006, for example, so I think it is best to make these things clear. --Jameboy (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Scottish Cup articles, what do people think of the table format being used in Scottish Cup 2008-09? I can't decide whether it's a good thing or not. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In my browser at least, the date/kick-off/stadium stuff doesn't line up correctly. Here's a screen shot:

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the screen shot, I assume that you are running on a 800x600 resolution. Since the template looks fine for higher resolutions, I will have a look at the code and see if compatibility with the minimum recommended resolution can be achieved.Hockey-holic (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

According to a colleague more in the know than me, my screen is 1024 by 768 pixels..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless you did not cut off any sidebars on the right side of your screen on your screenshot (e.g. Instant Messengers), this should be 800x600. Anyway. The main problem with the template is that its creator formatted the column width by using absolute values instead of relative ones, which causes the incorrect display. I can try to fix it, but I make no promises that it will look better afterwards... Hockey-holic (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like that style anyway. Looks rubbish, and the show/hide function is gimmicky. – Pee Jay 15:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually like this template (Fb match) for the first rounds, because it points out the key information (the result of the game) and reveals additional information to those who are interested. See also DFB Cup 2008–09. ;-) Nevertheless, the footballbox-template is the first choice for the more important games (Quarterfinals and further). Hockey-holic (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Austrian Football Bundesliga

This article seems a bit confused. It appears to be about the top division of Austrian football, called the "Bundesliga", and at the same time about the association that runs the top 2 divisions in Austrian football, apparently also called the "Bundesliga". How can this be cleared up? Dancarney (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a similar problem with this article. Although the vast majority of people refer to Spain's Primera División as "La Liga", "La Liga" technically refers to both of Spain's top two divisions. This would be analogous to The Football League only covering the Football League Championship or Football League First Division. I suggest that separate articles be created for both Spain and Austria's top divisions, and that Austrian Football Bundesliga and La Liga be changed to cover all of the divisions that those terms encompass. – Pee Jay 17:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but what should the articles be called? For the Spanish set we should have Primera División de España and La Liga, but I'm not sure with the Austrian - Fußball-Bundesliga (Austria) and what? Dancarney (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Clubs with sponsored names

I know we normally keep grounds and leagues at their "unsponsored" names, but what about clubs? Connah's Quay Nomads have been moved to Gap Connah's Quay, should we now move Welshpool Town to their new name, Technogroup Welshpool Town? - fchd (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What are said teams' common names? It seems that Connah's Quay have completely dropped the "Nomads" moniker, but Welshpool Town are still Welshpool Town with a sponsor's name at the beginning, so I would personally agree with moving the Connah's Quay article but not the Welshpool Town one. However, looking at the BBC website, it seems that they have taken to referring to Welshpool Town as Technogroup Welshpool Town. – Pee Jay 18:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether "common" names have much to do with it - NEWI Cefn Druids are commonly known to most people as just "Druids", how many times do you hear or see these days "Wolverhampton Wanderers" etc. - fchd (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For information, the football team FC Red Bull Salzburg is situated at its new sponsored name. As is its ice hockey equivalent at EC Red Bull Salzburg. And I'd say they were the correct places. Peanut4 (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, one of the main reasons for avoiding sponsored names of leagues/grounds is that they're likely to change every couple of years and thereby result in chaotic article moves, broken links, etc. According to the Connah's Quay article, however, the club has actually been taken over by the "GAP" company (rather than them simply paying a few bob to add their name), which would seem to suggest that the new name will have a greater chance of remaining in place for the foreseeable future..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with sponsored team names in general is that they can change in a second if the sponsor decides to withdraw for some reason like bankruptcy, decline of interest or whatsoever. Take Austria's teams for example (and not just the professional teams). Most of them change their sponsor anually. Do you really want to move those articles every time the company changes? Other examples are mainly to be found in Eastern Europe, e.g. in the Czech Republic (Tescoma Zlin) or Slovenia (Interblock Ljubljana). As for said Welsh clubs, they have a grown history and thus should be referred by their "old" names (Cefn Druids and Welshpool Town). In general, sponsor names within a club's name should be omitted unless it is a historic part of it (e.g. Bayer 04 Leverkusen or Skoda Xanthi. Hockey-holic (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thiago Jotta da Silva and notability

I'm posting this here rather than the article's talk page to reach a larger audience...

According to the article (and news reports), Da Silva is a former Vasco da Gama player. However, I have not been able to find any stats on the web for this player, so my gut feeling is that he fails both WP:N and WP:FOOTYN. Does anyone know if the guy actually played for Vasco in any senior competition, or if he only was a youth/reserve player? As far as I can tell, his last club Club Estácio de Sá plays on the third tier of Brazilian football and is not a professional club (correct me if I'm wrong). No article existed before his tragic death, and as we all know, Wikipedia is not a news outlet or a memorial. So, again: does anyone know if Da Silva actually did play for Vasco in senior competition? --Badmotorfinger (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no mention of him at SambaFoot.co.uk, which lists a vast majority of Brazilian players...Giant Snowman 10:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Football

Hey, I've updated the code of this template after a request to incorporate Template:WPBannerMeta. Please change anything I've missed. The code is at Template:Football/sandbox with the test page at Template:Football/testcases. This will make it easier to update in the future as well when you add new task forces or subprojects, you can simply add several lines of code to incorporate a new task force. —Borgarde^talk 13:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:North American club football competitions

Greetings. Bit of help please, some users are removing the North American SuperLiga link from the template and shows no reason of such change. JC 07:22, 2 October 2008 (PST)

Association football

Does anyone know why Association football appears as an "unassessed" article and not a "featured" article to those users logged on and with the assessment gadget turned on? Peanut4 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Because the assessment is in a subpage, at Talk:Association football/Header. Don't know why it is though. —Borgarde^talk 13:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good spot. Is there any need for the transclusion page though? Talk:Association football is the only page it is transcluded to. Peanut4 (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think there is at all, it looks like it's been done to reduce clutter on the talk page. —Borgarde^talk 14:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Örjans Vall

Halmstads BK and its supporters are currently trying to get a new stadium built for the club, at the present it appears like one will be built, if its built Örjans Vall will be demolized and replaced by appartments, if this is to happen should the articel regarding Örjans Vall remain, deleted or rewritten?, 2 matches durring 1958 FIFA World Cup where played there. --> Halmstad, Talk to me 22:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you just need to re-write the first line to say it was a former stadium, etc, and add some information later on about what the stadium becomes. There is no need to delete the article. Peanut4 (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peanut4. There is a category for defunct stadiums here. --Carioca (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Goal.Com reliability - a heads up.

For those that use goal.com as a source, be aware that the statistics they give for player _include_ unused substitute appearances (which we don't count!). For example, Goal.com shows Javi Varas as having Played 5 Liga and 2 UEFA (which shows they update quickly because the 2nd UEFA was today's game) but zerozero.pt clearly states he was an unused substitute in 5 Liga games and 1 UEFA game (not updated with today's game yet)--ClubOranje^Talk 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if goal.com is reliable at all. At best, it seems like a tabloid with sensationalist views of things. x42bn6 Talk Mess 08:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of it is also written by fans, from previous discussions. I would only use it if there are no other sources, or for player interviews. Peanut4 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider it a reliable source for that reason (some parts written by fans, non-pro sports journalists), therefore closer to a blog and POV. This was discussed before here. -- Alexf⁴² 11:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Football League articles

A few months ago someone created a page for each season of the Scottish Football League which would be fair enough if all of that information was not already on wikipedia on the seasons in Scottish football articles, in almost all cases the information has just been copied and pasted onto these newer pages (Scottish Football League 1982-83, 1982–83 in Scottish football). To compllicate matters further pages have been created for the old Scottish Premier Division, these articles do add a lot of information but I am not sure what should be done with them how should they be categorised? for example should all articles before the current Scottish Premier League be treated the same (i.e. in the same category, template etc) or should a new cataegory and perhaps template be created for every time the top division changed name, which is not that many times but it could still be very confusing. Darryl.matheson (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

SPD and SPL should be treated differently because they are different entities, as with The Football League First Division and the FA Premier League. Seasons up to and including 1997-98 should be in the same format as The Football League 1974-75, all the SFL divisions should be shown together. So from what you are saying, I think the SPD season articles should be deleted and the information moved to the relevant SFL article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree that the premier Division articles should be deleted and the information put into the SFL articles, seems you could just be trying to find a reason for those SFL season articles to exist in the first place. The premier Division articles add a lot of detail and that would not be practical to place in a SFL season article or Scottish football season article. Darryl.matheson (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Find a reason??? I've never seen or edited those articles before. Please assume good faith. What I'm talking about is consistency with the English league articles. The old league structure was clearly divisions within the same league. It should be relatively straightforward to move the information from the division season article into the main article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jmorrison230582 - the individual league articles should be merged into the Scottish Football League articles in the same way that the Football League articles are organised. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the football kit images is broken

Image:Kit body blackcenterstripe.png isn't displaying properly, the only thing that can be seen in the links is a red boxed "X" with the color input, can someone familiar wth the format please fix it? 24.138.250.39 (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the image at my end. It's probably a problem with your ISP. – Pee Jay 19:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. In my computer the image loaded without problems. --Carioca (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have it cached, though? Because I get the same error as the IP. Black Kite 19:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Even after purging my cache, the image still shows up for me. – Pee Jay 19:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I just purged my cache, and the image showed up for me. --Carioca (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not getting it either, would someone who can see the image mind re-uploading it? That might rectify the issue. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly non-notable footballers

Did this guy ever actually play a game for anyone of note? Also do any of the players on the {{Honduras Squad 2007 FIFA U-17 World Cup}} template have any claim to notability, most of the articles don't seem to assert any. E P 21:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There are many articles about Cristian Martínez, Johnny Leverón and Alfredo Mejía and their exploits with the Honduran U-17 and U-20 squads. Also there are some articles about their troubles getting visas to join Udinese (two of them were arrested) this spring. However, none of it indicates they have played at a professional level yet. Jogurney (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo online's GAC

Over at GAC, Wizardman pointed out that Jimbo online had gone on a long wikibreak as he travelled, his GAC Curtis Woodhouse is still listed there. I was wondering what would happen here, would some adopt it and work on it if held. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind keeping an eye on it, if no-one else wants it, he was one of ours for a time. Though I know naff all about the boxing side of it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll also help out at the GA review, he was sort of one of mine... but I could help anyway. Mattythewhite (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's now been put on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Now passed. And I've updated Jimbo online's userboxes accordingly, hope that's OK. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd stop by. Cheers for the help guys, nice one. --Jimbo^[online] 08:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hierarchy of leagues in American soccer

Anyone want to contribute to this discussion? --JonBroxton (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit needed on {{Infobox football club}}

See Template talk:Infobox football club#add a caption. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

High-quality kits in infoboxen

Before I revert this, did I miss a change in our guidelines which would result in edits like this? Not that the result isn't pretty, but it's evidently nonstandard. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't miss anything. Those are definitely non-standard. For the record, IMO the standard style of kits is better as anyone can make them, which is the objective of Wikipedia. These textured ones are much too complex for Joe Public to make himself. – Pee Jay 10:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Club notability

Do we need to update WP:FOOTYN to include club notability? (currently it only includes player notability) I'm sure we have reached consensus on club notability in the past (for the English game at least), but I can't remember what it was. I specifically wish to know if Cleator Moor Celtic F.C. (who play in the Wearside Football League - step 7 / level 11) are notable enough for an article. --Jameboy (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know exactly where the join comes, but I'm fairly sure that having reached the first round proper of the FA Cup on one occasion (see FCHD) is good enough to make them notable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The generally accepted criteria for English clubs is to have played at Step 6 or above, or in the FA Cup or FA Vase. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, as WP:FOOTYN has been rejected by the wider community, is there much point updating it......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say ignored rather than rejected, I dont recall seeing any consensus against it. E P 23:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall there was firm consensus against it when, as soon as it was finalised, people rushed a bunch of deleted articles on Conference players to DRV saying "they're OK now because they meet FOOTYN". Multiple editors responded to say that the project had no authority to create its own notability guideline. That sounds like rejection to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that was more of an understandable quickfire response from poeple working at DRV who were snowed under as you described (rather than a formal consensus). The idea that individual projects have no authority to establish their own guidelines is contradicted by the existence of Subject-Specific Notability Guidelines (SNGs) such as Wikipedia:Notability (music), Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and many others. The proposal that such guidelines are not needed during the recent WP:Notability review was pretty strongly rejected. Considering the huge number of football articles I can't understand the opposition to formalising and maintaining our own guidelines and totally reject the idea that the concept is somehow unauthorised. E P 23:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be useful to do so. If there is consensus then it would give people some guidance without having to trawl through the talk archives. If our notability criteria are superceded by wider Wikipedia guidelines or consensus then perhaps those could be linked to and/or a caveat added to the WPFOOTYN page? --Jameboy (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we just use the standard notability criteria of requiring multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources. If it's good enough for a bridge, or a politican or an ancient battle, why isn't it good enough for football clubs, be they from England or elsewhere? - fchd (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Primarily because sports journalism is so robotically easy that merely existing at a certain level on a ladder is sufficient to generate multiple independent reports on a subject from reliable sources. Having a separate guide is simply a shortcut, as the level at which such sources are generated at a sufficient level to warrant an article has been established experimentally. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the fb template

How can we make it so that when you do United States, instead of getting "USA," you get "United States?" I don't think that it is right that the default name be "USA," especially since the article is located at United States men's national football team and not USA men's national football team. I think the same thing could also be done for the "fbw" template as well. Most Americans refer to the team as the "U.S. (men's) national team" or the "United States," not as the "USA" or "USA (men's) national team," and I think that should be respected and/or reflected by the template. -- Grant .Alpaugh 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We can't easily, as the fb template uses the templates made by Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template to display the correct flags. The actual data setting is held in Template:Country data United States with the following lines -

| name alias-football = USA
| link alias-football = United States {{{mw|men's}}} national soccer team

You may find that asking there for an addition to be made along the lines of the following might be useful to you -

| name alias-footballalt = United States
| link alias-footballalt = United States {{{mw|men's}}} national soccer team

Please note that I only glanced over the template so have no idea if this will really work. Also note that if you do change the default, this may impact on a number of tables with respect to width etc. Nanonic (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is trivially easy to fix: simply remove the name alias-football = USA line from the template, and do not add anything else (especially all that "footballalt" stuff which would have no effect whatsoever). As I posted on WT:WikiProject Flag Template, the original {{USAf}} and {{USAf2}} templates (which I obsoleted and deleted after creating {{fb}}) used "USA" because there was consensus here to use the same name that FIFA uses. Has consensus changed? Either way, it's trivial to change. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Reserves and youth teams

Is Rangers F.C. Reserve and Youth squads notable enough for its own article? Surely it would be best served as a much smaller entry in the main Rangers F.C. page? •Oranje•·Talk 09:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I generally feel like reserves and youth teams still get a reasonable amount of media coverage and are worth being an article split to properly cover them. matt91486 (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The article is already pushing it lengthwise. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

League listing

Does anyone remember the subpage link for our list of leagues that are the benchmarks for notability? I think we should include a link to it off FOOTYN, even if it is merely a project essay, since that's the most logical place to look for it. It's in fact where I looked for it just now. (Once found, I'm going to note the precedent AfD for the Honduran league as a resource in case something else comes up in AfD). matt91486 (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues Nanonic (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I've added several leagues to it: Honduras (per last AfD), Saudi Arabia (WP article says fully pro since 1990), India (BBC ref), and Qatar (Australian ref). If anyone has sources for Honduras or Saudi Arabia, those would be nice, but India and Qatar are officially eligible for player articles. matt91486 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Uruguay's WP article also says it's fully professional in unambiguous terms, so I'll include that as well. A RS would be preferable. matt91486 (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Henrik Jørgensen

Can somebody with membership access to www.playerhistory.com visit this page and verify/correct details for Henrik Jørgensen (footballer)? Some of it is a bit sketchy: I only know his two league games for Dundee United in the early part of the 1994-95 season are correct. Cheers. •Oranje•·Talk 13:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Copycat of AC Omonia vandalism

Today's UEFA Cup draw appears to have sparked copycats of the AC Omonia / Daily Mirror vandalism. Best keep an eye on all UEFA Cup participants' articles. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Question re: notability

Does a player who has not made a senior league appearance but has played for the U21 national squad meet the notability criteria? JACO PLANE • 2008-10-8 23:32

I would say not, but others might disagree. IIRC, Rhys Williams was denied an article until he played for Middlesbrough, despite having previously played for the Wales U-21 team. – Pee Jay 23:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so let's take as an example the second goalkeeper of Ajax, Kenneth Vermeer. He was the Dutch goalkeeper (played all their games) at the 2008 Olympics. He was a member of the Dutch squad that won the UEFA U-21 Championship in 2006 and 2007. He's never actually played a senior league match for Ajax, so the only reason he meets the notability criteria is because he was loaned out to Willem II last season, where he played a few games. Shouldn't someone who plays for a (UEFA) U21 national squad be notable even though they have not appeared in any league matches? JACO PLANE • 2008-10-9 03:52

