Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Lyle Adams and Chris Salvaggione

Can someone please start AfDs for these two players? They were created by an over-zealous newbie editor, despite neither player having made the MLS debut yet, and despite clear instructions not to contravene WP:FOOTY/N on each team's page. Thanks! (I'd do it myself, but I don't know how...) --JonBroxton (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, instructions for an AfD are listed at WP:AfD. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

First match query

I've found out from a new source that, somewhat bizarrely, New Brompton's reserve team actually played their first ever match before the first team played theirs! Should this therefore be listed as the club's first match at Gillingham F.C. records#Firsts instead of the existing entry, which is for the first first team match, or should it be discounted as it was only s reserve team game........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mention both. You're allowed prose, even in lists ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Or alternatively it could be footnoted. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mention that reserve game in the prose in the History of Gillingham F.C. article, but the matches of Gillingham reserves are not the matches of Gillingham F.C. for the purpose of records and statistics (although you could have been forgiven for thinking otherwise on Tuesday evening). Kevin McE (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mention it in the history article. DeMoN2009 11:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

What proof or recognition is needed for a source used to be deemed reliable? Eddie6705 (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

official club website, bbc/sky sports website, print media site and such Skitzo (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ealdgyth, who specialises in sources at WP:FAC, quotes the following:

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.

Might be worth having a look at Sunderland A.F.C.'s FA candidacy (or any other recent FAC) to see how reliability of sources is assessed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks very much. Eddie6705 (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hull City A.F.C.

an ip keeps adding Steven Mouyokolo to their current squad list but the transfer doesn't go through until the summer so can people be on the look out to revert this please. Skitzo (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gökhan Töre

This article is about a 17 year old youth player who as just signed for Chelsea; he fails WP:ATHLETE but people say he is notable for simply being on Chelsea's books. Please can a few experienced and knowledgable editors join the deletion discussion. Thanks, GiantSnowman 15:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Football club seasons

Most Football club season articles now follow the basic format of the Gillingham article. I think it would be helpful to include the manager in the tables, as IMHO this is fairly important! I would also like to add a column for the player who made the most appearances each season, as well as the top scorer. At present we concentrate on forwards whilst the rest of the team don't get a mention. Any thoughts before I try to amend the Southampton article? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

While I have sympathy for the principle of avoiding even more publicity for fancy-dan forwards, I think that the managers' column could be awkward (Gills last season went Jepson → Onoura and Doherty → Onoura → Stimson), and the most appearances would be both difficult to research for more distant years. I'm not against either suggestion, just see them as potentially problematic. Kevin McE (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The more recent season articles follow the basic format of Manchester City F.C. seasons or Leeds United A.F.C. seasons, i.e. with the Other comps column divided into two, one for competition name and one for round reached. Leeds also has a column for attendances, which most haven't. Gillingham is the only one with a separate Notes column.

If it was me, I wouldn't bother with manager, on the basis it's only relatively recently that it's become even fairly important, and it would be duplicating info from the List of Club F.C. managers (where such exist). Including the player with most apps would be nice, though I don't know where you'd find the width to put him and his appearances, not for those of us viewing at 1024-width, anyway :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no. The fields entered for each season (e.g. goals scored, points) use discrete values which are distinct for that season, whereas managers aren't season specific, leading to the issue that Kevin McE highlights. While leading appearance makers don't have that issue, its worth remembering that ever-presents used to be a lot more common than they are now - that Villa team which won the championship while only using 14 players all season springs to mind. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also say no. All the current columns in the seasons article are specific for that season. Managers are not, some clubs have up to five a season, some managers reign for 20+ seasons. Peanut4 (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. Managers are not season-specific, and some of the season tables have trouble fitting within the width of even my screen (I'm on a 1280x800 monitor). – PeeJay 22:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a good example of how rubbish they can look with too many columns.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so much rubbish but largely undecipherable. There's too much information which makes what is there unreadable. It is a clear example that sometimes less is more. Peanut4 (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now amended the the Southampton article to include managers and most appearances. I await the flak. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've recently created seasons lists for Stoke City, Walsall and Wigan Athletic - does anyone know of any online sources where I can source top scorers for these? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I obtained some of my data, and cross-checked the rest, to www.allfootballers.com, but there is a (small) registration fee. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Potential father-son?

Does anyone know if former ADO Den Haag player Boudewijn de Geer (born 1955) is the father of current ADO Den Haag player Mike de Geer (born 1989)? GiantSnowman 12:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Judging by a Google search for their names in conjuction with "vader" (Dutch for father), yes he is. [1] Oldelpaso (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, my (rubbish!) Google search didn't bring anything up. It also turns out that Boudewijn's grandafather is ex-Dutch Prime Minister Dirk Jan de Geer - quite a family! Cheers again, GiantSnowman 13:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I was going to suggest we sign up for every 5 FA and FL articles and every 10 GA articles, or every 10 FA/FL, and 20 GAs. Would anyone suggest something otherwise or object to either of those two alternatives? Peanut4 (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Personaly i think the 5 FA/FL and 10 GA suggestion would be a good idea, although the 10-20 suggestion is also s sensible option. Eddie6705 (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Peanut! GiantSnowman 20:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea, but have no preference on actual numbers. Go with whatever is sensible. --Jameboy (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Could we add Did You Knows or are they a pain to add up? Also Featured Topics, though as they don't come along very often you might say every one of those is a milestone. --Jameboy (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added them for every 5th FA and FL and every 10th GA since it seems reasonable at the current levels. I'm not sure how to add DYKs or FTs since it seems to be done by category. Peanut4 (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It'd be extra nice if it updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Milestones too. Nanonic (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dave Anderson (football)

Only possible claim to notability seems to be having played in Northern Ireland - does that pass muster....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Former manager of A.F.C. Wimbledon, I would say it passes. DeMoN2009 17:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can remember ever seeing notability guidelines for managers, but I doubt it would stretch down to the Isthmian League. Kevin McE (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Were they that far down? Sorry, then it's probably not notable. DeMoN2009 18:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would go for NN - he hasn't passed WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; I thought guidelines for managers were the same as players - fully-pro league...GiantSnowman 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What's going on with the references?

• eg 1 Dean Shiels (using <ref> format)
• eg 2 Chris Hogg (using cite web)

Is it just me, or are the references going haywire? They're wikilinking to the wrong things, picking up words and phrases from elsewhere in the article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean though I do can make a guess. All the numbers link both backwards and forwards correctly for me. Is this what you meant? Peanut4 (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a thread at WP:VPT about this. D.M.N. (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Last Updated" notation at bottom of Classifications

When we read Last updated:January 28, what does that mean? Does it mean the classification was last updated on January 28 or has been updated to games played to that date? What if the last game(s) was(were) played on January 26 and the classification is updated 2 days later? Should the editor write 26 or 28? What if on February 1 (with no new games having been played) another editor fixes a previously unseen error, does he leave the date as Jan 26 or 28, or change it to February 1? The point of all this is that I suggest that the notation at the bottom of the classifications should read Updated to games played January 26 so there is no ambiguity. Right now the use of dates is NOT consistent and so the reader and/or editor does not know if recently played games are included in the classifations. A chanage in the template controlling the classificatioins is needed. AntropovNikki (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I really have no idea why you changed those templates because now they do not seem very nice. Plus, you could at least fix the grammar ("updated to games played on January 26"). As for your questions, here are the answers. I don't think you understood this matter very well. "Last updated: January 26" can only denote the date when the matches were played, and the whole point of that templates is to show when the last updated matches were played, so there is no confusion between the editors. Actually, 95% (or more) of the games are updated on the same day. Yes, sometimes there are mistakes that only get visible a day after, but it is a common practice (what is obvious in only a couple of days of editing) to write the date when last game was played, no matter when it was updated or fixed. I don't know what inconsistency are you talking about, but when readers/editors see the date, they must know that the match is updated in the classification.

To conclude, I understand that it is basically the same thing, and that your way specifies it better. However, people got used to the old way and there is no need to change that. The date should always be the one when the last match was played.

P.S. We NEVER update it two days later (max. 4-5 hours later). SonjiCeli (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So you don't want to admit that my edit eliminates all ambiguity, and you insist that "Last updated" is better. Please let the rest of us improve the templates and STOP protecting them as if you own them outright. 00:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntropovNikki (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FIFA World Cup finals

The nominator is claiming that, in the event of a match going to penalties, the "score" of the shoot-out becomes the winning match score. When I pointed out under the Laws of the Game this is not the case, he merely stated "we are not bound by the laws of football". Thoughts.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to know how to respond to something like that. But if you can't list the result of the match as it officially stood, then the list is useless, so how can it be featured? Wikipedia is a very strange place at times. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear-cut to me - the results in the table should be shown as 0-0 (1994) and 1-1 (2006), with the shoot-out "score" in a footnote. He seems to disagree, however.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What does he mean "we are not bound by the laws of football"? Penalty shootout scores should probably be listed, but not at the expense of the result of the actual match. What really irritates me is when people add the penalty shootout score to the score from the actual match. That's just bloody silly. – PeeJay 09:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Up until this season, that's how the Football Association of Wales did it - thier view was that penalty shoot-out goals were just as relevant as goals in the 90/120 minutes so were included in the final score. I think they were also recorded in lists of topscorers goals etc. Happy to say, they've now reversed that view. - fchd (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The German football media also lists regular and PSO goals cumulatively, but it's very much the exception rather than the rule. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I totally agree with you. His claim "we're not bound by the laws of football" is a clear breach of WP:OR. Peanut4 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this is the right place for it: I agree that media and football associations always show the full time score of a match in a knock-out tournament. Switzerland v Ukraine at the 2006 FIFA World Cup round of 16 ended in 0-0, not in 0-3. But I haven't found anything about this in the Laws of the Game. Law 7 says that "The match lasts two equal periods of 45 minutes ..." and the Procedures to determine the winner of a match state: "Away goals, extra time and kicks from the penalty mark are the three methods approved for determining the winning team where competition rules require there to be a winning team after a match has been drawn", but it doesn't say anywhere that the full time score is the official match result, afaict. Aecis·(away) ^talk 21:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Page 54 of the current Laws document covers shoot-outs and states "Away goals, extra time and taking kicks from the penalty mark are methods of determining the winning team where competition rules require there to be a winning team after a match has been drawn", which is a bit inconclusive, as it implies that the match is considered over and a draw before the kicks are taken, but also before extra time occurs?!?! I think common usage (most news reports, record books, etc), though, indicates that the result of the match is as it stood at the end of open play, and that the shootout itseld does not form part of the match itself.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, I see you'd already flagged that up. D'oh! Anyway, it looks like the FLC is going to be put on hold due to other issues entirely, so it's not such a big deal now...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

On the more general matter, a horrible thought has just occured - if the FAW released Welsh Cup and Welsh Trophy scores including the penalties, is to split the scores back out Original Research? Putting it another way, I guess in the Knock-Out stage of a competition, the actual result of the game is of secondary importance - all that really matters to the organisers (and I guess the teams involved) is who wins and loses, whether after 90/120 minutes or after any other method to split drawn sides. - fchd (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange bug?

Can anyone else see a red high-risk template padlock on Javier Macherano? Strangely, I can't find any instance of the pp-template. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's something to do with a recent change to Template:Proseline. Someone's raised a request to have it fixed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mirko Kokotović = Miroslav Kokotović?

Here we are: Mirko Kokotović was a Yugoslav/Croatian football managers...It is said at the Serbian football federation official site that he coached in Turkey, Greece and Cyprus [2] here... Sorry, it's in Serbian... If you look here: List of Fenerbahçe S.K. managers or List of AEK Athens F.C. managers you have Miroslav Kokotović or simply Kokotovic... The question is: is it the same guy?? --Latouffedisco (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My knowledge of Serbian names is rubbish, but 'Mirko' sounds lkike it could well be a derivative of Miroslav. Regards, GiantSnowman 12:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought, too...But our intuitions are not backed up with a reliable source...--Latouffedisco (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Mirko" is used to cut "Miroslav", see for example the great Miroslav Votava, but I can't say it's the same guy. Obviously at 90% it is. --necronudist (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna ask some Croatian editors to confirm this.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Timbouctou who is Croatian has the same opinion...They are one and the same. I think I'll add the information on Kokotovic's page unless some editors oppose as there are no reliable sources who back up our opinions...--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

International Goals Sections

I recently added international goals sections to Emile Heskey's and Robbie Fowler's articles, but as Heskey's has been removed by MattytheWhite, I was wondering if there was consensus on the topic. Matty pointed me to a discussion last March, but it seemed no agreement was made. I personally think it adds usual and relevant information to the articles in question, but points made in the discussion about overloading the page should be taken into consideration. Any thoughts? Eastlygod (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of these sections. I think they're useful and notable enough to include. I don't really think any decision has been made either way to be honest. Peanut4 (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Peanut. I think these sections add to the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a section is required for international goals scored. Would a footballers written biography go into so much detail? He would perhaps, but only for goals scored that were of major importance to him. Could they not be added to an infobox with short details such as when, where and against whom they scored against? Titch Tucker (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"When, where and against whom" describes perfectly what these sections generally are. Peanut4 (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the problem with having a table of international goals added to a player article - many players already have them e.g. Peter Crouch or Alan Shearer. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen. We had discussion above, at #Football club seasons, about undue emphasis on forwards. I doubt the concept will be rolled back in time much, leading to imbalance between present players and those of an earlier era: it will probably increase imbalance between players of high profile Anglophone countries and others, and not all goals are of equivalent merit: do we want a table with 13 goals from one game on Archie Thompson's page. The identity of the bloke who finally tapped the ball over the line is a statistical footnote: teams score goals. Kevin McE (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any arguments against international goals sections. How does it place undue emphasis on forwards? Because forwards score more goals? If we do place emphasis, it's on the people who scored, not on their position on the pitch. I don't see how listing goal scorers violates WP:UNDUE. And yes, due to the systemic bias of Wikipedia, players from top countries are more likely to have an international goals section than players from smaller countries. The answer is to add the sections to players from smaller countries, the answer is not to bar them from players from top countries. Aecis·(away) ^talk 11:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It can be rolled back as much as editors require. Stats and goal scorers for every international game in history are available at http://www.rsssf.com/, so there is nothing stopping editors rolling back through time. As for circumstances such as Archie Thompson's, many such current examples, such as Michael Owen, have multiple goals in one game in one line. Teams score goals, yes, but to say the player is irrelevant is pushing it a little. Should Pelé's stats be recorded as how many goals Brazil scored while he was playing? Eastlygod (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mention any notable goals in the normal prose. These are encyclopaedia articles, not player pages in a statistics almanac, and articles are written in prose. If you can't fit mentions of the goals into the normal text, then it's probably not particularly notable in that player's career. Knepflerle (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If only RSSSF really was complete. I'm generally against these but can't get too worked up about it. If a player has only scored one or two then they will (or should be) included in the prose, with context. On the other end of the scale, if it is someone prolific then it gets unwieldy. I remember doing some work on Ferenc Puskas, which briefly had such a list, but it looked ridiculous and unbalanced the whole thing. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you just mention their international career in general, not every single goal. DeMoN2009 16:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Tables like this can get information like this across a lot better than normal prose. And when they do, they are more suitable for what we want to achieve, which is encyclopedic content, than general prose. Aecis·(away) ^talk 18:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point. If you can't fit mentions of the goals into normal prose, then it's probably not particularly notable in that player's career. Knepflerle (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's easy to put it into normal prose: "Player <name> scored <amount> goals, including <amount> during the <year> World Cup." But it doesn't come close to the amount of information we can quickly and accessible show in a table. Aecis·(away) ^talk 18:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguing that details of all goals scored should be mentioned in the prose and thus a table is not required, is rather like saying that we don't need an infobox because everything that is in the infobox should be in narrative form in the article. The idea of the table is to show the goals scored "at a glance". And to say that this places too much emphasis on goal-scorers is nonsense. Emile Heskey, Robbie Fowler et al are goal-scorers - that's their job, so it's not unreasonable to concentrate on that aspect of their career. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the question is why do we need detail of all goals scored in the first place. Important goals go in the prose, unnotable ones don't go in the article. It's an encyclopadia, not a statistics almanac. Knepflerle (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

SPL captains

Someone has added a list of captains of Scottish Premier League clubs to the Scottish Premier League article. Is this notable? In any case different players are captains at different times, if a captain is injured or is simply not played would that have to be changed just until the regular captain returns, seems like more trouble than it's worth to me.

