Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 40

Alois Eisenträger

Has anybody ever heared of this player, Alois Eisenträger? Is the article a hoax? Its got plenty of book references. EA210269 (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

He's definitely for real - he made over 200 appearances for Bristol City. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Interessting story, I have to say! EA210269 (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A variation on the theme was Erich Schaedler, who was the son of a German POW and played for Scotland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

John Wark

I don't hang about these pages too much these days, but thought you might like to know that one of my least favourite players of all time, the mustachiod one, is now at FAC.

Would welcome some of your expert opinions. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Full disclosure: I'm a Canary

Germany U21 Squad Euro 2009 template

Are youth templates notable? If not, does someone fancy taking {{Germany U21 Squad Euro 2009}} to TfD? Cheers, GiantSnowman 11:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Footballers who committed suicide category

Surely this is a trivial intersection? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Its just a part of Category:Sportspeople who committed suicide.--EchetusXe (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's an interesting category. GiantSnowman 11:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
There is an official guideline that covers exactly this kind of problems at Wikipedia:Overcategorization, which also mentions of 'grouping people by trivial circumstances of their deaths' as trivial kind of categorization, and therefore not particularly encyclopedic. --Angelo (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Moussa Dembélé

Just wondering, is there any kind of tag that can be added to this article?, it's very poorly written and not in good nick, I don't know anything about this lad to do a clean-up but it's a bad article at the minute. Prem4eva (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a concern. It's also vandalised frequently. I might try and rescue it someday Spiderone (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

German women's national football team

This above article has recently been moved to its current title which is not quite in line with our naming conventions. This was done, at least the talk page at the article suggests, to help achieve FA status. While some members of the project have expressed their opinions on the talk page itself, I fear the issue might not gain enough attention there. How should this WP react to an FA that does not adhere to its own MoS? Opinions, ideas? Madcynic (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK this is a case of treating an FA review as a set of commandments rather than just that: a review by another editor. I'm fine with exceptions where they genuinely make sense (for instance at All Blacks, which will eventually return to its sensible title), but this one isn't at all exceptional and just makes the project look slapdash. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the page has been moved back now. As a sidenote, Chris, what's wrong with having the article about the New Zealand national rugby union team at New Zealand national rugby union team? – PeeJay 23:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME says it should be at All Blacks, although for consistency of convention I'm not unhappy with a redirect as per current.--ClubOranjeT 01:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME also says that Italy national football team should be at Azzurri or that Brazil national football team should be at Seleção, but never mind... – PeeJay 01:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
One day false equivalence shall not rear its ugly head in COMMONNAME debates. I live in hope. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like you have moved the page, and you did so in disregard of the discussion on the article's talk page. Also, you didn't really move the article back; it had been at German women's national football team every since it got featured. Anyway, the entire naming convention of this Wikiproject appears to be in violation of official Wikipedia policy, namely WP:NAME, since it advocates page titles that are both grammatically questionable and not the topic's common English-language name. EnemyOfTheState|talk 02:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
What's the best way to address that, do you think? Is it to bring the matter up here with a view to changing the overall consensus on how we name national team articles, or is it to rename them piecemeal? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Relatives in infobox?