As far as I'm aware, Olympic appearances confer notability under special circumstances since all Olympic athletes are considered notable on WP. matt91486 (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Allright, forget about the Olympics then, is someone who won the UEFA U-21 Championship in 2006 and 2007 but was not in the Olympic squad and has not played a senior league match notable? JACO PLANE • 2008-10-9 04:34

In the case of Kenneth Vermeer, which competitions did he play in when he was with Willem II? – Pee Jay 06:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

He played in the Eredivisie for Willem II, but if he had not been loaned out by Ajax he would have exactly zero senior league appearences. JACO PLANE • 2008-10-9 07:44

Surely international inclusion (under-21 and even under-19?) is notability enough? Selected to represent your country at the level immediately below full national level? The Scotland under-21 squad is regularly full of Old Firm players who have never been near their respective first teams, yet would more than likely star for other Scottish Premier League sides. •Oranje•·Talk 08:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Speculating that Vermeer would have zero appearances in the Eredivisie if he hadn't been loaned out is irrelevant. He was loaned out and he did play, so he's notable. Can you not think of a better example? – Pee Jay 09:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What, you don't enjoy discussing hypothetical situations? Silly person :P JACO PLANE • 2008-10-12 20:01

Stevan Bates

To my eyes a not-very Serbian surname, anyone know if this player has any British/American blood - father, grandfather etc.? Giant Snowman 14:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that it's more likely that "Bates" should be pronounced "BAH-tess" or "BAH-tesh" in this case. Of course, he could have some British/American blood in him, but the former is equally as possible. – Pee Jay 15:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I was thinking that that was a possibility...Giant Snowman 15:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This came up a few years ago on another soccer message board. Bates has no British or American ancestry and Bates is Hungarian surname, and there are many ethnic Hungarians in Serbia. Jogurney (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I confirm he is Serbian, that's all French sources state.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bicycle Kick

Please could some uninvolved editors look into the content dispute over this article. I have reported the incivility of MarshalN20 at WP:Wikiquette over his personal attacks. I came across the edit warring between user:MarshalN20 and User:Selecciones de la Vida ([1]) and heated dispute on the talkpage and became embroiled in the debate. Both myself and User:Marianocecowski have attempted to improve and clarify the section by removing content related to the general history of football in Peru that makes no mention of the the technique or its development, but MarshalN20 has reverted the changes and treated them as personal attacks. I have also asked him to stop including links to the article Lima Cricket and Football Club, unless he can provide reliable sources that the club had a specific role to play in the invention of the move rather than a general role in the history of Peruvian football.

Mariano summed up my feelings when he stated "There are several things that I believe should be removed and other things to improve, but I feel it would be useless to take any action if you are going to take it as a personal attack and revert it to your liking." I would continue to attempt to improve the section myself, but as nearly all of my attempts to reason with MarshalN20 have caused him to resort to personal attacks and allegations of bias and aggression against me I feel it is time to step aside and request that other members of the community atempt to improve the section. E P 23:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have encountered the same problem with MarshalN20 while working on the Bicycle kick article. This occurred prior to the contributions from neutral editors such as English Peasant and Marianocecowski. Objectivity, neutrality, and arbitration from other fellow Wikipedia editors is greatly needed. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good reader of this page. I am also in favor of an actual "Third-person" opinion on this matter in order find a reasonable solution to the problem at hand. As you can see by the above two comments, the users "English peasant" and "Selecciones de la Vida" simply want to make me look bad. Yet, as far as it goes for my defense, all that I have done is defended the Peruvian section from barbarous edits that wanted to truncate it to the most minimal amount of information. As you can see in this list of "evidences" that I provided, [2], user "English peasant" has come into the article with the main purpose of making the Peruvian section shorter (not better). As I have stated in past discussions, I have read that one of Wikipedia's policies is that this is not a "Paper Encyclopedia": [3]. Therefore, just as long as the information in the Peruvian section pertains to the topics discussed, which are the bicycle kick, the introduction of football in Peru by the English in relation to the bicycle kick, and the port of Callao, there is no reason to further truncate the Peruvian section.

Here is a good example of what "English peasant" and "Selecciones de la Vida" support. User:Marianocecowski did this edit not so long ago in the article (take a specific look at how much he deleted and what the end result was): [4]. At the end, the whole section was reduced to the statement made by Jorge Barraza. How exactly does this improve the Peruvian section?

I have been attempting to find a fair compromise to the problem with the other side, but they simply keep on attacking me and commonly point toward "Concensus" by stating that my opinion is a "minority position" and that therefore they as the "majority" and with their self-given status of "respected editors" have a right to edit the article to their liking. This is highly unfair and unethical. I have also been trying to get a third opinion on this, but thus far have proven fruitless in this situation. For instance, I contacted user "Victor12" for assistance [5] and also sought to find a review of the article in the FOOTY assessment page: [6].

English Peasant has not been a neutral editor. As you can read in my 5 points of evidence that I wrote in the bicycle kick discussion page, "English Peasant" has simply sought to make the Peruvian section shorter, pointing that the Peruvian claim was backed up by "misleading and irrelevant sources" (which is a complete falsity, further verified by User: Qwghlm), and showing a complete misunderstanding of the point of the "Attributions of Invention" section of the article.

English Peasant seems to think that the article should focus on making one point stronger than the other. For instance, he wrote to user "Mariano" the following: "Was it invented in Peru or Chile?" [7] Even though that question might sound silly, it really shows that English Peasant does not seem to understand that the place of birth of the bicycle kick is a disputed issue. Therefore, there is no concrete answer, by this point and time, to such a question as the one he asks. Some people say it was invented in Peru and some others say it was invented in Chile; and some others say it was invented in Brazil or in Italy. The whole point of the article is to present points with the strongest amount of evidence that can be found. He seems to think that every section in this article should be the same size, because for some strange reason he believes that the length of the Peruvian section makes the argument sound better than the other arguments. Yet, my stance is that instead of focusing on making the Peruvian section shorter, they should be focusing on how to make other sections larger and more accurate (and certainly better written).

Finally, both of these users accuse of being aggresive towards them. Yet, they both conveniently ignore their many provocations and equally aggressive behaviors towards me. No, I won't deny that I let my heart carry me away in parts of the discussion. In other words, I do admit that I did become aggresive in the article, and you can certainly see that by yourselves if you read the whole discussion. Yet, you must also take into account that these two users, specially user "Selecciones de la Vida," have also been as equally rude and have constantly been making pointless arguments for the sake of getting me angry. Nonetheless, after holding a discussion with User: Alexf about civility, I have completely calmed down and let my tone become less aggresive. Yet, on the contrary, User: English peasant seems to be highly frustrated and angry, and that can easily be proven by the following confession he made: "The guy is driving me up the wall, he wont address the issue I'm trying to discuss without trying to wind me up." He keeps on attacking me, and keeps on threatening me with reporting me to Wikipedia for civility and whatnot. Yet, he does not seem to understand that I already had a discussion with User: Alexf about this "civility" problem. Thereupon, this problem should no longer be seen from my part.

As a final note, please be aware that user "Selecciones de la Vida" is just as involved in the article as I am. Both of us have been discussing this issues for quite a long time by now, and he is an avid supporter of the "Chilean Claim." Now, this does not mean that whatever he says should not be taken into account. His opinion is still just as important as that of any other user. Yet, please be careful with taking his opinion as neutral. Just as I can state that I am in favor of the Peruvian claim and that my opinion should not be taken as completely neutral on this matter, you should also take note that "Selecciones de la Vida"'s opinion is not neutral and he only seeks to push forth his personal interests and beliefs in order to make the "Chilean Claim" section sound as the most reasonable.

Thank you in advance for any contributions on this matter. I repeat once again, I'm completely in favor of a fair third opinion that can devise a compromise. Remember that my stance on this matter is that the Peruvian section does not need to be further shortened. Thank you for taking the time to read this message.--MarshalN20 (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at the article does indeed suggest that the length of the Pervian section is disproportionaltely long and needs cutting down a bit per WP:UNDUE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What would you suggest? Everything in the Peruvian section is relevant to the claim of invention and the bicycle kick. That is, unless you want to do away with the section discussing Alejandro Villanueva; but then that would take away from the whole article a person whom was famous for his bicycle kicks (which would be ironic since the whole point of the article is the bicycle kick). Also, after taking a more careful read at the WP:UNDUE section, it should be taken into account that the "Peruvian claim" is by no means a "minority view." Countries outside of Peru, including Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, and Bolivia, also call the move "chalaca" (which is the name that symbolizes the move's origin in Callao, Peru). On the other hand, an actual "minority view" would be the "Brazilian claim" and the "Italian claim," both of which don't get out of their respective countries. I hope you understand what I mean. Thanks in advance for your suggestion.--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The article contains a famous games section that infringes NPOV so a tag was added. The addition of a strikers section with info has been condenced since it's open to repeat content. Info can already be found within the article or on the players individual biographical articles. No additional information such as the inclusion of other sections by MarshalN20 or myself should be made until a consensus is reached by other editors for reasons of arbitration. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have notified a veteran editor of Wikipedia of your aggressive edits against me. The "famous games" section is meant to show important games in which the bicycle kick was done (Remember that only a few have been able to do this move in actual major and important competitions). The "strikers" section is meant to show a small (bicycle kick related) description of the player. If the people want to learn more about the player (aside from the bicycle kick), then they can simply click on the wikilink. Why do you so violently delete everything that I add? I've been doing these corrections as a way to improve the article. I've discussed things with User: GiantSnowman and User: Beve in order to keep things descent and non-POV. Yet, you aggressively come into the article and accuse me of POV, delete information, and state that I should no longer make edits on the article. What is your problem? I thought you had already calmed down, but apparently you have not.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem Solved: Bicycle kick section was shortened according to suggestion by User: Number 57. User: Beve, User: Peanut4, and User: GiantSnowman also made neutral contributions to the article.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Crazy template

This needs fixing Template talk:Argentina Squad 1996 Summer Olympics or deleting, I'm not sure which? It has been added to a number of articles E P 00:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need fixing? It looks just the same as the other templates.--MarshalN20 (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it's in template TALK space. I might go through and fix it now. —Borgarde^talk 07:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

All fixed now. —Borgarde^talk 07:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

dates and dating in articles.

Along with references and dates within the articles. Why are we using the American format? Shouldn't we be using a more international format which was set by British English? Govvy (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The date format used is set by the person who wrote the article. I've seen no standards set by WP:FOOTY about the date format that should be used. – Pee Jay 20:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The date format used should be the format with which the subject of the article has strong ties. So, all articles about English footballers/leagues/Cups should follow the International format ie 11 October 2008. Only those articles with strong links to the US should use October 11, 2008. Woody (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're using the birth date/birth date and age templates, remember to add the |df=yes parameter to make it display the day ahead of the month. Why the templates are still set to the American date format as default is beyond me... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

k, the |df=yes should help. Maybe a bot can fix that. And references? Govvy (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

New Articles for Origins of Bicycle Kick

User: Beve and I agree that there is currently enough information in the Bicycle Kick article for the different origin claims of the bicycle kick. Now, you may ask yourselves why such a thing would be needed. Well, by creating the article a series of things would be improved:

First, it would allow for the bicycle kick article to solely focus on the kick and not the origin of the kick. Currently, all of the "Attributions of Invention" in the article make up more than half of the article.
Second, it would allow for the different "Attributions of Invention" to have more in-depth information dedicated to them without having to worry about "undue weight" in the article.
Third, it would allow the Academic Community that would be interested in learning more about a particular subject (in this case the "Attribution of Invention") to read an encyclopedic article. Of course, as me and User: Beve agreed, these individual articles would solely include factual information that has valid sources and no original research.
Fourth, there is enough information for these claims in order for an article to sustain itself.

Nonetheless, both of us would like to receive the approval of the Wikipedia football community before this project is continued. Also, we would need some suggestions as to what the name of the article should be. Per se, one suggestion would be to call them things such as (regarding the two major ideas): "Bycicle Kick Origin: Chile" and "Bicycle Kick Origin: Peru." I hope this receives a positive approval from the community. We will take a 24 hour no-reply as a "fly-by" that will allow us to continue, but even after that you'll be able to judge whether the article should stay or be deleted. Also, if you have any more questions that you would like to personally ask me, feel free to contact me through my talk page. Thank you for taking the time to read this message.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for any branch off articles, any claims of origin could and should be made on the current Bicycle kick article. Giant Snowman 12:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with User:GiantSnowman. Normal course of practice over an edit war is to obtain consensus by discussion, not to fork off another article. There is already far too much detail on the claims and counter claims about the origin of this move. Trim it down by about 50%, then we might have a good article on our hands. - fchd (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Richard Rundle. Given the recent discussion here, I would be worried that, at this time anyway, the new article would be a content fork rather than the correct reason for a new article. I would rather the issues be discussed and agreed properly before any new article be created. Peanut4 (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Giant Snowman, I would like to hear a more practical reason as to why a new article on the matter should not be needed. Richard Rundle, you state the reason as to why such an article would be needed by writing: "There is already far too much detail on the claims and counter claims about the origin of this move." It is because of this detail, which by the way is factual (with no original research) and properly sourced, that such a new article would be needed. By "trimming it down" we would be "discarding" factual information from the encyclopedia. Just imagine if the people from the encyclopedia Brittanica were to discard an entire section of factual information because they wanted to "trim it down." If there is enough information in order to sustain an article, then why should it not be allowed a page in Wikipedia? If you would allow me to create the article, and thereby demonstrate to you that it would not be a "content fork," I would be most content to allow you to check it yourselves. In other words, let me create the article and if by the time I finish creating it you still do not approve it, then by all means you can erase it. Just one chance to prove to you that it would not be a "fork," that's all I ask.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Because any information you put on the new article will simply be a repeat of what should be on the old one...as a compromise why not create the new article in a sandbox, so that we can review it to see if it is acceptable? Giant Snowman 13:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been moving around some things in the bicycle kick article. I could really write an article on the matter in the sandbox, but before I do such a thing I would like for you, or any of the neutral editors here, to check out the new things I've done in the bicycle kick article. Here's a list of things I have done:

Shortened the "Peruvian claim" by about 50% like "Richard Rundle" suggested.
Created two new sections: "Notable bicycle kicks" and "Famous bicycle kickers."
Created subsections for "Famous bicycle kickers" in alphabetical order: "Alejandro Villanueva," "David Arellano," and "Pele."