Also, does anyone know where I can find a list of all-time SPL top scorers? Darryl.matheson (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You can find it here at our SPL page. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know that, I was looking for a reliable source, two sources are shown there one is a dead link and the other is for soccerbase and I can't find a list on there. Darryl.matheson (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a general article on the league over all time. Can you give a full picture of what the SPL is without saying or knowing who the current captain of Motherwell is? Of course you can - the table is not required. The list of current managers is superfluous too for the same reason. It might be useful information to a more detailed article on this season, but for a generalist article like this it is out of place. Knepflerle (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Do not mention the captains in the SPL page, only in the team's page. If it changes during the season, or it mentions the person who is captain when the captain is injured, the table will become messy and difficult to understand. DeMoN2009 16:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, does anyone even care who the teams' captains are? I'm not even bothered who my own team's captain is (for the record it's Barry Fuller, at least when he hasn't got pneumonia), let alone who captains other teams..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say remove them for the reasons listed above. --Jameboy (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Otto Barić

What is this managers nationality? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As neither the talk page nor the edit summaries contain any attempt at explanation by Hubschrauber nor the editor with whom he is in dispute, it is difficult to say. Of the three links provided, the only one in English is unavailable, my on-line translator does not handle Slovak, and a Polish reference describes him in passing as Croatian. Managing a national team neither requires nor confers nationality (otherwise Bora Milutinović would have at least 8 passports), surname is no real proof (otherwise only very few people would be described as being of the Western Hemisphere), and although place of birth usually indicates eligibility to a citizenship, that option is not always taken up, and is not always a reflection of the person's sense of identity (if Cruz Beckham ever attains notability, I don't think many of us will argue that he should be regarded as Spanish), and one passing reference by a journalist whose evidence is not known to us is scarcely compelling. The passport that somebody holds is not usually in the public forum. So in the lack of incontrovertible evidence either way, and with a personal history that could imply a sense of belonging in both places, why the hurry to designate? Could the first sentence not accurately, verifiable and in an NPOV way read Otto Barić (born 19 June 1932 in Klagenfurt, Austria) is a retired football player and manager, who was head coach of the Austrian, Croatian and Albanian national teams. Frankly, the obviously second-language text, the ridiculous over emphasis on one match against England reflecting systemic bias, the unsupported opinions, the passing over of his playing career, and the total lack of sources other than in the recent nationality debate would all be better areas of attention for anyone wanting to improve the article. Kevin McE (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This link [3] states he was born in Zagreb in 1933...--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And this one in 1932 [4].--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

He is definitely considered Croatian in Croatia, he is a native speaker of Croatian and regularly appears on football tv programs as well as in print commenting on events in Croatian football. Although most sources say he was botn in Plasnice near Klagenfurt, he played for Dinamo Zagreb's youth selections, as well as for Metalac and Lokomotiva, which are all Croatian clubs based in Zagreb. After retiring as a player he managed Dinamo outh school, a number of Croatian clubs and also served as assistent manager of Croatia. Based on all this, and in addition to the fact that FIFA defines nationality as player's eligibility to represent a certain association, and that Baric spent his whole playing career in Croatian (at that time Yugoslavian) clubs, I would certainly call him Croatian although he definitely holds Austrian citizenship. Timbouctou (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike Grella

This kid has been resurrected (probably prematurely) from a recent AfD deletion (and subsequent speedy deletion. The only thing that has actually changed in his life is that he has apparently signed a contract for Leeds this week. Granted there is a high likelihood he will soon get a game, restoration should probably have waited until that actually happens. Crystal balls aside, this prompts the question... what controls / systems are in place to prevent recreation of articles that still fail notability? and how much has to change, or how much time must pass before Speedy G4 is not a realistic option and the whole thing needs to go back through AfD? --ClubOranje^Talk 00:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since this article was deleted and re-created, I did a bit of snooping around, and it seems like he played a game for Long Island Rough Riders in 2006, when they were still in the USL Second Division, which would constitute one pro appearance. That's why I've actually added a bit of info to this article today, and think it should probably be kept. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like? Not entirely convincing. Where is the verifiable evidence. Reference provided shows he was still with Duke Blue Devils until and including 2007, article clearly states Long Island Rough Riders are in the fourth division USL Premier Development League which is non-professional, and other sources back that up. We are currently finding consensus that merely signing for a Premier League club is not enough, signing for 3rd level Leeds rates right down there below that. Maybe he will real soon, but I believe this person still fails WP:ATHLETE and should not have been recreated following AfD until such time as he actually does. Hence my question regarding G4speedy. --ClubOranje^T 10:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the Long Island Rough Riders are now in a non-professional league. If they were in a pro league when Grella made his appearance for them (and provided that appearance can be verified), then he's notable. – PeeJay 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm bad at reading. I didn't realise that you'd found that he was with Duke Blue Devils when he allegedly made his appearance for the Rough Riders. – PeeJay 11:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the WP article he played for the Rough Riders during the "off-season" from college, so it could well be true. That still leaves the question, though, of whether the game was in a fully pro league..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely if he was signed with a pro-club, he'd have lost all NCAA eligibility to play for Duke, so, when did he make his last apppearance for ther Blue Devils? - fchd (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Rough Riders - in 2006 they playes in the USL Second Division, which was (and still is) fully professional. They then dropped down to the semi-pro PDL for the 2007 season, and have been there ever since. Therefore, if Grella did make an appearance for them in the 2006 season, he passes WP:ATHLETE. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't provide the info in a link, because there isn't one - it was in an e-mail press release I got from Gerald Barnhart at USL HQ in Tampa, listing each new draftee's USL history. I'm looking at it now, and it clearly says that Grella made one appearance for the Rough Riders in '06, but I'm actually wondering if it's a typo, because had that been the case, as people have rightly pointed out, he would have lost his NCAA eligbility and not been able to play for Duke in '07. To be honest, if it goes to AfD and gets deleted, I wouldn't be too worried as it will be easy to re-create the article if and when he makes his Leeds first team debut. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To answer the thread's original question: nothing. Articles can be salted if recreation is persistent. Given that it is impossible to write a decent football biography on a player who hasn't actually played yet, we're not losing anything by deleting these and then resurrecting them as they become keep-worthy. As for the question of "how much time must pass" - we're not on a time limit. If there's a high likelihood that said player is going to get a game soon, then let's not go discouraging editors with excessive bureaucracy. WP:ATHLETE isn't so fragile that it'll collapse if a few articles remain non-deleted for a while. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Real Madrid injured players

Should or should not long time injured players be given their own list in club articel or stil remain in squad list?

Is currently involved in a minor edit dispute regarding Real Madrid long time injured players Rubén de la Red, Mahamadou Diarra and Ruud van Nistelrooy, since they are now injured rest of the season several IP nr. think they should be be given their own separate list instead of current squad. User:CCHDR claimed that they where no longer registerd due to injuries. However i dont see any significens with the list seeing its just temporary and have no direct historical significens and adding it makes it more like a fan page. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 20:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

When they are on the payroll of the club and have played in the main squad, I think they should be included. Some club articles use a red cross sign to indicate that a player is injured. I prefer that over pretending that a player is not in the squad because he's injured. Aecis·(away) ^talk 20:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, however i stil dont see any historical significens with it, to make it so you would be recuired to add something like every injured player in the club history. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 20:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I, I think they should just be included in the Main squad section, among the non-injured players. Aecis·(away) ^talk 20:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a squad list system in Spanish domestic football, similar to that of European competition? For instance it was publicised on Monday that Beckham had been included in Milan's list for the second half of the European season, even though he is supposed to be going back to Los Angeles in early March. If he hadn't been included in that list he wouldn't have been able to play in their European matches[5]. If there is a similar system within Spain, those players wouldn't be part of the current squad as such. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Some American sports, baseball springs to mind, have an injured list on the roster. Football doesn't so they should be included in the main squad. Who is to say they are actually injured? A manager can play a half-fit player if he so wants. I don't think we should have any separate list or mention of injured players. Peanut4 (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For a team in England or Scotland, that would be correct. I think though there are rules in Spain that you can only name 25 players in the active squad list, so it is possible that a player who is long term injured would be taken off that list. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of such a rule. However, if that does exist, then it is possibly appropriate to have an "active list" part of the squad lists and place the rest elsewhere as appropriate. Peanut4 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Like Peanut4 i wasnt aware of it either, is it possibal so read about it somewhere? --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course! You can read about it right here!, duly unreferenced in the true spirit of Wikipedia. A bit about Champions League squads is here.--ClubOranje^T 09:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you keep the injured players in the squad, as smaller clubs with less fans might not get updated very often and we won't know who's injured. DeMoN2009 12:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No offense ClubOranje^T, but the spanish part isnt sourced and i was refering to a alternate internet page then Wikipedia. Otherwise i agree with DeMoN, but also since giving them their own list while injured and then remove it feel abit like a fan page to me. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 16:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No offence taken, I did say it was unreferenced. I spent about 1/2 an hour looking for something definitive for my own interest, and that was the best I could find, although there were multiple Football Manager blog and forum posts indicating that Football Manager limits you to 25 squad players in the Spanish league implied it was because as that is how it is in La Liga.--ClubOranje^T 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I missed the "unref." part when i read your earlier statment, however i stil havent got any directly clear answer if they should have their own list at the side or not, perhaps should ask for a consensus regarding the matter. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My 2cents worth is... if the clubs in question list a current squad that is what should be recorded here under WP:NOR whether that includes long term injured or not. It is not up to us to differentiate, only record what is elsewhere differentiated. If they publish a separate injured list, that may also be recorded. HTH --ClubOranje^T 05:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Swiss Challenge League

Is the Swiss Challenge League (2nd tier) fully professional? I am asking because I have some doubts regarding the notability of this subject. --Angelo (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where to look to see if leagues are professional or not, the impression I get from looking at the club pages and the huge numbers of redlinks for players that are not on loan makes me think it's not too notable. My advice is to just take the top league as notable, and delete that article unless someone proves otherwise, or the player actually makes a start for Roma, which, considering he's on loan, shouldn't happen very soon. DeMoN2009 19:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Leicester City captaincy

Stephen Clemence is the club captain but is out injured therefore Matt Oakley is vice-captain, unless you find a source to say otherwise please can users ensure that ip's don't (in good faith) make unhelpful edits. Skitzo (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Will try my best. DeMoN2009 19:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Cvitanich and Croatia

According to this newspaper article, Argentina-born Ajax player Darío Cvitanich is not eligible to play for Croatia, the country of his great-grandparents, because FIFA doesn't recognize great-grandparents as sufficiently close kinship. In other words, he is too remotely related to Croatia to play for the national team of Croatia. I haven't been able to find any such rule in the FIFA regulations. As far as I was aware, a player only needed a passport of the country in order to play for its national team. Can anyone help? See also Talk:AFC Ajax#Darío Cvitanich: Croatia or Argentina?. Aecis·(away) ^talk 19:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

FIFA accept any country's qualification for citizenship unless that is earned only through residence, in which case FIFA stipulate their own minimum period of 5 years to qualify for eligibility "Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the Association of that country" (Article 15 in Regulation VII of FIFA Statute). So it is not FIFA who would be ruling this out, but Croatian citizenship regulations may well do so. I suspect a lazy journo who has heard a summary of passport regs for Fooland in relation to a footballer and ascribed it to FIFA Kevin McE (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. And since Cvitanich received his Croatian passport in August 2008, I see no reason why he wouldn't be eligible to play for Croatia. Aecis·(away) ^talk 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to have these speculations on players' feelings, FIFA's rules and interpretations of various countries' citizenship law in various combinations every time someone with slightly non-trivial nationality comes up?

Nationality is complex and can't be simplified down into one twee graphic to make your tables look pretty.

Don't include the flag at all - ultimately, we just don't need it. We have a primary duty to reliability over prettiness, and when it comes down to it this flag is primarily decoration. When the decoration oversimplifies a complicated nationality situation, and thus becomes misleading - bin it. Ultimately it's completely unnecessary, and shouldn't be a substitute for accurate prose. Just write what is verifiable and nothing more. No original synthesis, and no misleading by oversimplification. Knepflerle (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think we should get rid of flags and nationalities altogether, feel free to suggest it. That would require removing the nationality from {{Fs player}} and changing our manual of style for Current squad sections to get rid of nationalities and flagicons, as well as changing the thousands of articles we have on football clubs, all while trying to avoid an edit war. But until that proposal has been accepted, we have to make sure that whatever we do show is verifiable and correct, regardless of deeper sociological considerations of identity and nationality. If you wish to comment on the nationality of Darío Cvitanich, feel free to comment. But this thread is not the proper venue for a debate on the way we list nationalities. Aecis·(away) ^talk 18:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Read what I wrote more carefully - I said no such thing. Where nationality is fully described by one word or one flag, describe it as one word or one flag. If it is too complicated to describe in one word or one flag (as here), we cannot reduce it to one word or flag. You're trying to make a binary black or white decision where the answer is a subtle shade of grey. Knepflerle (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And what subtle shade of grey is it in this particular case? Aecis·(away) ^talk 21:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's probably better to continue the discussion about Cvitanich at Talk:AFC Ajax. Aecis·(away) ^talk 21:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a common problem and should be discussed here. He was born in Argentina and has a Croatian passport, and hasn't played for either. That much is verifiable, but that's as simple as it goes. He's not just Argentinian. He's not just Croatian. He doesn't fit into either convenient little simple box or description. Knepflerle (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know the "nationality" entry on football players usually has everything to do with the country that player played for in matches sanctioned by FIFA, UEFA or other football governing bodies, and nothing to do with his citizenship or ethnicity. As far as FIFA is concerned Cvitanich can have 20 different passports, but his nationality will be determined once and for all as soon as he accepts a call-up for Argentina (or some other) squad. However, since FIFA has rules concerning the player's eligibility to be called upon for a national side in the first place, it is very unlikely that the Croatian football federation will be able to call Cvitanich to play for Croatia to begin with, since Croatian FA president Vlatko Marković said that the key issue surroundng Cvitanich is that only his great-grandfather was Croatian. Here is an interview with Marković as it appeared in print in Croatian sports daily Sportske novosti. It is in Croatian so let me translate what he said exactly in January 2009: "We consulted FIFA's officials about Cvitanich, and the truth is that circumstances aren't so good. We knew all along that there would be problems since Dario is nothing like Ivan Rakitić, who was greenlighted by FIFA only two months after our request [to allow him to play for Croatia] because Ivan's father Luka was born in Croatia. The regulations have been tightened since, and they really take into account the rule which stipulates that permission to play for a national team other than the player's home country team would be allowed only to players whose ancestors have been born in that country, up to the second generation, meaning his parents or grandparents. And Santiago, who was originally named Jakov in Croatian, is only Cvitanich's great-grandfather, who emigrated to Argentina from the island of Brač in the beginning of the 20th century." So what Marković says is in direct contradiction with user Kevin McE's interpretation, mainly because Kevin is citing article 15 which concerns players with a single nationality, but Marković is clearly talking about the issue governed by articles 16 and 17 in that same rulebook (titled "Acquisition of new nationality" and "Nationality entitling players to represent more than one Association"). Long story short - since Cvitanich wasn't born in Croatia, his parents weren't born there, his grandparents weren't born in Croatia, and he never lived there, it is next to impossible for him to represent Croatia as far as FIFA is concerned. The slim chance of him appearing for Croatia now largely depends on his willingness to do so, since he and the Croatian FA must file a special appeal asking FIFA to make an exception for his case, but since Maradona allegedly noticed Cvitanich as a prospect for Argentina, I doubt that Dario would pursue this further. Timbouctou (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The important thing here, Knepflerle, is that our article is not about the person Darío Cvitanich, but about the football player Darío Cvitanich. Cvitanich is a difficult case, because he hasn't played for either Argentina or Croatia, but for the sake of the argument Khalid Boulahrouz is a better example. He was born in the Netherlands as the son of Moroccan immigrants. He holds dual citizenship. But because he has played for the Dutch national team, we show him with a Dutch flag. Even though his Moroccan background may play an important part in his personal life, it is not related to the football player Boulahrouz, because he has chosen not to do anything with his Moroccan passport as a football player. Khalid Sinouh is the opposite. He was born in the Netherlands as the son of Moroccan immigrants, like Boulahrouz, but unlike Boulahrouz, Sinouh has chosen to represent Morocco instead of the Netherlands. That's why we show him with the Moroccan flag. Because he is eligible to the Moroccan national team, he counts as a Moroccan football player. What we show is not the nationality of the individual person, but the nationality of the football player. Back to Cvitanich: Croatia may obviously have a special place in the heart of Cvitanich, but that is not important to us. Since we describe the football player and not the person, we have to deal with the fact that he is currently eligible for Argentina and that his chances to ever become eligible for Croatia are minimal at best. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Now you're confusing national team representation with nationality, and national team representation with eligibility. If you want to base it just on representation fair enough, but in this case you're speculating on most-probable future represenatation with a synthesis of crystal-ball original researc - definitely not en.wp material. Knepflerle (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, under FIFA rules you have to have the citizenship (nationality) of the country in order to play for the national team. You can only represent France if you're a French citizen, only German citizens can represent Germany. Using the national team to indicate nationality is very reasonable imo. With Cvitanich, we should go by what we know, which is: 1) he was born and raised in Argentina, has Argentinean citizenship and is eligible for the Argentina national football team; 2) he has received Croatian citizenship in August 2008 and has expressed the wish to represent Croatia; 3) FIFA have not (yet?) given Cvitanich permission to switch to Croatia. So at the moment he is an Argentinean footballer who might one day become Croatian. Calling him Croatian as a football player is crystalballing, calling him Argentinean is not. Aecis·(away) ^talk 07:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If he hasn't played for any Argentinian national teams, he does not need FIFA permission to switch to Croatia. Do both Argentina and Croatia allow dual-nationality? If not, he may have renounced his Argentinian citizenship to become a Croatian. - fchd (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

He needs FIFA permission to switch to Croatia because he was over 21 when he received his Croatian passport. Also, under FIFA rules, Cvitanich only qualifies for Croatia if he "has lived in the country for at least two years" (not the case) or "has a parent or grandparent who was born there" (not the case, his great-grandfather was Croatian). See also [6] and [7]. The Croatian football federation have indicated that they will request an exemption from these rules, and FIFA may grant them that. But only when FIFA grants the exemption does he become eligible for Croatia. Until then, he is only eligible for Argentina. Aecis·(away) ^talk 07:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Aecis. Cvitanich doesn't meet any of the requirements stated in FIFA articles 16 or 17, which renders his Croatian passport and citizenship completely irrelevant. Timbouctou (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The guy is a dual Argentine and Croatian citizen, but right now he might represent only the former. So he's Argentine in terms of football nationality. Plain simple. --Angelo (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the discussion both here and on Talk:AFC Ajax, I see a consensus to change the flags from Croatia to Argentina. This will involve the articles Eredivisie 2008–09 and AFC Ajax. Cvitanich is already shown as an Argentinean player on the List of Dutch football transfers summer 2008. If there are no objections, I will go ahead and change the flags later today or tomorrow. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Adem Ljajić

It has again come up. The page is currently fully protected due to the ongoing dispute as to which club he is at. Help is fully appreciated figuring out the situation at the talk page. Dispute really needs to be solved once and for all. –  LATICS  talk  18:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Anybody speak Hungarian?