Rugby player infoboxes have a parameter for famous relatives - fathers, sons, uncles, brothers etc. that also played the sport. What are people's views on these in football? [Cue a barrage of replies like "No chance!" and "Get lost!"...] GiantSnowman 12:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No chance! Get lost! (repeat ad nauseam). But seriously: No. Mentioning these in the prose is okay, anything beyond that seems silly to me. Madcynic (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Tbh, I don't think these even belong in rugby infoboxes, let alone football ones. The rugby one even includes the player's school/university/occupation/spouse. Anyway, if you wouldn't expect to find it listed in the PFA Footballers' Who's Who, I don't think it should be in the infobox. – PeeJay 13:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
They don't. End of story. Probably best taking that discussion to the rugby folks though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The cricketer infobox (see Template:Infobox_cricketer_biography) also has spaces for relations. My problem is that if you create an article about someone who has played both cricket and football, the infoboxes are generally too long unless you can find a lot to write. Often with early players, it's not possible to expand the text in a useful, meaningful and reliable way, with references, so that there remains a lot of white space. The latest article I created was about a professional cricketer who played three first-team matches for Southampton - see Victor Norbury. If I add a football infobox as well as the cricket one, they will be far longer than the text. Is it permissible to not use the duplicated field (personal details) so that the infoboxes are more manageable? -Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they have that parameter in cricketer infoboxes because it is easy to source from cricinfo's player profiles, which list first class cricketer relatives in the main body of information (eg Ian Chappell) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey 'Snowman, just me, but I suggest having a look at List of association football families of note and refer to Ken Armstrong (footballer born 1924) for the prose side of things. I'm not convinced the infobox is the place to put this sort of thing. ps, No chance! Get lost! :-)--ClubOranjeT 09:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

football.co.uk

Is football.co.uk a reliable source? I'm trying to get Kisnorbo to a GA but I can't prove that it's reliable. Spiderone (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominated English football champions as FLRC

I have nominated List of English football champions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinFK (talk • contribs) 19:39, June 5, 2009

United States Confederations Cup templates

Should Template:United States squad 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup be deleted? Since Template:United States Squad 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup was created a day earlier. Go here to discuss.

Ukraine national football team 1992

Is this the sort of article that we should have on Wikipedia? Isn't this just too much in terms of unnecessary data. I could understand listing all of the national team's results, broken down by decade, but appearance/goals info for each player?! – PeeJay 18:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there's also this one. – PeeJay 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Any relevant info should be merged into the 'History' section of the national team article, and then these two articles should be deleted. GiantSnowman 18:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I also forgot to mention that there are Ukraine season articles up to 1996 too. – PeeJay 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
My original suggestion remains :P GiantSnowman 20:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We've got whole categories of season articles for clubs (Example: Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2009-10 season), why can't there be a season article for a national team? Surely they are just as noteworthy! EA210269 (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Before you start deleting like a typical admin, why dont you confer with the wiki group that update Ukrainian Football and/or the original author who provided all the details and work effort?Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wartime guest players in World War I

As far as I was aware, wartime guesting didn't happen in WWI. However, Chesterfield's Roll of Honour confirms that Sheff Utd player Jimmy Revill guested for them in WWI, while James McCrae guested for Clyde, Rangers & West Ham according to Ye Olde Tree & Crown. So, are these two sources incorrect, or just me :) ? GiantSnowman 14:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Who's Who of Sheffield United says that Revill guested for Sutton Town and New Hucknall Colliery during the war but doesn't mention Chesterfield. It also gives conflicting details of his death to the one on the Chesterfield site, suggesting he was only injured in France and died in hospital back in England from his wounds. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
According to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, Revill died on 9 April 1917 and was buried at Bethune - see [1]. Do you have a date of birth for him - if so, I'll try to put together an article. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Just you, sorry :-) My BCFC book lists wartime players with a star against guests, and there are plenty. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, Southampton had several - about a dozen at a rough count. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
"Hi, you may be unaware that the Scottish League continued through the First World War, so McCrae wasn't a wartime guest for his Scottish clubs" - Struway2 on my talk page... GiantSnowman 15:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Oi... "I'll rephrase that :-) They were official league appearances, though the registration rules may have been rather more fluid than in peacetime..." - also Struway2 on your talk page 4 minutes after the other post. And last time I looked, Chesterfield, West Ham, Birmingham and Southampton weren't in the Scottish League. (Tongue-sticking-out smiley) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Haha, I ws just checking! Keeping you on your toes, y'know...GiantSnowman 16:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Brendan Rodgers vandalism