I would like to know if these things are alright with the standards. I am aware that the information on the new sections currently mainly feature Peruvian people and events, but that is because those are the things that I know most about. That does not mean other Wikipedists can't come in there and expand the sections with their knowledge. I am deeply interested in your opinions because you are, without doubt, more knowledgeable on these things than me and, most importantly, you hold a sincere neutral thought on the idea. Thank you.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would merge the sections on "Notable bicycle kicks" and "Famous bicycle kickers", and provide some references to say why they atre notable/famous. Giant Snowman 14:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I've tried to do this according to what you suggested. I hope it's what you were thinking. Thank you very much for your help. You're basically fixing the whole problem.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've stated my concern with the addition on the Bicycle kick section of this talk page. The list of strikers with content is a repeat of information already mentioned. The famous games section is open for infringements of NPOV. As of now there are three examples include a Peruvian POV and are unverifiable to note whether they are famous or not on a global perspective. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The list of strikers is not a repeat of "already mentioned" information. I wish I could understand why you have to be so aggressive. The strikers section was meant only to include information related to the bicycle kick. Yet you delete an entire paragraph, paste it into the Alejandro Villanueva article, delete the Alejandro Villanueva picture I added, and then claim that the information there is repeating. Seriously, you must have no conscience. Also, the Copa Libertadores and the Copa America are continental tournaments of global perspectives. lol. Of course they are important you silly person! Now, please, chill out buddy.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What does it take for you to be WP:CIVIL during discussion. You have been advised by User:Alexf to restrain yourself from using terms such as silly person and should be past that. There's a reason you have been reported to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts by User:English peasant. The list is open to be overly extensive and eventually to become unmanageable while also infringing NPOV. Any drastic changes should be made through consensus. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So now you're threatening me? That's really cute Selecciones, now do you want a lolipop and a cookie? You are not some Nostradamus that can see the future. All of the changes that have been done have been under the monitoring of users such as User: Beve, User: GiantSnowman, and now User: Peanut4. Of course, since now there are actually neutral editors in the article, you're beginning to squeal out in fear. Let the neutral editors (not you or English peasant) decide on whether the edits I or anybody else makes are correct and fair, for they know best.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop making invalid assumptions because there were no threats made. Stop bringing up irrelevant subjects and items such as Nostradamus, lolipops, and cookies when the discussion involves consensus from neutral editors. I will report you're ongoing incivility. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"I will report you're ongoing incivility." You should be reported for ongoing attacks at me. If lolipops and cookies are not to your appeal, then you might as well go eat lemons.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have severe reservations about the list of strikers. You could make a case for a good majority of any footballer who has played since the bicycle kick became used. It could easily end up with a list thousands of names long. Peanut4 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could write this in a better and friendlier way, but since the English language limits me to such things: You're incorrect. Even Pele has stated that not many people have actually been able to make bicycle kicks due to the move's dangerous motion. The list obviously would need evidence (sources) in order to prove that such a person is famous for the bicycle kick. Seriously, there is no way the list could expand greater than 15 names. I even doubt it could expand beyond 10 names. I mean, I can't make a bicycle kick, much less would I be able to make the bicycle kick in a major tournament where I cannot afford to make a silly move in which I could get hurt or simply miss the winning goal. Considering football players are human beings like me, they obviously face similar restrictions to my own. Please think about what I've just written.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to say only 10-15 players have ever done it? I've seen three this season. Peanut4 (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm trying to say that only a handful of players have been able to do the bicycle kick and actually achieved widespread fame. Now, you might have seen three bicycle kicks somewhere, but I have not even heard of those kicks. In other words, those kicks were certainly unimportant. On the other hand, take a look at actually "bicycle kick famous" people. In Peru, Alejandro Villanueva has almost its own cult of people that see the guy as a hero and the majority of Peruvians, and even people outside of Peru, remember this guy for his skills with the football; among these "skills" being the bicycle kick. In Mexico, Hugo Sanchez did the bicycle kick in important events and so often that in Mexico the move is also known as "Huguiña." In Chile, David Arellano is widely known for his amazing skills as a football player and, not in coincidence, for his bicycle kicks.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

But how do you define "widespread fame"? Of the current list of six strikers on the page, I've never heard of five of the players. And I don't see Pele as famous for his bicycle kicks either. The whole list is WP:NPOV in my opinion. Peanut4 (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not my fault that you do not know about these people. Also, it's not about how "I" define "widespread fame." For such an idea to be made the person needs sources backing them up, obviously; and that's Wikipedia policy, not something I'm making up. Pele is famous for a series of things, among them his bicycle kicks (Some even call it his "Signature move"). Have you never seen these videos of his? Take a look: [8] and [9]. There are some more. That's certainly being famous for the bicycle kick. The second video, if I remember correctly, is taken from a "bicycle kick training video" of Pele.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"It's not my fault that you do not know about these people." You fail to see the point though. You, yourself said "I have not even heard of those kicks." Hence it is impossible to define how famous X player or Y player is for bicycle kicks. I simply feel such a list is blatantly WP:NPOV. I could add various players to the list which you may not have heard of, and we'd be probably past the 10 names you've already said you expect it wouldn't get past. Get another 10 members of the project, countless number of driveby readers, and the list will be unmanageable. How do you propose to define whether X player or Y player should or should not be on the list? Peanut4 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I just stated that the best way to know if these people are "bicycle kick famous" is to have sources backing up such a claim. You're obviously not understanding the point of this, and I really do hope you're just not arguing for the sake of nothing. Important things to note would be: Have these people done several (more than just "some") bicycle kicks? Are these people famously known for their bicycle kicks? Have these people done the bicycle kick in important situations (continental cups, international games, etc.)? These are just some of the things to look for, obviously. Those three people you mention, who are they? You say you've seen three people done the move this week, but you have failed to give any names or sources. Added that if the move really makes them famous, then it should be something people talk about for years to come. Pele, Villanueva, Arellano, and Sanchez are to this day known in the football world for their bicycle kicks. This doesn't mean this is the only important thing they ever did, but it does give them a certain degree of fame. If other players cannot match their standards, then they obviously do not need to be in the list. And yet again, if you do not know these people, it's never too late to learn something new.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hugo Sanchez, yet he isn't even named in the article. Two of the three I mention are merely one-offs, one was in a reserve game, but that shows how many people can do it. Add to that and I'll add Peter Crouch, Mark Hughes, Klaas Jan Huntelaar, Rivaldo and maybe Beni Carbone and Ronaldinho, straight off the top off my head for numerous bicycle kicks. I've not heard of five of the six currently on the list, and there is nothing in the article to say why they should be there. To me, this is very similar of the problems regarding WP:NOTED PLAYER. Peanut4 (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(indent back in for sake of easier reading) - I'm glad to see Klaus Fischer listed there, as to me he was the king of the bicycle kick when I was growing up. I don't really remember it as a signature move for the likes of Pele though. - fchd (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's impossible to do the bicycle kick, but it's simply a hard move to achieve. Now, these three people you mention are obviously not widespread famous for their bicycle kicks, otherwise (with the current fast world information media) I would have for the least heard about them. Feel free to add Crouch, Hughes, Rivaldo, and whatever other person you want just as long as there is enough information (most importantly: Sources) in order to certify these people as famous for their bicycle kicks. The reason as to why there is nothing certifying these people in the list comes from User: Selecciones de la Vida constantly deleting the things I write. If you can somehow prevent this user from editing what I input in the article, then you'll see one of the options I'm proposing. Also, for "Pele's signature move," simply go to google and type in those words and you'll find that people consider his signature move to be the bicycle kick.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Now, these three people you mention are obviously not widespread famous for their bicycle kicks, otherwise (with the current fast world information media) I would have for the least heard about them." Yet when I said I'd not heard of your players, you simply said: "It's not my fault that you do not know about these people."
"Feel free to add Crouch, Hughes, Rivaldo, and whatever other person you want just as long as there is enough information (most importantly: Sources)" As far as I can see there isn't a single source on the strikers section currently. How about you add some to the current list, never mind the ones I might / might not add.

Anyway, as I've said, I feel such a list breaches WP:NPOV and would grow to be unmanageable. Peanut4 (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How can you compare those three unknown players with people with an actual historical background to their names??? I'm working on finding the sources, but I'm also doing about 3 other things. If you or anybody else can provide the sources, then by all means go ahead. How about instead of whining how this section "breaches WP:NPOV" people actually do something to source the information? Being constructive > arguing and whining.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be only because he's in the current domain, but I don't call Peter Crouch "unknown". He is well-known for his overhead kicks despite his height. I'm not trying to be unconstructive, I'm merely making my feelings known about the problems you may encounter about putting such a list in there. Myself and Richard Rundle have queried Pele. It's the very essence of the problem of the list - a player I feel is warranted in the list, you have said is "unknown". A player myself and another user have queried, you have put in. In the end, the list will always be incomplete, or suffer from WP:POV problems. Peanut4 (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

When did I say Crouch was unknown???? I'm refering to the three bicycle kicks that you said: "Two of the three I mention are merely one-offs, one was in a reserve game, but that shows how many people can do it." In other words, stop taking my words out of context, it's not cool. You and Richard can "queer" Pele as much as you want, but just give me some time to gather all the sources (since you apparently can't go to look for them yourself). The list won't be incomplete just as long as the person in there has a source attached to it confirming his fame for his bicycle kicks.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Peter Crouch was one of the three this season. Peanut4 (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's alright. I'll add the sources that you ask when I have some more time. Nonetheless, I will add them.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Pedro Mendes - expansion needed

This article currently takes a rather outrageously pro-UK bias to the subject, considering that he won the most prestigious medal in the sport with Porto. Anyone interested, please help expand the section currently titled "Early career" (which includes 60% of his professional career thus far). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could start by translating the article on the Portuguese Wikipedia. I tried translating it using Google and the result was impenetrable - it needs someone who speaks the language. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I know of a good translator who could do it... --Jameboy (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Emile Heskey under GA review

Hello there, the article Emile Heskey which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Northern Irish club notability

Does anyone have an opinion on whether clubs in the Ballymena & Provincial Intermediate League (Kilbride Swifts FC, Ballynure Old Boys and Mosside FC) are notable or not? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a tough one. I'm leaning towards No here, only because the league they play in doesn't seem to form part of the Northern Irish league system (as far as I can tell, the only promotion/relegation seems to be between the top two or three levels). Compared with the English football scene, they appear to be equivalent to sunday league teams. Perhaps someone who's a bit more familiar with footy in Northern Ireland could shed a bit more light here. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 12:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

More notable than Belmont Soccer Club , but not much. If you are on a bit of a club clean-up, feel free to add Belmont next time you are doing some AfDs. I have PRODed before, but was contested.--ClubOranje^Talk 19:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

For the artistic amongst you

Someone with an eye for drawing may like to make the (really quite glaringly obvious) corrections to Image:Flopass3.jpg as detailed on the talk page. Knepflerle (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What article do you propose to use the image on? - fchd (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The image is already used on three articles, IIRC. At least it was earlier today... – Pee Jay 20:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It was on Striker, Tore André Flo and Long ball; I removed it pending the correction. Knepflerle (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Biggest defeat

What is the consensus on "biggest defeat" on the National Teams info box? Since I seem to be in an edit war with DoddiDi (talk), about which is the biggest defeat in the Argentina national football team article. The article had 3 biggest defeats which are as follows: Czechoslovakia 6 - 1 Argentina (Helsingborg, Sweden; 15 June 1958), Uruguay 5 - 0 Argentina (Guayaquil, Ecuador; 16 December 1959), Argentina 0 - 5 Colombia (Buenos Aires, Argentina; 5 September 1993). He believes only the 1st one merrits mention, but I think that the article shouldn't be change, since all the 3 loses have a 5 goal differential. Who is right? Bocafan76 (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we must mention only the biggest defeat, as the title says, and I think that the 1-6 agianst Czechoslovakia is the biggest because Argentina recived 6 goals... It´s true that the goal difference is the same among this result and the others (0-5 against Uruguay and Colombia), but on that match Argentina recived more goals (6). The same difference, but more goals recived. This rule is applicated in the whole qualification rules of FIFA: at the same goal difference, goal scored/recived must have prevalence.--Ultracanalla (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think all the 5-goal defeats should be listed. I also think 0–5 is a (slightly) bigger defeat than 1–6. MTC (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

All of them should be mentioned, and they should be listed chronologically to avoid the philosophical question of whether losing 6-1 is better or worse than losing 5-0. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, keep all three defeats, as they all had a 5-goal difference. Giant Snowman 11:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with both User:Grant.Alpaugh and User:GiantSnowman. - fchd (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Several other articles also list their defeats based on goal difference. Hence, for the sake of keeping things in a standard manner, all the results by 5 goals of differen should be kept.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Previously deleted category

Has cropped up again: Category:Unattached football (soccer) players

Can an Administrator delete.

Out of curiosity, what is the argument against this category? matt91486 (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unmaintainable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.184.130 (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unmaintainable, and also (in my opinion) unnecessary. Do we have categories for free agents in other sports, or for unemployed people in other fields? --Badmotorfinger (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but we also don't list every employer that people in other fields have worked for. matt91486 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It is alot of work, and when a player drifts out of the spotlight and off radar they may remain in that category whilst other famous players may remain in the category for only a few weeks. Hard to maintain, but I'm not actually in favour of deletion. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

stadium succession box

Recently, a succession box was added to Saitama Stadium, for its use in the final round of the AFC Champions League last year. There's a slight problem, though; since the AFC has a home/away final series, and, unlike UEFA, the final games are not chosen to be played in a specific stadium ahead of time. So, this box causes two issues in my mind – one strictly technical, and the other more of a general notability nature. First of all, none of the succession box templates seem to have a way to list coinciding stadiums. That is, there's no way in the box on Saitama Stadium to list Foolad Shahr Stadium, where half of the final round also took place. (The preceding/succeeding boxes also suffer from this, but, at least there is a workaround I think). But, as for the second issue, is the hosting of a home match for a team in the finals a worthy topic for a succession box like that? Since Luzhniki Stadium, Olympic Stadium (Athens), etc, were chosen to host a final, the inherent notability of the stadium-hosting-an-event is pretty clear cut. But, I'm not convinced that home/away series hosting is on the same level – Despite the fact that we should treat the AFC, CAF, UEFA, and all other confederations equally. I don't see this as an issue with the confederation, so much as with the way the venue is decided. Anyway, enough rambling. I'm interested to see if there are any opinions about this. Neier (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that hosting finals that are contested on a home and away basis should not require an infobox. The UEFA Cup used to have such a format, but I wouldn't want to see such a template on Portman Road. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Zsolt Limperger

An IP editor has edited this article to say that the player was 2.11 (6ft 11in) tall - is this true or is it vandalism? Giant Snowman 09:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This reference backs up your original number. Reverted as uncited.--ClubOranje^Talk 10:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Giant Snowman 10:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Germany international footballers

I'm currently working on this: User:ArtVandelay13/DFB, but I'm at a bit of a quandary - I don't know whether to include everyone [10], thus making the list (unmanageably?) large, or to set a critiera (20 caps), and have to omit players. I don't really want to break it up into sections either, as one sortable list is more useful. Any thoughts? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the complete list would become unmanageably large. However, I would set the border at a lower mark because there are still some notable players like Abramczik or Immel with less than 20 caps. Either 10 or 15 seems a good mark to be. By the way, I see that you have listed Thom and Doll with their number of DFB caps and left a notice for their DFV caps in the right-hand column. The official DFB list sums up all caps and leaves a note how many caps the player has made for each association, so I would list them in that way as well. ---- Hockey-holic (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I added Doll and Thom before I considered the idea of a limit - they were high up on the DFB's list because of their DDR caps, but if there is a limit and they fall below it, I'll get rid of them. This list is for the DFB - East Germany internationals have their own list. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Another option for the limit is 20 caps or inclusion in a tournament squad. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is goals scored - what if a player never played in a tournament, only won 5-10 caps, but scored 10-15 goals? Giant Snowman 10:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be more inclined to include players who won at least one cap in a competitive fixture, as 'List of Germany international footballers' is immediately misleading if it excludes those who only won, say, 19 caps. •Oranje•·Talk 10:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

ACT Premier League

Hi.

A user merged several teams into the main article, because some of the clubs are and always have been amateur. But there are hundreds of amateur clubs, with similar historys, and there is no thought about their notability... The user also didnt respect the GNU FDL... --89.56.93.122 (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

With the way the articles are merged in, I'm against it personally. Are there other thoughts? matt91486 (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

UEFA elite stadium

I should welcome any members of this Project interested in stadium categorisation taking a look at this page. The recent radical revision [11] appears to make the categories Category:UEFA 4 star stadiums and Category:UEFA 5 star stadiums, and the templates Template:UEFA5Star and Template:UEFA4Star redundant unless they can simply be renamed 'Category 3' and 'Elite'. I'm out of my depth and would like an expert to take a look. TerriersFan (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move of Striker to Forward (association football)

This requested move is looking like defaulting to "no consensus", but it's only had five !votes so far. I would appreciate some more comments from the more established members of this project. – Pee Jay 10:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Gavin McCallum

Doesn't appear to have ever played professionally, but has U-20 international caps - is this notable enough......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No. We have dealt with a lot of other similar subjects, and current consensus is youth caps do not confer notability. --Angelo (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Soccerbase says he played for Yeovil Town in a League match (a 2-0 win over Gillingham as it happens!). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't acknowledge such things as having occurred :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Article for U-20, U-18, etc. age classifications?