I want to know if Scott Malone, on loan at Újpest FC from Wolves, has made his debut yet. Thanks, GiantSnowman 18:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't, but Google translator does. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's cheating! What I really need is someone who knows Hungarian football to find and have a look at some match reports for me, something which the otherwise-omnipotent Google can't do...GiantSnowman 18:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And, however, Google translation of Hungarian is pretty sick... --necronudist (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

HLSZ says no. Jogurney (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! GiantSnowman 11:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve Gardner in England

Based on the info currently in the article, Gardner began his career at the age of 25 in Sweden, but surely he played in England first...anyone know who for? I've had a look at Neil Brown's site for Gardner's hometown club of Barnsley, but he never made a league appearance for them. Thanks, GiantSnowman 20:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Of the two sources used, one does not give a place of birth, the second states Berusley and not Barnsley. Though I have to admit, I've never heard nor cannot find Berusley. Peanut4 (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Neil Brown lists a Steve Gardner who played for Oldham from 1977 to 1981, and then moved to Karlskrona. [8] For this sort of thing starting a Google search with "site:" is useful - I searched using site:neilbrown.newcastlefans.com "gardner steve" Oldelpaso (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a Steve Gardner who played for Ipswich then Oldham before moving to Karlskrona in Sweden in 1981. Might be your man. Peanut4 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) He played for Ipswich Town and Oldham Athletic, which I've added into the article, using The PFA Premier & Football League Players' Records 1946-2005. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

http://footballdatabase.eu/football.joueurs.steve.gardner.54534.en.html lists him as being born in Hemsworth and starting at Oldham in 1977 too. Nanonic (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Aïmen Demai

A source on this player's article confirms that he made an international appearance for Algeria in 2003, against Qatar. No problems, except that the BBC confirms he has just been called up for Tunisia...GiantSnowman 22:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The source only seems to confirm that he was on the bench, not that he actually played. Maybe he's doing a Stuart McCall.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably, although what with those pesky FIFA regulations, is he even eligible for Tunisia, having previously been part of the Algerian national set up...? GiantSnowman 22:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He is as long as he hasn't played an official match for Algeria. The match against Qatar was probably a friendly, so that doesn't count. Driss Boussatta did the same: he first played three friendlies for the Netherlands and then three matches for Morocco. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be that, as long as a player is uncapped, even if he's on the bench he's allowed to change. For example, would Jimmy Bullard still be technically able to play for Germany? — CHANDLER^#10 — 23:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He can be capped, as long as it's not an official FIFA or confederation match. Bullard can make his debut for England in the friendly against Spain this Wednesday and he would still be able to play for Germany. As long as he is a German citizen, ofcourse. Simply being the grandson of a German citizen is not enough. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we have, or would anyone be brave enough to enter the quagmire that could be, an Eligibility criteria for international football (soccer)? It would be a useful link from many articles, we should be able to get a clearer phrasing than FIFA documentation, and could be a place of reference when such questions arrive. Kevin McE (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, although I don't have the knowledge or time to start it! I also think the article should be located at Eligibility criteria for international association football. GiantSnowman 12:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for the concept, and I agree with GiantSnowman on the location. matt91486 (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the "association" qualifier is needed in this case. There's no international american football, and international gaelic/aussie rules is called "International rules football", so none of the others use "international football". Oldelpaso (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam Cronin AfD article - help!

Someone is vandalising the AfD page for this soccer player beyond all recognition, using lots of curse words, and verbally abusing the people taking part in the debate. I've never come across anyone doing this before; and someone (I forget who) actually seems to think that it is Cronin himself doing this. Can anyone help? Is it considered poor form to revert the article to where it was before all the unpleasantness started at the expense of losing some potentially useful comments in the interim? --JonBroxton (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Full protection on the page would destroy the integrity of the AfD, so that would be difficult. It's a weird situation to be sure. I would think it better to not completely revert, as there were some valid comments in the interim, many of which were away from the predominant view up until that point, and it would definitely skew the results. matt91486 (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely the closing admin will be able to differentiate between the vandalism and genuine arguments, and judge accordingly...GiantSnowman 20:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that he has replaced the text of the genuine arguments with his ranting, and now it's all so mixed up it would take forever to restore. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Have an admin revert to the last good (i.e. non-vandalised) version, and then contact all the genuine editors and get them to rewrite their views on the matter...that's the only way to solve it, I think. GiantSnowman 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's best too. Admins? --JonBroxton (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe contact them directly...GiantSnowman 20:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Partial reverts and additional comments inbetween make it a mess, but I've removed the worst of the abuse manually and added the {{afdanons}} template. The main protaganist had already been blocked. Looks like a Toronto FC forum is responsible. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Toronto FC fan forum thing is interesting. How do we deal with things like this? --JonBroxton (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply by letting the AfD run its course, reverting comments that are pure abuse and keeping ones which are not. The afdanons template pretty much explains it. It isn't a majority vote; the closing admin will weigh up the merits of the arguments. A contribution of "Stop being WIKI NAZI's and keep tha page" isn't going to count for much. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Partly my fault, as I mentioned it on a fan forum - we've discussed Wikipedia articles in the past, I kind of suspected the original poster was also there - as they were. This abuse is inexcusable though. What I don't get is how one IP could consistently make edit after edit without getting blocked. It took about 4-hours before anyone even posted anything on their talk page - let alone blocked them! The bigger problem is why are we even trying to remove content like this. At this time of year, a whole series of 22 to 23-year olds have been drafted by MLS. Those that are drafted highly, and signed, always end up playing with their teams (you find me the last top-ten draft pick who was signed, but didn't play in the next season). They all have lots of media coverage, and significant University or College records. This one in particular is particularily bizarre, as he was the number 2 draft pick in the entire draft! I can't fathom why that alone isn't enough to make him notable! Surely the best thing to do is leave articles in place for the top draft picks - they can be easily deleted in a few weeks, if they get run over by a bus, and don't actually make an appearance. Nfitz (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Mentioned it on the forum? That looks like a clear case of canvassing to me. Definately NOT the way to go about things. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, a bit borderline. Initally it was quite neutral ... but it was clear the vandalism was coming from there, so I then tried to discourage the vandalism, and indicate how to do it properly ... which I guess does cross a line, but at that point, it seemed the lesser of two evils ... not to say that forum would actually be supportive, I've already voted to remove another of this years draft picks on the same team, who didn't seem to be very likely to be playing there this season. I'll handle differently next time. Nfitz (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If it was sourced, it would probably escape an AFD through the 'lots of different sources from different people about different things' thing that I can never quote properly. As it is at the moment the only hard evidence to go on is that he hasn't played a game professionally. Nanonic (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I just went back and looked at the article Sam Cronin, his previous achievements seem quite well sourced to me - for an article only a few days old. Nfitz (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

But only one of the sources listed does give him anything more than a passing mention, and even that I wouldn't class as significant coverage. If he is notable, there must be better out there, surely? - fchd (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The NCAA article certainly is significant coverage, but I agree that the Hermann award coverage is fairly trivial (although the award is not trivial, nor is his third place finish). I didn't bother to look for better sources yet. Jogurney (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Kind of sickens me, I don't get an article and I have accomplished a lot more in youth team football than this guy! Mind you I never got a full contract for Stevenage so that sucked! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony Adams

Wikipedia sources show Tony Adams is expected to be subject of untold amounts of poorly made edits thanks to more SSN rubbish. Peanut4 (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As Google News hits are multiplying and Betfair has suspended the "next Premier League manager to be sacked" betting, it might be a mercifully brief period of waiting. Which is a shame as I was rather hoping he'd be in charge for their game against Manchester City next week. Oldelpaso (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I reckon he has been sacked by the looks of things. Though until it's concrete then the article shouldn't say as such. And some of the rubbish I had to change was laughable. Peanut4 (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"some of the rubbish I had to change was laughable" - I reckon their next manager will be saying much the same thing! Beve (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Portsmouth confirm Adams sacking - this is why the BBC is the only news site I trust; no rumours or speculation , just fact. GiantSnowman 12:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Except that last night the BBC were running "The BBC understands that Portsmouth are to sack..." just like Sky were, and at the same URL that today says Portsmouth confirm Adams sacking. In general I also prefer the BBC to Sky, but their practice of repeatedly changing a breaking story without changing the URL they publish it on can be very misleading. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I hate them using the same URL too. It sometimes means match reports appear to have been written before a match even happened (since they use the preview) and also updates don't appear in the correct place on the NewsNow feed. Anyway, I digress. Anyway, it's not really up to BBC or Sky to sack him, surely we should wait on Adams or any other manager until a definitive statement has been released by the club? Read the Daily Mail's "authorative" and "exclusive" version of the Adams sacking last night, without a single quote from anyone at the club. Peanut4 (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, keep eyes on Luiz Felipe Scolari - breaking news that Chelsea have sacked him; cue IP vandalism. D.M.N. (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Blunsdon United F.C.

How about the notability of this football "club"? If this happens to be notable, then I think we should make a massive cleanup out of it... --Angelo (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks non-notable to me. The only other teams in their league with entries are reserve sides. It's far too far down the football ladder. Peanut4 (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We've seen this one before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 16#Swindon League. TRM speedied it last time [9]. Nanonic (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've PROD'ed it, although I fully expect the PROD template to be removed inside the next 24 hours. See you at AfD I guess..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

" 'I think eating kebabs would help the players be big and strong' - Dr Heng Ratchonchaiya on his ideology for improving the team." It should be kept just for that :) GiantSnowman 12:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That is rather funny, I can't find them on thefa.com. I assume they aren't registered for the FA cup prim rounds. Govvy (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

They're about three levels too far down to get in to the F.A. Cup (they play in the Wiltshire League rather than the Swindon League as the text says, although the infobox is correct). I'd start a major tidyup but it hardly seems worthwhile, this article is doomed. - fchd (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Keith Spurgeon

An English football manager whose career seems to begin when he coaches Ajax between 1961 & 1962, at the age of 28/29...did he have a career in England beforehand, either as a player or a coach? Thanks, GiantSnowman 20:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

www.allfootballers.com has no-one listed under the surname "Spurgeon" so I guess he never played in the Football League. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox football club season

This is just a quick request for comment (with a view to gaining clarification and consensus) regarding Template:Infobox football club season. Specifically, should this template's average attendance, highest attendance and lowest attendance parameters cover just league games or all competitions? Also, whichever option we pick, how do we clarify this to the reader: by adding a caveat that is part of the infobox template (as per the stats in Template:Infobox Football biography), or footnotes in the article itself, or some other way? There's a discussion already ongoing at Template talk:Infobox football club season#Average attendance, so it may be neater for those interested to leave comments there than split it here. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

At Bradford City A.F.C. season 2007–08 I used both league and total for top goalscorers and highest/lowest attendances and clarified so. Peanut4 (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion please on this book reference inclusion

Could someone please review these Vityabigears contributions with regard to relevance. I removed the original additions to most of these pages under WP:SPAM as they all pointed with reference to online bookshop for purchase - and the Pavlyuchenko edit claimed it had stuff in there about him and his exploits at EURO2008, despite the book being reportedly published a month before the tournament began. I still believe it to be of no encyclopaedic value and simply advertising, but do not wish to start an edit war over it if it is just me that thinks so.--ClubOranje^T 00:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This looks like spam to me—shameless and not even fitting it in an appropriate tone/style/wording. Removal seems fine. Add to "Further reading" if the book is particularly concerning the article's topic. Fleeting mentions are pretty pointless. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Serie B Seasons Template (Italy)

I think the 1945-46 season of Serie B should be listed in its own little section in the template (as are 3 seasons in the Serie A template which are not official Serie A seasons). We are counting only 77 official Serie B seasons, and including the 1945-46 one makes in 78 seasons listed on the template. I would change it myself, but I don't know how to edit that template.Juve2000 (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hoax articles

Both Copa Toyota de las Americas and Copa de las Americas created by the same user seem to be hoaxes with completely made up matches which have somehow remained for some weeks. Can they be put forward for speedy deletion or do they have to go through AfD? --♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged them for speedy deletion as G3 - blatant misinformation. – Toon^(talk) 01:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

West German categories

Matthead (talk · contribs) is removing categories relating to West German footballers from a number of player articles. The categories are currently under discussion for deletion (see here for the discussion) and it is my belief that the categories, which are relevant, should remain on the articles UNTIL said categories are deleted. Regards, GiantSnowman 23:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As I told you, these categories are nonsense. And, as you put my name in the headline, I put yours in.-- Matthead  Discuß   23:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Giant Snowman. It's not one individual editor's decision to decide to remove the categories while a CfD is ongoing. Peanut4 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

One - the categories are not nonsense at the minute, they exist and are relevant to the players. However, if they are deleted, then I have no problem in removing them. However, if they are kept, then they should be kept on player's articles as well. Removing the categories which are part of an ongoing discussion is poor form really. Two - apologies for putting your name in the headline, I copied & pasted into the incorrect area, I have corrected it now. GiantSnowman 23:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with the snowman too. The CfD notice explicitly says: "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To pick some (not all) of the categories applied to one player:

• Category:Expatriate footballers in the Netherlands
• Category:Expatriate soccer players in Canada
• Category:Expatriate football (soccer) players in South Africa
• Category:Expatriate soccer players in the United States
• Category:German expatriate footballers
• Category:German expatriates in Canada
• Category:German expatriates in South Africa
• Category:German expatriates in the Netherlands
• Category:German footballers
• Category:Germany international footballers
• Category:West German expatriate footballers
• Category:West German expatriates in Canada
• Category:West German expatriates in South Africa
• Category:West German expatriates in the Netherlands
• Category:West German expatriates in the United States

To repeat it once more, there was no such thing as "West Germany". This is just an informal and misleading term applied to a part of the history of Germany. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not the issue. It should be discussed at the CfD. This is about your deletion of the categories against the instructions issued. Peanut4 (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If you think these categories should be deleted, argue your case at the CfD, as you are doing. When there is a consensus that the categories should be deleted, a bot will clear them out for you. Do not empty categories during a CfD discussion. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you have make a case why such categories can be created and applied in the first place. See Wikipedia:Patent nonsense and Wikipedia:Content forking. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that, mainly because the existence of some "West German" and "West Germany" categories has been agreed to by consensus at CfD in the past. CfD would be the appropriate route here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the categories should remain on the articles until the CfD discussions have been concluded. Camw (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What should be done though is to clear the redundant categories. IE Only need International Footballer which includes Footballer. Agathoclea (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that the category West German footballers should be removed if a person is also listed in Category:West Germany international footballers? In that case, I would disagree. One category sorts all football players with a certain nationality, the other sorts those football players who played for the national team. They are separate, they are certainly not redundant. Aecis·(away) ^talk 11:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In the above case I was thinking of German footballers and Category:Germany international footballers, but equally applies to the ones you mentioned. If your comment were to stand then

