Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 40

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

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

→

COSAFA U-20 Challenge

Is anybody able to provide a helping hand with the 2009 COSAFA U-20 Cup article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigJagielka (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 December 2009

Wilkinsons at Sheffield United

The article for the first-class cricketer William Herbert Wilkinson (born 1881) claims that he played for Sheffield United and that his brother Bernard Wilkinson captained the club. While I can confirm (via allfootballers.com) that Bernie Wilkinson did in fact play for the Blades it would seem that that William didn't make it to the first team. What makes it interesting is that there is an entry for a William H Wilkinson who played a number of seasons from 1894 in the Football League for Rotherham Town and Lincoln City. allfootballers.com lists Bernie Wilkinson as having left Sheffield United for Rotherham Town so I was wondering if someone was able to confirm whether there was some link between these players... Hack (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if William H Wilkinson played in 1894 it's impossible that he and the cricketer are the same person, otherwise he would have been 13 years old. I suppose it's still entirely possible that the two footballers are related though. -- Big Dom 10:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Billy (W.H) Wilkinson played for the first team as well: 58 matches 7 goals (1901-1908) his next club was Bolton Wanderers but no further appearances. Cattivi (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I see it now - I searched for William and Bill but not Billy. It still leaves the question of who the guy with the 1894 debut was... Hack (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Bolivia Squad 2009 South American Youth Championship

Could someone do the honours and TfD {{Bolivia Squad 2009 South American Youth Championship}}. I'm a bit too busy at the moment. Cheers King of the North East 15:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the time to do it myself (here) King of the North East 22:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders FC promoted to WP:FA

I'm pleased to announce that after two rounds of FAC review as well as two independent copy edits that Seattle Sounders FC was promoted to featured article status today. These are the edits for the promotion: [1] [2] [3] [4]. We just have to wait for a bot to update the article talk page and add the FA star to the main article (woohoo!). Many thanks to task force members George and Cptnono for their help responding to all of the comments and change requests during this process. Thanks to WFCforLife from this project for his help in the peer review and his comments during the FA review of the article. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

European stats website - spam alert

I got a spam alert when trying to reference a source to the eu-football.info website (can't give a full link to it!) which seems to have a very useful national teams database, including historical line-ups. Anyone know about this spam issue and whether it might be based on a past problem, or can this site just not be linked to for the forseeable? Eldumpo (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Site is on the Global Spam Blacklist (as opposed to just en.wiki) here. Site was added based on this report. You can request removal from the blacklist if appropriate here. Camw (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not temporary. I tried to add a link from this site one or two month ago.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This site was blacklisted in April and since that time it was whitelisted in ru.wiki and pl.wiki due to user's requests. And no spammings from that time. But en.wiki stil did not whitelisted it. Please request to whitelist this site at en.wiki here Tyxis (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Football Trust

I've just created a basic stub for the Football Trust, I'm shocked that there wasn't an article in place already considering how much money they gave to English and Scottish clubs to develop stadiums. Please feel free to extend the article TheBigJagielka (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Goodison Park

Please could someone re-assess the Goodison Park article, it deserves more than a start class in my opinion. TheBigJagielka (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield United rogues

I've noticed that two of Sheffield United's current squad, Jordan Robertson and Paddy Kenny, are currently unavailable as they are in jail and suspended for failing a drugs test, respectively. I'm not convince that the current layout of the club's squad section is laid out in the best way for this, but wasn't sure what would be better. Should there be a separate section, such as there is for players out on loan, for players on long-term suspensions? Dancarney (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You could replace the wording in the squad list with just other=unavailable, and then put a reference after the closing }} with an explanation of why they're unavailable and a source to verify it, along the lines of <ref>Serving prison sentence of xx months imposed in month-year for details-of-offence.{{cite news |......}}</ref>

Or alternatively take the wording out of the player line entirely and have sourced footnotes at the bottom of the section, as I did in this version of Birmingham City F.C.

Though from a WP:BLP point of view, it'd be good to add references soon, whatever format you use: it's a bit naughty whoever described them as jailbirds and drugcheats without sources to prove it, even if it is true :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

On loan to Her Majesty's Prison Service? Hack (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

West Ham v Arsenal

If anyone is interested this BBC article gives an account of the 1980 FA Cup Final and also details all of the player's career, as well as explaining what happened to them after they retired. I think it will prove quite useful for anyone looking to add to any of those articles.--EchetusXe 13:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian league stats

Bascially, this players' management claim he played 17 appearances for CR Vasco da Gama, although a Google search yields nothing. Can anyone provide sources to help back this up? He may be listed just as "Charly" which is what he was known as when playing in Spain. Thanks, --Jimbo^[online] 20:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Guelph Underdogs SC

Hey guys, just a super-quick one - I have a feeling that this Canadian team aren't notable, but I don't have the time/facilities to PROD/AfD. Any volunteers? Cheers, Giant Snowman 04:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Prodded and on my watchlist. WFCforLife (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

First of all Happy new football year to everyone in this project.

Is wondering if the pages Goal.com and Svenskafans.com can be seen as reliable sources?

Belive most here are familiar with Goal.com, while Svenskafans.com is a Swedish site for fans by fans, it evolves much round the diffrent teams forums where the users can disscuse their own and other teams, the site also host several silly season for most of the diffrent teams on the page, the roumers on these silly seasons are sourced in various degrees to other pages such as AS, Marca, Der Spiegel, Sky Sport, Aftonbladet and so forth. Svenskafans have sometimes been used as a source on the article List of Swedish football transfers winter 2009–10, i have removed them as i dont see the site as the source itself and there for not reliable. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 14:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

1999 Intercontinental Cup

User:189.24.146.199 seems intent on adding a gold star next to Ryan Giggs' name to indicate that he was named as man of the match at the 1999 Intercontinental Cup. I have removed the star with the rationale that the man of the match is clearly indicated in both the infobox and below the squad lists, making the star redundant. Furthermore, the anon has also been removing the flagicon from next to Giggs' name in the man of the match box, claiming that WP:FOOTY does not allow flagicons in boxes. Since this is clearly bullshit, I've brought this here to let you guys know that we may be heading towards a wheel war and the anon may need some sense talking into him. – Pee Jay 23:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think ytou're the one who needs some sense into you, mate. Stop trying to bend the policy to fit your will. Read the policy again. Check other articles and try to be helpful over here instead of a disruptive user who is trying to enforce his will. 189.24.146.199 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I also would like to let you know that this user has decided to stalk me as you can see on 1968 European Cup Final. Now he's trying to create a new pattern to the article with no previous discussion. And I'm simply enforcing the pattern followed by every other similar article as you can see on 1967 European Cup Final, 1969 European Cup Final and so on. 189.24.146.199 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, 1968 European Cup Final was on my watchlist, so I naturally noticed your inexplicable change to that article. If you want to follow any particular pattern for match articles, I suggest you take a look at 2009 UEFA Champions League Final. – Pee Jay 02:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Great article. Should be a feature one. But I'm failing to see those large flags that you're trying to add on 1968 European Cup Final and now on 1967 European Cup Final. 189.24.146.199 (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay about the gold star, which definitely shouldn't be there. However, I can also see why the Wales flag keeps being removed. What does the fact he is Welsh have to do with him being awarded Man of the Match? Nothing, so there's no need to have the flag there. -- Big Dom 09:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

USL First Division

In my opinion this article needs a major tidy up on two fronts. Firstly in light of the defections to the new NASL which is ongoing and difficult to keep up with. Secondly I thing the article should concentrate on the seasons when it was known as the USL First Division and not be cluttered with excessive info on the various predecessor names/leagues, all of which have their own articles anyway. Mention them by all means but don’t get bogged down. It is a bit ridiculous to try and merge all this info into one article, as one editor is trying to do, especially when US soccer leagues have a history of name changes, mergers and collapses, etc. Any thoughts here Djln--Djln (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Lorenzo Donati

Can someone take a look at the history of this biography? It's a right mess. I don't have any books on me at the moment so I'm not sure if the footballer, the composer that was previously written about, or both are a hoax. I don't remember the player. WFCforLife (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems there was an article for someone of this name, a composer. Two changes ago the article got hijacked and the composer details were deleted to have these dodgy lines about a footballer entered. The only hits for this guy in connection with Luton or Watford are WIKI ones. There is a picture on FLIKR of someone in a Watford top but it could be someone at the local playing field! My first thought is hoax but maybe someone else remembers him?--Egghead06 (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted to the musician version, who does seem to exist, and left a note at the creator's talk suggesting if they want to recreate the article, they do so at a new page such as Lorenzo Donati (footballer) and include references to reliable published sources. As it's a hoax, I suspect they'll be hard pushed to find any. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Same thing happend to me with footballer Ivan Bošković page. Some guy touth that the basket player with same name was more deserving an article, so he replaced the content about the footballer with a new content about a basket player! I reverted it and asked the anon (it was an IP), by leaving him a mesage in "page history" asking him to do the Ivan Bošković (volleyball player) page if he wanted, but without messing the footballer page with same name page...