The article on Brendan Rodgers is undergoing a fair bit of light vandalism - POV segments about his abilities (or lack of) as a manager, from what appears to be bitter Watford fans. Can people keep an eye if possible? Cheers, GiantSnowman 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for the page to be protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. GiantSnowman 15:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League brackets

As a new template has been introduced, please help for change the unsuitable bracket template in UEFA Champions League i.e. before 2002-03 season as the Final has held for one leg only. The new template introduced is Template:8TeamBracket-2legsExceptFinal Raymond Giggs 14:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Messi's importance

Is Lionel Messi a mid importance or a high importance? Surely he's world class enough to be high. Spiderone (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it, the importance classification isn't really used for anything significant. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

International transfer windows

FIFA status stated that international transfer windows (summer) should normally last for 12 weeks. As summer transfer windows normally end at 1 September, the player contract seems normally end at 30 June, let them able to be free before the windows open. And the point is, when Spanish transfer windows does not open until 1 July, should we change the player club, likes Kaka transfer has "completed". someone start ass edit war on Raúl Bobadilla current club, said that his new club is effective in July so should not change the infobox. Matthew_hk tc 16:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that far too much time is devoted to attempting to stop people from updating team information which will be current in two weeks' time anyway. If a transfer has been confirmed, then we should just let people edit and leave it at that. The only time there's a genuine problem is where people are editing based on rumour or pending agreements which might not happen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

19th Century Scottish Clubs

I'm looking for some help regarding creating/editing/disambiguating articles related to 19th Century Scottish Clubs.

I'm currently working on creating articles on Scottish Cup seasons (eg. Scottish Cup 1876–77), and have found that there is very little information on the early participants (which there are many!). Furthermore, (possibly unrelated) clubs have similar names, and I am sure some links direct to these pages rather to the actual club. Moreover, there is little information on the evolution of some of these clubs to a present-day club (for example, Ayr Thistle merged to form Ayr F.C., and merged again to Ayr United F.C.).

I'm looking for help with people with knowledge of this era to help clean up existing articles, create new articles, and disambiguate some of the links.

Does anyone have any idea of good resources for this niche? Macarism (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm waiting for this to arrive, so I might be able to pitch in with Ayr... Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Historical Kits has a few bits & bobs about Victorian teams, could be helpful for creating a stub at least. GiantSnowman 15:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The The Scottish Football Historical Archive has a good Club Directory.
Thanks for the advice so far, particularly the SFHA site! - I notice that site has been suggested by someone who also works on these articles too! Macarism (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Coaching duties

Hi there teammates, happy week all!

Matter of discussion, infobox notes on coaching spells. My doubt is: when is it merited to note that a player is coaching a team? In my views, either as a head or assistant manager, it should only be noted from the U21 sides upwards (club or country).

However, check this case: should it be noted that the player is head coach of the U-17? I think not, but have not touched it, before the end of this "discussion". I do think it should only be noted in storyline, not INFOBOX. What are your views?

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As he is only a youth-team coach for his club, this does not meet the requirements to be included in the infobox. The Infobox instructions say: Please do not list positions other than team manager (such as assistant or coach positions, or director of football roles where this role is not considered managerial) unless that position is a significant part of the person's career. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dutch-Caribbean football

I edit a lot of CONCACAF articles, and there are, as I'm sure some of you know, several countries in the Caribbean whose primary or official language is Dutch – Aruba, Netherlands Antilles (Curaçao, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, Saba and Sint Maarten), and Suriname. A lot of football articles related to those nations are in serious need of improvement, and in many cases there are important articles that are stubs or have not been created. Being that the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are each a dependency of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, should those football articles be tagged "Netherlands=yes" in {{Football}} on talk pages? I realize that Suriname is no longer a territory or dependency, but what about pre-independence (pre-1975) Surinamese football articles? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dual sport infobox?