German footballers

Footballers by state in Germany

German footballers by populated place

East German footballers

West German footballers

German men's footballers

German women's footballers

German expatriate footballers

German LGBTQ footballers

Olympic footballers for Germany

Olympic footballers for the United Team of Germany

would need to be totally rearranged. Agathoclea (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Aecis that players should remain in both 'player' and 'international player' categories - after all, a German international player is still a German footballer. Regards, GiantSnowman 13:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Result of the CfD was Keep. Madcynic (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:FC Example players

Do we add these categories to players who have only played for the youth team, or do they have to be part of the first team to include this? I am asking this because User:Andrej.yo is adding the categories to players who have just been part of a clubs youth system. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that the categories only contained articles of people who actually played in the first team. This could include those who played in cup matches, but not if they only played for the reserves or youth sides. Jogurney (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I argue the opposite point of view. The rule I apply for Category:Arsenal F.C. players and which seems to have been copied by a lot of categories, is that all they have to be is registered to the club as a player eligible to play. Otherwise this creates slightly silly situations when a player has joined a club but has not played for them yet, or if they got given a squad number, made the substitutes' bench but never got on the pitch. For example, Andrey Arshavin won't play for Arsenal until February 21 at least, but I defy anyone to say he is not currently 'an Arsenal player' and should not be categorised as such. Qwghlm (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with that sentiment. And it's neatly summed up on the cat page:

This category is for footballers who are or were on the books of Arsenal (or Royal Arsenal or Woolwich Arsenal, as the club used to be known). They do not necessarily have to have played a first-team match for the club, though.. Peanut4 (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I can understand that approach. Does it only apply to players who have contracts with the senior squad, or would youth players qualify for the categories as well? Jogurney (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would read it as youth players as well since they were "on the books" of X F.C. That is, as long as a verifiable source can be found. Peanut4 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I go with youth players as well - trialists I would have a problem with, but any player that has agreed a contract with the club (apprenticeship or professional) I would say yes to, youth or not. Qwghlm (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, that seems spot on. Peanut4 (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Bort08 adding diacritics to lots and lots of MLS player rosters

Is this right? Especially when the articles themselves don't have them? --JonBroxton (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you give some examples?Hack (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Bort08 --JonBroxton (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Lots? I can only see one, and that looks to be a correct move. Peanut4 (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I see at least 33. Take a look through his contribution history. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Francis Belanger to Francis Bélanger is the only one I see. Peanut4 (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hang on. Are you on about actual page moves or changes to team pages? Peanut4 (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to team pages. I noticed that someone on his talk page had said something about the use of diacritics on pages relating to American Hispanics was not always appropriate, and I wondered if there was any feeling about it here. If it's no biggie, then it's no biggie. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) You might have to provide more exact examples because it's difficult to gauge from the edit contributions exactly which ones we're talking about. On the whole the squad lists should follow the article names. That said, that's not to say the articles are correct and may or may not need diaritics adding. Peanut4 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicolas Anelka as a Muslim

Hi. This article has constantly flitted about between noting him as a Muslim and categorising him as such and vice versa for some time now. I have obtained reliable sources to affirm the circumstances of his conversion. Just want some editor input as to whether the current version is best (detailing his conversion but avoiding the categorisation per WP:BLP#Categories). Is Anelka's religion pertinent to his public life (as with Nathan Ellington) or not? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would say it's fine as it is - it's concise and doesn't go into any unnecessary detail. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Neill/Grosso Incident fr. Italy vs Australia FIFA 2006

Recently reviewed Youtube tapes and did what I considered an NPOV cleanup of Lucas Neill, including the recommended explanation on the Discussion page. It was altered, without a Discussion entry using obviously POV language. After 2 1/2 years, it's time for the Socceroo partisans to put this stuff aside. I'm changing the article one more time with another explanation. Then I'm going to the Editors to seek a more permanent solution, unless someone from this page has a better idea. If I go to the EDs I'm going to suggest locking down or, at least restricting all related articles.

And by the way , could someone fr/ this Project archive old parts of this discussion? I've never done it before.

05:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapered (talk • contribs)

You might want to run this past the Australian football WP - there has been a long and painful process of reverting POV edits to that and other related articles.Hack (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tapered (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew "Carter" Brown

Is this guy really existing? It seems like hoaxish to me (and, even if he exists, the subject would fail WP:ATHLETE). --Angelo (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• According to that article, he played in the French second division in 1999/2000. If that can be verified, the he'd make the grade (just). Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

He appears to exist: he's listed on the Mexican FA site player database, but with no club details (you have to use the search box at the bottom of the page which produces a popup window, so I can't provide a proper link). Someone of that name (Andres Brown) does appear to have played for the right Belizean clubs at the right time. But no-one of that name appears on this list of first-team players used by Louhans in 1999-2000. If the DOB is accurate, he would only have been 15 then. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, he would fail WP:ATHLETE as I'm pretty sure the Belize league is not fully professional. The next question is this: is his non-notability clear-cut enough to PROD this article, or would it better to take it to AfD? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The references are very thin - the first has a name and photo but nothing more, and the second is from playerhistory.com, which is a user-generated site and fails WP:RS. I don't see much reason to keep the article unless his time in the French league can be authoritatively backed up. Qwghlm (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try a PROD and see what happens then. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I already tried a PROD a few days ago, and this was promptly contested by the article creator. I think it's better to put it on AFD instead. --Angelo (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that. Oh well... Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Aiden McGeady

Could an admin please protect this article? Receiving a lot of vandalism, partly due to a "training ground incident" last week, partly due to there being yet another Old Firm game on Sunday. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected for one week -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

Hello there, teammates,

about the title of this "talk", i have an emerging doubt: the composition of the sortkey. Most of the players have only name/surname, so its display is easy (i.e. PLATINI, MICHEL) but, Spanish, Portuguese and Brazilian players often have nicknames or are known by first name (the latter being easy to "adjust"), and now i provide two examples:

Vitor Hugo Gomes Passos, aka Pelé, and Eduardo Fernando Gomes, aka Dady. I think it's an open-and-shut-case, their sortkeys should be their nicknames, even though the names in the articles state a different name because, if you take Dady's case, and consult the random category BELENENSES PLAYERS, he should be in the letter "D", not "G" for Gomes, i believe. User:Matthew hk's only way of enlighten me was to tell me the obvious (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NothingButAGoodNothing#Sortkey), but i need some extra info to be totally wiki-taught...What are the patterns about this, if any?

Ty in advance, keep the scoresheet going,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

They should definitely be sorted by their nickname, but they shouldn't be sorted by something not in their article name - that's just as confusing for the majority of people who don't know the player's full name. The articles need to be renamed to include the nickname, e.g. Pelé (footballer born 1987) or Pelé (Vitor Hugo Gomes Passos) or even Vitor Hugo Gomes Passos (Pelé). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Eduardo Fernando Gomes can simply be named Dady, and I've moved the article. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'd support moving to Pelé (footballer born 1987) as well (although frankly you have to wonder why on Earth another footballer would think that a sensible nickname to adopt). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

MLS Draft

Yet another MLS Draft, yat another batch of prematurely created articles - the MLS season doesn't begin until March. Some players meet non-foootball notability - media appearances etc. - but the vast majority fail any kind of notability. How to we solve this problem? Is there a way to protect redlinks from being created? GiantSnowman 19:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete the red links if you find them. Part of the problem, is that there are some here, trying to delete articles for otherwise notable draftees, simply because they don't meet WP:ATHLETE; we even had some people trying to delete an article for the number 2 draft pick! There's even a warning on 2009 MLS SuperDraft that falsely claims that Please do NOT create articles for new draft picks until they make either their MLS or US Open Cup debut, as doing do contravenes the guidelines agreed by WP:FOOTY, and the policies at WP:ATHLETE and WP:N, ignoring that articles can be created if they meet WP:GNG. These actions by some, clearly violate Wikipedia guidelines, and weaken the whole process, as it becomes unclear and confusing to many people about which draftees articles should be created for, and for which they shouldn't. Nfitz (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• The notability of these players is confusing, mainly because they fail some things but pass another, meaning people that go by WP:FOOTY don't notice WP:GNG. Above Nfitz mentions four policies that govern our articles - can't we just say what WP:ATHLETE, WP:N and WP:GNG say at WP:FOOTY? It would solve a lot of Afds, and mean that this doesn't happen again. (I actually supported the deletion there, I was wrong) - DeMoN2009 20:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if anyone remembers, but I asked for a "period of leniency" between the MLS Draft and one month after the start of the MLS season, in order to stop this very situation happening, which would allow for the creation of articles on new draftees, and those who had not made their MLS debut within, say, 5-6 games, would then go to AfD. I was voted down for being a violation of policy in that ALL new draftees were considered non-notable until they actually 'crossed the white line', and have therefore been applying the consensus decision since then. Personally, I think we should have a clause in WP:FOOTYN which specifically deals with new MLS draftees (but ONLY MLS draftees, not players who are still in college) and recognizes the fact that US collegiate athletes are very different from amateur athletes everywhere else in the world, and can be the subject of lots and lots of non-trivial coverage, as Nfitz has rightly stated. There has to be some way around this. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

But where exactly is the non-trivial coverage for Cronin for example? At least two of the four sources in the article are completely trivial, while a third requires registration that I can't be bothered to perform. - fchd (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The ones I cited earlier were CBC News- [10], The Globe and Mail - [11], and Winston-Salem Journal - [12] all of which are primarily about Cronin. The first is the Canadian equivalent of BBC, the second is Canada's largest national paper, and the third is a local newspaper in North Carolina. Nfitz (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say those sources constitute notability. But I've seen WP:Athlete supersede general notability before. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with you from those sources, but those aren't the ones that are linked from the article, or at least they weren't when the AfD was going on. - fchd (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but they were raised in the AFD. Perhaps people should spent more time adding to the article, than trying to AFD everything that fails WP:ATHLETE but passes other criteria. Nfitz (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that general notability can't supercede WP:ATHLETE, and if that was the finding, then the AfD should go to DRV. WP:ATHLETE is merely an additional criteria listed in WP:BIO where it notes that Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. As WP:GNG is part of WP:N it must trump WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And STILL people create articles - O'Brian White. What can we do about this? --JonBroxton (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I vote for the "period of leniency" exactly as written Morry32 (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And STILL people complain about people creating perfectly valid articles! He's the 2007 Hermann Trophy! That made him the best amateur soccer player in Canada and the United States. A bigger question is how did the article for the 2008 winner Marcus Tracy get deleted, with absolutely no comment from anyone of his win. Nfitz (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The "best amateur player" still seems pretty minor to me, and without significant external coverage would get a 'Delete' vote from me. - fchd (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to assume you aren't that familiar with American College sports- This isn't like a youth academy, these players have their games shown on television, they appear in numerous newspapers and web articles, draw crowds and give interviews. Winning an award as best amateur player in the US is a big deal and note worthy enough to never have it's page considered for deletion so why would the winner of such an award risk the same problem? Morry32 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Good grief - I'm completely shocked that the same person who did Articles for deletion/Sam Cronin has now gone and done the same for a player drafted almost as high, but better known, having won more awards, and with more media coverage - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Brian White. This seems to make no sense to me. Nfitz (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Why are we even trying to take this case by case? This entire thing seems to be completely counter productive- If I come across a new draftee I am probably not going to do anything for a while regardless of the rules because that is how I feel it should be handled. It is just silly to have to debate on a daily basis who qualifies for what and then argue which basis trumps the others. We would be better off just deciding to do nothing for a period of time, and I mean nothing- no creating, editing, or removing- and give the articles and players a chance to right themselves in a period of weeks or month after the season has begun. Morry32 (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of articles created

Is there a way to see how many articles a person has created - exlcuding redirects, talk pages etc.? GiantSnowman 23:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[13] - there is a little toolbox at the bottom of everyone's user contributions page. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Good grief! 1180! that GiantSnowman is like a virus! :-) for those that need it, since I seem to get bitten a lot lately over innocuous comments --ClubOranje^T 00:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, I knew I'd created a few but not that many! Cheer for the link ArtVandelay13. GiantSnowman 00:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Not scoring so well on the deletion stats tho! --ClubOranje^T 00:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's articles I've nominated for deletion, not articles I've created that have been deleted! GiantSnowman 19:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Am I wrong or once there was a tool for searching an article in every wikipedias? Like I search for "Pelé" and it provides a list of links of wikipedia entries in various languages where an article called "Pelé" exists... Hope I explained well! --necronudist (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SEARCH doesn't mention any such tool under "Multi-lingual Wikipedia search" other than external engines such as g00gle using wikipedia.org as a domain limiter. There are some 3rd party tools available too, but I don't know what they are like - eg "All Language Wikipedia" widget for Opera--ClubOranje^T 04:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Football club by competition categories

Category:Premier League clubs says it's "for teams who have ever played in the Premier League", while Category:Football League clubs says it's for "current members of The Football League" (despite which it contains several clubs e.g. Mansfield Town F.C. and Stoke City F.C. which fail that definition). Personally I prefer the "teams who have ever played in" definition, but either way, I can't see any reason for the two categories to be defined differently. Or am I missing something? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could separate into historical Premier League clubs and current ones? Though that seems to open up huge overcategorization problems. matt91486 (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't think there's any need for a 'Current Premier League clubs' category, since there is already the template Template:Premier League teamlist on each club's article page. Beve (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, both categories should be for past or present members of either league, just as we don't distinguish between past and present players. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Spot on and sound reasoning. Peanut4 (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(NEW) Football vandal

Folks, don't know if this the right place for this but, being this a football space:

Check out this new contributor, JESSEMON111 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jessemon111), he logged in today. Incredibly, while most vandals seem to almost exclusively edit anonymously, this idiot (don't fret, i know where i'm heading) went through the trouble of registering to write foul language, lies, the whole ordeal.

Here's an example (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salvador_Ballesta&diff=prev&oldid=269917615), hope he can be put offside.

Cheers, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any foul language; crude, but not foul. And I don't think calling them an idiot is appropriate. It's likely just some kid encountering Wikipedia for the first time. Welcome them, warn them, and monitor (and someone has already done). If people don't over react, they could well turn into a positive editor; and if don't become positive, then they won't last long. Nfitz (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for Football kit

English	French

I was looking around and found my self at the French wikiepdia and noticed that they have a little difference in their standard {{Football kit}} (fr:Modèle:Football kit) where the standard socks are instead of which I think can represent socks much better (as they usually are longer than can be represented by the later). One other thing with the french one, because the standard size is larger, you can still use the old images. Perhaps one change to the standard could be removing the black vertical lines at the top. The reason I'm taking his up here to begin with is because it would be such a big change too many articles. So what about it, would it perhaps be a good change for the English wikipedia as well? — CHANDLER^#10 — 21:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

They look like a couple of medicine bottles:-) If you could taper them and remove the stripes they'd probably look more like socks.--ClubOranje^T 22:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Our one looks much better - if anything, we should be persuading the people at the French WikiProject Football to change to ours, since they don't look like medicine bottles. DeMoN2009 15:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they look like medicine bottles ;P but perhaps that isn't the style needed... I mostly just feel they should be longer because socks usually are pretty long right? Might even be possible to just use the old style but extend it's height? — CHANDLER^#10 — 23:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok I've tried to make a different one, so it won't look like bottles, i hope. The socks are now 30px long (from the upper black border too the bottom) from the current standard at 16px. Better? — CHANDLER^#10 — 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats not too bad - I like it! DeMoN2009 11:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see any reason to change it. If it is changed, I would prefer some gap between the bottom of the image and the socks. Peanut4 (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the revised version has the socks in better proportion to the other components. - fchd (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If we're fixing the display of this template, can we do it properly by antialiasing it? Or doing a proper migration to SVG? Are there any particular holdups on this? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't used that word, now I've got horrible mental images of footballers wearing holdups :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem in making the standard svg, the problem with that though is that almost all images are in png... What could be done is what the italian wp has, they use svg images over the png (see here for example) which at least gives all sides AA. — CHANDLER^#10 — 20:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the long socks in svg form, seen to the right. In this sandbox here I've used the code from the italian template, with current sock styles with png, under. — CHANDLER^#10 — 21:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. What's still to be done before this can be deployed? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

i think it's ready to go, if the italian code is used I think it will integrate with things like the infoboxes and stuff — CHANDLER^#10 — 08:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Chandler/Sandbox7/doc There I've just switched in the new code for the infobox and it seems to work right, the only perhaps problem that is the same at the italian can be seen at the Barcelona kit, where it looks great imo at the Milan it does perhaps look a bit out of touch on Barcelona. This can perhaps only be fixed by changing the .png styles by removing the top white thing on kits that have the neck like that, as the overlaying svg would still be the border — CHANDLER^#10 — 09:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Stade de France location?