Same thing happend with Lorenzo Donati, I supose, but if there is a footballer with that name (despite not founding anything in any of the usual sources I use...) , they should make a new page, as sugested by Struway2, without interfering with the one already existing about a musician. This is not a Competition Footballers Vs Others, there is room for everybody... FkpCascais (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a volleyball player, not basket, that guy wanted to make... FkpCascais (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving issue

I have a small technical issue and am not sure how to go about it. I have completed a translation of a German wiki article on a footballer in my userspace and when i tried to move it, I realized that the page at Peter Sykora is a redirect for a Czech hockey player (Petr Sýkora), so I cannot move the page there. I've added the {{move draft}}-Template, but so far there has been nothing doing, and I'm not even sure that's the correct procedure. Any hints? Madcynic (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving the article to Peter Sykora (footballer). Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, okay that works for now. Thanks. Madcynic (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeff King (football)

Any evidence of professional play or management or any other form of notability.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember watching a SkySports profile of him many years ago when he was managing Canvey Island in the Conference (thanks to Fox Soccer Channel). I would expect that he'd pass the general notability guideline, although the article probably doesn't yet. Jogurney (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

He was born 23-5-1959 in Hornchurch according to the Non League Club Directory 2005 I don't think he ever played (semi-)professional football Cattivi (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well known in Essex football!! A local business man - was behind Canvey Island's climb into the Conference before moving to Chelmsford City when the money ran out at Canvey. Many hits on Goggle which might be enough to pass notability and make a good article which it is far from at the mo. Don't think he has managed or played at pro level but is now Director of Football http://www.chelmsfordcityfootballclub.co.uk/club/whos-who --Egghead06 (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Charles Okonkwo

Mr Okonkwo left a message on Jimbo Wales's talk today, saying:

I just found out that my name is missing in the list of ex super eagles of nigeria players. Eventhough am not the kind of person that takes such omission seriuosly, on second thought, if I played 37 times for my country I deserve to be in that list. I see a lot of players who played 3 or 4 games for Ngeria and they are on that list. My name is CHARLES OKONKWO, and my email is <redacted>. I live in welwyn garden city in the U.K. For futher and easy proof and pictures, check me out on facebook.
Regards,
CHARLES OKONKWO.86.129.189.1 (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be related to Nigeria national football team. Would someone like to follow this up?

--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Article is at Charles Okonkwo. We should at least ask him for his POB/DOB, club and international careers, coaching jobs. If he could provide evidences, such as newspapers scans, it would be fine. --Latouffedisco (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And while I'm generally a trusting soul, we should ensure things are independently verifiable, as some people going by the name of Charles Okonkwo are a bit dodgy.--ClubOranje^T 10:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Looking on the internet, I've only found his facebook profile and a RSSSF link.--Latouffedisco (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the poster were a journalist, hoping that posting on Jimbo's page might make us post false information. We know that what's there is true, so in the event that I were right we wouldn't be falling into that bear trap. If that is all we ever find, that is all we should post (and possibly consider deletion or merging). WFCforLife (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, let's AGF in absence of evidence to the contrary, eh. There's another source which verifies the name anyway, although I wouldn't even know where to start looking for further details. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wigan Athletic F.C.

Hi, I notice that this page is getting a certain number of dodgy edits. Could those who watch for such things please put it on their lists as I don't really want to keep it on my watch list.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Linvoy Primus

Is there any hope of this ever being featured? There are absolutely no free pictures available and he has retired. Nevertheless, I will continue bulking out the article but I'm a bit worried that it'll be in vain Spiderone 18:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if this is a case of teaching granny to suck eggs, but have you tried to contact the uploader of an image such as this one to see if he'd be prepared to release it under a free license...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Which one's Primus? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this enough to prevent speedy deletion? http://www.flickr.com/photos/donshappysnaps/4168689488/?addedcomment=1#comment72157623040765509 Spiderone 10:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. He has so far only agreed to the image being used on wikipedia and not released it under a free liscense. Most people have no idea of what we mean when we talk about free images so it can be hard to aproach someone with such questions. There are tips on how to approach Flickr users at User:Videmus_Omnia/Requesting_free_content#Making_requests_from_Flickr_users. Rettetast (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars

Hi guys, listen, I don´t know how this works, but, can I (a simple editor) give a barnstar to somebody??? FkpCascais (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is encouraged to award anyone a barnstar if you think they deserve it. See Wikipedia:Barnstars for more info, there are even a couple designed purely for football topics. Nanonic (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanx for Barnstars link. FkpCascais (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ykkönen

Does anyone know if this league is pro, semi-pro, or amateur? All the information I could find about the league is in Finnish, a language I don't speak. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Since we seem to have not that much Finnish project contributors - have you already tried to run your source(s) through Google Translate? The results this tool produces are better than expected for a computer translation program. However, if you want to translate, make sure that you use English as target language in order to get the best possible result. :-) --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I tried running my source through google translate and was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the translation. Unofortunately the relevent section were suffeciently vague (probably as a result translation), that I can't say anything conclusive. That being said, I think its semi-pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Crazy bots...

Can someone please help me stoping the bots in adding wrongly the Dutch and Chinese links of Milan Nikolić (born 1983) to Milan Nikolić (born 1987). I already added the Dutch link to the correct 1983 born one, but I don´t know how to do it with the Chinese... But, the bots insistingly wrongly add those links to the wrong Milan Nikolić. I reverted it many times, but it comes again and again... FkpCascais (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Bots will continue to do this persistently unless all the links are fixed across all the languages. I have now done that, so the bot won’t add them again unless a human editor re-adds an incorrect link somewhere. MTC (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanx. FkpCascais (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Kodjovi Obilalé

There are a number of novice users who are continuously editing Kodjovi Obilalé's article, reporting him as dead despite lack of reliable sources confirming that, and also despite the presence of an official announcement from goalkeeper's club Pontivy dismissing such reports. Can you please have a look at it and help me making sure that such edits get reverted? Thank you. --Angelo (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

He should probably be kept under semi, at least until there's confirmation of his death (if that is the case) cha ndl er 16:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's already under semi. --Angelo (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Pat Fenlon

Can anyone fathom out what 92.251.160.59 (talk · contribs) is reverting me for at Pat Fenlon? It looks like they're after an edit war. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, 92.251.160.59 sees the points that you have listed in the trivia section individual honours. That being said, may suggest that you discuss the matter directly with them by posting on their talk page, before seeking third party assistance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of acronyms

Why do FIFA and UEFA have their articles under their ACRONYMS but the African sub regional bodies are all full titled articles?

CECAFA - Council for East and Central Africa Football Associations ⋅
COSAFA - Council of Southern Africa Football Associations
UNIFFAC - Central African Football Federations' Union ⋅
UNAF - Union of North African Football Federations
WAFU - West African Football Union

Are all known as their acronyms but for some reason it's preferred on WP that the full title is used.