A number of early footballers also played cricket and rugby; any thoughts on adding parameters to the Football Biography 2 infobox to include such details? GiantSnowman 17:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's unnecessary cluttering of the infobox. Not sure though. Madcynic (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking LOADS of info - just years, club & caps. GiantSnowman 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I second GiantSnowman's suggestion. Some Brazilian football players are also former futsal players, so a dual sport infobox would be very useful. --Carioca (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but there we have it, then. Cricket, rugby, futsal - all possible "second" sports with as far as I can tell different requirements as to what the infobox should look like, no? Madcynic (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Not really. Futsal would have the same info as football; rugby has caps & points rather than apps & goals; and for cricket, we can just include tests or something. I'm only talking basic info here. GiantSnowman 19:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Many Irish players who stayed in Ireland to adulthood will have played Gaelic Football (less often Hurling) to a high level. But the issue of level in the second sport would be my fear for this feature: Craig Phillips (hope there is no-one by that name) reaches notability by virtue of his occasional performances for Macclesfield, but his local paper in Congleton then digs out the fact that he played for Cheshire U14 Hockey team, or that he was fastest U11 breast-stroker at Biddulph Dolphins Swimming Club, and an editor insists on adding it. Kevin McE (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I would say that only senior appearances should be included. GiantSnowman 19:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Whilst this might seem like a good idea, it assumes that the football infobox is most important. For many players, however, football was a diversion from their main sporting career such as cricket. It's a pity that the creators of the various infoboxes couldn't get together to agree a standard layout, to avoid repeating basic info; ideally it should be possible to combine the football, cricket, rugby etc. infoboxes into one for multi-sportsman (& women). --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Or upmerge them all into {{Infobox person}}? Nanonic (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
An unified template is possible, I suppose, but you'd always have people who would warrant even more merging (athletes who are also scientists et cetera). For now, making sure that infobox templates look consistent means we can easily include more than one in an article if need be. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a member of this and the cricket WikiProject, it's a very bad idea for cricket, as the cricket infoboxes are enormous and every cricketer who played in a major game should have a cricket infobox. --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For your information, the cricket infobox works really well as a primary or a secondary infobox - it has been coded (primarily by me) so that if necessary the personal information can be omitted entirely, so that it just slots under another infobox. If the infoboxes for other sports (football etc) could be coded so that any information which is likely to be duplicated can be omitted without breaking stuff, then which ever is the primary sport can include the personal (duplicate) information, and the secondary sport can omit it. Here is one example cricket (secondary) in action: Rob Andrew; (there may be others, but I can't remember where they are). Denis Compton would be an example of the reverse. If the football infobox could omit the name/place of birth etc (i.e. start as "playing position: outside left") then what you hope to achieve will work, without the need for a super one-box-fits-all solution.—MDCollins (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the infoboxes on the Denis Compton and Victor Norbury (see earlier discussion) articles to delete the duplicated personal information - my initial thoughts are that perhaps the cricket and football boxes should have headings something similar to the rugby one on the Rob Andrew article, e.g. "Cricket career", "Football career". Also can they be coded so that they have the same width? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Current sport template removed - Why?

The 2009 FIFA Confederation Cup is a sporting event which runs from June 14 until June 28. Shouldn't the following template be in the article until its completion???

{{current sport}}

Please leave my post as originally entered.