OK, I know the origin of this discussion doesn't come under this WikiProject's jurisdiction, but since the Stade de France is also a football stadium, I thought you guys might have some insight into the matter. Anyway, there's a bit of a discussion going on over at 2009 Six Nations Championship about the location of the Stade de France. According to the stadium's official website (http://www.stadefrance.com/), the IRB (http://www.rwc2007.irb.com/destinationFrance/venues/venue=2022/index.html) and FIFA (http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/edition=1013/results/matches/match=8788/report.html), it is located in Saint-Denis, but User:Jimmy Pitt, User:Schcambo and User:Nouse4aname think that, because Saint-Denis is (technically) a suburb of Paris, we should describe the Stade de France's location as "Paris". Opinions please. – PeeJay 12:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a common Frenchism - at work we constantly deal with things which are to be sent to Paris but are labelled by commune rather than with "Paris". As we (English Wikipedia) label locations anywhere else in the world by city, I don't why we should make an exception on account of French convention here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, shouldn't we also take into account the fact that both the International Rugby Board and FIFA refer to the stadium's location as Saint-Denis? – PeeJay 13:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't you just put Saint Denis, Paris? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good solution in cases like the stadium's own article, but not where a concise location is needed like in tables. PeeJay, no, I don't think we do; its official location is Saint-Denis, but this is a matter of local custom. Using an international standard here is appropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Saint-Denis appears to have its own City Council (linked from its own article), so I'd go with the fact that the stadium is in Saint-Denis. Just because more people have heard of Paris does not mean we should not strive for accuracy. - fchd (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK guys, I'm French, as you know. In France, there are about 36.000 communes. Saint Denis is a commune in the Seine-Saint-Denis departement, Paris a departement by itself. Every commune has a mayor and a city council. (So, 36.000 mayors in France, I know...). Saint Denis, Paris is incorrect because Saint Denis doesn't belong to Paris.It does belong to Seine-Saint-Denis and Île-de-France.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should change the wiki article for Saint-Denis then, which opens with "Saint-Denis is a commune in the northern suburbs of Paris, France.". Look at the map of the Paris area, Saint-Denis is within the boundaries of Paris. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hum, cant' see the problem with this first sentence...Saint-Denis is a commune in the suburb of Paris. The map of the Paris area is what we French call "la petite couronne" i.e. Paris intra-muros and département of Hauts-de-Seine (92, West), Seine-Saint-Denis (93, North-East) and Val-de-Marne (94, South-East). Paris "intra-muros" is in the middle of the map. --Latouffedisco (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[14] This map is clearer...--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why is it found on a map of Paris? [15]. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a map of Paris, it's a map of Paris + Hauts-de-Seine (92, West) + Seine-Saint-Denis (93, North-East) + Val-de-Marne (94, South-East). We call that region "la petite couronne".--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

FA Cup rounds

User:Lucy-marie has been changing the FA Cup articles to remove the word "Proper" from the round titles. Obviously, this is inconsistent with the names for the rounds that are given on the FA's website. Opinions please. – PeeJay 01:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted some myself PeeJay because I fully agree with you. The word "Proper" should be correctly used in all rounds of the proper section of the competition from First to Sixth Round to distinguish it from the qualifying rounds. Peanut4 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussions that have allready been discussed here. The FA is the only thing on the planet to use the word proper the print media don't use it and this is at odds to other articles such as the UEFA CUP years. Also the word proper implies that somehow the qualifying rounds were in some way improper rounds.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally incorrect. That is your view on language and not the terminology used. Peanut4 (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that this is not the FA and while they are used as a source they are not the only source. Common naming throughout Wikipedia association football knock-out competitions does not use the word proper.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the claim "The FA is the only thing on the planet to use the word proper" it's totally wrong. A quick Google news search flags up the BBC, ESPN, various national and regional newspapers and club websites. It might not be the most widely-used term but it is the correct term.

Above all anyway, mass edits should not be made without consensus. Peanut4 (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The policy of Wikipedia is to use the most common name for as subject please see WP:COMMONNAME

"First round proper" is common usage for the FA Cup (regardless of whether it's used in other knockout competitions), to distinguish it from the qualifying rounds. Beve (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand its usage for the First round but only the first round. Things such as sixth round proper or fifth round proper seem ridiculous. IF the word proper is to be used it should only be used on the first round.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. While it is frequently used for the First Round, usage in secondary sources dies out to almost nil by the Second Round, let alone any further than that. - fchd (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent, as I'm not sure what I'm answering) Removing it from the First round is pure original research. It's the official name for the round. It may not be in terms of ghits the common name but it's certainly commonly used in all major reliable sources. And, per WP:COMMONNAME, which says "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" (my italics), it makes a clear and helpful distinction between the preliminary rounds, the qualifying rounds, and the stage of the competition where the "big" clubs come in. Terminology used in other competitions is irrelevant, and if Lucy-marie feels people might misunderstand the meaning of the word Proper in this context, the answer is to explain it, not remove it.

For rounds after the first, it is used in reliable secondary sources, particularly in context of a "lesser" club reaching the Third round proper for the first time, but I wouldn't have a problem with its removal for rounds after the first. But only if there is a consensus for that removal. Unilateral mass-editing without consensus is wrong. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that If is to be used then only for the first round, but only if the qualifying round is also included in the main body of the article and not in a seperate article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If we use it only for the First Round Proper and then abandon it for the Second to Sixth Rounds Proper, that would imply that only the First Round Proper uses "Proper" to differentiate. Of course, this is not the case. And we certainly can't include the qualifying rounds in the main article as the sheer amount of content in the qualifying rounds article is too much to merge with the main article. – PeeJay 11:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And to use First Round, as opposed to First Round Proper, particularly in articles which don't include the qualifying rounds, would create the false impression that the competition started at that point. These are supposed to be encyclopedia articles listing the various rounds of the FA Cup: we'd be misinforming our readers if we omitted entirely the terminology used by the organisers of the competition to name its rounds. We're talking table headings, not prose. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Petitions

Is it notable/worthy of mention in a referee's article that a petition or campaign group has been started (on Facebook for example) by disgruntled fans? I've noticed this added to at least two or possibly three articles recently. I doubt it belongs but would like to have a reason to remove it beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cheers, Beve (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can give you at least two reasons: WP:N (lack of significant coverage of these petitions/campaigns) and WP:NPOV (there is no neutrality in saying fans don't like a ref). So just WP:BEBOLD. --Angelo (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If the campaigns receive coverage then they are possibly notable, if not then it is little different to use of an unreliable source. I would say take in on a case-by-case basis but on the large part their inclusion can probably be removed. Peanut4 (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a couple of Beeb articles on things like this, so they're certainly picked up by the RSes if they're notable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Repopulating West German categories

The West German football categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 4#West German footballers were kept at the CfD. Unfortunately, despite requests not to, it seems they were unpopulated before the CfD. How do we go about repopulating them? Peanut4 (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there is another way than to manually fill them again, maybe starting with List of Germany international footballers. Madcynic (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland national football team (1882–1950)

I've being dome some clean up of Irish sporting flags. The only one I haven't found evidence for either way is Ireland , {{fb|Ireland}}. Can some one provide a reference to this flags usage by the IFA during the period 1882 to 1950 Gnevin (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

All can a reference be found for this? If it can't I'm going remove the flag from the template Gnevin (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Savio Nsereko

Should this player be presented as "Savio Nsereko" or just "Savio" on the West Ham United article? I would suggest his full name, as, well, isn't this the standard? I can see the only argument for "Savio" being this is his shirt name. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Full name. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

'Savio Nsereko' is fine on the club article, but on the squad template you should always use shirt names. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nsereko was used as his shirt name with the German U19 team at the U19 Euro last year. So article full name, squad template shirt name, I'd say as well.

In Italy we always used Savio and talking about his shirt... --necronudist (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In Italy he started being called as Savio mainly because his last name is quite uncomfortable to be pronounced by Italians. Same applies for Levan Mchedlidze with Palermo (he has "M. Levan" as name in his shirt). That said, I think we should use his full name in both article and squad list, no matter what name he has in his jersey (otherwise we should indicate only last names...). --Angelo (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That'll be interesting if he ever moves back to Germany. Here you're not allowed nicknames on your shirt, unless you're Brazilian or somesuch. But as he holds German citizenship, he would need a Künstlername - and to obtain this, he needs to produce a work of art, like Andreas Neuendorf did. Madcynic (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the Premier League also had a convention that where possible only surnames were on shorts (dating back to Jordi Cruyff), but that appears to have changed. - fchd (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

He wants to be called Savio, the club calls him Savio, his shirt says Savio, and he is announced onto the pitch as Savio - how is this different from Jo, Elano, Caicedo, Xisco etc? It isnt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.12.128 (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Adem Ljajić‎

There is still a lot of confusion regarding Adem Ljajić‎'s transfer to Manchester United. To summarise, most news sources (including Sky Sports and all of the major newspapers) have reported that Ljajić‎ has signed for Manchester United and that there is "an agreement" in place that will see him remain with FK Partizan until January 2010. However, some sources (notably the BBC, Setanta and Eurosport) are reporting that Ljajić‎ has been loaned back to Partizan, despite this being impossible under FIFA regulations regarding the international transfer of under-18s. Therefore, the question is whether we should note on Ljajić‎'s article that he is a Manchester United player on loan to Partizan until January 2010 or a Partizan player due to join Manchester United in January 2010. Please express your opinions on the matter at Talk:Adem Ljajić‎. – PeeJay 15:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems like we have come to an agreement on the articles talk page. DeMoN2009 Won't you take me where the street lights glow? 17:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we have. Seems like one or two editors are still arguing that the emails that were received from that customer service advisor have some merit, while others have simply dropped out of the discussion altogether. – PeeJay 00:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

West Ham United

Could someone have a look at some of the edits being made to the Current squad section of the West Ham United article? Not sure if I agree with these anon editors. It regards the "Savio" issue mentioned above, the nationality of Zavon Hines and the inclusion of two new players in the squad. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

He wants to be called Savio, the club calls him Savio, his shirt says Savio, and he is announced onto the pitch as Savio - how is this different from Jo, Elano, Caicedo, Xisco etc? It isnt. Hines is a British subject who 'could' play for Jamaica but hasnt. The two new signings are kids. Who is to say they are 1st teamers? Do they have sqaud numbers? - no. Put them in when they play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.12.128 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hines was born in Jamaica and, although yet to make his debut, has been called up to the Jamaican senior national squad - he is Jamaican, not English. GiantSnowman 01:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

TJ Moncur

Can an admin look at TJ Moncur? It's been moved from TJ Moncur to T. J. Moncur despite the fact he refers to himself as the former name. I reckon if ought to be moved back to TJ Moncur and don't think I can perform the move. Peanut4 (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong, I was able to move it. However this appears to be linked to a thread above about User:Bort08 since he has just incorrectly moved another page on my watchlist. Peanut4 (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:European football (soccer) players

I've just come across the category European football (soccer) players. Do we really need this? It is a subcategory of Football (soccer) players by nationality, which implies that European is a nationality. This is obviously not the case. It doesn't clear out "Category:Football (soccer) players by nationality" either, because all the subcategories of "Category:European football (soccer) players" are also in "Football (soccer) players by nationality". And if we do sort the categories this way, we should be consistent and do it for every continent or confederation. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine to delete, personally. matt91486 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, doesn't seem to serve any real purpose. GiantSnowman 22:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete. DeMoN2009 11:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 14#Category:European football (soccer) players. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

USMNT edit war on naming conventions... again

We're having a dispute over on Talk:United States men's national soccer team over naming conventions again. I realize that this comes up every now and again on whether or not to anglicize the names of teams. This one involves Stade Rennais F.C. and whether or not to pipe is as "Rennes". Those who support such a presentation of the name primarily cite the prominent use of "Rennes" in the media when referring to the club and also that most WP references to the club also use "Rennes". I'd like to resolve the issue on our own without requesting outside assistance, but many of us over there are getting weary of these bimonthly edit wars; some users are getting rather testy. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why "Rennes" wouldn't do. I suppose the most notable club commonly referred to by a given name should suffice, so Rennes is perfectly fine when talking about Stade Rennais F.C, the same way "Arsenal" is fine for Arsenal F.C. IMO other bits of the club's official name should be included only to avoid confusion. And since "Rennes" brings to mind the one and only Stade Rennais we all know and love, I see no reason to complicate things :-) Timbouctou (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The essence of the problem seems to be one editor's conviction that if the article is at Stade Rennais, then this must be the WP:COMMONNAME; the reality is that the common name is the name of the town, so is not available, and the usual solution to this clash (adding F.C. or a similar disambiguating words or letters) would be simply inaccurate. If some people are going to think that the article name determines the common name, rather than imperfectly refelecting it, then maybe a name change is needed: see the proposal at Talk:Stade Rennais F.C.. Kevin McE (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, how many times do we have to do this? It's EN.wikipedia.org, so we should be using the 'most common' ENGLISH names for the teams - Bayern Munich rather than Bayern München, Lyon rather than Olympique Lyonnais, Rennes rather than Stade Rennais, Inter Milan rather than Internazionale Milano etc. I get the feeling that no matter how many times we establish consensus, we're still going to get the "everybody else is wrong and I'm right" mentality. Beve (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with the actual name of the article, as Stade Rennais is clearly the full name of the club. Piping it as Rennes, however, seems perfectly logical, as one could do with Hearts, Wolves, Lyon, Bordeaux and dozens of other similar examples. It's just a matter of common sense. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue I have is that we should be putting those articles at their most common name IFF the policy of WP:COMMONNAME is actually going to be followed. Doesn't anyone see that if the common name of the club is "Rennes" then the article should be at Rennes (football)? -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Youth tournament templates

Sould this templates be nominated for deletion? BlueRed 04:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:South Korea Squad 1979 World Youth Championship

Template:South Korea Squad 1981 World Youth Championship

Template:South Korea Squad 1983 World Youth Championship

Template:Korea Squad 1991 World Youth Championship

Template:South Korea Squad 1993 World Youth Championship

Template:South Korea Squad 1997 World Youth Championship

Template:South Korea Squad 1999 World Youth Championship

Template:South Korea Squad 2003 World Youth Championship

Template:South Korea Squad 2005 World Youth Championship

Template:South Korea Squad 2007 U-20 World Cup

Yes 195.171.79.148 (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they should be deleted. In previous discussions, project members supported navbox templates like this for World Cup, Olympics and Continental Championships only. Jogurney (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Madcynic (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you guys think Template:Columbus Crew MLS Cup 2008 squad should be deleted too? BlueRed 09:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there would be TOO many templates if we'd even have the top confederation squads, but a domestic season squad?... that would mean 1 for each season for each player... That information should be on a clubs season article — CHANDLER^#10 — 09:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

CD Javea

Is the club CD Javea note worthy of an article? Its very poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.10.36.247 (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's notable. Any other views? GiantSnowman 12:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can find excessive media coverage, no way. DeMoN2009 It's the chasing of every last train when we both know it's too late 14:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As the article stands it isn't particularly useful. The article implies the club have played in the Tercera Division in the past, so if it was comprehensible and sourced it'd be a keeper - the majority of Tercera clubs have articles. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they are listed as playing in the Tercera in the 1990/91 season...maybe they are notable then. GiantSnowman 14:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The article will need moving as well, to CD Jávea. GiantSnowman 14:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that both the articles for Kenny Brown (footballer) (born 1967) and Ken Brown (footballer) (born 1934) state that he is manager at Javea. Which is correct? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The article links to the elder, but I would guess that it is the younger...75 seems a bit old to be actively managing, albeit with a regional team. GiantSnowman 14:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right - on the article for Ken (the father) it says right at the end "Kenny Brown is currently managing Liga Preferente Grupo III side CD Javea." which I guess refers to the son, Kenny. It's rather poorly worded, and the club article will need the link changing. Why are some parents so unimaginative, giving their child the same name - don't they realise the problems they cause for armchair historians! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my bad. I've removed the inaccuracy from the elder Brown's article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Tercera Division is the cut-off for club notability, so it would be notable. matt91486 (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

help needed

a quick request for help with Carl Pentney, he made his 1st team debut for Leicester today so became notable, but before this he had loan spells at Woking and York City, so if you can help me with sources and appearance data or just general info about those spells I would be grateful. Skitzo (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Since he had a spell at York, I'll happily help out ;) Mattythewhite (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

English clubs in the European Cup

English clubs in the European Cup seems like a great idea for an article but what is there is almost beyond salvation and it probably needs a complete rewrite. Thought I'd mention it in case anyone is looking for a new project... --Jameboy (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Christ, that article doesn't even use paragraphs for the more recent seasons! You're right, it needs a complete overhaul. It doesn't even cover the Munich air disaster, the first English team to win the European Cup or anything before 1983! – PeeJay 21:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the record is for most cleanup tags on one article, but we're well on the way to it I'm sure (and justifiably so, though perhaps {{rewrite}} supercedes all the others). --Jameboy (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Zvezdine zvezde template

{{Zvezdine zvezde}} is surely a step too far? GiantSnowman 00:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely... How about a TFD? --Angelo (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I've never nominated a template for deletion before - you fancy doing it for me? Pretty please? GiantSnowman 01:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, it is fairly easy to do, just follow the step by step instructions at WP:TFD King of the North East 01:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers man, you're a star. GiantSnowman 02:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Al-Shaab