Outside the football world most people aren't going to know for what these things stand. I for one had never heard of any of these organisation before, let alone their acronyms. FIFA and UEFA by contrast are much more well known bodies. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are any hard and fast rules about acronyms beyond WP:COMMONNAME, e.g, we have NASA but yet Central Intelligence Agency. Nanonic (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

CIA can be ambiguous. COSAFA almost certainly isn't. Ideally we'd use acronyms for all of these unless there was obvious ambiguity, as the acronym is always going to be far more commonly-used than a six- or seven-word title. The African articles should just be moved right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Bobo6balde66 and image misuse

Cleaning up Jonny Tuffey's article I noticed that the photo is from his Partick Thistle website profile: that certainly doesn't imply that it's Creative Commons. I went to question the uploader, who appears to have dozens of warnings about image use. Anyone fancy looking into this more deeply? I'd be very concerned if copyrighted images were being mass-uploaded with CC tags. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

i dont have a clue when it comes to images! i just want pictures of whoever it is i upload! take the jonny tuffey page, i just wanted that to look better so i uploaded a picture Bobo6balde66 (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes image uploads very seriously, in compliance with policies and guidelines such as WP:NONFREE - which basically forbids uploading copyrighted, non-free pictures of living people. I have deleted Tuffey's picture as obvious image copyvio. --Angelo (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Should caretaker managers who have not taken charge of any first-team matches be included in manager timeline templates? It seems fairly pointless to me. I'm only asking since this template is on my watchlist and I have noticed that Steve Davis and Martin Dobson have been added as 2010, even though Burnley have not played any games under their tenure. What do other people think? -- Big Dom 17:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely. If a team never played a match under a manager it seems pretty pointless to list them. Other caretakers managers, should however be listed, in my opinion, just to show that there was a transition period from one manager to the next. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Standard recentism cruft. It's usually pointless to debate these things as they happen; give it a few weeks for those responsible to be distracted (say, by the trailing end of a ball of wool, or some shiny tinsel) and they usually clear themselves up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule no (Watford's does not include the indisputed greatest right back of all time), but if they're the incumbent then I'm sure we'll survive keeping them on until the next game is played. WFCforLife (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

League 1 Quiz

I've got a couple of good questions about League 1. How many ex-Premiership sides currently play in the third-tier of English football, and who are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Londonjoe7 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT#CHAT. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming of national team articles

The national team article for Lithuania was recently moved: all other articles are currently at non-adjectival titles. Is there a prior agreement to name in this way or did the uniformity come about otherwise? Is there any burning desire to restore the title for consistency's sake? Knepflerle (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If the user is willing to rename every single national team consistently, and fix every single problematic redirect, I've got no objection (although I would personally see that as a collossal waste of his time). Otherwise, as you say, I think it should be reverted for consistency. WFCforLife (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This move was clearly against the agreed naming style for national football team articles. Can an administrator revert it? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have moved it back. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the naming conventions are as such because you don't necessarily have to be from a particular country to play for its national team. There are arguments that Owen Hargreaves could be considered Canadian, Welsh or German, as well as English, so to call the England national football team the "English national football team" might be considered a misnomer. There may be other factors to this issue, or I may have missed the point entirely, but this is my take on the matter. – Pee Jay 00:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pascal Chimbonda and Guadaloupe caps

Can someone verify that the Pascal Chimbonda who won three caps for Guadaloupe is the same one currently playing in the Premier League? I can't find any secondary sources which would clarify this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I quite certain it is, but can't find a better match report than this (simply says Chimbonda was a defender). I suspect there is some coverage of FIFA allowing him to play for France later, but I'm struggling to find a secondary source on it. Jogurney (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He also played in an unofficial match in 2004 while he was at Bastia, so that lends more credibility to the claim that it was the Premier League Chimbonda who played for Guadeloupe in 2003. Jogurney (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I found a good source where Chimbonda reports, "La dernière fois que j'ai porté les couleurs de la Guadeloupe, c'était pour une compét'à Trinidad et Tobago." (He last played for Guadeloupe in a competition in Trinidad & Tobago - which would have to be the 2003 Copa Caribe). Jogurney (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

ASEC Mimosas transfers

Is there any basis for keeping this almost completely unsourced list of transfers of a Côte d'Ivoire Premier Division club? Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No, at least not under the current consensus, which is "team transfers per season in team season article" and "country transfers in transfer lists either by period or by season" (please correct this statement if it is wrong). Transfer lists for one club only should be a case of WP:IINFO. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Welsh footballers

In helping to build the List of Wales international footballers, I note that many players are disambiguated as "Welsh footballer"; for example Jack Evans (Welsh footballer). Is there any reason why he should not be disambiguated as Jack Evans (footballer born 1889)? Altogether, there are 15 international players disambiguated thus. For some, such as Andy Williams (Welsh footballer), I can see the logic as this disambiguates him from Andy Williams (Jamaican footballer), both being born in 1977. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If the nationality is unambiguous it's probably the best way to go, particularly for international footballers. Consider the more likely question "Jack Evans... is he the Welsh guy/the guy who played for Wales?" Or "Jack Evans... is he the guy born in 1889?" If however there are multiple ones from the same country (for instance Tommy Smith), the year's more appropriate. Sadly there can never be a one size fits all guideline, because different solutions are appropriate in different cases, and precident will be used by fans of either convention in cases where both can do the job. WFCforLife (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Order of dab should generally be Tim Template, if more than one, then Tim Template (footballer), if more than one footballer, then Tim Template (Xion footballer), if more than one Xion footballer, then dab by year of birth. People are more likely to know where a player is from rather that what year they were born.--ClubOranje^T 10:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not another player nationality controversy! His article asserts that Tim is Templatonian. Kevin McE (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:English football defender, pre-1890 birth stubs

Should the above category/stub be moved to '...pre 1880' now that a Category:English football defender, 1880s birth stubs has recently been created, and do some of the pre-1890 entries need to move to 1880s births. Does this change affect the other categories the same e.g. English midfielders? Eldumpo (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Romanian football & Template:Romanian football portal

I've noticed that a permanently blocked editor created this portal several months ago, and added the template (which is just a wikilink to the portal) to hundreds of articles. No one else has ever edited the portal and I doubt it has much use. The portal links are somewhat distracting when you see them on the hundreds of articles (including biographies of footballers who spent one season in the Romanian league). Accordingly, I'm hoping the whole thing can be deleted, but I may be missing some way that this can be useful. Does anyone agree? Jogurney (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Delete them when necessary.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark Christie

My speedy was declined, because "some reasonable claims to notability are made". - Dudesleeper talk 13:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The speedy deletion criteria A7 only requires an assertion of notability to be declined, it is of a lower standard than showing actual notability. Try Prod or AFD. Camw (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Alain Ndizeye

This article appears to be Babel fish translation (or something similar) its french counterpart. Could someone please rewrite in proper english? Normally, I would just do it myself, but I'm a little short on time these days. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Celtic F.C. league and cup history

Can someone check this page out please? Two users (and by that I probably mean one user under two names, User:Adamrulessupreme and User:Coolman364) keep adding text which sounds like Stuart Hall on a bad day; e.g.

Celtic have won the Scottish league an incredible 42 times ... memorable league campaigns ...the Bhoys found themselves having to win their final seven games ... old-firm derbies at ... lifted the trophy ... great league campaigns ... just missed out on the title ... Jock Stein's men also went on an incredible run of ...