Or are the admins only instituting their own guidelines for the editing of this article?Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, {{current sport}} is intended only to be used when the event is happening at this very moment, not just from its start date to its end date without exception. There are no Confederations Cup matches being played right now, so the template should not be added. That's my understanding of the documentation anyway. – PeeJay 19:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That seems a very narrow interpretation to me, presumably of the phrase '"This template is for articles which involve an article about an evolving current sports-related event which is either changing rapidly or about which understanding is rapidly evolving. This is an advisory to readers that the article may be incomplete and subject to change."' The Confederation Cup is underway in S Africa: it started just over a week ago and finishes next weekend: that seems current to me, whether or not a match is being played at this instant. We have thousands of articles out there saying "Albert Rimmington is an English footballer currently playing for Hobbleton Rovers", and we don't delete the currently at 4:50 every Saturday afternoon, only to replace it at 3pm the following week. Kevin McE (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Kevin's take, personally. Information can rapidly change outside of game time as well. matt91486 (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
When the whistle is blown for the end of the game there is alot of editing still going on. Standings, reports, statistics, references added etc. To me it looks like that the admins are trying not have this template shown because it gives them leeway to strike out editors who are doing in progress edits.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Paranoia setting in much? First, I'm not an admin. Second, I removed the template as I was following the example of User:Conti, who has removed a lot of "current" templates from articles recently. Oh, and User:Conti is an admin, so take it up with them. – PeeJay 23:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The only paranoia is the inconsistancy that you subject other editors. During the previous ECLeague and UEFA Cup season the updates were correct and did not deter the final posting. As far as Conti removing current templates - Maybe he should be here to answer these questions. But AFAIC the 2009 FIFA Confederation Cup is a {{current sport}} and should be displayed as such.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I should also mention that we should not add live scores to articles as Wikipedia is supposed to report things that have happened and that can be referenced. We are not a news service, i.e. things should only be added here once they have become news/part of history. If, for example, we reported a goal being scored in the 25th minute of a match, but it was abandoned a minute later, we would be incorrect as that goal would not show up in official records. Hope I'm making myself clear. – PeeJay 23:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
And in that case the wiki editors would surely update the entry correctly and provide references if necessary when it is available. Or do you doubt the ability of those who want to contribute here?Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:current sport#Adding & applying guidelines. Rettetast (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding live scores

From the article history of the 2009 Confed Cup, I suspect this is the nub of the matter that lead to this thread. Brudder Andrusha has been one of the people enthusiastic to post live updates of scores; PeeJay2K3 has been resolutely trying to ensure that such ephemeral details are held back until the match is over. I have sympathy for PJ's position: I also used to try to keep it blank until the final whistle until I was advised here (prob in archive around time of 2006 WC if anyone really wants to look it up) that it was probably a futile task. But the problem remains of goals being added and then deleted as the ref spots the linesman's flag (I've seen it happen), of trying to turn Wikipedia into something it is not, and the increased likelihood of double entry of goals into stats tables. The principle obviously applies to other sports: do we know how they handle it? It seems to me that either we give in trying to hold back the updates, or we try to get it raised to a policy of which a reminder can be placed pre-emptively on articles likely to be subject to premature edits. In the latter case, we might end up with something like this:

Spain v United States
In progress

rendered thus: {{footballbox |date=24 June 2009 |time=20:30 |team1={{fb-rt|ESP}} |score= |report='''''In progress'''''<!-- Do not post updates until fixture is over, as per WP:WAITFORWHISTLE --> |team2={{fb|USA}} |goals1= |goals2= |stadium=[[Free State Stadium]], [[Bloemfontein]] |attendance= |referee= }}

It would be good to get this sorted once and for all, so that whatever is decided, edit wars are avoided in the 2010WC. Thoughts? Kevin McE (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, while it annoys me personally when people clamour over each other to make articles current to that very minute it doesn't actually harm the encyclopedia. We waste energy in trying to prevent people from doing it. The only issue is that minute-by-minute updates don't, by their nature, get accompanied by reliable secondary sources (as the match reports haven't actually been written yet). Might as well officially discourage it while acknowledging that it will happen and just letting it be. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea.--EchetusXe (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
These area (during an event that is in progress) is a center of interest for contributors to Wikipedia. By the very nature of Wiki and that it attracts folks for the confirmation of knowledge is a blessing in disguise. Things get done here and the post event cleanup of adding references, correction of formats, syntax is just another extention of the desire by most contributors to get it right here. Hence by having the {{current sport}} template through the duration of the sport means that output like the following is understood that it is in progess and that edits will follow to confirm the actuality of the post.
Spain 0 – 0 United States