Al-Shaab sport club, Sharjah doesn't really slip off the tongue, does it? Surely needs renaming...GiantSnowman 00:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Al-Shaab (UAE), since another club in the same division is disambiguated in the same way. Disambiguation for some of these teams in the Arab world can be a nightmare, like Al Hilal. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposals

How long are merge proposals kept open for? There are some in the list on the main project page which were put forward 12 months ago. I haven't checked them all, but there might be some even older. Peanut4 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed Bon Accord F.C. → Arbroath 36-0 Bon Accord, as the articles both look fine as standalone now. If you want wider input then you could try posting the remainder on WP:PM. To be honest, I don't think any of the remainder are controversial; they just need someone to do the work. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the two West Ham articles as there has been no objection on the talk page - this proposal was originally made in August 2007 (18 months ago) so I think it's run its course. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please don't forget to use edit summaries when you revert good faith/non-vandalism edits, otherwise the editor you are reverting doesn't know why, doesn't learn anything, and may be discouraged from contributing. 64.69.191.231 (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a fair point, and something that I am occasionally guilty of. I always fill in an edit summary but sometimes it may not be meaningful to a newbie. I will try to be more constructive with my edit summaries in future. I think it is harder to be a newcomer to Wikipedia these days. I started in 2006 and was afforded a lot of time to make lots of minor mistakes but hardly ever got reverted - in the long term this was good as it allowed me to improve at my own pace and I didn't get discouraged. I think there's now quite a lot of editors who have been around a long time and have a great deal of knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but we forget that it took us a long time to learn all that, so maybe we're sometimes too quick to judge newcomers. Put another way, there's a lot more of us now and (I think) we pretty much know what we're doing, so almost every edit is heavily scrutinised. But although we're ticking along nicely, we still need to get new people on board to prevent stagnation. --Jameboy (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellently said, I agree completely. It's important to remember that not everyone has their head around this place and for new editors to be given encouragement to edit, rather than being put-off by having their edits immediately reverted, giving them the impression they have done some horribly wrong. New editors should be given guidance and should be nurtured in being able to become editors who are well-established and able to produce some top-rate content. As you say, we were all noobs at one time or another and it's important to keep that in mind. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

IP, do you have an account here.... it's "your" first edit since December.. makes it a tad suspicious that you're hiding behind an IP. D.M.N. (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Could be someone forgetting to log in, could be a dynamic IP. In any case I see no reason for suspicion. Good advice is good advice whether someone's edit count is 1 or 100,000. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

AfDs which need attention

Some AfDs which have had little or no input from WikiProject Football; just though I'd bring them to people's attention in case they have missed them on the Project page:

1. Haman Stadium
2. List of Spain international goalkeepers
3. List of Basque football players
4. Matthew Dallman

Regards, GiantSnowman 17:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Another for for your attention: List of future football stars. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Pathetic Athletic ISC

The intro of the Pathetic Athletic ISC article claims that they are professional club, a quick google search provides no evidence of this. Should I prod it? King of the North East 22:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Blatant and obvious hoaxes such as this (with only one google hit, from the Wikipedia website of course!) can be speedied per WP:CSD. --Angelo (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. It fails WP:V[16]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Albert Park Futsal Club

Bearing in mind I have no idea about the notability guidelines for futsal teams, Albert Park Futsal Club does not seem very notable, any comments? King of the North East 20:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is notable. I'm sure Futsal is merely a glorified version of 5-a-side football. The league doesn't appear to be notable so I don't think the club is. Peanut4 (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"glorified version of 5-a-side football"? it's the official version... — CHANDLER^#10 — 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care about whether Futsal is "official" or "glorified", anyone care to give me a reason I shouldn't slap a prod on it? King of the North East 22:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Put it this way level 11 clubs don't get an article. So 5-a-side teams in a provincial league certainly shouldn't. Peanut4 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the taskforce that covers futsal, and I think we agreed (or should agree) that only teams that play in major competitions are notable, and a competition that covers the Tees is not notable, therefore clubs in it are not notable either. DeMoN2009 11:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Author removed PROD, so I've created an Afd. --Eastlygod (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A CfD that escaped the attention of this project.

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_24#Category:Cornish_footballers. I think this ought to have been deleted. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Should've been deleted imo, Cornish doesnt have anything to do with football as far as I know it, and the players should be in the category of their home nation, some reasons for keeping such as "This category falls into line with other UK and Irish sporting group categories such as Category:Welsh rugby union footballers and Category:Welsh footballers etc" are wrong as Wales have national teams in many sports, while there's no Cornish team — CHANDLER^#10 — 21:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is that any more delete-worthy than for instance the category covering Jewish footballers, or Romani footballers? - fchd (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Peru national football team

I have been going through the new articles archive and have come across a number of uncategorised content fork articles for the Peru national football team. These include:

• Notable players of the Peru national football team
• Kit evolution of the Peru national football team
• Peru national football team squads
• Managers of the Peru national football team
• History of the Peru national football team
• Peru at the Copa América
• Peru at the FIFA World Cup

-While I can see a case for the last 3 articles, some of the others surely belong in the main article. Any thoughts? King of the North East 00:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable players of the Peru national football team ought to be done along the lines of the England and Scotland lists and general club lists and hence be renamed.

Managers of the Peru national football team also has precedence for being notable. But the final two, I can't see being notable. Peanut4 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

History of the Peru national football team, Peru at the Copa América, Peru at the FIFA World Cup all have a right to be independent articles that focus on the specific history of the Peru national football team in those tournaments (and as a whole, as in the case of the history article). The Managers of the Peru national football team also holds a certain degree of possibilities that could lead to a decent article. However, I agree that the "Kit evolution" and the Peru national football team squads have a right to be challenged. I'll attempt to fix the Notable players section to follow this format: List of Scotland international footballers.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Further thinking about this, merging the Peru at the Copa América and Peru at the FIFA World Cup into the Peru national football team article is really much of a pointless concept. 1. It would oversize the Peru national football team article (which was the original reason that these other articles were created); 2. It would prevent for the history of Peru in these tournaments to be expanded (and if you know anything about football, you know that Peru has had plenty of ups-and-downs on these tournaments that amount to plenty of history); 3. More of an argument could be made that these articles should be included into History of the Peru national football team. If there is no better counter-argument to these three points I have presented for these two articles, then there is no right to delete them.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As the creator of Trinidad and Tobago at the 2006 FIFA World Cup, I would argue for the retention of the World Cup and Copa America articles. I would like to see a movement towards treating finalists in World Cups and continental championships in a manner comparable to Fooland at the YYYY Olympic games articles, so that nft articles have a wider historical scope rather than being as slanted towards recentism and periods of relative success. Kevin McE (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've AfD'ed the kit evolution one, if is clearly unsuitable for a stand-alone article and the important details are already covered in the main team article anyway..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You could also mark Peru national football team squads for deletion if you wish. I followed the Trinidad and Tobago at the 2006 FIFA World Cup as an example and added the content of the already mentioned section into Peru at the FIFA World Cup. I originally added it into the Peru national football team article, but it added almost 10,000 bytes to the article (and made it oversized).--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said before I agree with the retention of the History, Peru at the Copa América and Peru at the World Cup articles as long as they can be expanded and reworded from a more neutral POV. King of the North East 21:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So I'm guessing that everything else is settled, right?--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Paralympic players

Are members of national Paralympic teams notable? I am going through the articles to be wikified and have found David Cantoni, who plays for the Australian national Paralympic team. Thanks for any advice you may be able to give. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Erm, if he has played in the Paralympics then yes, if not than no. Same for the teams. There is low coverage of them on here, but this taskforce covers it. DeMoN2009 11:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, he hasn't played in the Paralympics since Australia did not qualify for either the 5-a-side or the 7-a-side events. I have prodded the article and related one created by the same user; the third related one has already been speedied. Thanks for your help. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

To me, it depends on whether the player can pass the general notability guidelines of having multiple, non-trivial, independent coverage in reliable sources. - fchd (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe a page should be started for the australian team before its individual players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owneroperator (talk • contribs) 02:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-election

When I'm creating new articles, I sometimes make reference to a club "seeking re-election" at the end of a season. For those not old enough to remember, this was an arrangement where the bottom clubs in the old Football League Fourth Division or its regional predecessors were put up to be re-elected by the members the Football League, together with the top club(s) in non-league football. For example, Barrow were re-elected for many years until the League decided to replace them with Hereford United in 1972. Is anyone aware of an article that explains the concept to which I can wikilink the reference? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

List of former Football League clubs makes mention of the process. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As do Promotion and relegation#Early football leagues in England, The Football League#History and Football Conference#Promotion and Relegation, but none of them really explain the details. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth creating a stand-alone article on the subject, to make things easier? The main problem I can see is that it was such a "black art", with hardly any information ever made public on the voting and so on, that it would be hard to find much to say about it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

...or failing that, maybe a listing of football terminology could be created, akin to List of cricket terms. I notice that we've actually got Football Terminology, but bizarrely it redirects to.....well, click it and be as baffled as I was :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Presumably that was the only entry under "A" in a Football Terminology article that never got past "A" ... There are a fair few very short articles in category:Football (soccer) terminology which don't really need a standalone article but where the concept does need defining. I like the idea of a List of football terms, or List of association football terms as presumably it would have to be, along the lines of the cricket one with a brief definition of each term. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the list would be a good idea. There seems to be no universal naming convention for such lists though, as can be seen from the various lists within Category:Sport glossaries. I guess we agree on one of the names and create the variants as redirects. --Jameboy (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree that a List of association football terms would be useful, even short sections about stuff like back heel, back header, flick on, counter attack etc would provide something to link to when describing play.... King of the North East 00:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed page move

Resolved

There is a proposed page move to move Dirk Kuyt to Dirk Kuijt. Comments gratefully recieved. Talk:Dirk Kuyt#Proposed move to Dirk Kuijt --Ged UK (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the stuff that IP has been saying to you is bang out of order. Think a block is in order. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Meh, water off a duck's back. I have my suspicions who the IP is anyway, so I'll be watching. Thanks though! --Ged UK (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring seems to be getting a wee bit out of hand - it may be worth requesting page protection. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a checkuser is needed too... Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Taking a quick glance, I suggest protecting the page from any editing until this is resolved on the talk page. Peanut4 (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and requested full protection. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all, I had a horrible feeling this would get messy. I've raised my sock suspicions with C.Fred. Cheers. --Ged UK (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem imo is that it's protected on the version that goes against wp guidelines "wrongly spelled Kuyt" hardly the consensus when it comes to one probable sockpuppeteer to get his way through. — CHANDLER#10 — 14:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but the protection template clearly states that the locked version is not necessarily the 'right' one, so don't worry about that. Once a clear consensus has been developed (either way but i think i can see which way it will go) we can get it lifted. --Ged UK (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

But do we have to humour the one or two users who goes against the clear consensus that already exist... The RM was always WP:SNOW — CHANDLER#10 — 14:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. The important thing is that there's overwhelming consensus of what to do when it's unprotected. Articles are very often protected at the wrong version; what the article says right this minute is not important in the long run, so long as there's consensus. I'd be unsurprised if one hard block caught all the STRONG SUPPORTs anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm still umming and ahhing about whether to submit a sock/meat puppet investigation request. --Ged UK (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Git-r-done. Beve (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the "Supports" do seem suspicious, User:Bluefront1, signed up on Feb 18th and instantly plunged into the Dirk Debate, to be honest, its shocking that such a petty issue has blown up like this, the sooner the consensus is "reached" (been counted) the better Prem4eva (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• It falls into common useage surely. I have never seen the Kuijt version, used in any newspapers, books or websites. I notice also that when Dirk plays for both Liverpool and the Netherlands [17] its spelt Kuyt. I am sure if the man himself felt his name was being spelt wrong on his shirts he would have said something by now ! This Dutch language website for the Dirk Kuyt Foundation also uses Kuyt. Similar debates has gone on before about Johan Cruyff and Jordi Cruyff which remain unresolved. The only place I have seen the Dutch spellings for these three players used is on Wikipedia. Perhaps we could contact the man himself and ask him how he spells his name and that should resolve it once and for all ! Djln --Djln (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't actually settle it. Regardless, this debate is over; there's overwhelming consensus for the "Kuyt" spelling. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone who got involved :) --Ged UK (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Kansas City Wizards (MLS) Location

I am looking for some consensus about what the location should be for the Kansas City Wizards. The club is currently playing their home matches in the State of Kansas at a temporary stadium, however their training ground, club offices, former stadium and future stadium that is being built are in Missouri. I personally don't think a temporary home ground makes a club "from" a certain area. Fulham FC was forced to play home matches for two seasons at Loftus Road I wouldn't say that the club was then "from" Shepherds Bush. I personally like the current wording of the article to say "The Kansas City Wizards are a professional soccer club based in Kansas City, Missouri that participates in Major League Soccer." as the club is based in Missouri- however this line has been changed back and forth from Missouri to Kansas many many many times in the last year. I would also like to note that many MLS teams do not actually play in the city that bears their name- we don't go way out of our way to noted that, that information is easily and clearly noted in the infobox about the stadium. Morry32 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's in dispute, why not just leave it as "Kansas City" and omit the state? - fchd (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two neighbouring "Kansas City"s (one in Kansas, the larger one in Missouri). Although it could just pipe to Kansas City Metropolitan Area. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Until they open the new stadium, they are temporarily based in Kansas City, Kansas. They will move back to Missouri in a year or two. That's the way the Major League Soccer article has it, and that decision was reached based on discussion some time ago on the talk page. Maybe check the archives? -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting you pointed me to the discussion of an article where others are claiming you to be trying to take over ownership.Morry32 (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Put a footnote in next to the location. DeMoN2009 21:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Morry32. The club is clearly "based in" KC, Missouri and I don't think a temporary move to Kansas should result in a change to the lead section. If it's important enough, the temporary move can be mentioned in the text of the article. Jogurney (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I took the advise and just removed the state tag entirely- instead pointing to the entire Metro Area.Morry32 (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Lane (Cray Wanderers Stadium)

Is a stadium which will not open for another five years, belonging (in theory) to a team currently playing Step 4 non-league football, notable enough for its own article.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't see much more than trivial third-party coverage (more relating to the planning application rather than the stadium itself) yet, I'd put maybe two lines in the main Cray Wanderers article and lose the separate one for now. There's a lot of things that can go wrong before it ever gets used. - fchd (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, merge and redirect. In time it can be undone but for now there is little more than a stub's worth that can be written about it. Qwghlm (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Terry Skiverton's DOB

I have found conflicting evidence of his DOB, with Soccerbase and the Yeovil team website claiming the 20/06/75, but other sources claiming the 26/06/75. I will leave it as the 26/06/75 for the time being, as per his own site, which should be the most accurate source, unless anyone can find otherwise. --Eastlygod (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

www.allfootballers.com has 26 June 1975. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Footballers' Yearbook has 26 June 1975 too. Peanut4 (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As does Ciderspace. Bigmike (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

On the strength of these references, I think we can safely assume that Soccerbase is wrong (not terribly unusual). Perhaps there should be a note on the talk page explaining this citing the various references, otherwise in future an editor will amend the article quoting Soccerbase as a source. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Strictly all date of births should be referenced anyway. I reckon at least two refs are needed in this case. Peanut4 (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a noinclude note to the text, a note on the talk page, and emailed Soccerbase and Yeovil with the ammended date and sources. Should be enough. Bet he would thing if strange that we're going to all this trouble over 6 days... --Eastlygod (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

SVG versions of some kit images available

Hello all, just to let you know, I've converted File:Kit body goldenvertical.png and File:Kit body orangeblacksleevelinesandsidesthick.png both into SVG format, at File:Kit body goldenvertical.svg and File:Kit body orangeblacksleevelinesandsidesthick.svg. Since I don't have a clue how your crazy kit template works, I thought I should let you know in case there's any code modification involved. If there's any others that urgently need converting, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Uncapped players at international tournaments