I'm no expert, but I think there's possibly a valid article here about Celtic's facts and figures. But I'm damn sure it shouldn't look like that. Cheers. pablo_hablo. 00:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved to List of Celtic F.C. seasons, because this appears to be what the article is trying to do. List of Rangers F.C. seasons is a better example of this (for a Scottish club). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Stuart Hall has bad days? WFCforLife (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Group stage scenarios

What does everyone think about adding qualification scenarios for the group stages of competitions, i.e. speculating about how certain results will affect teams' chances of qualification/elimination/relegation from a competition? Personally, I'm against them as I believe that they constitute original research, regardless of how many eventualities are covered, whether it be all eventualities on the next matchday or the entire remainder of the stage. To that end, I think that all scenarios should be avoided/deleted. Any other opinions? – Pee Jay 00:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as they are mathematically verifiable, I don't have a problem with these scenarios. As I see it, saying that they constitute original research is like saying "2+3=5, 3+3=6 5<6" is original research, because that's all what's beeing done there. That being said, there is a strong basis for removing them. (WP:BALL) Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Speculation of all forms should be avoided in an encyclopedia. We have gutter press for that.--ClubOranje^T 04:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's original analysis of primary source material, which is textbook OR. If one were to see a RS which said that Manchester United had £25m to spend on strikers this January, you wouldn't go and write a list of players worth £25m who they could potentially buy. Same scenario. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Squad template

Whatever just happened to the Fs squad template has buggered up the spacing of the columns. The gap between the flagicon and the position abbreviation needs to be reduced. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

On the same note perhaps someone can figure out how to hide the note if the template is used repeatidly in the same article as in List of German football transfers winter 2009–10. While not a very pressing issue, it does look rather clunky. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The spacing has been fixed and the note is need as per WP:MOSICON and the discussion above agreed to add it Gnevin (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the note being there. It just seems a little redundant if the note appears sixty-eight times in a single article. What I'm suggesting is that after the first time it appears in an article, the note should be hidden. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that could be done with out using a field to hide it Gnevin (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I know very little about the coding used in templates, but if it's necessary, create the field to hide the note, and then create clear regulations on when that field may be used. Obviously, if there is a way to simply incorperate those regulations into the coding of the template, it would be preferable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Have requested a change to add a field call hidenote, when an admin changes the template it will work Gnevin (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Editwarring on Darlo

Can some kindly admin please pop over to Darlington F.C. and kick those two ip editors who keep reverting back and forth in the bollocks (or whatever it is you're supposed to do). Thanks. Nanonic (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been suggested that this template violates MOS:COLLAPSE. I have already responded with my own thoughts on this, but I would like to encourage any editors watching this page (especially those who edit articles that make use of this template) to join the discussion over here. Thanks! --SkotyWA^T|_C 23:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me.

Would you plesase participate talk:Agony of Doha. I think it is NPOV problem. So that name would be changed. I'll wait for your opinion. Thank you.--Awesong (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Match Article Titles

Related to the above, I notice that there is no standard on the title of match articles. Some articles opt for the x v y format eg England v Ireland (1949); others for the x 1-1 y format eg Germany 1–5 England (2001); others for descriptive titles eg Battle of Highbury; others still have their own idiosyncrasies eg Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup quarter-final).

Is there scope for a standardization? Clearly, finals have articles because they are finals - the 1990 FIFA World Cup Final is notable because it was the final of the World Cup, not because it was a particularly exciting game with a notable result. Other than these, however, it might be worth coming up with a set format - it avoid problems such as those which are above. I'd suggest making the x v y (year) format standard: this can then be applied to matches such as the Battle of Highbury where the result is not necessarily the notable feature. Clearly, any relevant names, such as The Other Final, would be retained as redirects.

I'd imagine such a standard would be fairly uncontroversial - or are there any issues here? Pretty Green (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed this a number of times. I'm pretty sure the consensus has always been that we can't legislate it, because sometimes the matches have notable nicknames, sometimes they're distinctive for a scoreline, they do or don't need disambiguation etc etc.

I think we are agreed though that "v" is the format, rather than "vs" or "versus" or whatever. --Dweller (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Couple of links to previous discussions, one from about 3 months ago, and one from about 3 months before that. I'd agree with Dweller about the conclusions reached. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? Look at the final comment in the second discussion - I have trouble imagining someone saying "Did you see Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal (26 May 1989) last night?" I do believe someone might sound more natural saying "Did you see the 1989 Liverpool-Arsenal match last night?" . Seems to me a fairly decent point for putting all games to a standard team v team (year, month if necessary) and there's no real conclusion; rather a petering out.

The thing is, at the moment, some articles are at pretty terrible titles eg Bayern Munich v Norwich City, which doesn't really tell us anything about the game. I don't know, it just seems a bit sloppy and a little bit odd compared to policies elsewhere - for example, there is no reason why the article Tottenham Hotspur F.C. couldn't be at Tottenham Hotspur - except that it fits to convention which is useful elsewhere and so we do it.

As for difficulty to legislate - well its not like there are thousands of games. And as noted above, it would solve some issues relating to neutrality on matches such as the Agony of Doha. I can think of relatively few games for which it would be actively problematic and we could have it as a guideline with reasonable exceptions (eg Bradford City stadium fire would not be moved to Bradford City v Lincoln City (1985)).--Pretty Green (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you'd want the Bayern Norwich game renamed to. What would tell you anything meaningful about the game? It's never happened before or since, so no year is needed. The scoreline was previously in the title, but was removed following consensus at AfD. Really, the only meaningful other title would be along the lines of Bayern Munich, arrogant aristocracy of European football, unexpectedly defeated by minnows, the first time they ever lost a match in Europe, but I can't see that being a popular choice. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well Bayern Munich v Norwich City (1993) would be an improvement. Really, my problem is why does that match not have a year where others do? It just seems very sloppy --Pretty Green (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia's sensible approach to disambiguation is not to disambiguate where no disambiguation is needed. Those teams never played each other before or since. If they played another notable match, it would need disambiguation. --Dweller (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Then why is Tottenham Hotspur F.C. not at Tottenham Hotspur? After all, there is no other entity called Tottenham Hotspur; the club is most commonly known under that name. The same could be said about, say, Bolton Wanderers F.C./Bolton Wanderers. I realise that this argument is a version of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but I'm trying to point out that in other places we have standards that we stick to even though at times this results in articles being at non-natural places. Why not on match titles? --Pretty Green (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the analogy. "F.C." is not disambiguation, but is part of the club's name. --Dweller (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not a perfect comparison - matches, other than cup finals, don't have an official name. But Tottenham Hotspur F.C., I would argue, goes against the principle that Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. The most common name is probably 'Spurs', but this is obviously ambiguous. Equally, Tottenham would be problematic. But Tottenham Hotspur is much more common than Tottenham Hotspur F.C. and, under wiki rules, ought to be the name for the article. The Bolton Wanderers example is probably an even better one - Bolton Wanderers is probably the most common referent for the club, but we use Bolton Wanderers FC. But, there is a standard for football club articles that states that we always include the 'FC/AFC/CF/' etc, even if it does not form part of the most common name. The point that I was trying to make was that on certain cases we have introduced standards across categories of articles; my question remains as to why there should be no need for standards on match titles? Pretty Green (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

<- Because some matches are notable for different reasons than others and some require more or less disambiguation. The Bon Accord match requires no year, because the notability is in the scoreline. Any FA Cup Final article does need a year because it happens virtually every year. This match doesn't because it hasn't happened before or since. Disambiguation is there to help the reader disambiguate, not to make article titles needlessly long. I'd strongly oppose the insertion of a date in the Bon Accord match title as daft and unnecessary. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

References on season articles

Hello all, as I have just been reverted again on a Aston Villa F.C. season 2009–10, I thought it best to come here for a discussion. As you may know, our seasons articles have links to match reports. On the Villa 09-10 article, these links are to the Villa official site and one user is reverting to keep these links.