I have been reworking articles and index pages for U-boats and have come across several links to U-20, U-18, etc. (mostly redirects to submarines) where the editor's intent is to link to age classifications in sport, often in football/soccer. Is there a single article about age classifications that I could point some of these articles to so that someone reading about a, say, U-20 league won't get redirected to German submarine U-20, an index page for German submarines? If there's an appropriate article, I'll be happy to convert some of the current U-boat redirects into disambiguation pages to help. (The German Wikipedia has an article here, but there's no link to an English-language article.) Any suggestions? — Bellhalla (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Lathaniel Rowe-Turner

has just gone on loan from Leicester City to Cheltenham, so be on the look out for articles being made about him before he actually debuts and becomes notable. Skitzo (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's wikilink the player - if it goes blue then some eager beaver must have created the article. Giant Snowman 20:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions for national B teams

I have noticed that articles about national B teams follow the naming structure "[nation] B national football team". However, I do not believe that this is correct grammar/syntax/whatever. I suggest that the structure "[nation] national football B team" be used as it seems to make more sense. Opinions? – Pee Jay 19:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It seems like the first option has been chosen because it makes thr {{nft}} template useable. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, maybe we need to create a template for national B teams. I notice there wasn't a problem with giving national women's teams the structure "[nation] national women's football team"... – Pee Jay 20:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right PeeJay. At the moment the pages suggest the country is called England B, France B, etc, rather than say it is the B team. Peanut4 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

KLISF.info

This website appears to have moved or deleted. It was a very helpful source on Soviet-era football (in English) that is used as a reference on probably hundreds of football-related articles. Does anyone know if it moved (and where to) or whether it still exists in Russian? If it's gone, is there some way to get a cached version of the source pages so we don't have to delete all of the broken links? There aren't many alternatives (in fact, national-football-teams clearly uses KLISF as its source) if this site is really dead. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The web archive http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://klisf.info has it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That is a huge relief. I only wish there was an automated process for redirecting all of the articles to the web archive. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Accrington Stanley managers

I can't help wondering if this is a bit of a waste of time. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

well they have clearly had more managers then that, someone needs to get a list with dates and add them to the template. Skitzo (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that I would imagine the vast majority of them will not be linked, as Coleman took over the club when they were in the Northern Premier League - I can't imagine any managers prior to him meeting the notability requirements unless they were former professional players. I guess there is always the option to include managers of the previous Accy Stan though. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly copyvio pov

I have just come across some edits made by Snippysnippy11 (talk · contribs). Following Euro 2008, he has added beautifully poetic opinions about the Croatian squad at the tournament. See for instance Vedran Ćorluka: "At UEFA Euro 2008 he was a star performer, his elegant running style and composed play accentuating his effortlessly stylish ability. ... Corluka provided assurity, quality and a virtually impenetrable wall on the right side of Croatia's defence." Or Danijel Pranjić: "His ability and willingness to get forward was a major feature of Croatia's play as he ably supported the midfield and attack with surging overlapping runs and a skillful ability to retain possession. His partnership with a blossoming Rakitic on the left side will be a cornerstone of Croatia's assault on the World Cup in South Africa." Parts of it may be copyvios of BecomeACroatiaFan.com, as evidenced by this revert. Please help clean this mess up where necessary. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Stokes

Any reason why Anthony Stokes redirects to Anthony Stokes (footballer) - an unnecessary disambiguation, surely? Giant Snowman 13:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've restored the old disambig page instead. Peanut4 (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't have a disambiguation page, IMO the article at Anthony Stokes should be about the ex-Arsenal footballer - there aren't any other people called Anthony Stokes on Wikipedia! Giant Snowman 13:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree to an extent, but it could be argued that someone could look up Anthony Stokes to find Tony Stokes. Though in that case, I suppose Anthony Stokes (footballer) should redirect to Anthony Stokes and stick a hatnote on the top to mention Tony Stokes. Peanut4 (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an ideal solution. Giant Snowman 14:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would take an admin to make the page move. It seems I can't do it because of moving a page over another page. Peanut4 (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the disambiguation is there is because there was a Anthony Stokes (entertainer) article (now deleted following AfD). I have now done the move as this is effectively a WP:RM discussion here and consensus is for it, it seems. Qwghlm (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe Robinson

Does Robinson's appearance in an FA Cup Final mean he should be the root Joe Robinson article (currently occupied by an actor-stuntman), or should the three Joe Robinsons all be linked from a central disambiguation page? - Dudesleeper / Talk 13:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

link all 3 to a disambiguation page and move each to Joe Robinson (footballer), Joe Robinson (Actor) etc. Skitzo (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Done now. Thanks for your input. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Manchester City Logo

Someone appears to have deleted the image that is Manchester Citys crest, I can find no discussion of this anywhere, could someone restore the file? Man City is a featured article and the removal of the crest is definatly counter productive. Paul Bradbury 15:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted with the following rationale -

14:19, October 7, 2008 Papa November (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Mcfc.png" ‎ (Deleted because "An article-specific fair use rationale must be provided for at least one article in which the image is used". using TW)

It seems no-one filled out appropriate FUR's for the logo's usage, or that they were removed. It'd be quicker and easier for you to re-upload the image and tag it correctly. Nanonic (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It was left tagged for 17 days by my calculations. I can confirm that there was no FUR in any shape or form on the image page. Woody (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't upload it the first time so I don't have it to upload again. Havn't been around for a while so didn't notice a tag. BTW, how would you know an image has been tagged? Does it show up on a page using the image like a TfD does, or do you actually have to go to the image itself? thanks Paul Bradbury 15:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It does not show up automatically on pages though there is an optional tag that can be added to all pages using the image. In this case, that didn't happen. You don't have to re-upload it, an admin can restore it with the proviso that the correct rationale is added. Woody (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have undeleted it and added a basic FUR for Manchester City F.C. but it could do with more details and similar FURs for any other article it has appeared in. Qwghlm (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I deleted the image after the FairuseBot requested its speedy deletion. The request was made by the bot because there was no fair use rationale present for any of the articles in which the image was used. Normally the bot leaves warning messages about its deletion requests, but on this occasion it seems to have forgotten to do so - sorry if the deletion came as a surprise!

There was no discussion about the deletion, because this was one of the limited number of cases where speedy deletion is permitted. If no fair use rationale is provided, then images can be deleted seven days after being tagged. In theory, featured articles should already have been checked for image copyright issues, but this article became featured before the rules were enforced as strictly.

In short, if you want to use a non-free image, then you need to justify on the image description page why the reader needs to see it to understand the article fully. If this isn't done for each specific article, then the image will eventually be removed from the articles or deleted. The other images in the Manchester City F.C. article seem reasonably OK, but If you'd like me to check any other articles for you, then leave a note on my talk page. Thanks, Papa November (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a footnote folks - it's a good idea to make sure FU images have the appropriate tags, and to add such images in articles you regularly edit to your watchlist in case someone tags it as a possible violation in good faith. Qwghlm (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye out......

An article just got speedied on a team that plays at the dizzy heights of the Southampton Saturday Football League Junior Division Seven (level 21 of the English league system, allegedly). In an attempt to contest the speedy, the creator had put on the talk page "The aim is for every team in Southampton Saturday Football League to create and maintain pages", so keep an eye out for those potentially popping up, as that wording would suggest that someone has sent a message to all teams in the league suggesting that they create articles about themselves.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Luke Freeman

I have a feeling this has been discussed before...I personally don't like the current infobox set up, with his Arsenal career counting as 'youth years', even though he made his pro debut for Gillingham...any other thoughts? Giant Snowman 14:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion one way or t'other, but I guess it's based on the fact that he is only part of the academy set-up at Arsenal and is not on a pro contract..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Freeman was still on a schoolboys contract for Gillingham when he played in the FA Cup (not pro) and in any case didn't he only play in the FA Cup? In which case the 1 (0) in his infobox is incorrect. Qwghlm (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, he played one League match too, coming on as a sub at home to Hartlepool on 21 November 2007 ([12]) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As he made a pro appearance for the Gills, I feel that that should be classed as the start of his pro career, even if he was/is on a schoolboy contract. Giant Snowman 15:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, anything after a player's debut should be considered his senior career, regardless of his subsequent status. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and make the changes then. Giant Snowman 18:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Intent of "ma" parameter in results tables

I found something odd in the results table of Liga I 2008–09. When you click on three of FC Argeş' home games, articles like this or this or this pop up. I guess this is clearly not the intent of the ma parameter, is it? Hockey-holic (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Individual games - other than really important ones, such as cup finals - should NOT have articles. All three need deleting. Giant Snowman 18:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and prodded them. They could probably be deleted under CSD A7, but I thought a prod might be safer. – Pee Jay 18:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I share your opinion, but wanted to go sure I'm not alone. Hockey-holic (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Rob Styles heavy vandalism

Please could Rob Styles be temporarily semi-protected? Beve (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Dropped on WP:RFPP - should be more eyes there. Saw it coming, though... x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Piergiorgio Welby's father

This Italian - who became famous as a right-to-die activist - had a Scottish father (hence the unusual name) who was a player for AS Roma in the 1940s. Does anyone know who his father was? Giant Snowman 12:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an article on him on the Italian Wikipedia at Alfredo_Welby. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! Giant Snowman 12:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the It version suggests he wasn't in fact Scottish at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that...I presume then that Alfredo's father was the Scot...Giant Snowman 12:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've created the article at Alfredo Welby. Giant Snowman 12:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Islington Corinthians

A notable club? Seems not to me. Article was created by a user whose username matches the name of the author of the book listed in the article - possible spam? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely fails the (mostly) agreed-upon club rule for participating in the FA Cup or top ten levels in the football pyramid. Probably fails the more general notability rule of significant coverage in multiple independent sources - there is one self-published source. I did find this BBC London link but it's written by the same guy to promote his book. There is little substantive coverage elsewhere - not even on fchd - just a lot of off-hand mentions. I've flagged the article with these issues and may AfD if they're not resolved in a reasonable time. Qwghlm (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there may have been a lot more coverage, world-wide, in the press during their worldwide tour - it must have been quite a novelty in a lot of places at that time. Has anyone asked the author of the book for sources, or has anyone seen the book and if so is there any list of references in there? I wouldn't expect to find much on the internet about a club from this long ago. They're listed on the tours of the US Soccer Hall of Fame (see http://clubetabanka.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html), google is pointing me to a reference in a Winnpeg paper of 1938 (http://www.newspaperarchive.com/LandingPage.aspx?type=glp&search=%22islington%20corinthians%22%20%22the%20times%22&img=\\na0009\6786965\40871150_clean.html) but I can't get any deeper than that at the moment. If the club themselves aren't notable, their world tour by itself may well be. - fchd (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If the tour got multiple independent coverage at the time then the club effectively got the same, and I would have no objection to the club's inclusion. I'm about to drop a note on the author's page. Qwghlm (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say if the world tour would be notable, then the club should be, and the world tour's coverage should be in the article about the club. It would be difficult to have an article about a tour of a club and then not acknowledge the club itself. matt91486 (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Alan Wiley

Could do with a hand on Alan Wiley, cheers. Beve (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hat-trick of hat-tricks

I'm not sure exctly how rare this is (hat-ricks in successive matches), nor at what level it would have to be achieved to be considered noteworthy. Charlie Ide completed the feat tonight, for Wivenhoe Town, and I have noted it at his own article and on Hat-trick: fair, or am I getting carried away on behalf of my second team? Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Alex Rhodes (footballer) did it in 2003, and it's not on his page. Not sure if it's on hat-trick page. There's no reason why not to put it on his own page, it certainly should be. But like you, I'm not sure how common it is. Peanut4 (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

FA Cup winners

I notice that in most cases, break-out lists of the winners of a competition follow the naming convention "List of X Cup winners" eg List of UEFA Cup winners, however for the FA Cup it is at FA Cup Final. Should the list be moved to List of FA Cup winners, and, if so, is there a case for the article FA Cup Final to remain in place but be turned into more of an overview of the final and its traditions eg the venues, Abide With Me, 39 Steps, etc.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. The FA Cup Final is an event in itself, and worthy of its own article. – Pee Jay 08:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Giant Snowman 10:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea as well. - fchd (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a start at lunchtime then :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I've just started on a list of Football League Cup winners. – Pee Jay 12:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture plagiarism!

Just been looking at Simon Russell's myspace, and look at where he got some of those photos from! Feel quite flaterred really, whilst also thinking "I took those bloody photos!" Mattythewhite (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's the same as with any text, and it's free to re-use but should be under the GFDL licence? Not that quoting such got me anywhere last time I needed to do. Peanut4 (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Matty, who's the girl with the lollipop? --Jameboy (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You should feel honoured mate! Giant Snowman 20:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiller

I've just created articles on two German internationals of the early 20th Century with the surname Hiller who were uncle & nephew - Arthur and Marius; does anyone know if Franz Hiller, who played in the 1970s, is another relative? Cheers, Giant Snowman 22:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

CONCACAF Champions League 2009–10

A head-up that there is edit warring over a prod going on at CONCACAF Champions League 2009–10. This seems to mostly be by User:SuperSonicx1986, who has been clearly advised on his talk page that the prod has been contested and that if he wishes to pursue this, he should now go to WP:AfD. He has received a 'final' warning and a final 'final' warning (as three weeks elapsed since the last one) but an IP has waded in too now. I have no opinion on whether there should be an article on this subject. The contention seems to be that there has been no official announcement of the tournament other than a statement in 1.4 on page 3 here that the tournament will be organised every year but whatever, WP:AfD is the next step not edit warring over the prod. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

CONCACAF is not a reliable source in this. The same thing happened for the Cup Winners Cup, the Giants Cup, and the Champions Cup of 16 teams which CONCACAF created documents of similar status as the above one and we all know how it ended up. Not to mention, there are media elements talking of a change of slot allocation.

That is why it is best to wait and see what does CONCACAF say FROM THEIR MOUTH, not some online book.

Okay, first, indent your comments so that we can distinguish them by using one or more colons like this ":," and also please sign your posts with four tildes like this "~~~~," so that we can tell who says what. Secondly, there is no reason to believe that the competition won't take place next season, and even if we grant that you are right about it, there is still no excuse for your behavior over the last several months with regard to CONCACAF articles. You've engaged in a number of edit wars, refuse to be part of constructive discussion, and are generally a pain in the ass about everything. Please stop being a dick. -- Grant .Alpaugh 15:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a final warning and removed the prod again. However, I have to say that I would vote for delete in any AfD because there is no concrete information on the tournament whatsoever (no final venue or anything). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

How can you know the final venue? It's a home and away series between the semi-finalists. Teams have already qualified for 2009-2010 (DC United already winning the US Open, and Columbus Crew will win the Supporters Shield in a few days). Ticket sales have already started for the preliminary round - [13]. Nfitz (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:SuperSonicx1986 received a 72-hour block for still doing this, but while blocked, once again blanked and prodded CONCACAF Champions League 2009–10 using IP account User:206.209.102.178, an account he has used previously. In addition to this obvious violation of procedures he has continued to edit war on pages Template:North American club football competitions, CONCACAF Champions League, Template:CONCACAF Champions League, Copa Interclubes UNCAF, and Copa Sudamericana, making changes that are consistently reverted by various other users. Nfitz (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- More vandalism by this user, this time using User:206.209.102.182. Are there any admins out there who can block the user, and the IP range? And perhaps semi-protect the page? Nfitz (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism remains by User:SuperSonicx1986 using several IP accounts 68.215.154.112, 206.209.102.178, 206.209.102.182, 68.218.61.252 and 67.34.2.41. I request for a semi-protection to the pages mentioned above, atleast to anonymous users. JC 16:34, 22 Octuber 2008 (PST)

I've requested semi-protection for several of these. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#CONCACAF Champions League Nfitz (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- And as is usually the case, semi-protection was refused. I've asked again - meanwhile SuperSonicx1986 continues to vandalise, with the user comment want to keep censoring, posting false information, and vandalising, that's fine. I got a lot more IP addresses where this came from and I will just make more, you fascists. Nfitz (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I just thought I would mention that the main SuperLiga article has also been vandalized, presumably by the same person, so it might need protection, too. -- Grant .Alpaugh 22:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw that one, but he's only hit it a couple of times. I've had problems getting an admin to semi-protect the ones he has hit a couple of dozen times! However the list I submitted is now semi-protected but only for a week. Keep an eye on SuperLiga, as he might now attack that one out of frustration. Nfitz (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The vandal SuperSonicx1986 attacked again today, check it up the mentioned articles. JC 20:55, 04 November 2008 (PST)

Ronaldo

I'd appreciate it if an admin could temporarily semi-protect Ronaldo's article. An IP user has been adding the same unsourced/non-notable material (career assist totals) to it for a few days now. - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Tap, tap. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Expatriate footballers in Norway

What happened here? There are now over 40 subcategories where 1 category would suffice. I thought there was a concensus against developing all of these subcategories for types of expatriates in a specific country. Am I wrong? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that a number of these subcategories were deleted at AfD, followed a few days later by a keep no consensus decision on another bunch of similar subcategories. I raised the subject here in order to try and gain some consensus and consitency on the issue but there was not enough interest shown to end the confusion over Xian expatriate footballers in Y categories. E P 13:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the clear conflict of interest on the 2nd AfD close, the guy who closed it (Good Ol’factory) !voted keep in the first debate meaning that he cannot possibly have closed the second contradictory one from a NPOV. E P 13:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that. I agree that these subcategories are unnecessary and will cause a large proliferation of categories with only 2 or 3 articles in them (in other words a case of overcategorization). Can we try to build a concensus and them take them to CfD? Jogurney (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive bot

It looks like it isn't working, there are sections at the top that haven't been used in a month and the newest section in the most recent archive is a month old. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be because there were two threads by Jacoplane (talk · contribs) that use a non-standard date format and that was confusing the archive bot. I have manually archived them to the appropriate archive pages, and I'll see if MiszaBot II (talk · contribs) likes it now to start re-archiving. Qwghlm (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It worked by the looks of things. It looks like the footbo spam link was causing problems as well. Qwghlm (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've also been bold and added in some code for HBC Archive Indexerbot (talk · contribs) to take care of archive indexing - this means in future it will be easier for us to find old stuff in the archives, I hope. Qwghlm (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK it seems to have worked. So we now have an automatically-updated list of archived topics at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive Index that links through to old topics along with their title and date, so finding old discussions will be easier. I've taken the liberty of using an smaller & more automatic archive box on this page that doesn't need manual updating as well. Hope that's OK by everyone. Qwghlm (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The sortable index table looks useful, well done E P 00:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Julian Valentin

Can a mod please re-create the article for Julian Valentin - the kid is finally, FINALLY making his MLS debut for LA Galaxy today. Confirmation is here [14] - thanks! --JonBroxton (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've left the updating with the new facts to you or another more knowledgeable editor. Qwghlm (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The old "famous players" problem

Albedo Piazzolla has been adding famous/notable player sections to articles without providing an accompanying criteria. Should I be removing the sections (as I have done to a couple of articles), or slapping a {{Famous players}} tag at the top of the sections? I'd be inclined to do the latter if someone would actually take the time to build the list according to the criteria stated, but I don't think it is likely to happen. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, would criteria be needed for a "Notable former players" section in a non-League club's article? If the player has become notable (i.e., he has a Wikipedia article) since leaving the club, shouldn't this suffice? - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems with Notable former players sections is that it is at best imprecise as to the chronology of that notability. For example, should Teddy Sheringham be considered as a "notable past player" at Colchester: notable among English players of his era, but his few months at Layer Road were entirely forgettable: Ian Wright is notable, but was he anything more than a bit better than other Kent League players while at Greenwich Borough?