There are some players, such as Andrés Palop, who have been included in national squads for tournaments such as the World Cup, European Championship, etc. and yet have not won any caps. Therefore, it would be confusing for the player's senior national team not to be listed in their infobox. However, I believe it would be equally confusing to have the national team listed with a "zero" in the caps column. Furthermore, there are some other players, such as Edwin van der Sar, who were called up to the national team and then made their international debut separately from that call-up. Hence, my question is thus: should a player's national years be listed from the year that they were first called up or the year of their first cap, and if a player is uncapped but has been called up to the national team, should the national team be listed in their infobox or not? – PeeJay 23:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say the years should be listed by their first cap and to not include the national team info in the infobox if they are uncapped. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that and have reverted edits tonight on Dean Furman to follow that. However, why would we have the inconsistency between national years referring to games rather than call-ups and hence involvement, and club years which refer to signing date and hence involvement rather than games? Peanut4 (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes that inconsistency has bothered me a bit too. — CHANDLER^#10 — 00:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am on the side to have it include the start or end year of a career or uncapped if the player has been in a World Cup or Confederation championship squad. I think it might help readers to see stuff like "he won the world cup, but never played in it". Another thing if it might have an impact on other opinion on this question. (I don't know if this is the case, perhaps info is somewhere in a fifa .pdf) If it were that being named in a World Cup (and/or Euros/Copa America etc.) squad ties you to that nation in the same way a cap does (for players of multiple eligibility), though as said, don't know if this is the case just a thought... Now time to watch the cricket and sleep :) — CHANDLER^#10 — 23:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My views - if a player is first called up in 1999, and makes his first appearance in 2000, makes his last appearance in 2004 but is called up again in 2005, then years should read '2000–2004' i.e. first cap to last cap. If a player is called up but never makes an international appearance (e.g. also Martin Dugas), then DO NOT include in the infobox. Cheers, GiantSnowman 00:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Even is cases like Héctor Zelada? (presumably a uncapped world cup winner) — CHANDLER^#10 — 00:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but what about the case of Andrés Palop? If we were to apply that, it would read "- Spain 0 (0)", which would look extremely odd to the average reader who isn't aware of this and some may be even very prone to remove it. In my opinion, we should have an option for {{Football player infobox}} where we can enter a field like "nationalyearscap= 2000" where it adds a third note explaining something along the lines of "Player X was first called to join the national squad in 1999, but made his first appearance in 2000". I think this is highly doable as long we come to a simple agreement. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 07:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The infobox is for important details only. As far as I'm concerned a player's being called up but not being capped is too trivial for the infobox. I don't see that a technical measure is needed here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What about Peanut4's example of team involvement vs. games... Sure it might be more rare but surely it can happen (I can think of Philipp Degen for this last fall). I still think, if someone goes into a players article and see "He won the world cup" or "he played in the world cup" but doesn't see him in a national team in the infobox, he might wonder "how many times did he play", if it says 0 (0) that would clear that confusion up. But again, I'm separating being called up with being included in a World Cup or perhaps Copa America squad. — CHANDLER^#10 — 09:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote added to the infobox would clarify matters. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

1. ^[A]
2. 1998^[A] Fooland^[B]
3. 1998^[A] Fooland^[B] 0 (0)^[C]
4. Fooland^[B]

You mean something like that for a uncapped World Cup player (which in that case would be better? Which of the 1-4 and A-C)? If for example we take van der Saar would it be "1995–2008^[A] Netherlands X (X)" explaining that he was a part of the World Cup 94 but didn't win his first cap until 95 — CHANDLER^#10 — 09:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A footnote should not be necessary as long as the situation is properly explained in the article's prose. – PeeJay 11:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about, I reconsidered my opinion and have to agree with Peanut4's consistent logic. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 10:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would consider someone as being part of their national team if they are named as an available substitute in a match. Simply being called up for the squad is not enough, but being named to the 18-man roster for a qualifier or the 23-man roster for a tournament would count in my opinion. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dejan Jakovic

How should this player's name be spelt? - with or without an accent over the c/ć? Although born in Croatia, he was raised in Canada and is a Canadian international. Both FIFA and the Canadian Football Association spell it without, as does the player himself on his University web page...GiantSnowman 09:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

He was born in former Yugoslavia, so he was born as Jaković. In Canada he is known as Jakovic 'cause I think Canadian registers can't manage complex diactrics and they're cut off in official documents. So, I argue that he was born as Jaković but is a Canadian citizen as Jakovic. See another example in WP:IceHockey --necronudist (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think per WP:COMMONNAME he has to be Jakovic, as it's spelt like that in the majority of English language sources, but it's definitely worth noting the alternative within the article. Dancarney (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I had changed it as he not only was born in the former Yugoslavia but has been playing in Serbia. However, that he was raised in Canada (if true) has me kind of agreeing now with keeping it as it is. FIFA doesn t use diacritics anyway (ie. even for Serbian etc. players), and Yan and Paul Statsny were born in Canada, as was Frank Dancevic and Joe Sakic, so points are not that valid for inclusion here. Looking at the page as it is now that someone has added his name in Serbian, I don t mind keeping it as is, and it doing so abides by WP:COMMONNAME too. I think it is different though for someone raised in the Balkans or the Czech Republic who later becomes Canadian, like Peter Statsny, who rightly has diacritics. Novak Djokovic has been debated too and kept without diacritics, including the Ð. There too the main argument is COMMONNAME. Mayumashu (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "if true" comment about his time living in Canada - his official website says he left Yugoslavia when 6 years old. I think, however, that the matter has now been settled quickly, fairly and without any pain, which is nice for a change! GiantSnowman 01:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and you're completely right about the Stastny family - the sons are Canadian, while their father was a Slovakian who just happened to play in Canada - much like Jakovic is a Canadian who plays in Serbia. Regards, GiantSnowman 02:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Aldershot Town

Hi. I seem to be in an edit war with an IP on Aldershot Town F.C.. I'm trying to remove a pretty pointless Kit History section and make the rivalry section better laid out (including making sure that when a citation is put in the information contained within the citation backs up the statement) but it's undone each time. I'd appreciate someone else at least having a look. Dancarney (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Perverse category move

Category:AFC Wimbledon players has apparently been moved to Category:A.F.C. Wimbledon players: I can't find the discussion under which it was requested/justified, and it has been applied, with the enthusiasm and efficiency that only bots can manage, by User:Cydebot (see user contributions, 20 Feb, 01:17-01:21). This is wrong: the club's article was moved after due discussion in April 08 to the version without full stops, with only one dissenting voice, and strong evidence from authoritative sources. How did this category move get approved, and, more importantly, how can it be reverted? Kevin McE (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Noticed it earlier. User:Arteyu made a request here, at the same time as he/she moved the club article to the dotted version. He/she has now moved the club article back, after a request at his/her talk page, and as I know nothing of the procedures involved I asked them to get the category move reversed as well. Though if anyone does know what needs doing ... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Category moves tend to be a bit ugly; I'll restore the old category, but someone will need to recategorize all the articles and then tag the A.F.C. category with {{db-g6|wording=This category was speedily moved back to its original title, Category:AFC Wimbledon players}} so that it can be deleted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Recategorisation done, between me and Kevin McE, hopefully only once per player concerned... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Userpage is a duplicate article

In the process of repairing that category, I noticed a WP:Userpage as a category member. As far as I can see, User:TheLongRoad09 is written as an article about the player recorded as Robin Shroot, but is not as up to date: I suspect it was a trial before launching the article, which managed to sneak into existence the day before notability was achieved. I would assume that the right thing would be to merge anything in the user article that isn't in the main article, and delete any category entries for the talk page; but is it ethical to delete someone's userpage content, even if it is not constructed as such? Kevin McE (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As to the Robin Shroot article, looks like the user created the article on their userpage, probably because they didn't know where else to do it, and then c&p'd it to Robin Shroot. The userpage version was last edited 2 minutes before they created the mainspace article, and was exactly the same size. Certainly the categories shouldn't be on anything in userspace, don't know what the etiquette is about the page itself, although it certainly could be misleading having an outdated version of a biographical article lying about in userspace. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

help with career stats table needed

the table i have added here doesn't have a space for the Johnstone's Paint Trophy with in its format, is there a version with the same style that allows for it? Skitzo (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Such templates as used on that page are unnecessary and limiting, as proved by your problems. Simply use a normal wikitable. Peanut4 (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Youth years

When should it start, I was editing Dean Parrett‎ but then got a little confused by the Youth years, should it be from his student registration? I personally thought it should be after a player joins an academy full-time. Govvy (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

personally I would say it should be whenever his formal association with the club began. Skitzo (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So would everyone agree it should start from first association with the club? Govvy (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes - if he first joined the club as an 8-year-old (for example), then use that date. GiantSnowman 01:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the approach I used on Adam Lallana, who first joined Southampton aged 12. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Conference National Venues Template + a few others

When i look at one of the grounds, (e.g. Aggborough), the title of the template is not shown. But if i change {{fb start}} and {{fb end}} to {{football box start}} and {{football box end}}, it appears. I was wondering, is this the case for everyone? Eddie6705 (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, works fine for me with {{fb start}} and end in all the stadium articles. Nanonic (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. This is weird. If i preview the page, everything's fine, but when i go back to the page, the title isn't there. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Coupe de la Ligue

Hi, I've just had a look at the French League Cup's article and saw it was first competed in 1982. This gave me an idea to work on a winners list, so I looked for an RSSSF source which I found here. However, there was something that puzzled me, although the article states it was first competed in 1982, there are other competitions under a similiar name listed on RSSSF such as the Coupe Charles Drago cup from 1953 to 1965, and two other cups named Coupe de la Ligue took place. In making the list would the current format only be included, or all instances under the RSSSF source? Sunderland06 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In reading the french version of the Coupe Charles Drago I found that it was just for teams eliminated from the Coupe de France. Would this grant exclusion from a future article? Sunderland06 (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've started the article in my userspace, and most is done, all needed is the prose, but I want this issue cleared up first, as I believe all should be included after further research. Sunderland06 (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd leave out the Drago, as a "plate" competition for the main Coupe de France it was clearly a different tournament/concept and I wouldn't consider it part of the same lineage...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The current Coupe de la Ligue format started in 1995. From 1982 to 1995 the coupe de la Ligue was played by summer. It was often played by B teams, players on trial etc... when there was an international competition. And you're right, the coupe Charles Drago was played by teams eliminated from the Coupe de France.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, so this would only mean including the current format from 1995, right? Sunderland06 (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think It's better.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved the article into the mainspace here List of Coupe de la Ligue winners. I've given some background on the tournament, and I want to DYK it with something like "...that the winner of the first Coupe de la Ligue was decided by a coin-toss, after the score finished level after extra time" but since it was the Coupe Charles Drago cup then (which I've mentioned in the said list) I'm unsure. I think it would still count as a DYK for this article, but I wouldn't know how to put it into a hook. I could link it as following [[Coupe de la Ligue|Coupe Charles Drago]] I guess. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is fine, great work! The coupe de la ligue official site (the one of the lfp here) starts the history in 1994.I think you did the best choice by prosing the history of the cup, and its former format...The coin-toss, indeed, was quite the rule in France at that the time, but also, as you can imagine, a bit controversial... For the DYK, I think you can say that the cup Charles Drago can be considered as an "ancestor" of the current coupe de la ligue?--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've believe I'll put something forward like "...that the winner of the first Coupe Charles Drago, predecessor of the Coupe de la Ligue, was decided by a coin-toss, after the scores finished equal after extra time?". Cheers for your help. Sunderland06 (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That's perfect!--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

77.97.72.121 (talk · contribs)

The IP address 77.97.72.121 (talk · contribs) has been making all kinds of edits to pages to link to a Queen of the South official website, even for topics where the connection is highly tenuous - e.g. England's game against Hungary [18]. I'm rolling back a load of these but any more irrelevant links please be alert to and delete them, thanks. Qwghlm (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Right I think I've got rid of the most egregiously irrelevant ones such as Carl Asaba [19] and the Hungary national team [20]. The IP also seems to be injecting POV & commentary into articles about Scotland's 1954 World Cup campaign. [21] Some references are relevant, but as they have basically used the most tenuous of reasons for adding many of them, I've deleted the link from any page that isn't directly relevant to Queen of the South or one of their players. Offending IP has been warned, but please keep an eye out for any further ones. Qwghlm (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources - Newcastle United

On the sources page, there is a link to www.khscott.org.uk/nufc/ which had full details of every Newcastle United player, with biographies of most. This link no longer works - does anyone know if it's been moved? It's hard to believe that such a superb resource has been lost. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The hosting is still in place and it's still registered to him (from a quick whois on "khscott.org.uk" at http://www.samspade.org/whois , just looks like someone pressed delete or restored an old old version. From it's google cache there is an email addy you could drop a line on. Nanonic (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits need review

I just blocked Zenon2009 (talk · contribs) for repeated vandalism. Some of his edits seem legitimate and other clear are not. I do not have the expertise needed to review them, and ask that someone else here would. Thanks. Jon513 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus Coleman

Yet another AfD which people are 'weak keep'ing because his transfer from a small club to a big club was mentioned in a few newspapers. This player still fails WP:ATHLETE and I'd really appreciate some input from people who actually know the subject area. Regards, GiantSnowman 18:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice for bot request

Hi. I have a current request for bot approval open, requesting authorisation to migrate {{needs football biography infobox}} to parameters in {{WPBiography}} and {{Football}}. A couple of questions...

Firstly, would it be useful for the bot to simultaneously fill in the class= field in {{Football}}, copying it from other such fields on the page?

Secondly, the bot will attempt to detect the presence of an infobox on the corresponding article page. If it does find an existing infobox, should it delete {{needs football biography infobox}} or list the page for review?

Thanks for your help!

[[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 11:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think this is a good idea as the duplication arose when switching to the new format metatemplate system. It was proposed at the time that both were kept with one acting as a general needs-infobox and the other being used specifically for bios but I don't think anyone really notices or cares about the distinction. So it's a go ahead from me. I can't see any reason why we shouldn't take the class value from other templates if one doesn't exist already and if your run does find the article has an infobox I think it should remove the old flag. Anyone else? Nanonic (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Idea on FC Arsenal Kyiv

Just like FC Moscow, the history before 2001 should put into FC CSKA Kyiv, and have a major rewrite? Matthew_hk tc 15:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Barca forum links

Iceman 007 has added numerous links to the fan forum. Any chance of someone rolling back their edits? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, think it's already been done (my watchlist is getting far too long...) Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Endashes for season ranges

I, and I notice a couple of other editors, had reason to change some edits by User:Pointer1, who was incorrectly changing endashes for seasons, e.g. 2008–09, to slashes, e.g. 2008/09. I thought it was a perfectly plausible change for an experienced editor. But having stumbled upon his talk page again just now, it seems he has quite some history of doing it, being advised about the correct notation, but then deleting the message and ignoring it. Perhaps, editors could take care to change any incorrect changes they might happen upon. Peanut4 (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The endash is one of the most stupid conventions Wikipedia has - it's been replaced over the years by the simple hyphen in virtually all circumstances in the real world. This applies both to season identifiers, and scores. Quite why the Method of Style requires us to use it confounds me. I'd rather see the hyphen used (which indeed I do every time I use season idenfitiers, but I never change an endash to one), but I could also be persuaded that the slash is more common and therefore more acceptable than the endash. - fchd (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it though? Why use one character when seven will do? Beve (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

the slash is only more common for single season dividers, if its for multi year spells the national press for instance will say from 2005-2009 so IMO either the hyphen or &dashes should continue to be used. Skitzo (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Anguillan Gumbs

Sounds like an amazing band doesn't it? Anyways, there are three English-born Anguillan international players called Gumb - Roy (born 1969), Romell (born 1986) and Jermaine (born 1985) who I would hazard a guess at being related. My only question is - how? Brothers, or cousins, or combination of the two? GiantSnowman 16:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Jermaine and Rommell are cousins according to Slough's official profile. There also seems to be various spellings for Rommell, either Rommell, Rommel or Romell I've seen so far. Peanut4 (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

FIFA and the CFD confirm it is spelt 'Romell.' GiantSnowman 16:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

His facebook profile suggests it's Romell - that is as long as it's the same person. You could ask what relation Jermaine and Roy are to him on there. Even if it is Romell, it might also be worth tryin Google searches for the various spellings and possibly find your answers though. Peanut4 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never though of using Facebook to contact a footballer before! I've sent him a message, hopefully he checks his facebook as regularly as I do! Cheers, GiantSnowman 17:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In my experience of footballers and Facebook is, if they have a profile, they check it very, very regularly and have countless friends. Peanut4 (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is all very well and good, but does playing for the 201st best national team in the world make them notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, but the standard we have set for ourselves is that appearing in a FIFA-sanctioned World Cup qualifier for ANY country makes you eligible for an article. I'm sure there are people in Anguilla who would want to know about their international footy representatives. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE talks about the highest level of football - and is any level higher than international honours, regardless of what nation you represent? GiantSnowman 01:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The English Premier League, were you to listen to the average commentator over here. ;) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Logos

how do i fix these issues? File:Kansascitywizards.svg Everytime I use the logo a bot removes it and I am unsure how this can be resolved. Thanks Morry32 (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's under fair use to only be used in Kansas City Wizards, so because its under copyright bots will remove it if its in a article its not fair use for — CHANDLER#10 — 16:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but how do I change that? Morry32 (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Change what exactly? The copyright status of the logo, or Wikipedia's policy on using copyrighted material? I don't think either of those are easily changed.... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he means add an article to it's fair use list. Skitzo (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it by way of example. There are various logo templates around to use including one at my user page. Wiggy! (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the problem was that he wanted to use the logo image on each individual season article for the team, which violates WP:NFCC. Adding a fair-use rationale for each of those articles to the image description page would solve the bot problem, but still contradict policy. The correct usage is what we see currently—a FUR for the logo on the main team page (only), and display of the image only on that page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That is true but i've given up that now that I understand. Morry32 (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