rendered thus: {{footballbox |date=24 June 2009 |time=20:30 |team1={{fb-rt|ESP}} |score=''0 – 0'' <!-- Game is in progress: Enjoy! --> |report= |team2={{fb|USA}} |goals1= |goals2= |stadium=[[Free State Stadium]], [[Bloemfontein]] |attendance= |referee= }} Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And why would a visitor to the page know that italicised scores mean that the game is in progress? We should be providing what is useful to the reader, not catering to a "center of interest for contributors". Kevin McE (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
On the left hand side of the infobox is the scheduled time of the game. If the game is in progress then the scoreline would set apart information that is has concluded or yet to start. How do you propose to differentiate the two instances. In either case the information of italic information is proving something useful and supposedly (99.99999...%) correct and at the same time not slapping the contributor on the wrist because they are to eager to post... Or do you want even more information so as not to confuse? Like...
Spain 0 – 0 United States
In progress [note 1]
  • ^1 Italics indicate that the game is in progress

rendered thus: {{footballbox |date=24 June 2009 |time=20:30 |team1={{fb-rt|ESP}} |score=''0 – 0'' |report='''''In progress''''' [[#fn 1|''<sup>[note 1]''</sup>]] |team2={{fb|USA}} |goals1= |goals2= |stadium=[[Free State Stadium]], [[Bloemfontein]] |attendance= |referee= }} *{{fnb|1}} Italics indicate that the game is in progress Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:American soccer players by state

Is this appropriate? Seems like a triple intersection to me (American people, Football (soccer) players and People from [state]). We don't have Category:Footballers from County Durham or Category:Footballers from Gwynedd, so what makes Category:Soccer players from Alabama and Category:Soccer players from New Jersey any more appropriate? – PeeJay 23:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What a great waste of resources. - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Having the categories, or me complaining about them? :-P – PeeJay 23:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Most US states are orders of magnitude bigger than the entire United Kingdom, for one thing. If they're reasonably sourced then let them be. If they aren't then they can be deleted on that basis. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry: I can't let that pass. The only relevant measure is population, and precisely zero states have a population bigger than that of the UK, 1 has a population more than half that of the UK, and 4 are not outnumbered by at least 4:1. If you are looking for a country of which that statement can be made (more than half the states have at least twice the population) then it would appear that you are thinking of Lesotho. Kevin McE (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Huh. So let's just assume that I said "Scotland" instead of "United Kingdom", as we sub-divide plenty of athlete categories between the home nations. Plenty of states with a greater population than Scotland. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Its just a part of the larger Category:American sportspeople by state.--EchetusXe (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not a triple intersection because People from [state] is a subset of American people. --Jameboy (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It could still be considered a trivial intersection though (WP:OVERCAT#Intersection by location). I guess it depends whether you consider Category:American soccer players (1,125 pages, avg. 22.5 members per subcategory if all were subcategorised by state) to be large enough to warrant subcategorisation, and if it does then whether "by state" is the most useful way to do it. --Jameboy (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ridha Antar

Some guy has moved the page for Roda Antar, former FC Koeln player, a couple of times, first to Reda Antar and then to Ridha Antar. Can someone confirm the correct spelling is Roda?The Hack 10:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't confirm the correct spelling, but FIFA, Sky and ESPN spell him Roda, so per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) his name would seem to be Roda. And I see from Talk:Ridha Antar that the suggested new spelling is because of the name's Arabic spelling and pronunciation; on the English WP, there's no justification for moving him to someone's Roman-alphabet version of the Arabic transliteration of his name. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The article should be moved back to Roda Antar, that is the common spelling. GiantSnowman 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Question on Ref Desk

Can anyone confirm or refute what I wrote at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#FIFA_tiebreakers? --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

confirmed at refdesk 2009_FIFA_Confederations_Cup#Tie-breaking_criteria Article 23.6 in the referenced document.--ClubOranjeT 11:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dario Vujičević nationality

At least four (!) different nationalities for this chap are mentioned in various soucres:

The Dutch Wiki article desribes him as Bosnian, yet has him in the 'Croatian footallers' category. The German Wiki article describes him as German and born in Germany!