I think these links should be to a neutral source such as the BBC rather than a non-neutral source that is the club's official website in line with WP:NPOV and WP:V. Other opinions are cordially requested, thanks Woody (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On the Man Utd season articles, I have been linking to the club's own match reports in the results tables, but using the BBC/Sky Sports report to reference the prose account of each match. Could the same be done for the Villa articles? – Pee Jay 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really in my opinion. Wikipedia is not a fansite and linking to the official site for every match is something that a fansite would do. In effect, we are using a primary source for these articles which is unacceptable. We have an alternative secondary and reliable source so that should be used in my opinion. Woody (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So long as reliable secondary sources exist and can be easily found it is not of extreme inportance that we use them for the same material as is provided on reliable primary sources, although it is preferred. The more important thing is to get the anon in question to recognise this, such that it continues to contribute constructively to the building of the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal for match statistics (goalscorers, the score, the referee and so on), but as PeeJay says we shouldn't use a primary source for prose. If Manchester United or Aston Villa say that a penalty should/shouldn't have been given, I take both declarations with a pinch of salt. If the BBC takes a definitive view, I consider that noteworthy. WFCforLife (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's acceptable to link to a club's official site for the match report in the {{Footballbox}} (or an equivalent template) because information about the score, times of goals, attendance, and referee are not subject to any POV because they are straight facts. See Point #4 under WP:ELMAYBE. I think it's become common to link to a club's own site in a club season article because it's easy – every club will have a match report on their own site – and as long as prose or anything requiring an opinion or POV is not being sourced to a 1st party article then it's not a big deal. If, however, you or another editor are engaging in an edit war then I suggest you broker a truce of some kind. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

English club seasons

There's a CFD renaming discussion for Category:English football clubs 2009–10 season; the discussion is located here. It was recently renamed from Category:English football (soccer) clubs 2009–10 season, and it's been proposed to be renamed yet again, this time to Category:English association football clubs 2009–10 season. The decision here will be used to rename the other related season article categories. This CFD is a week old so it's going to close soon. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Application of WP:COMMONNAME to footballers of Arabic origin

Hello. I wanted to see what the concensus was regarding the titling of articles about footballers of Arabic origin. As I understand it, most of these footballers have a given name, patronymic name, and surname. A typical person might have a name like Foo Foo al-Foo, and typically they are referred to as "Foo Foo" in the media, not "Foo Foo al-Foo" or even "Foo al-Foo". In looking at articles about the Oman national football team, most players are referred to in the "Foo Foo" format (like Khalifa Ayil, whom I've never seen addressed using his surname) and a few like Ismail al-Ajmi who is typically referred to by his given name and surname ("Foo al-Foo" format). That said, another editor is moving scores of articles from the "Foo Foo" format to the "Foo Foo al-Foo" format (which I've never seen used in the media). Please let us know what the prior concensus (if any) has been or maybe we can develop one here. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Foo Foo Foo. WFCforLife (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Arabic naming it's not so simple... a proper surname doesn't exist, for example. However, I would simply keep the names used by Western medias. --necronudist (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

For sure Ronaldo is Ronaldo, Cristiano Ronaldo is Cristiano Ronaldo, Luiz Adriano is Luiz Adriano, not Ronaldo Luis Nazário de Lima; Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro and Luiz Adriano de Souza da Silva.

But in Oman case, Mohammed Rabia Al-Noobi both refer as Mohammed RABIA, Mohammed RABEA and Mohammed Al-Noobi. There is a handful media coverage in English world and Western world, unlike Ronaldo, Luiz Adriano and Cristiano Ronaldo. I can find many source that Fabiano Lima Rodrigues refer as Fabiano Lima or Fabiano Rodrigues; César Aparecido Rodrigues refer as César Aparecido or César Rodrigues. Both they most commonly as Fabiano and César.

Another problem is disambiguation. Matthew_hk t c 16:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not confuse the transliteration issue (it is my understanding that "محمد" can be transliterated to English as Mohammed, Mohamed, Muhammad, Mohammad, etc). The question is whether the Omani footballer is known more commonly as Mohammed Rabia (or some other transliteration), Mohammed Rabia al-Noobi or simply Mohammed al-Noobi. It's definitely not the middle option, and I think the more common one is the first option (although even good sources like RSSSF use a mix). Jogurney (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just like Amad Al Hosni, FIFA.com use Amad Ali while Charleroi use Amad Al Hosni, better combine both for better search result. Matthew_hk t c 18:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Contracts

Which page is the most appropriate page to expand on pre-contractual agreements?

Provided a reliable source explicitly states that the deal is signed sealed and delivered, I'd say the player's own article. WFCforLife (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

add a section in Transfer (football), but it is a legal concept. BTW it is commonly called pre-contract but it is a kind of contract. No original research but here is my explanation.

The player signed a "pre-contract" instead of a formal employment contract with other club because he is still legally bind with his old club and no one can bind with two or more clubs except loan and co-ownership in Italy. FIFA allowed player can free to search his club 6 months before his contract expire. In normal time all transfer must via Club to Club and no Club to agent without permitted by Club.

Pre-contract is, the player searched his new club but not released 6 months earlier. Due to the player not released and not yet passed medical (FIFA stayed contract must signed after the medical or at your own risk), he signed a contract but instead of a formal employment contract, the contract may just contain when he will went to the club to have a medical or when breach of contract, the player need to pay how much.

But it is hard to know he signed a "pre-contract" or his old club allowed him to have a medical and signed a formal employment contract and effective 6 months later. Just followed the content of the article you cited. Likes David Beckham is a formal contract announced in December and the news said effective in 1 January, in although he is loaned to AC Milan, not the case of free agent. Matthew_hk t c 20:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack Barnes (association footballer)

Does anyone know where I can find this guy's full football league record? This has got a good chance of getting onto the main page, and I think the extra stats in the infobox would enhance it further. Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Struway! WFCforLife (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent Call-ups and subsequent transfers

When a player changes clubs while he is listed as a recent (usu within the last 6 months) call up on his national team page, should that transfer be updated in this section. This seems to cut to the question of the purpose of the Recent call ups section: is it a record of what the squad historically was some months ago, or is it a way of including a wider pool of players to describe those that are in the mind of the manager without resorting to OR and speculation?

For example, the U S nft article says that Everton's Landon Donovan last represented his country in October 2009. It is perfectly true that Landon Donovan is at Everton, and that he is, by all but the very precise definition out nft articles use, a current US international. But it is also true to say that no outfield player from Everton was called up to the US team in October, and that if a team is to take pride in that selection, it is LA Galaxy.

Leaving aside the fact that Donovan is only on loan at Goodison (I guess I could have found another example where there has been a full transfer if I'd looked), which impression do we wish to give? Kevin McE (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The club you're at at the time is the club that should be listed. His last cap was with the Galaxy, so he should be listed as a Galaxy player. If he gets called up to the USA while he's at Everton, he can then be called an Everton player in that article. Of course, there will most likely be IP-edit warring in that sort of situation. Might be worth asking for semi-protection if it persists. WFCforLife (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The club a player is at when he is called up is utter trivia, good for nothing more than comparative power-checking. At some point we're going to have to nix all of these "recent callups" sections as recentist cruft. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a list of players who are currently internationals constitutes cruft or recentism. More problematic are "notable players" sections (unless they have very tight criteria, such as an actual award). WFCforLife (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent call-up lists seem to have come about as a combative to edit warring on current international squads due to the fact that players may not be called up for a particular friendly due to injury or other factors. A number of Argentines missing a friendly in Argentina because Maradona wants to look at some locals and doesn't need his "definites" would mean that technically Messi is not in the current squad, ditto Rooney missing a game because he has a minor hamstring strain - few would argue that these players are still integral national team players, but as many such lists start "the following payers were called up for the xxx game they get removed from the current squad list. Putting them in a "recent call-up" list provides a method for the reader to access information for such players. Such lists should probably not go back more than 12 months, and there would be an argument to cut them off at major tournaments.--ClubOranje^T 10:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Bangkok Christian College F.C. There are Inconsistency in the article: 1th is not the truth. It may be 1st or 4th, 5th ... It is possible that the number is wrong or the “th” is wrong. I do not know what of that is wrong or true. Please check it. --Diwas (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Same problem on: Atlético Chiriquí --Diwas (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If a team finishes in first position then its 1st, second place is 2nd, third place is 3rd, etc. The last two letters in the word is the key. WP:BB and change them. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Diwas is saying that he doesn't know whether it's the number that's wrong (i.e. whether it should be some number other than 1) or if it's the ordinal suffix. From his message, I don't think that your comment told him anything he doesn't already know :-P – Pee Jay 13:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