As regards your idea about an article being sufficient notability, it would very much depend on which non-league club you have in mind: if applied to Cambridge United, we'd see every one of their players from 1970-2005: applied to Brett Sports it would be sufficient grounds. This variety of criteria as to how high the threshold might be set is why it should be justified on each talk page.

As a {{Famous players}} tag slapper-on, I would be say slap away on Sr Piazzolla's contributions, but given that the template includes the words "If no criteria is forthcoming, the section is liable to deletion", how long should the tag be in place before an axe falls? Kevin McE (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. He's re-added the list to SC Freiburg's article, listing players' caps for their respective countries. Some of them didn't receive caps whilst with the club, but it's better than nowt, I suppose. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My opinion - players should only be considered 'notable' on the club page if the club itself (or acceptable local media) considers them notable - for example, Bradford City's notable players are those who have been voted by the Telegraph & Argus, the local paper. Giant Snowman 00:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think if a player gained international caps whilst at the club, or started his career there (and actually played for their 1st team) and went on to become a top class player after leaving, then they can be added to that list, or if they made a significant contribution to the team, ie scoring the winner in a cup final Skitzo (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And how would you define a "top class player"? Giant Snowman 10:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

someone who starts his/her career at a smaller club (ie someone like Oldham) and goes on to be a regular player at a top level club (any premier league club). Skitzo (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what inspired you to cite Oldham as an example, but it is distinctly problematic. Oldham were a top level club from 1910-1923, and again from 1991-1994. Should every "regular" (and I share the Snowman's reservations over that word) player for those years be included? And if every "regular" player for Oldham in 1913 and 1993 is to be included, why shouldn't every "regular" player for every other top division team those, or any other, years? This seems a fine example of why the inclusion/exclusion criteria should be specifically settled at each team's talk page. Kevin McE (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that, for lower league clubs, a Premier League player who started there is indeed notable, how will you measure how many games makes someone a "regular player at a top level club"? Giant Snowman 18:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you people intentionally looking for problems? we are all football fans to be involved in this i presume, so we know what construes a "1st team regular", as for the Oldham example I am obviosuly going off current league status, please stop creating difficulties where there is no need to be. Skitzo (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, I'm an just trying to help solve the problems that such sections cause. Giant Snowman 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the start of this topic, Albedo Piazzolla is still at it. I've left several messages on their talk page, but with no response. For example, they added a list to Arminia Bielefeld of every player who'd ever been capped and played for the club, not necessarily at the same time. Any suggestions as to a course of action? Dancarney (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards removing unqualified lists over tagging them with {{Famous players}}, and have done a few times. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

North Road (stadium) peer review

The peer review of North Road (stadium) is crying out for some comments. It's been listed for 11 days and only ChrisTheDude has replied. Any comments would be appreciated. The discussion can be found here. Thanks. – Pee Jay 20:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for 1923 FA Cup Final, which has been listed at PR since 15 October and has attracted no review comments at all so far -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Morgan

I want to create an article about a former Manchester United player named Hugh Morgan, but I am unsure about how to disambiguate the article title. The subject of Hugh Morgan (footballer) is a Scottish footballer born in Lanarkshire who played for Liverpool in the early 1900s. However, the Hugh Morgan I intend to write about is also a Scottish footballer born in Lanarkshire, and he too was active in the early 1900s. Does anyone have any suggestions as to a disambiguator I can use? – Pee Jay 10:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

By date of birth..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If not then by position? Qwghlm (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would concur with date of birth, i.e. Hugh Morgan (footballer born XXXX). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Liverpool player should be moved to Hugh Morgan (footballer born 1869), with the (footballer) page turned into a disam. Giant Snowman 11:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I forgot to mention that when I started this discussion I didn't know Manchester United's Hugh Morgan's date of birth. However, like an idiot, I had forgotten to check one of the sites I regularly use to see if they had it, and they do, which has now made this whole discussion a rather embarrassing and unnecessary display of shoddy research on my part. Nevertheless, after creating the new article at Hugh Morgan (footballer born 1875), should I also move Hugh Morgan (footballer) to Hugh Morgan (footballer born 1869)? – Pee Jay 11:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the confirmation of that, GS. – Pee Jay 11:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I started to suggest that 10 minutes ago (hence edit conflict) and my browser crashed. Simple disamb page at original (footballer) page? Heightwatcher (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I usually let the (footballer) pages redirect back to the more generic disambiguation page, jumping to the relevant section if there is one (e.g. Andrew Mitchell (footballer)) - there shouldn't be more than one dab page for the same name, IIRC. Qwghlm (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. I've just done it. Peanut4 (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

FA Cup 1928-29

I've literally just created the article for the FA Cup 1928-29, and as soon as I did, I got a message from User:CorenSearchBot regarding it being a "substantial copy of [15]". Seeing as I created the page without resorting to this site, which seems like a proxy and probably links back to this, please could someone check this and either let me know so I can tell the operator of the bot, or just tell them directly? I can't go to the link because of the internet filter at my work. Cheers. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is, I've just checked. Seems silly - maybe drop a note on the bot owner's page? Qwghlm (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Goal-line technology

A new article on goal-line technology was started yesterday (not by myself) - it has some references and not a bad start but has some issues with world outlook (mainly UK perspective and quite recentist) and some balance problems (particularly with the list of proponents & opponents). It would be interesting to get further editors' inputs into it. Qwghlm (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

help please

someone keeps removing 4 players from the Leicester City Current squad list, the 4 players in question, may not have squad numbers but they are apart of the current Leicester City squad on their website, can you please help me keep an eye on this as they shouldn't be removed unless sold or loaned out. Skitzo (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Are some of them out on loan? If so, they should probably be in the "out on loan" section, rather than the main squad list. But they shouldn't be removed completely. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

no, as yet none of the people that keep being remove are out on loan, though 1 was just on trial at Cheltenham.Skitzo (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone is still removing players with no squad number, if its someone on here please state why, if not can people keep an eye on this please as all the players in the current squad section are listed in the player profiles on Leicester's website. Skitzo (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

it appears User:Wikinixon17 is the person removing them, can people please help me educate this user on the policies, the players are on LCFC.co.uk so they should be on here ... Skitzo (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton Academical

Please can an admin protect the Hamilton Academical F.C. article; IP users keep adding a player called James Hall to the current squad, even though he isn't listed on the official website OR Soccerbase and so doesn't play for them! Regards, Giant Snowman 19:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Done for a week. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Giant Snowman 19:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

All-time tournament statistics

At what point in a club tournament's history -- I'm specifically asking in regards to the North American SuperLiga -- does it become acceptable to create an article that would consolidate into a set of wikitables all of the previous winners, top goalscorers, etc. I created a section on the tournament's main page that was subsequently updated & edited by other users after the 2008 tournament, the 2nd NA SuperLiga, was completed earlier this year, but it has since been deleted; a short discussion ensued on the talk page in regards to the tables' relevance, but only myself and one other editor were involved. Here is the archived page with tables included. If it is superfluous to include this information after only two tournaments have been played then I have no problem with it, but with limited input from users it can be difficult to attain a consensus. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Striker

The article previously called Striker has been moved following proper procedure to Forward (association football). However, the dab page previously called Striker (disambiguation) was then moved to Striker, thereby making all the thousands(?) of links to Striker land at a dab page rather than where they're supposed to go. Aren't people supposed to fix (or at least consider) potential problems like this before moving pages? and more importantly, is there anything can be done about it short of a massive manual disambiguation exercise? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on the editor who moved it's talk page. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have moved them back. But here in England, most times that I hear the word "striker" it means a man in a work stoppage. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both!! though I'm not sure I'd agree about the most common usage in England these days :-) I've added a {{redirect}} hatnote to Forward (association football) pointing to the Striker (disambiguation) page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Starting formations and XIs

Judging by these (1, 2) additions to the Nottingham Forest 2008-09 season article, I think someone from the Useless Stats department at Sky Sports is a Reds fan. Worthy of inclusion? Not in my opinion. - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

POV, OR and unproveable. Going on most starts, as I've seen elsewhere, does not recompense for players playing in multiple positions. Formations change, players leave and enter. It's too much of a minefield. Delete on sight in my opinion. Peanut4 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Peanut - delete without remorse! Giant Snowman 02:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that the sources given for the "starting 11" section are other sections of the same article. Excellent... - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Israeli Premier League

An IP keeps adding a list of all Israelis who have transferred to European clubs to this article. I've removed it several times stating that it's unnecessary, but he keeps re-adding it (along with adding a few players to the list of Premier League players, even though they never played in the Premier League (which was established in 1999). Could someone either semi-protect the article or have a word with the IP (who has just severely vandalised my userpage too). Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This has now spread to the Beitar Jerusalem F.C. article, where a list of every player Beitar has ever sold to a European club is being added... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Football (soccer)

Out of interest, why was it that we decided to leave association football's main category at Category:Football (soccer)? I thought the reason might have been that it would have taken a monumental effort to re-tag all of the related articles, but I don't think that the magnitude of a task should have any bearing on whether it gets performed or not. – Pee Jay 14:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support all the categories being renamed, and the tagging can be done by a bot on request I believe. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - I've always wondered why the subcategories were never renamed when association football made the big move...Giant Snowman 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

With the above comments taken into account, I have started a CfR discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 31#Category:Football (soccer). – Pee Jay 16:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Player Numbers

If a player plays for 2 different clubs at a time (By this I mean a first squad and a reserve squad), what would be the players number in the infobox? Example: Thomas Kraft, he plays for Bayern Munich (#35) and Bayern Munich II (#1). Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you not put "clubnumber=35 ([[FC Bayern Munich|Bayern Munich]])<br />1 ([[FC Bayern Munich II|Bayern Munich II]])" in the infobox? – Pee Jay 21:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess that works. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Uploading images from Commons

Basically I want to add this picture to this article - is it possible? Giant Snowman 00:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. – Pee Jay 00:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Commons and Wikipedia work along side so every image on Commons is available on Wikipedia. Here is the image on Wikipedia Image:Daniel Gordon.jpg. Sunderland06 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know it would be that easy - I feel like a right idiot now! Giant Snowman 00:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Numeration of qualifying rounds for UEFA Champions League 2009-10

Has there been any official change in numeration for the qualifying rounds for UCL 2009-10? The season article and many of the European top leagues have already been mass-changed by User:Loveeuropeanfootball, yet I didn't hear anything from UEFA of an adaptation of the current numeration. Did anyone of the community hear about it? Hockey-holic (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything. That said, I don't remember seeing an announcement about the original names for the qualifying rounds either. Anyone care to provide a link? – Pee Jay 22:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Access list from Bert Kassies's website used to have QR0, QR1, QRNC2, QRC2, QRNC3 and QRC3. Now, however, QR1, QR2, QRNC3, QRC3, QRNC4 and QRC4 are used. However, I haven't heard about the official change of numeration either. AR TYOM 22:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, why has User:Loveeuropeanfootball changed the UEFA Champions League 2009-10 article to say "Play-off round for champions" and "Play-off round for non-champions" instead of "Fourth qualifying round for champions" and "Fourth qualifying round for non-champions"? – Pee Jay 22:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the official press release from UEFA. It's a little outdated, but I have not heard of any changes to this, either. Hockey-holic (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

For your information, I have just mass-reverted the edits made by User:Loveeuropeanfootball to the naming conventions provided by the official UEFA document, since I couldn't find any official UEFA updates on the case as of now. And honestly, I can't imagine UEFA to change their naming conventions for those rounds since there will only be six teams participating in the QRP, which is definitely not enough to give that round a full ordinal. Hockey-holic (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Serbian footballers from Bosnia and Herzegovina

Is this category Category:Serbian footballers from Bosnia and Herzegovina Overcategorization? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ognjen Koroman, Risto Vidaković, Savo Milošević were from BiH/RS and both not a part of FRY and Serbia. Matthew_hk t c 05:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Dyer

Bruce Dyer has played one international game for Montserrat, but it was in a friendly against Ashford Town. Surely this doesn't count as a legitimate international cap? Mattythewhite (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't be in info box - that should only have full internationals. Fine to mention it in the text 'tho--ClubOranje^Talk 13:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fresh pair of eyes needed

Can anyone tell me what's causing the floating 0 above the big table in List of FA Cup winners? I've been looking through the code to the point of near-blindness, but can't spot an error...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, found the little b*gger -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. You found it about two seconds before I did. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to player infobox

Any thoughts on this: Template_talk:Infobox_Football_biography#Change_to_management_section? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Full Back

Currently this link heads to a redirect for a trampoline move. Surely this phrase has more use in its association football sense? Fullback is already occupied by a disambiguation and I want to propose we do the same for Full Back - changing the redirect to the disambiguation. Alternatively, we could retain its use as a football term with a redirect to here or here.

On a related note – the parent article of Association football positions and its daughter article Defender (association football) seem to contain near identical information. Should the parent article be summarised a bit more? Or do others think it's fine as is? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Pro. Leagues

A player who gets a articel on wikipedia needs to have played in a profesional league, wonder if there is a list, of some sort, that shows which leagues that is profesinal otherwise creating one would a good helping thing i think. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 14:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

it's not specifically a pro-league, its a pro competition. Skitzo (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Stan Ternent

This edit has made my night. An IP edited Ternent's article, stating "Huddersfield Town - the way he's going he aint gonna last long. He's wasted so much cash we now have a team of central midfielders". What does a registered user go and do? Slaps a {{fact}} tag on the end of it. Marvellous. - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - such POV should always be reverted - with a suitable reason given in the edit summary, naturally. Qwghlm (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Poorly executed vandalism-reversion or giving any kind of creedence to obvious PoV / nonsense can sometimes be more dangerous than blatant vandalism, IMHO. --Jameboy (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sunday's featured article of the day

I've just found out that Priestfield Stadium is going to be featured on the Main Page this coming Sunday. I'm not sure if I'll be online at all on Sunday (family commitments an' all that) so could anyone who will be around keep an eye on it for the tidal wave of vandalism that usually affects the FA of the day? Cheers!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. Will try my best when I'm online. Peanut4 (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

HELP

Please, if anyone speaks Hebrew or knows some editor that does, help with the Israel State Cup 2008-09. I've lost the contact with HonorTheKing and now the article needs to be updated and rounds need to be added. It's not that big problem yet but soon it will be. Here is the official website where you can (probably) find the necessary information. SonjiCeli (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Number 57 (talk · contribs) has spent time in Israel, he'll be your best bet. Giant Snowman 04:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked him but he doesn't respond. SonjiCeli (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008-09 Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey season

Interested editors might like to take a look at this AfD for the season article of an amateur university team. The result could have implications for football seasons. TerriersFan (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Netherlands international footballers

This page has not been updated since June 2007 - could any wonderful editors with the knowledge/patience/time (all three would be ideal!) to address this problem please do so? Pretty please? Cheers, Giant Snowman 21:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am genuinely surprised at the number of players without articles yet - not so much the one-game-wonders, but there are a significant number of players here with 10+, 20+ 30+ and even 40+ international caps, yet no article. No doubt other countries have similar shortfalls. And still people think some 15 year old on trial at Ajax who may or may not make it desperately needs an article.--ClubOranje^Talk 05:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I know, it's shocking - even some of the players don't have articles on the Dutch wikipedia either! I'm going to start going through and make articles about some of the more prolific international players, and then go back and do the players who only made 1 or 2 appearances. Giant Snowman 14:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have included the only missing player (Marcellis) and updated the number of caps and goals. Does anyone know what the orange cells in the list represent? Aecis·(away) ^talk 21:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

50+ caps / 10+ goals. --ClubOranje^Talk 23:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a significant reason for a line to be drawn there (or anywhere, for that matter)? Kaizeler^T_C 00:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say the same. And why is Ruud van Nistelrooy's second cell pink, for that matter? Aecis·(away) ^talk 15:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just a typing error. Orange is #FFA54F and pink #FFA57F (7 is above 4 on keyboards). --necronudist (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Referencing in career statistics tables