I'm new to the assessment of football clubs. Is a team like Andover F.C. sufficiently notable to have an article? My understanding was that a team playing at that level was not sufficiently notable -- that the first notable level was one level up. Guidance from an expert would be appreciated. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Andover play at Step 4 (level 9) of the pyramid. The general cut-off point is Step 6 (level 11) - i.e. step 7 clubs are not notable unless they have previously played at a higher level, or in the FA Cup or Vase. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually Step 4 is level 8 and Step 6 is level 10, but your point is valid, clubs down to Step 6 are generally considered notable, as they are eligible to enter the national cup competitions. Teams from Step 7 aren't other than under exceptional circumstances..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your assistance. I think I'll stay away from this sort of article in future since I don't seem to appreciate the finer details that are at your command. By the way, if my understanding from the above that Andover F.C. is sufficiently notable to be retained is INcorrect, please let me know; frankly, I find this a bit baffling, but I want to do the right thing. Again, I'm much obliged for your help. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Any club should have it's notability determined by the normal standards of significant multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. If that means a Step 5 or 6 club fails or a Step 7 or below passes, so be it. Andover would pass easily. - fchd (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, thank you. Apparently I have not provided you with the correct example, for which my apologies; the article that caused me to ask the question was Botley Village, which doesn't seem to meet the coverage requirements but probably could. I think I may leave it to your collective expertise to shepherd the article's creator through that process, if you think it appropriate, since my knowledge of the relevant sources is equally poor. I'm grateful for all the kind assistance I've received here. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That club is definitely too low down the pyramid unless someone can prove an exceptional level of media coverage -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Botley Village should definitely be deleted. There is no notability for it at all, plus they are using WP:WAX as an excuse however wrongly because the other team in the league with a page is in fact Andovers reserves. I would request a speedy deletion but i haven't a clue! Uksam88 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've sent it to AfD. I would have PROD'ed it but frankly I've lost faith in PROD'ing as the tags always seem to get removed without explanation, usually by IPs.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I should just point out that Andover Reserves don't have a page of their own, that link simply goes to the main Andover F.C. page (which is currently GA-class). My understanding is that the Hampshire League 2004 doesn't actually form part of the league system (they applied to become a feeder league of the Hampshire Premier League but failed), and that coupled with the league's level means none of its teams are notable enough for Wikipedia. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the truly bizarre debate many moons ago where one editor claimed that teams at about the 7th level in (I think) Greece must be notable solely on the grounds that there was one wikilinked team in the Isle of Wight Saturday Football League, which turned out to be Cowes Sports' 'A' team..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

All Hong Kong Schools Jing Ying Football Tournament

Is this article really notable? DeMoN2009 16:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for secondary sources - dozens of PDFs of the results over the years, but they're all from the organising bodies. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

84.68.85.173

Could someone keep any eye on the anon editor 84.68.85.173, as they keep changing appearances and goals in the infobox to include appearances in all competitions, despite being warned two times. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland national football team (1882–1950)

I've being dome some clean up of Irish sporting flags. The only one I haven't found evidence for either way is Ireland , {{fb|Ireland}}. Can some one provide a reference to this flags usage by the IFA during the period 1882 to 1950 Gnevin (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

All can a reference be found for this? If it can't I'm going remove the flag from the template Gnevin (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Since no reference can be found , I shall remove this flag Gnevin (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Question: when were the previous two comments added? According to the most-recent edit diff], they were both added in one section, so I was wondering if you copied them from previous archive. Thanks, Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 05:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

copied from archive. Kevin McE (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

[22] Seems to be used to indicate the pre-split... And as I've probably said in other threads about this, Union Jack#Since 1801 seems to point that, Ireland is represented by the st patrick cross. — CHANDLER#10 — 06:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that whether the IFA used the flag is actually the relevant question. The national team represents the country, the flag indicates the country. I doubt we will ever find absolute verification whether was ever raised up a pole at matches of South Yemen when that team existed, but it is still an appropriate flag.

This flag would therefore seem the right one at least up until 1920/22; the era of two teams seems less certain, but if FIFA acknowledged the FAI/FAIFS side as the representative team of the Republic from 1923, then (although players might have been recruited from a wider area) by default FIFA must have regarded IFA's region of responsibility as Northern Ireland. The relevant article seems to suggest that the Flag of Northern Ireland was not necessarily extracted from the coat of arms until 1953: what flag was used to represent NI within the UK from 1923 to 1953? Kevin McE (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That flag is accepted by some as an Irish flag before 1920/22 but is by no means universally accepted .Usage by the IFA/FIFA needs to be shown, as WP:V says. Also isn't it the common practice of this project to use the last flag used by the country not the most accurate or are historically accurate flags used?Gnevin (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If the principle is that the flag of the country represented by the team is used, then I don't see why IFA/FIFA usage needs to be proved: can we prove that FIFA used any flags in their publications or insisted on flying of flags at matches at any pre-internet era? The practice on the project, according to what I frequently see in edits (although I have not seen a relevant policy) is that the flag prevailing at the time is the one used (eg: in the infobox on Republic of Ireland, the flag for Bulgaria in the first match is the pre-Soviet era Bulgarian flag). As regards acceptance of the flag for Ireland 1801-1920/22, the problem is the quasi-official nature of any insignia of the constituent countries of the UK: how official is any representation of England, Scotland or Wales? In the lack of an authority with jurisdiction to determine it, we would have to go by common usage. There will be some who don't accept insignia at a time of change or division, but dissenting opinion, no matter how valid, does not change de facto status. So what was common use of a flag to represent 32 counties until partition, and NI from 1920-53? I suspect St Patrick's saltire and Ulster Banner respectively. Kevin McE (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Then prove it was used for Ireland ,apart from a made up flag to be added to the Union Jack. It was never a official flag of Ireland. Hence why the IFA/FIFA usage must be proven and hence why the Scottish/English/Welsh flag is ok with their very clear usage

Also this project needs some guidelines on flag usage as your example above proves Gnevin (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The contention that it was "made up to be added to the Union Jack" is not borne out at St Patrick's Flag, which dates it to at least 1783, and possibly more than 100 years earlier. Scottish/Welsh/English flags are familiar, because they are current: they currently only have conventional, rather than jurisdictional, validity: can we prove how they were used in 1882? You have repeatedly asserted that IFA/FIFA usage must be proved: I am not sure why you reject the equation that a team represent a nation, and a flag, whether by law or by convention, indicates a nation, therefore that flag illustrates that national team. Did the Bulgarian FA or FIFA use the flag referred to above in 1926? I certainly don't know, and I doubt anyone reading this page knows it for certain, or would be able to find evidence either way. But it is our working assumption that it is appropriate. I cannot say for certain that the flag discussed was used to represent Ireland within the union from 1801 to 1922, but it seems to be the only candidate that has wide usage reported, as per Chandler's citation below. It seems to me that we either scrap the flags associated with any national team unless there is explicit linkage between the organising body of the sport at national level and that flag (as Richard suggests), or we accept the flag that evidence points to, even though the passing of time makes that evidence imperfect. Kevin McE (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that the flag wasn't widely accepted or used to represent Ireland as far as I can tell. Chandler's citeation are not from WP:RS and so can not be accepted . I maintain FIFA/IFA usage must be shown as the flag wasn't widely accepted or used to represent Ireland at the time and for all we know they flew the . You've no decent sources to back up your claim that the IFA used the St Patrick's flag. A simple picture or link from a decent source would clear this up.

It could be my working assumption that the moon is made of cheese but until i provide WP:RS to back this up it has no place in this encyclopedia Gnevin (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

[23],a WP:RS which indicates no usage by the IFA Gnevin (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do falsely repreent what I have said. I have never said that the IFA used the St Patrick's flag: I said that the flag that usually was used at that time to represent the country can be used, if any flag must be used, to illustrate the national football team. Your fatuous example of a working assumption is scarcely relevant, yet alone respectful in a debate, as my use of it referred to Bulgaria in 1926, and that as one example of what is near universal in these articles. If you are going to insist on photographic evidence of the use of this flag for Ireland pre 1922, one might as well insist on photographic proof of the crosses of Sts George and Andrew at the first international match in 1972. I have twice admitted that I am cannot state with confidence from my own knowledge which flag is appropriate ("So what was common use of a flag to represent 32 counties until partition, and NI from 1920-53? I suspect..." and "I cannot say for certain that the flag discussed was used to represent Ireland within the union from 1801 to 1922"), an uncertainty that you also admit to. But lacking personal knowledge of the information, we all have to use the information available, and the only flag that any vexillological source seems to indicate had anything other than highly specific and restrictive use is the St Patrick's cross. Kevin McE (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can understand, it doesn't talk about IFA, which is a little different... it doesn't state that IFA didn't use the flag... --necronudist (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct but it doesn't say the IFA didn't use it but it also states Three uses of the St Patrick's Cross in the twentieth century are worth mentioning and IFA usage is not one of them .Gnevin (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That proves no more than that that particular writer is not interested in football, and thought that other readers interested in reading a vexillological site wouldn't consider it a priority. But all of this is still based on your assertion that the link must be between the flag and the IFA, rather than simply the flag and the geographical/political entity that the IFA's team represented. An assertion that I do not believe you have presented any meaningful reason for. Kevin McE (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is Ireland at the time had many flags in use, sporting organisations such as the IRFU use non official flags , to quote the last discussion

So summing this up, typically a country's soccer team is represented by its state flag, or in the case of the home nations, the flag used by that association. The problem with Ireland is that it had multiple state flags, used for various purposes, and we don't know what (if any flag) was used by the Irish FA before 1954 (apart from the union flag, which probably represented the competition).. Why can't make stuff up based on probablys and maybes and sort of's Gnevin (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We're not making stuff up, the flag seems to be the most commonly accepted representation of Ireland during their time under the UK. So it's certainly not wrong to use it. — CHANDLER#10 — 12:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

the flag seems to be the most commonly accepted representation of Ireland during their time under the UK . Really , I'm sure you'll have a dozen reference for that so. Gnevin (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What more reference do you need than the Union Jack? The UK Government at the time has obviously chosen the flag to represent Ireland. — CHANDLER#10 — 20:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If the UK government at the time gave that flag as their flag inside the union, to represent them, which seems to be the case, I dont see what's the point to argue... It's seems accepted that it was the flag to use during that time. [24]... I don't see why Ireland would be the only one of the home nations at that time not using a flag... And again, that flag seem to be the accepted flag for Ireland during that period, therefore it should be used to represent the team... I'd rather call upon you to prove that it was not used as it seems widely accepted — CHANDLER#10 — 18:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC).

I've yet to see a WP:RS saying it was an the flag of Ireland. I'm sure Ireland flew a flag, but what flag and when ? Gnevin (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As there only seem to be one flag that represented Ireland within the Union at the time, I don't see what other flag would be flown as this was before the split and controversies... It might not have been a flag liked by the Irish people forced upon them by the UK government, but it still was the flag that represented Ireland at the time. How every "unofficial" it might have been, it was still what represented Ireland, and there's at least a... "reversed-precedent" in that Northern Ireland right now is using the "unofficial" flag that represents NIR — CHANDLER#10 — 00:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does it need a flag at all? Why do any of the {{fb}} templates need a flag? The country name is there, why is that not sufficient? - fchd (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

For one thing in cases like Ireland/RO Ireland/N Ireland it might be good to have something to disambiguate so as not to confuse the pre-split Ireland with RO Ireland. But I still i like them damnit ;) I at least find them useful in parts like this or this to skim through result even if you just woke up and your eyes are blurry enough to not see the text but the flag colours — CHANDLER#10 — 15:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, football articles in general overuse flags and I like it type arguments leads to pages like List_of_Adidas_sponsorships but that a other discussionGnevin (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This issue was raised a year ago , Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_14#Ireland and this project was unable to give an answer then either Gnevin (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read this message, I've read the linked page, and I've read its talk page. Yet I still lack a clear idea as to what the goal of this is. This project doesn't have a A class review process, and most people seem satisfied by the good article and featured article routes if Wikipedia:WPF#Showcase is anything to go by. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

D.C. United squad template

Can someone please look at {{D.C. United squad}} this template; when I click on the 'edit' tab, it brings up an entirely new, blank template entitled {{Graczyk}} and it's making me very confused...cheers, GiantSnowman 13:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be working fine for me. DeMoN2009 17:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably because I fixed it shortly after GiantSnowman posted that message. – PeeJay 18:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers PeeJay! GiantSnowman 19:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

In Memoriam: Titch Tucker

To any WP:FOOTY user who came across Titch Tucker, who contributed so much to Scottish football articles on Wikipedia; let us remember he who died today. – Toon^(talk) 02:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Top scorers

On the Premier League 2008–09 article, there is a dispute over how the table should be laid out. Either like this, or like this. The Football League 2008–09 article has it laid out like the second option, where as Serie A 2008–09 and Bundesliga 2008–09 doesn't use a table. Which is viewed as the best way to show the information? Eddie6705 (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The latter is better in my opinion; clearer, simpler, easier to read at-a-glance. Multiple editors seem to agree, as it is often getting changed, but one editor always reverts it back. Beve (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the same at the FA Cup 2008–09, where the content is reverted back to the former option despite numerous editors changing it to the latter. I feel the latter is much easier to read. Peanut4 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't rowspan the league table when teams are tied on points, so I don't see why this should be different. The only thing that is shared is the rank. Nothing else should be rowspanned. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

if Rank is shared on a top scorer list then by default the amount scored is shared, the second option is easier to read, also the point about league tables is redundant as aside from the start of the season it is virtually impossible for 2 teams to be tied for a position because of all the stuff used to separate them, goal dif and goals scored etc. Skitzo (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, because in a league two teams can't share position (as there are always tiebreakers) while there can be shared winners as top scorersb— CHANDLER#10 — 23:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the logic that all tables have to be the same format. Beve (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Using the same format throughout articles creates consistency and keeps articles from looking sloppy. The rank is shared collectively by the players who are tied, but their goals were not scored collectively. you're arguing that in the league table all the teams on 26 points should have the points collumn rowspanned so that it would be "easier to read" that they are tied on points, when it is easy to see that they all have the same points total. I don't see what is so confusing about this. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not, you're putting words into my mouth. I haven't said anything about the league table. Beve (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspected hoax player

Gautham Sriram - apparently an Indian international playing in Spain for Racing de Santander - has no Google hits and there's no mention of him on the Racing site. Oh, and the page also claims he made his pro debut at 11! I've never come across a hoax player before, so I've tagged it as a suspected hoax and PRODded it - is this acceptable action? GiantSnowman 19:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As it is a blatant hoax, you can tag it as {{db-g3}}. --Carioca (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Football squad player

On Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sunderland A.F.C. a comment was brought up regarding the squad list about accompanying the flag with its countries name. I think there should be a change made to this template to include the name as it is going against MOS:FLAG#Accompany flags with country names. Obviously some discussion would be required, opinions? Sunderland06 (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that there should be a change to MOS:FLAG. Since all flagicons now link to the country that they refer to, there is no need for them to be accompanied by the country name in text. – PeeJay 17:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that I'd rather change the MOS:FLAG than the template structure — CHANDLER#10 — 19:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Also agreed. GiantSnowman 19:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I thought that problem was resolved at the previous FAC as a non-existing problem and the squad template is correct as it is. Peanut4 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It was, but it has been brought up again. I agree that the MOS should be changed, and I'll pop into the talk page in a mo. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The MoS is unlikely to be changed. I'd far rather we brought ourselves into line with the existing MoS. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

On a similar yet different note, I've had the thought about flagicon being used when it comes to football teams and other sports. Where a clubs and players in how I see it, represent a football association, which may differ from either where the club is located or something like that. One of the mostly known in Europe is probably Monaco which at is article is described as "a Monegasque football club", but it is associated with the French Football Federation not the Monegasque Football Federation, so when they compete especially in Europe, they represent the FFF, and should it be allowed would have had the logo of the FFF if that was the custom we used, right? But instead we go by the flag associated with the FA, so perhaps it would be useful to somehow bring that to the reads attention, for example (and some may disagree) in the 2008 FA Cup, Cardiff City had the opportunity to qualify for Europe through the English FA, rather than through the Welsh, and had they done so, I'd say they represented the English FA in the UEFA Cup and should've had a English flag. And i think it would be good in a instance like that if the flag would perhaps link to the english FA rather than England as the English FA also span three clubs in Wales (perhaps similarly to how the English cricket team and the ECB span both England and Wales) — CHANDLER#10 — 19:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Flags that are linked to the relevant country article (i.e., the name is excluded) aren't helpful for printed versions of articles, as I've found to my cost several times. - Dudesleeper / Talk 11:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, though, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia (yes, I know that's not what the idea behind WP:NOTPAPER is, but it does hold true that Wikipedia is not intended to be printed). – PeeJay 11:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, no; that's absolutely not true. Wikipedia should ideally be media-neutral, and should work as well as possible in non-Web forms such as printed or audio. We shouldn't be making that any harder than it already is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)