Can anyone shed any light on this? Cheers, GiantSnowman 13:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

His club lists him as born in Bosnia, which probably isn't any help. – Toon 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Haha, now we have four different nationalities and three different birth places! GiantSnowman 13:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This Google-translation discusses people not wanting to play for Bosnia-Herzegovina despite being eligible, and describes Vujicevic as Sarajevo-born but having said he wants to play for Croatia. Sarajevo's now in Bosnia, though I wouldn't like to offer an opinion on what country it was in when Vujicevic was born there. The goal.com page just isn't filled in, and they default to Dutch rather than blank. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I assume, based on the above, that he is a Bosnian Croat. If he was born in Sarajevo in 1990, he was born in Yugoslavia like Edin Dzeko. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it getting into anyone's skulls yet why "such and such is an Xian footballer" is a construction to be avoided if at all possible? (that goes double, of course, if any of the Balkan nations are involved.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's make this clear: he was born in Sarajevo, Bosnia (that is why some sources define him as Bosnian); his family then moved to Gronau, Germany during the Yugoslav War (that is why some source claim he is German); and now he plays for FC Twente, Netherlands. However, he declared himself for Croatia: [2], so he should be listed as Croatia, at least in terms of sports nationality. --Angelo (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Has he played any international games? No? Then he doesn't have a sports nationality. End of story. Honestly, the amount of grief caused by this ridiculous insistence on labelling people as being of one nationality or the other is unreal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
If he's declared himself as Crotian, then that's what he is. GiantSnowman 17:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Crotian? You jest? How about just a Croat.... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, not any more than it makes Aiden McGeady Irish. If someone says "I will play for the Xian national team" then we should write "such-and-such plays for the Xian national team", not "such-and-such is Xian". That is of course unless he's actually said that he is Croatian (my Dutch isn't really up to ascertaining that from the source). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
In the provided source in Dutch (coming from FC Twente official website), he confirms he declared himself for Croatia after he had talks with the Croatian federation. So we should list him as Croatian in terms of football nationality, especially if such choice comes after having reached an agreement with the local federation. Also, he states he does not really feel German, and his parents are Croatian (father) and Serb (mother) respectively, so I think he has the right to define himself as Croatian. --Angelo (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless he has specifically described his nationality as Croatian (not his "footballing nationality") then we should repeat precisely what is sourced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
He is Croatian by his father, and he has Croatian nationality, and both things are sourced and confirmed directly by the subject in an interview. Is that enough? --Angelo (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably, yes. In that case, there was never any doubt as regards this thread. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Capital letters or not capital letters?

Hi, everybody. I’ve a little disagreement here with Filipão on how we should write Dutch names. I couldn't find any previous discussion on this matter, so I post it here. I think we should write them with capital letters since that’s how we begin phrases in English. But, on the other hand there’s Filipao’s opinion, that since the name goes without capital letters, it should be written like that. I’m not interested in any editing war on this, since I think it quite a minor difference, so if no one here supports my point of view, I’ll let Filipao’s opinion. But I think this is something that should be clear for future similar cases. Thanks.Ipsumesse (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ipsumesse, you are indeed correct. It would be "Ruud van Nistelrooy", but "Mr. Van Nistelrooy". – PeeJay 16:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes It's Ruud van Nistelrooy, Mr. Van Nistelrooy and also Mr. R. van Nistelrooy. It's different for people from Belgium (nearly always capital letters)Cattivi (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for the least efficient presentation of information award

There are many tables around like this:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_33&oldid=1137383051"