I've come accross a bit of a problem with how to present references in career statistics tables in player's articles. For example, Richard Brodie (footballer) shows three individual references for the 2008-09 season, whereas in Mark Robinson (footballer born 1981), I've grouped them together as one, as this helps save some room. Which should be the preferred option? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Both are fine in my opinion, I'd keep both as they are. Grouping saves space but isn't suitable if the references are used individually elsewhere in the article. --Jameboy (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Help request for Jason Dozzell GAN

Hi, I am reviewing this article for Good Article status. User:The Rambling Man on tour, the nominator, has limited computer access. Everything in the review has been addressed except for two final points. I would work on them myself, but I'm unsure of where to find the information. If anyone can help, the review can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at addressing the wording issues and also fixed a link, but there's still a minor referencing issue. --Jameboy (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Added a couple of refs, don't know if they're enough... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. All of my concerns have been addressed, so I promoted the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to pop in (while in Jaiselmer) to say thanks guys! Much love to you all. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Marc_Edworthy#Career_statistics

can somebody who knows how please help me correct the table at Marc_Edworthy#Career_statistics please, after adding the leicester figures it appears to have caused an error. Skitzo (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Done it. Peanut4 (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Career Stats templates

on the current England 1 there is no space for competitions like the JPT, is there another version to use and if not where do i put the players appearances in that competition? Skitzo (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It's partly because there are at least three different styles of statistic tables. Some use templates, some not. And there has never been any consensus gained on which to use. Peanut4 (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

well do you have any suggestions, I was adding the template to Ashley Chambers, whose only appearance so far this season has been in the jpt, bus as it stands you would think he hasn't played. Skitzo (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I would personally use a different table, since the template you're using has no space for Johnstone Paints game, play-off games, Charity Shields games, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions as to which, I'm still fairly new to the templates side of things on here--Skitzo (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

My personal favourite is the one used in Thierry Henry. However, there is another type in Steve Bruce. Both are featured articles, but both of those tables are more user-friendly since they allow for better flexibility. Peanut4 (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Jussi Jääskeläinen

someone from an ip keeps changing the apps in his info box for bolton to 400, this is incorrect he has made 400 apps in all comps, can you please add this to your watch lists as I'm close to the 3R rule. Skitzo (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Officially

I'm almost certainly preaching to the converted here, but I've noticed a tendency in articles for superfluous use of the word "officially", or calling things "official" as an appeal to authority. Similarly "reportedly" and as has been pointed out before, "it was announced that". (this minor rant sparked by seeing the term "official height" on my watchlist.) Oldelpaso (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

not exactly sure what you're complaining about, the use of official sites for some things is essential. Skitzo (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to find an example. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble expressing my meaning unambiguously. I am not talking about sourcing. I mean the use of "official" where there is no office. An "official height" implies that a person can have both an official and unofficial height. Or like in Chile national football team "Carlos Caszely of Chile became the first player to be officially sent off with a red card". I know this is a minor issue, and I'm regretting posting about it to be honest, its a bit Victor Meldrew of me. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I get what you're saying. I am also unpleased when I see the phrase "it was announced that" or "it was reported". Do we really need those phrases? Who reported or announced it? Instead of writing that just state the fact. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. And I'll add "currently" to that list. It adds nothing with the present tense of any verb doing the same job. Peanut4 (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Peanut, I always remove "currently" from the intro sentence when it says "who currently plays for". Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And I wish I had a tool to destroy every single instance of 'plied his trade'... Nanonic (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game

I noticed that List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game is up for FLC. I'd never have dreamed of creating such ~~an article~~ a list, but having seen it I thought it may be interesting to do something similar for football 'keepers. Admittedly it could be difficult to source, depending on the scope of the list, but I thought I'd throw the idea out there for discussion. Pat Jennings, Jimmy Glass, Peter Schmeichel, Paul Robinson, Mart Poom and René Higuita all spring to mind but there must be many more. --Jameboy (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You missed José Luis Chilavert. He could be on it a good 50 times or so. I'd agree with you about the doubts of the scope of such a list. The list you have quoted above is merely one league, rather than world football. Peanut4 (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I meant Chilavert, not Higuita. :-o The scope could be anything, I was just giving examples. It depends on what could be sourced. A list for the Premier League would be easy to source but would probably be too short, for example. --Jameboy (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps break it up by international matches, and then club matches by country? Heightwatcher (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a simple way to do it, but it takes a long time... just go through Category:Football (soccer) goalkeepers and click on each one, recording who has scored... for instance, Samir Aboud has scored twice from the penalty spot. Like I said, it'd take some time, but maybe you could enlist a chum to do it with you :-) El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 14:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Rogério Ceni is the goalkeeper who scored more goals (83 goals), according to IFFHS. He certainly should be included in this list. --Carioca (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Brad Friedel scored once for Blackburn. I like the idea of the list, but it would need to include lists by league (and maybe only cover the top 5-10 leagues). Jogurney (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about restricting the list to the top 5 leagues given the South American tradition of producing crazy goalkeepers. If anyone gets around to doing this list, don't forget Cristian Lucchetti of Banfield. E P 23:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Netherlands: Edwin van der Sar scored for Ajax against De Graafschap. Bram Castro scored for Roda JC against De Graafschap. Martin Pieckenhagen scored for Heracles Almelo against AZ. Rein van Duijnhoven scored for MVV against FC Den Bosch. Jan van Grinsven managed to score twice for FC Den Bosch. There are probably many more. Aecis·(away) ^talk 00:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Robinson (goalkeeper) has two, Mart Poom has one as well. Sunderland06 (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Peter Shilton - I was there when he scored for Leicester City at The Dell (Southampton) in October 1967, the full length of the pitch from a clearance from his own goal. Wow! --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be quite an interessting list. In Germany, Hans-Jörg Butt scored 26 goals in the Bundesliga, I think it was all penalties. EA210269 (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea, Butt was all penalties, but Jens Lehmann scored once in a Dortmund-Schalke match. For Schalke, IIRC.Madcynic (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Butt is responsible for one of my favourites. I won't give it away, but its the first hit for his name on Youtube. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Three more Brazilian goalkeepers scored goals: Bruno scored a free kick goal for Flamengo against Coronel Bolognesi, Eduardo Martini scored a goal for Avaí against Paraná Clube, and Tiago scored a goal for Portuguesa against Remo. --Carioca (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the subject gets a fair bit of interest. What about starting an article and various users can contribute their bit, like they have done so on this talk page? I don't mind looking after the Bundesliga section of it. I propose however, to limit the list to first division goalies to keep it reasonable. Also, there will be a lot more then eleven goalies, the NHL number, that managed to do so. Therefore, it might be sensible to break it down into seasons or clubs played for at the most, not single games. It could get out of hand otherwise. EA210269 (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What about national cup matches? I mentioned Bram Castro for instance, he scored in a KNVB Cup match. Should that be included? And what about international club competitions like the Champions League? Aecis·(away) ^talk 14:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

How should we account for players like Jorge Campos who were primarily goalkeepers but also played striker? I think Campos did score a few goals while playing the goalkeeper position, but he scored most when playing as a striker (and another player was the goalkeeper). Jogurney (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For those sorts of players who had two different roles, I think it should be kept to goals which can be verified to have been scored while they were a goalkeeper, perhaps with a note stating that they often played in other roles on the pitch. Brilliant idea for an article, by the way! El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 08:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If a list is created, it would be a good idea to distinguish between penalties and goals from open play. 09:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like suitable matter, but the discussion above indicates the perennial problems of recentism and profile among Anglo-phones. While the goals might all have sources, they are sources that will only be found if someone knows that there are instances to look for. I know that it is worth looking up Ian Hesford and Pat Jennings in this regard, but have we got sufficient contributors who will be able to tell us about (for example) Hungarian 3rd division instances in the 1930s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs)

I'll start an article in a ~~sandbox page.~~ Obviously the format is the first thing that needs to be sorted out. It might never be a complete list, but that won't stop it being a useful one. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Now in mainspace at List of goalscoring goalkeepers. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest renaming it to List of goalscoring association football goalkeepers, to clarify the sport. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I never thought that me creating a shortish list would've turned into this. :-) Maxim_(talk) 22:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If we can extend the lead to more than 1,500 characters, then this must be a guaranteed candidate for DYK. Peanut4 (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with a DYK is that because of the article's subject and age, it's completely unstable, and I'm not sure whether it would be a smart idea to feature it on the main page. Maxim_(talk) 15:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that Paul Robinson (goalkeeper) and Jason Matthews (footballer) both scored a goal on the same day? --Jimbo^[online] 04:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Company Voluntary Agreement"

Lots of article on clubs which have experienced financial difficulties refer to CVAs. Such a term really ought to be wikilinked so that readers can find out what one actually is (I barely understand the concept myself) but I can't find an article that's appropriate - any ideas....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The article on United Kingdom insolvency law refers to Company voluntary arrangements, but as you can see, this is a redlink. Are there any lawyers out there (as long as you don't want a fee!))? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm by no means a lawyer but I've done work experience at a law firm...but I dealt mainly with house repossessions. A rough description would be that it enables a company to enter into a legally-binding agreement with its creditors re:debts while at the same allowing the directors to retain control of the company. Giant Snowman 13:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sejad Salihović

This article was recently moved to Sead Salihovic for no apparent reason. If no one knows why this page was moved can an admin move it back to Sejad Salihović. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely needs moving back. Giant Snowman 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Harry Erentz

I'm not sure how many Tottenham or Swindon fans we have here, but if anyone could help to fill in Harry Erentz's biography about his time at either club, your assistance would be much appreciated. Even some more accurate stats would be useful. – Pee Jay 22:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I only have statistics from 1908 onwards for Tottenham Hotspur. Govvy (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I do have older stuff, I could have a look when I have time. You should add 1901 FA cup final honour down for him know, Govvy (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Old Owens FC

Notable or no? Article creator seems to have a COI. E P 19:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is just a copy & paste from the Old Owens FC official website, and as you've said there is definite conflict of interest from the creator, but I've no idea if it's ever played at a level high enough to give it notability or not...Giant Snowman 19:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged it as a copyvio -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

heh, highly not notable! especially when my brother has played sunday league against them! :/ Govvy (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability query

Does anyone know if playing in the third and fourth levels of Turkish football (currently the TFF Second League and TFF Third League) is sufficient to pass notability. I prod'ed several articles on the current squad members of Göztepe (a famous Turkish club now playing at the fourth level) and the author has asked if the leagues should be considered fully professional and pass WP:ATHLETE because it appears that all players even at the fourth level has professional contracts. There are over 50 clubs in the third tier and even more at the fourth tier so I suspect the paid attendances are very low and doubt that all of these players are full-time, but I'm afraid I don't know for sure. Does anyone have experience with these leagues and know whether they should be considered fully professional? Thank you in advance. Jogurney (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also had a similar quibble with an editor. The problem begins with what people declare to be professional - to some any form of payment makes them pro, even if it what we think of in the UK as semi-pro. I am inclined to be very dubious that the third and fourth levels in Turkey are fully professional. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Turkey could have a similar league structure to Italy, where Serie C is - although it doesn't look lie it is - actualy fully-pro. Giant Snowman 23:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

At least Serie C is at the list, while even the Turkish second tier is not. BTW, not mentioned one way or the other are also leagues like Croatia, Romania, Slovakia, Finland (to name but a few of the most relevant...). Could we have some input on that as well? Kaizeler^T_C 00:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. The problem is getting information on this level of football (I don't read Turkish). There are some well-supported clubs like Göztepe at the fourth level with stadia that have capacity for 50,000 or more fans. I doubt they get many fans to show for a fourth division match, but I suspect Göztepe is fully professional. However, some of the other clubs at this level appear to have tiny municipal stadia and I cannot believe all of their squad is full-time. Jogurney (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If anyone knows definitively (good) or has a source (even better!) about any of those leagues, by all means, please add them to that list. I've done some research and added a few more, but I don't know enough personally to add any more without sources. matt91486 (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

2006 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Group 1

Why is there an article just on this Qualifying group and not any other group in UEFA? IMO either all groups should have articles or none should exist. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought the reason would be obvious. Someone clearly created the first one, but didn't have time to do the rest (or got bored) and hoped that other people would fill in the gaps. An article should not be deleted merely because it is part of an incomplete set. – Pee Jay 11:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, in fact, if the author intended this, he/she might have put something like this in the article's talk page. Heightwatcher (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with PeeJay. Other such group articles exist for other World Cups, European Championships, etc, so there is no need to delete, merely expand the others. Peanut4 (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Josiah Johnson vandalism

This IP user consistently vandalises the Josiah Johnson page; I have warned him twice but have now reached my 3RR limit. Please can an admin protect the page? Cheers, Giant Snowman 01:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't blatant vandalism exempt from 3RR? Beve (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

List of FA Trophy winners

The first comment at the Peer Review of this article was that it shouldn't exist in the first place - anyone else got any thoughts specifically on this.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have a view either way. Though I think an extension to the other lists, such as FA Cup, League Cup, etc, is fair enough, the main article isn't very big at the moment and the move looks a little premature. In time, I suppose, the article is worthy of a separate list. Peanut4 (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As if by magic, the main article has now doubled in size :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Rui Fonte

Can an admin unprotect/restore this page as he now meets the criteria set at WP:ATHLETE, as he played for Arsenal in the League Cup against Wigan. --Jimbo^[online] 23:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't stricly speaking meet WP:ATHLETE, as he hasn't played in the league. I would, however, support him probably now meeting WP:BIO. - fchd (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Football League Cup is a fully professional tournament, as only Football League clubs enter. So yes, he does. --Jimbo^[online] 06:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

But WP:ATHLETE only mentions "leagues", and it does so quite specifically. - fchd (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The rule is American-centric (which tends to have leagues and considers knockout tournaments such as the NBA playoffs as part of the league not separate). As the FLC is a fully professional competition administered by the Football League I think it falls definitely within the spirit if not the exact wording of that rule. BTW The page has been created & unprotected now. Qwghlm (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, to count league appearances and not cup appearances as notable is arbitrary and nonsensical. The spirit of these rules are more important than the (imprecise) wording. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Copa Toyota de America

Resolved

Is this a genuine competition? I cannot find anything on it on Google (apart from the Copa Libertadores, which is sponsored by Toyota but is for clubs not national teams) and South American national teams are in the midst of a World Cup qualification competition right now I find it unlikely this is taking place, at a senior level. Someone with a better knowledge of the South American game may know better than me though. Qwghlm (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not a genuine competition. It was invented by the person who started the article. --Carioca (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a blatant hoax. I mean the latest round of fixtures was finished an hour ago - either that or the games were in another time zone. Peanut4 (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the way the fixtures move forwards, then backwards, then forwards again in time. Oh, and that some teams played twice on the same day..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

.....not to mention that results are already in place for Round 11, which apparently won't be played till this coming weekend..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna AfD it.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedied, author blocked. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, cheers - I half-thought it might be a youth competition or something but it did also look like someone's fantasy football standings. Qwghlm (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

AC Omonia

The whole Daily Mirror mistake has reared its head again - can some people give input on Talk:AC Omonia#Why was the reference to the British Media being hoaxed through this page removed?. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Because British journalists are lazy. The Mail just completely copied the Fabian Delph article into one of their stories as a section: "So who is Fabian Delph?" They may as well as said, "Because we don't know either". It looked like every detail, whether verified or not, true or not, was in there. Anyway I digress. Peanut4 (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Expatriate footballers, part 5

I just noticed that Theilert (talk · contribs) has created a whole load of "Fooian expatriate footballers in Foo" subcategories, such as Category:Faroese expatriate footballers in Norway. He/she has also added the {{catdiffuse}} template to a load of expatriate footballer categories, calling on users to move articles to "Fooian expatriate footballers in Foo" subcategories. He/she appears to have done so without any prior discussion here and despite the many discussions we've had over here in recent weeks and despite the lack of consensus either way. What would be the right course of action? Aecis·(away) ^talk 21:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there is probably a consensus to merge those categories (Slovakian expatriate footballers in Costa Rica is my favorite), but I guess we need to go to CfD to do it. Jogurney (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there was a CfD about these types of categories just last month. IIRC, consensus was for deletion. – Pee Jay 21:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I made my comment here but there was not enough interest to generate consensus. The subject then came up again here. The first CfD resulted in Delete, the 2nd contradictory one was closed by one of the editors that voted keep in the first discussion and should be disregarded. I say we start upmerging these triple intersections into their parent categories before we end up with 20,000 of them. The contents of the sub categories can easily be generated using Catscan or doing an incategory search on Wikipedia such as incategory:"Brazilian footballers" incategory:"Expatriate footballers in England". King of the North East 22:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I still want to get rid of every single category, it's rediculas that we have these categories. The British Library doesn't have categories like this for footballers! Nor does the FA database. Govvy (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I also think all these categories should be eliminated. There is no use in them and IMO it is overcategorization. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thirded - this is over-categorisation beyond belief. Giant Snowman 00:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been clearing out the catdiffuse tags and manually editing the articles to move the categories to the parent category. How do we go about deleting the remaining empty categories (before someone else decides to populate them again)? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Shall we do a vote cast to see how many people want to keep or delete the whole lot of these Expatriate categories? Govvy (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I vote to keep the "Expatriate footbalers in County X" categories, but up-merge all of the triple intersects (such as "Slovak expatriate footballers in Costa Rica"). Jogurney (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jogurney. The intersects basically just combine two categories, and while are mildly interesting are overcategorisation in my opinion. Peanut4 (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen anyone give a convincing reason that these triple intersections should be kept. Most of the reasons seem to consist of I like them and the misleading argument that the parent Expatriate footballers in Y categoriesare too large, (Category:Living people anyone?). We should set about upmerging the categories into their parent categories unless someone can come up with a policy based reason that this should not be done. King of the North East 20:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Fb match template fixed

I have fixed the misalignment issue of hidden content for lower resolutions. Contents which can be revealed by clicking on "Show" should now be displayed correctly besides their captions. However, the fix caused an increase of space between the (now) table rows. It would be gladly appreciated if somebody more comfortable with HTML and/or CSS than me would be able to fix this. Code for testing can be found at my sandbox. Hockey-holic (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Date on project page.