PeeJay you understand me ;)--Diwas (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just making sure 'guv. ;) Considering I've just done an all-nighter, coming up for 30 hours without sleep, I should've kept my mouth shut instead of being a grammar pedant (I hate bad spelling). Sorry fellas. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanx --Diwas (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Kilgallon - protection needed - edit war/ vandalism

Matthew Kilgallon - can someone put a temporary restriction on IP edit for this article. A lot of childish/ vandalism edits after today's transfer to Sunderland Steve-Ho (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Kandahar Aryan

Hello, please check this article: Kandahar Aryan Is this a real team in Kabul playing in the Afghanistan's 1-th Football League and in London? (See also Talk:Afghanistan's Premier Football League#Kandahar Aryan) --Diwas (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I can find on t'internet to even confirm that the team exists -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a hoax template.--Diwas (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Very odd article, the club in London exists, it competes at a very low level. Most of it's players from Iranian desent. I don't believe the club moved to Afghanistan. The squad on the page belongs to another club. That club might exist, someone who can read Farsi could find something maybe. Cattivi (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The football article in Afghanistan is all rubbish stub. I found the Afghanistan's Premier Football League is actually Kabul premier League, and there is another national league. [5] Matthew_hk t c 19:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This link to a press agency piece confirms an Afghan club of that name existed in September 2005, and I've added it to the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Bicycle Goals in the A-League

This "list" may be of some interest to editors here. Personally, I think it should be deleted, but will leave any decision to nominate to the judgement of editors here.

I agree entirely. It is unsourced, incomplete, and in my opinion it is completely unecessary trivia. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of it. Camw (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The article was prodded for deletion, but this was declined with the rationale "not much here to be sure, but sufficient context is established" so it will have to go to AfD. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bicycle Goals in the A-League. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Any admins about?

Wonder if you might have a look at these contributions. Pretty well every mainspace edit has been to insert misinformation into sport (mostly football) articles, e.g incorrect stats, non-existent transfers, invented squad numbers, and they've had 5 warnings. I reported them to AIV, but the admin thought it was an edit dispute with no clear vandalism. Since then they've created 2010-11 Football League 1, complete with league table after 24 games, and they're currently moving Kris Boyd to Birmingham... thanks, Struway2 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Dealt with, page deleted, user blocked for a week. Woody (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ta :-) Struway2 (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nicolás Lodeiro

The article of Nicolás Lodeiro is a real mess. This article should really be cleaned up. I'll try to clean it up, perhaps this project can help? 77.250.200.70 (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Update on unreferenced footballer BLPs

Interested editors may want to read this RfC as it appears that there is growing concensus to summarily delete unsourced BLPs. I think our project has done a good job of reducing the backlog of these, but there are probably almost 5,000 remaining. I don't think we'd miss many of these but there are hundreds of them covering people who played in FIFA World Cups or even the Olympics. Maybe we should make a focused effort to at least try to source anybody who played in a high level tournament (I recently noticed that Thomas Dooley - two-time World Cup finals player wasn't sourced)? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should try to source any players that have played in a high level tournament as soon as we can. If any of importance do get deleted and someone indicates they are willing to source it then I'm willing to restore pages on request. Camw (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I already grabed some countries and sourced the entire non-sourced lists. I only left like ten in each, that can be perfectly deleted. I´ll try to run throu some other lists to see which can/deserve to be "saved". Please, tell us here if there is some time limit, or when the mass deletion is expected to happend. Thanx. FkpCascais (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear. Initially, I thought they were going to being immediately, but I have a feeling we will get a few weeks or months before it starts. I'll see if I can add a new list to the Wikipedia:FOOTY/unreferenced BLP page with players from World Cup and Olympics. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is my clumsy attempt at a list of unreferenced World Cup players. Jogurney (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's ideal, I'm working through some of them now. Having FIFA as a resource is good enough surely. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've done the first 30 names and removed them from the list, took a bit longer than I thought. I'll do some more when I get back tonight. Quite surprised about a few of them, especially the English ones. Hope that helps, cheers. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done, and keep up the good work! but if it's a longer article that's still largely unsourced, please remember to replace the unreferenced tag with a {{BLP sources}} rather than removing it entirely. That way people interested in fully referencing such articles can still find them. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Good job all. I've removed a couple of dozen and also added some to a section at the bottom where the player doesn't seem to have a FIFA profile (usually due to being part of a squad and not playing an official world cup finals match) so that people don't duplicate work in looking to reference from there. I've made a good faith effort to search on last name, nicknames and sometimes other parts of the name as they are sometimes found under alternate spelling or the nickname (especially in Brazillian players cases). As they probably didn't play in a World Cup finals match, I'm leaving them to come back to last while the rest of the list is processed, but if anyone else wants to have a go, feel free to go for it. Camw (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW there is a template for FIFA player statistics which I always use in external links section for WC and such players, format as such for eg Rooney *{{FIFA player|196842|Wayne Rooney}} produces

Wayne Rooney – FIFA competition record (archived)

(the name is not 100% necessary for non DAB players, as if omitted it uses page name, but as a page may DABed later it is best to include the name)--ClubOranje^T 02:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been using it for the last few batches of players referenced. Camw (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If I have some free time, I'll see what I can do about seeing if I can find news sources for any Latin American players, which I have noticed sometimes have a tendency to be unreferenced. matt91486 (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll help. Sure. That is the list I needed. Gianluca Vialli unsourced ? No way and not serious!--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Great work all. Looking at related changes from the full list of unreferenced footballers a lot of articles has been referenced. I updated the full list and it is now at 4539 articles. We are making good progress. On a related note i found that Nameless User (talk · contribs) created about 140 (!) new unreferenced articles about Japanese footballers. They are all short stubs and it looks to me that they all have national caps so it shouldn't be difficult to references, but it is a lot of work. I have left a note to the user, but feel free to do the same so that this won't happen again. Rettetast (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've referenced (most with only national-football-teams) some of the newest ones from Nameless User. The only other good source I have (Guardian's Stats Centre) doesn't go back further than 2002, so the older players are really tough to source with anything else. Jogurney (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

We should also keep in mind that there are tons of footballers that aren't tagged with the WikiProject tags yet that might not show up in the list of unreferenced articles. The last couple I've done fall into that category, ie, Dražen Besek. matt91486 (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That should not be a big problem since the lists is generated based on Category:Football (soccer) players by nationality and its subcats. Dražen Besek was fixed before the list was updated and therefore I recommend using the links to CatScan. Rettetast (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, if it's category based, we should largely be OK then. I thought it was perhaps only including those articles tagged for this WikiProject. matt91486 (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Amir Hashemi-Moghaddam

Is there any point to this article? I stumbled accross it by complete luck when I did a scan for unreferenced BLP's of Plymouth Argyle players and that guy turned up. I'd never heard of him and a search turned up nothing notable either. I can't believe that article has been up for over two years in that state, but I guess some articles slip through the net. WP:AFD? Argyle 4 Life (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He did play at least one game for the Iran national team (listed here) so it's worth keeping around if it can be sourced. Camw (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, he has a page on national football teams, assuming they're reliable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. It would've been decent of the people who have edited it in the past to have given references to back up what they're writing, but c'est la vie. He definitely didn't play for Plymouth Argyle though, so I removed that. Maybe he took part in a trial match once with other players which nobody hears about but he certainly didn't play for them competitively. My face was a picture of bemusement when I saw it said he had. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

According to an interview I found he was on trial with Plymouth Argyle when Kemp was their manager. He played 1 match for Torquay in the Leyland DAF Cup (January 1991). 3 league matches for Vasas 0 goals second half of the 90-91 season (European Football Yearbook). His first club as head coach was Woezik in 2004. The information in the infobox is wrong. Before 2004 he was youth-coach and player. Cattivi (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

World of Soccer Cup

Sorry to "invade" the projects talk page with questions, but, here is another issue I need opinions. The problem here with this Cup is that its organisation was somehow very peculiar. It consisted of two competitions and two trophies were aworded here, so who can claim the Cup itself in the clubs articles honours section. Or, refrasing my question, what should say in the articles of the winners of each competition: Celtic F.C. and Red Star Belgrade? P.S.:Both clubs had in their honours sections this Cup as Cup won by them. It was only recently that one editor noteced it, since, it really is impossible to have two clubs winning the same Cup in its only edition. But, the Cup article says:

"The tournament was the idea of English entrepreneur Reg Lambourne and consisted of two competitions. The first was a straight knock-out tournament in Singapore, and the second was a mini-league in which the top two teams would play in the final. The first trophy was won by Red Star Belgrade and the second by Celtic, and was the last ever trophy Jock Stein would ever lift for Celtic."