Shall we change them from American year-dd-mm to dd-mm-year format? Govvy (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean yyyy-mm-dd (ISO 8601 dates)? As the yyyy-dd-mm is incorrect in all uses and should be changed. WP:MOSDATE give the styles that can be used and the only seemingly acceptable shortform in the ISO one (as it's unambiguous). Nanonic (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

ISO 8601 is all Americanized. With dates, times and spelling in American based format submitted on a project to try and tell the world, this is the correct way. Well, there is also a British format which was adopted by other countries on the old British Imperial used across the old empire now known as the Commonwealth. Amazingly enough this was an International standard 120 years before ISO 8601 even existed. Govvy (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What? You're wrong - the "Americanised" format is the bizarre mm-dd-yyyy way, which I agree should be avoided everywhere, but the choice between little-endian (Commonwealth format) and big-endian (ISO 9601) is just a matter of style. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed update to {{infobox Football biography}}

I've proposed an update to the code and styling of {{infobox Football biography}} (to match our other infoboxen) on template talk:infobox Football biography#Conversion to {{infobox}}. Please add any commentary there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Serbian Superliga 2008–09 scorers

To PROD or not to PROD? Perhaps even AfD? Hockey-holic (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say PROD. I've just prodded List of Goalscorers in the Football League Two 2008-09 Season. Peanut4 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. PRODded. I wish life would sometimes be just as easy...^^ Hockey-holic (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've prodded another one, but it's been contested. I suppose now we get a verdict. Peanut4 (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was a quick verdict. However, the whole list of Serbian scorers has found it's way back into the Serbian Superliga 2008-09 article, along with some talk on the discussion page. Hockey-holic (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability for leagues

I dunno if this is just a case of opening a can of worms, but is it worth considering looking at some sort of guidelines on notability of leagues, especially in England? In the past I've seen articles on leagues very very low down the pyramid put up for AfD but saved pretty much solely because they're theoretically part of the English football league system, at least according to our article on it. Sunday leagues, however, have come up at AfD and been unanimously voted out as "simply not notable". This seems a bit bizarre, as, once you get below county league level, frankly there isn't much to differentiate Saturday and Sunday leagues - they're all amateur, they all generally take place on park pitches or on hired pitches at leisure centres, and so on. The connection between small "town" leagues and the larger pyramid is incredibly tenuous at best, and is there any real difference between the Bristol Regional Sunday Football League and the Bristol and Avon League other than the fact that the latter takes place on Saturday not Sunday and the theoretical (but in reality non-existent) possibility that a club like ~~Bradley Stoke Town 'A'~~ Bideford Old Boys could, given about 20 promotions and a switch to a completely new ground, reach the Premier League? Thoughts, anyone.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I voted keep in one of these AfDs before because it's information that could reasonably be put in the article English football league system, but including it in there would make the article far too long if this was done for all leagues. Also, just being facetious now, it's not possible for Bradley Stoke 'A' to reach the Premier League, as they would have to overtake the first team along the way, and as reserve teams can't play in the same division as first teams it can't be done, although I like the idea of Premier League football at Bradley Stoke Community School. :-) — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 14:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Changed my example team :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If they can be sensibly sourced, and even most Sunday leagues get coverage in their local papers, I don't see why there needs to be any distinction between Saturday / Sunday / Midweek leagues, and whether they leagues are in the pyramid (officially or unofficially) or not should have very little bearing either. Keep the general notability guidelines to the forefont. - fchd (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In my neck of the woods (Birmingham) the Coronation League and Festival League do indeed get quite extensive coverage in the local press, but if I created articles on them I wouldn't be 100% surprised to see them cropping up at AfD. I don't have an issue with the creation of articles on very low-level leagues, I guess I'm mainly concerned about the blanket "Saturday league = inherently notable, Sunday league = inherently non-notable" approach which seems to have been applied in the past...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring WP:N and a league's general coverage for a second, I think having a very distinct cut off point between notability and not is the best way forward. And the easiest way to have a distinct cut off point is those in or out of the English football league system. On the face of it, there is little difference between Saturday and Sunday leagues. For my own experience, most people who play in the lower Saturday leagues, also play on a Sundays. However, I think the notability guideline to "keep" those in the English football league system pyramid, and "delete" unless other reasons can be given for "keep" those not, is the best solution. Peanut4 (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

How can it be proved that leagues such as the example I gave above, the Bristol and Avon, actually are part of the English football league system, though? What's the reliable source that actually says there's a route of progression from this league up through other leagues....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you including teams that play in these leagues? Don't forget to add, so teams and leagues registered to the FA make it notable? Govvy (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source for which leagues are in the pyramid system: http://www.thepyramid.info/asp/pyramid3.asp — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 08:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In the words of Ealdgyth at many an FAC, what makes that site a reliable source? If it was based on something issued by the FA then fair enough, but it just seems to be one guy's hobby site based on his own original research and, in some cases, wishful thinking. It doesn't list the Shropshire County Premier Football League as a feeder to the West Midlands (Regional) League even though a number of Shropshire teams have moved up to the WMRL in recent years, yet it lists the Bristol Downs Football League as a feeder to the Bristol and Avon even though no teams appear to have moved between the two leagues (in either direction) in living memory...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A random question on this topic: is this league just thoroughly neglected by the WP community, or is it truly so non-notable that most of the teams can barely muster a sentence of context? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Articles

By my reckoning, we've just reached our 100th football-based good article, which I think was Tijani Babangida. Well done all. With a fair few more nominations waiting for a review, here's to a speedy 100 more. :-) Peanut4 (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Back to 99 now, but for positive reasons. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Help on finding a Welsh international

I've got a history of Jesus College, Oxford which mentions a "Herbert Cyril James" as a Welsh international association football player, but I can't find him on Soccerbase. No dates are given, but from the context I'd guess that he was at Oxford some time between 1900 and 1914. Can anyone help with further details, or suggestions of where to look? Thanks, Bencherlite ^Talk 07:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Soccerbase doesn't have any coverage anywhere near that far back, so I wouldn't have expected you to be able to find him on there. I've checked since1888.co.uk, a subscription source which lists all players to have played in The Football League since it began in 1888, and your man is not listed on there, therefore he never played in the League. As he was Welsh I guess he could have been called up for his country while playing for a Welsh non-league team, though. Full line-ups for all Welsh international fixtures are on this site but there's no master index of players so you'd have to go through each match individually. Hope this helps anyway...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I happened to have an old "Rothmans Football Yearbook" (1973-74) open on my desk, and the only players with the surname James who were shown as Welsh Internationals were F James (Chirk) 1893-99, G James (Blackpool) 1966-71, L James (Burnley) 1972-73 (of course went on to play a lot more than that) and W James (West Ham U) 1931-32. - fchd (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I may have to file this one as "nice but not true", like the college's story of one of the Principals playing in goal for Aston Villa in his youth. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he did represent Wales, but not at full senior men's level......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, as there's no-one by that name through a site search of the WFDA site, either amateur or professional international. Thanks. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got a book with a list of all British internationals up to 1988, and I'm afraid he's not in there. Peanut4 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know..........

..........of a site which shows English top-flight league tables which specifically show which teams qualified for Europe by virtue of their finishing position that season? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean like this? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly like that, but for further back than the last two seasons, which is all RSSSF seems to have...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Soccerbot goes back most of the Premier League and shows (by colour coding) continental qualification for some seasons. Heightwatcher (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Roy Faulkner

Hey there, does anyone have any career stats for this player, a Canadian international who played in Scotland for St Anthonys, in England for Blackburn, QPR & South Shields, and then in North America for a number of sides...many thanks in advance! Giant Snowman 17:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

According to {{cite book |author=Joyce, Michael |title=Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939 |publisher=SoccerData (Tony Brown) |location=Nottingham |page=87 |year=2004 |isbn=978-1-899468-67-6}} (in case you need the citation):

Blackburn 1919–20 9 league games (0 goals)

QPR 1920–22 50 (1)

South Shields 1922–23 18 (0)

The years are seasons rather than necessarily years. Also, Joyce has him as Robert rather than Roy; maybe Roy is a short form or nickname, and has him playing for Maryhill between St Anthonys and Blackburn. No years other than for the Football League clubs. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Struway, I've amended the article with your info. Thanks again, Giant Snowman 18:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrei Arshavin

Can an admin move it back to this location. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that says his name is spelt with a 'Y'. Cheers --Jimbo^[online] 02:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Zenit FC website says Andrey... – LATICS talk 06:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Spanish names

Forgive me in advance if this has been brought up already, but I'm too lazy to dig through the page. Anyway, why the need to elaborate on Spanish-born footballers' names in the introduction ("This is a Spanish name...")? It's a white elephant and it's not done for any other country/ethnicity. Don't see the point in it, really. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 06:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is also done for most Chinese and Korean names and is in no way exclusive to football. I think it's a good idea to put it prominently at the start of the article like that, and any change should require a site-wide discussion, not just within WikiProject Football. MTC (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have seen it been done for Icelandic and Japanese names aswell. I sniffed around a little and found this: Category:Surname clarification templates. I think this is a good idea, because it gives us more understanding of the different naming structures! But as MTC said; if you want to contest this, I think you're in the wrong project! lil2mas (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Harry McGregor (footballer)

I was about to create a page for Harry McGregor, who played in Dundee United's 1928-29 Second Division-winning season, and found Harry McGregor (footballer), which clearly doesn't pass notability. What's the procedure for nominating it be deleted? And from here, given I don't (yet) have the older McGregor's year of birth, how should I name his article? Both McGregors are Scottish. Heightwatcher (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that the existing Harry McGregor (footballer) article doesn't currently pass notability, I would suggest that you simply overwrite it with the article you were intending to write about the 1920s Harry McGregor. – Pee Jay 11:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do and I'll add a note on the talk page explaining such. Heightwatcher (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with this suggestion is that the current Harry McGregor may soon become notable, which would open up this can of worms again. Nevertheless, I think this is the best step to take at present. – Pee Jay 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As PeeJay says - this approach is opening up a whole can of worms, especially with the links to the existing article. To over-write an article with someone else's bio is setting a rather dangerous precedent. The new article should be at Harry McGregor (footballer born XXXX) and, if necessary, the existing article should go through the AfD procedure. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn, too quick - OK, I'll try to fix. Do you literally mean (born xxxx)? I don't know the date of birth. Also, how does the AfD process begin? Heightwatcher (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have now moved the article about the Dundee United player to Harry McGregor (goalkeeper) and will tag the other for AfD. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Football League Trophy

Is this tournament a fully pro one? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It is now. There was a period where some Conference clubs could enter though. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fritz Baumgarten

Does anyone know who this article is about? The footballer or the illustrator? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the illustrator content to a separate article. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is of no help whatsoever, but his surname means 'arboretum'. --Jameboy (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

New-style Infobox Football biography

Don't know whether anyone's noticed, but there appears to be a new accessibility-friendly version of the footballer infobox, which has been applied on Terry Butcher, if anyone wants to take a look. There is an embryonic comment thread here, if anyone has any. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Butcher has refused to acknowledge the infobox due to a controversial edit that took place over 20 years ago. --Jameboy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. :) I did flag the update at #Proposed update to {{infobox Football biography}}, but I was taking the time to debug this one before getting the ball rolling on consensus to roll it out widely (which will require bot edits to tens of thousands of articles). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Huntelaar

User:Beemer69 recently shortened the article on Klaas-Jan Huntelaar (before -- after). I am the primary author of the article in it's previous state (GA article). While I agree that the article was probably too excessive in the amount of information, I feel that the cleanup was rather excessive. I'd like to hear how others feel about the change, personally I really liked the article the way it was before Beemer69's changes. JACO PLANE • 2008-11-16 12:07

The "before" lead should definitely be restored. The before is a tad quote-heavy, and some of it needs streamlining, but not to that extent IMHO. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The old version had the feel of a magazine biography, which is a perfectly valid way to present a biography in general but isn't quite the tone in which an encyclopedia article should be presented. GA does not mean "immutable", and in this case it looks to me as if the article has been brought into line with the expected look of our bio articles without losing anything in the way of factual material. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The before lead should definitely be restored. Another editor, I think it was User:Chensiyuan has also had a problem with User:Beemer69 because of his excessive edits to Cesc Fabregas. I think a note on his talk page should help to make improvements to the article in a sensible way. Peanut4 (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the old lead should certainly be restored. I hadn't noticed that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does seem a little "fanziney" to me. The Ajax sections seem unduly longer than his previous clubs - I don't see the need for individual fourth level headings for each season. Also the profile section seems that it could be reduced quite a bit in size. Peanut4 (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Chris' and Peanut's (last) posts share my sentiments as to why I initially reduced the article. Huntelaar has accomplished very little in his short career to warrant a lengthy 50K+-kb article like those of Henry or Beckham, and GA does not necessarily equate length. It often reads more like a promotional piece out of World Soccer than a WIki article, especially in the Profile section, over half of which is devoted to people singing Huntelaar's praises. Also, in the Career section there's an excess of proseline and unencyclopedic sports commentary such as "He continued his goal scoring form against FC Groningen and scored a bicycle kick against Heracles Almelo," and "Klaas-Jan [no first names; needs to remain informal] scored again in his second and fourth game of the season"; every goal does not need to be chronicled. The article also goes off topic a few times by talking about Ajax's domestic/European exploits or who played in a legends match. I'd axed a majority of this while attempting to keep the factual material intact, but nowadays I'd have edited with less of a bull-by-the-horns approach, and I did a full revert earlier, but the bottom line is that it needs to be reduced in size and contain a neutral point of view, while still maintaining its GA status. Some of the issues mentioned herein are present in the Fabregas article as well, but that's another story. (P.S. I'm a she by the way, Peanut.) sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 23:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies about the slip of the gender.

However, I don't think the problem is that the bio is too long, or that certain players don't deserve bios as long as Henry or Beckham even if they're not as well-known. The problem is whether the bios remain focused to the subject title. If there are any problems with Klaas-Jan Huntelaar, it is whether it remains focused (3b of the good article criteria) and whether it is neutral (4 of GA criteria). Peanut4 (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you got any specific issues you can point out with the neutrality? I actually spent quite some time looking for more critical sources, but I haven't really found any. JACO PLANE • 2008-11-17 14:31

Don't worry Jaco, I'm not saying there is definitely a neutrality issue with the article. My feeling is it might verge on the side of a fanzine article. I remember this was at FAC last year, and it looks like it was failed because of a lack of input rather than anyting else. Given this discussion, I wondered if it might be worth a peer review to perhaps try again for FAC but only if you felt it might be a good idea. Peanut4 (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries about the gender, P. Anyway, you make a valid point, but it's not that KJH or whomever are undeserving of a long article; it's simply a matter of there being enough viable material for such. Bringing up Henry/Becks again, their visibility goes beyond the pitch - marketability, charity work, social issues, etc., which naturally leads to plenty of material ripe for the picking, and therefore a high-volume article. Huntelaar isn't quite there yet in that regard. We can only read so many quotes about how hard it is to contain him on defense or about his goalscoring prowess, and nearly all of the article's 88 sources are match reports, with over 60 of them in Dutch. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 07:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the before version was too detailed and covered lots of non-notables. As stated above, we don't need to record every goal and missed penalty in prose. If I want the full autobiography I'll buy the book. Keep it encyclopaedic. I think Beemer69 has done a passable job at trimming it without losing the important data.--ClubOranje^Talk 23:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally read more rather than less. Lots of bios barely scratch the surface and are nearly pointless in having. As long as the bio remains interesting and engagin, I don't see much reason for removing much info to be honest. Peanut4 (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with ClubOranje. Original version was way too detailed and had imformation that was pointless and not relevant. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dancarney (talk) has since shaved down the article (not as extreme as I'd done), and it looks much better now. Some minor copyediting is still needed, but that's about it. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 05:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

English-born players playing for Scotland category

I think we need to reach a consensus on what this means. I would take it to mean just players who play for the full side, and not to include youth or B internationals (Duncan Jupp, Sam Parkin, Steve Howard et al). Thoughts? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would take it to mean "full" internationals as well, because that signifies the point of no return. But wasn't there consensus that this kind of category was inappropriate because of the huge number of edge cases and wiggle-room in nationality? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a fair enough category as long as it is narrowed to just playing for the full national side, because then it deals in facts (ie where he was born and who he played for). "English players who represented Scotland" would be too vague, because then you have to define what "English player" means. Also, some players play for a different youth side than full side (Nigel Quashie et al). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Welsh and Scottish clubs

In England, the general consensus seems to be that if a football club has played at Step 6 or above (at present or in the past) or has particpated in the FA Cup, Trophy or Vase then it is worthy of its own article without questions being asked.

What is the view on the Welsh and Scottish League systems - What level (in both the countries) should a club have played at to be deemed notable and be allowed an article? Sarumio (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall a previous discussion suggesting that clubs which could enter the Welsh Cup should be allowed articles, which I believe went down to Welsh League Division Three. Scotland is less clear due to a lack of a pyramid. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think any club who weren't playing in the Juniors would be notable enough for an article up here. Is there a particular team in question here? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

East Renfrewshire Soccer Development Association is an example - all clubs listed on the page are red links. Similar for Dunbartonshire Football Development League. Sarumio (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that individual teams in the Scottish youth football system are not notable. I'd thought that amateur teams who weren't otherwise notable (such as Queens Park or Old Etonians) were non-notable by default anyway, no? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Welsh Clubs - it's not easy sorting notability by pure level in Wales as the pyramid structures in South Wales and North Wales have completely different shapes - one tall and thin, the other low and flat. For instance, I would put the top teams in the S Wales Amateur League (South Wales level 5), as about mid-table in some of the North Wales level 3 leagues. I don't know enough about the scene in Scotland to comment. I'd still be keen on using the basics of the general notability guidelines for suitability of articles here, i.e. if there are multiple non-trivial reliable sources they're in, otherwise they're out, rather than setting any bars where notability is the default and others where non-notability is the default. In other words, the same criteria as I'd use across the whole encylopaedia. - fchd (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Arsenal/William Gallas

Lots of edits to the Arsenal F.C. article about William Gallas although no official confirmation of any change to the status of his captaincy at Arsenal has been made yet. Could other editors help keep an eye on the article and revert any speculative edits? Thank you. Qwghlm (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No official confirmation yet. But every national newspaper in the morning has Gallas stripped of the captaincy. Peanut4 (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes but they've all kept their words guarded - it's "The BBC understands that..." or "Gallas may lose captaincy". Ironically, I remembered when he was appointed captain that every newspaper reported it was going to be Gilberto Silva instead. It should be treated like transfer speculation IMO - nothing but official sources should be used. Qwghlm (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I deleted all sorts of rubbish last night, but eventually added a brief factual upsum of his interview and "Sky News reported that..." he'd lost the captaincy, on the basis if I hadn't, there'd have been far more rubbish edits than there have been. It's hopeless expecting IPs in particular to wait for official sources when most of them seem to think Sky is an official source. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

When is a footballer expatriate?

I'm at a loss what to do with players with double citizenship. Take Karim El Ahmadi for instance, a Dutch-born Moroccan footballer. Is he a Moroccan expatriate footballer? And is he an expatriate footballer in the Netherlands, when he was born and raised in the Netherlands? Can you be an expatriate in your own country? And is he a Moroccan expatriate in the Netherlands, even if he has had Dutch citizenship from birth? This is just one example, but there are many similar cases throughout Europe. Aecis·(away) ^talk 16:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't be expatriate if you're still a citizen of that country. That's what I argued last time and asked for a number of deletions of these categories. Govvy (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think expatriate status should be consisent with citizenship. If someone is a citizen of the Netherlands, they should not be included in expatriate categories in the Netherlands. If someone has multiple citizenships (e.g., Morocco and Netherlands), I think they should be included both expatriate categories when they travel to another nation. Jogurney (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Jogurney, it should work like that, but I've seen people add players into expatriate lists when they are in that country. I don't think everyone fully understands these categories. They can be a bit annoying to me I give you that!!! Govvy (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Links to Association Football

I don't know about other people's views on this matter, but I think there should be some sort of movement within WikiProject Football, and its members, to change all links on Wikipedia that go to the Football (soccer) article to go to the correctly named Association football article. Although Football (soccer) redirects to Association football, I think it best to stop the redirects and make sure the links go straight to the page they're meant to (without having to endure the disgraceful soccer nomenclature).

It shouldn't be too much of a job if there are a few people in on it. There are probably people who are doing it already (I know I've changed a few).

Anyone else think this is a good idea? Craitman H. Pellegrino (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken -

"Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to remove the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, it is generally an unhelpful exercise."

"There should almost never be a reason to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. This kind of change is almost never an improvement, and it can actually be detrimental."

This was pointed out when the move from Football (soccer) to Association football was last carried out. Nanonic (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Istvan Gaal

Is the article Istvan Gaal (soccer player) in violation of WP:BLP or not? It calls Gaal "a terrible player" (unsourced pov) and claims that he "was exchanged for a soccer ball" (covered by what at first glance appears to be a reliable source). It reads like a WP:HOAX. To AFD or not to AFD, that's the question. Aecis·(away) ^talk 12:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I found another link, (posted 2 years before this article was created). [16]. I don't think it is actually a hoax. Noteworthy though? —Borgarde^talk 13:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This Google search turns up a couple of contemporary-ish (1971) press mentions at subscription site www.newspaperarchive.com, not a subscriber so can't read them but looks genuine. But whether that makes him notable is quite another question. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed "Although he had claimed to have been a top player in Hungary, supposedly scoring 31 goals in 44 games in one season, he soon turned out to be a terrible player." from the article. JACO PLANE • 2008-11-23 13:24

David Wheater

Sorry, I just wanted to show you all this... Mattythewhite (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, is that really him? and is that the best image found? Govvy (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, that's made my day! Giant Snowman 20:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It was on the back page of the Evening Gazette in Middlesbrough earlier this week. Laughed my arse off when I saw it. Peanut4 (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly brilliant, but inappropriate. Reverted. Thanks for the laugh. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

La Liga

Does anyone have any information on the history of La Liga as I cannot seem to find any on the web, and the La Liga website doesn't appear to allow you to translate it to English. FYI this information is for this list which I hope to get to FLC eventually. Cheers NapHit (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Round-by-Round standings tables in season articles

Some of the 2008–09 season articles include Round-by-Round standings tables like this (Ukraine) or this (Spain) and in a less pretty version like this (Germany) (which was added by an IP editor just minutes ago). There is also a version with Ws, Ds and Ls (Romania).

First of all, should any of these be included in articles at all? Second, if the answer is yes, where should those be put and how should they look like?

My personal opinion is that those tables are violating WP:ROC, because no one cares once a season is over on how team ABC FC did after xyz Rounds. Further, there are serious sourcing issues, because almost no data provider includes detailed rbr standings. As for the "Romanian" version, since the results tables include shading for wins, draws and losses, this information is also redundant. So, in short, I would not include any of those. However, that's only my two Eurocents, so it would be nice to get feedback from the community. Hockey-holic (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly against it, mostly for the sourcing issues you mentioned. The other problem with the "round" concept is that (as I understand it) it assumes all teams have played the same number of games, but when you have a fixture backlog (for weather, cup ties, whatever) you can have some teams on x games while others are still on x-2, so how do you draw up the interim table in that case? --Jameboy (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would include any make-up games into the next full round. For example, a game scheduled for Round 4 is postponed and rescheduled to a date between Rounds 11 and 12. So, the standings for Round 4 would be included without the postponed game and it would be this way up to Round 12.

Anyway, more comments on the general topic (Should rbr tables be included into season articles or not)? This would be highly appreciated.Hockey-holic (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what harm they do and I can see them being quite informative. The danger I see with this kind of thing is when the creator gets bored half way through the season and nobody finishes it, especially on leagues where there is only a small number of contributors. My opinion: If somebody enjoys doing them, let them! EA210269 (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Jameboy has identified the weakness in this. At the time of writing the Conference National has 4 teams who've played 18 games, 18 who've played 17, and 2 who've played 16. What "round" does this mean the competition is at? League football, in England anyway, is not played in "rounds" and the fixture list is always flexible to allow for cup competitions and postponements. Dancarney (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously we wouldn't have "seasonal" articles so low down the pyramid, but it's interesting to note that the West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division has teams having played everywhere from 12 to 18 matches so far..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the schedule is made out by rounds, but since English team play in so many other competitions rescheduling of games is a must. However, if a team reached an impressive vantage point after a game then almost always the media reports the date of the nadir and how long ago it was since the team reached such a point in the history. Whether its worth having this here on wiki is debatable. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thread about this section. Since I look after the Ukraine round by round and since Hockey-holic alerted my attention to this area of inclusion I just add my 2¢ for the record. Your comment about Spain using a template to do R-by-R is valid, but like you mentioned I could not find the documentation for the template. No big deal. I started playing with tables and came up with a format which I thought as Version 1.0 would be not hard to edit if I was too busy. I was working on a script to add to the data but have not found the time at the moment - so I'm glad that you attempted to update the data (Hockey-holic) and see what is involved. As far as source is concerned - wouldn't the duplication from some source be really a copyright issue since that ongoing tabluation is really a unique composition that adds an already sourced information. Maybe the description of "Round by round" could offset this issue. To some extent I like the attitude that EA210269 brings to the table that value added contribution which is informative is worth its weight. BTW - Are there are similiar sort of information outside of Wiki?Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am against these, on the grounds that they take articles further down the road towards being pure statistics with negligible encyclopedic content. We have enough trouble keeping a lot of these articles the right side of WP:NOT#STATS as it is. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In that section about statistics in WP:NOT#STATS ..consider using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. I think that because of the table format the information is enhaced enormously. I really don't think if there was a 20,000 account of R-by-R information and references to standing tables in some archive that anyone would be interested let alone look at it. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a line graph showing each club's position by round would be a better idea than a table. – Pee Jay 16:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also prefer a line over a table - but that being said, a graphical version is even less managerable than a table. Imagine 24 Championship teams' performances being shown in one picture - unreadable. And one picture per team degenerates the articles into photo galeries, not to mention that you will have to update EVERY picture EVERY week. It's not really worth the effort to do this on a regular basis. Hockey-holic (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(Edit: Regardless of the issue above, my opinion is still "no inclusion", just in case if some readers might think that I have changed teams once again :-) )Hockey-holic (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a graph for each team. I'm proposing that each team's line be combined into one graph. – Pee Jay 17:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - What a management nightmare! Also this is not about just a team or its timeline but how it within the whole competition and relation amongst all teams in the comptition. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that more of those (see Serie A 2008-09 and even Premier League 2008-09) come up - can we reach a consensus if those should be kept or not? The discussion above seems to end up in the middle of nowhere once again.

Again, I would not add them to the season articles, mainly because of sourcing issues. Further, if such tables are not sortable, they are, imho, violating WP:NOT#Stats as well. Hockey-holic (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As of the time of writing, the Premier League 2008-09 Round-by-Round standings table is not even correct. Fulham and Manchester United have a game in hand, and therefore "Round 13" is not complete, so how can the placings be agreed? In English league football, the concept of "rounds" does not exist, so the table should be deleted. It is almost certainly OR as well as I've nevr seen such tables in any publication. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes agree with User:Daemonic Kangaroo 100%. OR (at least in relation to English football articles. The leagues just aren't organised like that) - fchd (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have disliked the idea from day one, after I saw it be created in La Liga 2008–09 after a couple of rounds! Purely because it's too big a chaotic table, and there are enough tables in these season articles already... But there are several other issues with this inclusion, some already discussed above. The "source info"-problem is the most severe, and because there isn't any direct sources, we have a POW-situation: Should we "back book" postponed matches, or should we display the standings without them? The latter will show the "psychological advantage" Chelsea & Liverpool, as of now, have by leading with 8 points on Manchester United, rather than only a possible 5 point lead! This will be an issue even though we convert to graphs, and if we do convert to graphs; I suggest we only display the teams in contention (for the championship), and remove the teams as they "drop out of the race"! Summarised: Against the table, if converted to a graph; only top 3/4/... (at the end of the season) without "back booked" matches! lil2mas (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see the progression of the Seria A Championship Round-by-Round. (Would ne nice to have it sorted) If anything the discussion of this feature is spurring editors to display this kind of information. Just because the English system can't be properly done in such an organized fashion doesn't mean that the rest have to be subjugated to hard core wiki policy. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think these tables are an unnecessary clutter, and they clearly fail WP:NOT#Stats, so I'm in favour of deleting them. --Angelo (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, not one of these additions cites sources either. Take your pick of WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Brudder, we are not all English/British. Theilert is Norwegian, if I'm correct, Angelo is Italian, I am German. So, as per everything above, it seems to be broad consensus in the community not to include rbr-tables at all. Hence I will remove any occurances of those tables later today with references to WP:NOT#Stats, WP:NOR and this discussion - unless somebody likes to do it before, of course. :-) Hockey-holic (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Very disappointing that you will act in such a manner considering that people who probably think that that information is worth something for a given season don't come into these discussion - only so called experts.... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I too, am in favour of keeping such tables, especially in leagues such as Serie A where each team has played the same number of games at any given date. If the Serie A page included the RbR table being discussed, that section could arguably be the second most relevant part of the page (after the classification table). It is too bad that one person here is hell-bent on having these tables deleted even though he would not be the one updating them. I have noticed that if any one individual is persistent enough to have something added, or have it changed to some grotesque template, or have it deleted, he will eventually get his way since the silent majority has better things to do. Juve2000 (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tehee, the details of written language. ^^ Have a close look at this very part of one of my sentences:

So, as per everything above, it seems to be broad consensus...

It seems to be does not equal It is. However, the announcement of the removal of the tables might have come a little too quick; it is withdrawn hereby, at least for now.

Regarding the "one person being hell-bent to have this and that": I have to clarify that I'm not on a crusade against rbr tables, although the one or another might think this way. The use of conjunctives in my statements is just too high for that (see above). If those tables should be included in any articles, okay. But make sure that they satisfy encyclopaedic standards, e.g. sourcing. As of now, one could even say that FC Kharkiv or Reggina Calcio have led the league at one point of this time, and come through with it because the templates/other constructs do not include any sources.

Take the following stuff as proposals for improvement:

Sourcing: The website of German soccer newspaper kicker is able to display standings by round ("Spieltag" in German). The problem with postponed games mentioned above is solved by adding those after the full round of games preceding them. Take Lithuania as an example (Help: Use the "vorheriger Spieltag" (previous round) and "nächster Spieltag" (next round) links under the respective games for navigation, or use the "Spieltag" drop-down menu as an alternative). As for source credibility, kicker is the biggest soccer newspaper in Germany, has a neutral point-of-view and very accurately and in-depth reports, and is comparable to soccerway, so there should be no problem with that.
Single rounds/match days/weeks/however-you-call-it: It would definitely improve the usability if the whole table was sortable by column. In this way, the exact order at a given point could easily be retrieved.

The above should be enough to get everything in line with Wikipedia policies (Again, note the conjunctive). Hockey-holic (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Some very good points were made, and I do like the improvements. I do not quite understand what policy is being adopted regarding make-up games. For example, the Roma-Sampdoria game in Serie A is a Day 9 match postponed until January 14, which is between Day 18 & Day 19. Are the classifications going to be adjusted back to Day 9, back only to Day 18, or will the result be recognized with the Day 19 listing? Secondly, how are teams ordered when tied on points? Is it strictly based on goal difference like our current classification, meaning head-to-head results are ignored whether teams have played one or both head-to-head matches? Juve2000 (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the order on tied points: Just apply the tie-breakers as they were applied on the time of the matches played to determine a classification. For Italy in particular, the hth records are only applied after half the games have been played, if I'm informed correctly. In any way, check that the positions for every round are in line with the source.

Regarding the recognization of make-up games: The used source determines how this is handled. For example, kicker adds any games which were taken out of "their" round after the last full round of games. An example can be found here. Since the Serie A article uses kicker as a source for RbRs, the procedure for the Roma-Sampdoria match would be as following: 1) Round 18 is completed; the standings for this round are taken over to the rbr table. 2) Roma-Sampdoria is completed in mid-week; the rbr standings for Round 18 ONLY are adjusted and taken as final. Hockey-holic (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think HDH records are ever applied to order teams tied on points - even if both games between the teams have been played. It appears that the ordering is strictly based on goal difference (and goals scored if necessary). One could forgive editors for ignoring HDH tie-breakers while the season is ongoing but I have noticed that classifications from 2007-08 and earlier have not been adjusted for the HDH results and are strictly based on the criteria I have mentioned.Juve2000 (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)