Resuming, what should say in the honours section of each club about this Cup? FkpCascais (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a pre-season friendly, just like the Emirates Cup. We don't ordinarily mention those at all in club articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...but, since they do, in both clubs articles, what should they say in each article? Or just delete it?(It wasn´t me who included it, so I may find some resistence if just remove them) FkpCascais (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete it from the articles. Celtic must have been in dozens of these things by now, so unless there's a specific reason to note one then it's just trivia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion

Some of you will doubtless have heard about the furore on BLPs in the last few days. As things stand, every single one of these articles is going to be deleted in the near future, unless we reference them. Any suggestions on how we go about tackling it? WFCforLife (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

One way to get started might be to identify the ones that fall under a certain task force. Those ones seem more likely to get immediate attention. Is there a bot or something that can generate the task force lists? --SkotyWA^T|_C 04:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there is, but don't know what it is. The national categories here serve a similar purpose. I shouldn't think there are many in any of the club taskforces; they're generally well maintained. WFCforLife (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a good idea that I will look into. Articles often fall through the cracks. For instance there are currently four unreferenced BLPs in Category:Watford F.C. players. Are there any task force that would like this? (I looked at the Seattle Sounders FC task force but could not find any Unrefereced BLPs) Rettetast (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What's more embarrassing is that I've visited two of those articles very recently. Just goes to show how oblivious overtagging has made us to real problems... WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 01:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone should also keep an eye at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article alerts and the prod section. Currently Jon Clifford and Rui Jorge Faria Azevedo is prodded onlly because they are unsourced. Rettetast (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I had been going through the English ones, slowly, adding full references, infobox, etc, but if it's becoming urgent, it shouldn't take me long to go through the remaining ones just adding a reference confirming name and reason for notability. As I understand the discussion last time I read it, that should be enough to head off summary deletion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I should like to point out that the rfc is still open. While the initial views expressed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people leant heavilly in one direction, the pattern of support and opposition in those who have expressed views more recently isn't the same. I therefore urge people to go and make their own opinions known on that page by expressing support or opposition for the various statements.

This isn't to say that referencing articles isn't a desirable thing in its own right or that people shouldn't continue taking precautionary measures, but I do think people should make their views known rather than treating the situation as a fait accompli.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been very vocal against a particular course of action, but nonetheless sourcing BLPs is important. Assuming that unsourced ones being deleted is a good way to go, even if we are firmly opposed to it and manage to prevent it. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 01:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we are in disagreement. I'm presently compiling User:Peter cohen/sandbox4 this which is a table of voting patterns in the rfc. As you will see the spread of views in initial and more recent voters are rather different which is why I don't think that the outcome of an rfc that ought by rights be open for a month should be assumed and why I am urging as many people as possible to express their opinions.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And what about the idea of giving us one or two months to add references before a mass deletion? First, we would have some time, and the project would benefit from this. --Latouffedisco (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that's one of the currently-floated proposals, by Der Leader no less. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Peter cohen/BLP RFC stats shows the 8 motions that have garnered most votes for or against. So if people find it too complicated or too time-consuming to go through everything, then those are the 8 places where most of the action is. In several of those there is a significant difference between early voting patterns and more recent ones, I think the final balance on these is up in the air.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Aamir Bouazza

Would an admin mind moving the above back to Hameur Bouazza please? = Dudesleeper talk 01:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I took it to ANI, and the admin declined to do anything, stating that because it's French we shouldn't use it. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 04:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that although he plays for Algeria, he's a French citizen, and Hameur Bouazza is probably his name in latin characters.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No matter his citizenship, birthplace or language: the name we use on en.wiki is whatever English-language sources use most often for him - that is exactly what WP:V, WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME are all about. I have never seen this player's name in an English-language publication written as anything other than Hameur. Trying to call the name every English writer uses in every English publication "not English" is just linguistic prescriptivism, and inventing transcriptions English speakers don't use and calling them English is equally bad: this is what WP:UE aims to protect against. Knepflerle (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We agree. Hameur is also used in France and was then taken by English sources.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Denis Compton

I noticed that the football section of his article is ridiculously weak and thought you guys should know about it. --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup Seedings

This page is need of serious work. It appears as if France should have been seeded based upon the way that the table is constructed right now. Anyone who knows the exact seeding method should update this. Thanks. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction: it is a duplicate of 2010 FIFA World Cup seeding. Could an admin or someone familiar with the seeding properly merge them together? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not a duplicate. It is pure OR, comprising a set of seedings rankings points that might be that used for previous WCs and applying them (I'm unsure whether it is applying them accurately) to the forthcoming event, which used no such compplicated calculation. Delete the lot and make it a redirect to the accurate (singular) version. Kevin McE (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Đ or Ð

Hi. You see the two letters I just wrote in the title? Do you see any difference between them? I don´t, and it´s complicating me the editing, since I don´t know wich letter to use, and it influencies the wiki links. If I´m not lucky, and choose the wrong Đ, it want link the page. It only happends with Đ and Ð, since the minor, đ, has only one option, without having this trouble. This is not just a footy matter. Help! FkpCascais (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I know what your problem is, but I don't know how to fix it. One of the Ð's is the capital form of đ from the balkan languages, the other is the capital of ð, an Islandic character. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The first one is the D with stroke Đ as found in Serbian Latin, Croatian, Bosnian, Macedonian and Vietnamese, the second is eth Ð - a letter in Icelandic and Faroese. The first has small form đ, and the second one has small form ð.

I agree - it's very difficult to tell them apart in the edit box. If you can enter Unicode characters with your keypad, you can enter the Icelandic one with ALT+0208, and the Serbian Latin one with ALT+0272.

It would be a good if editors could create redirects to any title using either of these character from the other, and from using a plain D as well so that the links still work if you pick the wrong one - a bot should be able to automate this pretty easily. Knepflerle (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that´s right. The one I was needing was the one for Serbian footballer Đorđe Mrđanin, and I wasn´t geting the link because I wrote Ðorđe Mrđanin. I needed to use the first one in the order down in the list of characters, but it is very hard to distinguish them. Many thanx for the help. Can´t we unite both Đ and Ð, linking both to same letter, since they are pretty much the same letter in aspect? FkpCascais (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't create redirects from titles which use Icelandic character sets to those using Serbain ones: creating a redirect from ASCII is fine because of the technical considerations, but doing so from a far-less-used character set is not as they're completely different characters. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense at all, Chris. We want to people to be able to find and link to articles. If there's a high chance they can't for any reason, redirects are a simple way of solving the problem. Take a look at WP:R#KEEP, point 2. Of course we know the two letters are from a different character set, but it's a very plausible misspelling for those that don't. Knepflerle (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider it a plausible misspelling on en-WP. I do not consider it likely that Icelandic editors will believe the characters to be equivalent, nor vice versa. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

While Islandic and Serbian editors may not believe that the characters are equivalent, this is the English wikipedia. To English speakers, myself included, these two characters look identical, and not creating redirects seems absurd. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, wait a sec. I´m Serbian, and I can´t distinguish the Đ (Serb) from Ð (Icel.)! The minors, đ and ð are not a problem. The Đ&Ð look the same, and as many different sounds or uses that may have in different languages, as many other letters, thay could be merged. Exemple: Portuguese use of Ç is different from Turkish use of Ç, but they are the same letter. This looks the same case. P.S.:I wasn´t sure about the redirects, so I didn´t made any, no problem about that. FkpCascais (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

" I don't consider it a plausible misspelling on en-WP" - anyone, even someone knowing one of the relevant languages, using the edit box to enter the characters (i.e. anyone not using an Icelandic or Serbian Latin keyboard) could very plausibly pick the wrong one - they are unusually similar. This is exactly what FkpCascais did (surely that fact alone should make it plausible?), and I see no reason other editors might not do the same in the future. Knepflerle (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly Knepferle. I´m using a Portuguese keyboard, so for those letters I must go to the editbox, which by the way had the letters order changed recently. This way, I´m affraid we´ll have many new pages wrongly spelled, and a mess with the links. FkpCascais (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If the wrong letter is picked, it is better if it always shows up as a red link, signifying that something is wrong; rather than showing up as a blue link which redirects and makes it less obvious that the name is spelled wrongly. For this reason, redirects should not exist from misspellings like this.
As for the other reason for redirects, people typing these characters into the searchbar most likely know which character they are typing and what they are searching for, and will not need redirects for this reason.
If the re-ordering of the characters below the edit box has caused this confusion, then it should be reverted; this is not the only good reason to do so. MTC (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"If the wrong letter is picked, it is better if it always shows up as a red link": if you believe that, go and get WP:R#KEEP changed, because it says to do the exact opposite.

"people typing these characters into the searchbar most likely know which character they are typing" - many people only have access to the characters through this box. The problem is when linking internally, and even speakers of the language will have a hard time telling them apart.

"If the re-ordering of the characters below the edit box has caused this confusion, then it should be reverted" - this is also not a bad idea, but I have no idea where to ask for this to happen. Knepflerle (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Edittools#Rational and friendly ordering for the Latin characters. I only discovered that discussion after the change was made, and felt that my opposition alone would not make a difference, but perhaps this discussion here will provide a useful counter-argument for the change. MTC (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there are potentially millions of Unicode-variant redirects which look plausible (because the characters are similar in Web fonts) but which are extremely unlikely to exist in the wild. I think this would set a rather unwarranted precedent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"potentially millions of Unicode-variant redirects" - come on, there's exaggerations and then there's that, Chris. Even if you are worried about "precedent" (and I'm not convinced a bot covering these would necessarily be a bad thing), these two are really, really, unusually similar - at a quick look I can't see any other pairs with this potential for confusion. Blame Unicode for that though - seeing as it's now been inflicted on us, how best can we fix things? Surely redirects is better than going through checking for duplicate articles every time someone clicks on a spurious red link and rewrites an article we already have, and fixing links that otherwise would work? Knepflerle (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not kidding about the number of possible permutations: It's the secret behind one well-known phishing exploit, which might not seem directly relevant until one realises that if we bluelink something then readers can consider it to be a correct title and thus select the text in question and Google for it. As for how to check, checking existing cases may be difficult right now but it'll be made a hundred times harder if we suggest that it's okay for people for people to go creating redirects for even a subset of the available homographs. I'd rather have more concrete evidence that there is a problem which needs fixing here before suggesting that people open this particular can of worms. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been solved here: MediaWiki talk:Edittools FkpCascais (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Jared Jeffrey

Can someone please list this article for AfD. It's already been PRODed and contested. Normaly, I would do this myself but it was deleted a year and a half ago, and I'm unsure how to nominate it for deletion a second time. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to speedy it under G4 - it seems like a clear case of it. Jogurney (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I just removed the speedy because after further review, I think it will pass WP:GNG. Check the article's talk page for details. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 UEFA Champions League Final GAN

FAO anyone who has experience with reviewing Good Article candidates: I have just nominated 2009 UEFA Champions League Final for Good Article status because I don't think it's quite ready to be a Featured Article, but I'm sick of it remaining as a B-Class article when it's clearly much better than that. If anyone gets a chance, a review of the article would be much appreciated. – Pee Jay 01:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, both Turf Moor and Burnley F.C. season 1920–21 are also Good Article nominations associated with football. -- Big Dom 20:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

transfermarkt.de

I found people is using transfermarkt.de as "reliable" source. Could WikiNews without external source a "reliable" source? In know somewhat is useful when finding information at fans based/user based web like transfermarkt.de and wikipedia, but citation a 3rd-hand source is that good?

User:Zombie always make false football transfer (although he edit a lot with correct one), could someone monitor people always think the transfer rumor is real and edited the page? transfermarkt.de always claimed a unreliable transfer fee, contract length or even claimed the transfer is official. Most interestingly claimed Matteo Guardalben played at Serbia but in fact he is injured and stayed at Italy.

Simmilar case is zerozero football and sambafoot, the site seldom wrong but sometimes went wrong on less famous professional player, especially their career at lower divisions. Felipe Melo card in Sambafoot is wrong, claimed he played at South Asia country Malaysia.

Should open edited directory type be a reliable source and have a high priority as external link? How about playerhistory.com footballdatabase about player's 2nd nationality? Matthew_hk t c 16:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles on transfermarkt.de are mostly written by the Deutsche Presse-Agentur, which is a reliable media source. Other content (player profiles, transfer lists, etc.) is user edited. As I see it, the articles from this page are fine, but other content should be used only as supplement to more reliabel sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the player profiles on transfermarkt.de, zerozero.pt and sambafoot.com are not 100% reliable. I understand that all of these are user-edited and I've found occasional mistakes. They are often correct, but not 100% of the time. There are almost always alternative sources which can be used for career history and appearance/goal data over these. Jogurney (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

About Zombie, I already spoke with him about some mistakes he did in past. He just adores editing... but I disagree with his editing "style". He grabs one source, and massively edit everything from it, without even checking in other ones. I think that other editors already spoke with him (not sure he get the message). About Transfermarkt., I allways use the English version Transfermarkt.co.uk and I use it not as "primary source", but as recent season stats, that for many leagues I´m editing, it has been reliable for this. Transfermarkt can be a usefull "complementary" source. Zerozero, or it´s equivalent English version Zerozerofootball is a good source for Portuguese League and foreign past and current players in Portugal. Sambafoot is for Brazilians abroad. Playerhistory is quite reliable, and Footballdatabase is many times the only source for less known players. All this sites mentioned here have many errors on many players. Does anybody know any football site without any error? The Matteo Guardalben was issued here by me already some time age, and I gave all the sites that had him as FK Zemun player, not only Transfermarkt, far from that, there were some 5 or 6 websites with that info. I strongly advice all editors to make the players biographies including the information from as many sources as possible. My way of working biographies is:

I open the players page in all my usual sites:(Football Federations and National-football-teams for international players, playerhistory, transfermarkt, worldfootball, EUFO and Footballdatabase) and see all info there.
Olso open national league websites where the player played:(Voetbal International for Netherlands and Belgium, Romaniansoccer for Romania, Zerozerofootball for Portugal, Sambafoot if he is Brazilian, Srbijafudbal for Serbia...)
Make a google search to see more eventual info on the player.
Make a crossing of all info, see where are the differencies, and what can be false.
Make a complete as possible career, using all sources.
Use in the page only the sites with exclusive info + some general one.

Many times, some players are hard to find, so as a evidence of his existence, is not bad to mention even Transmarkt, if its the only site with players info (it already happend to me).So, better transfermarkt than nothing. FkpCascais (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. These sites that are user-edited are often good. However, when there is a better source (e.g., it is always better to use tff.org for Turkish football statistics because it is published by the local football federation than it would be to use transfermarkt.de) I use it, but sometimes the user-edited sites are useful and can be independently verified by other sites (like RSSSF, FIFA or UEFA). Jogurney (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I should also explain that reliable sources like AP, AFP, Reuters, etc often publish articles with errors. Typically, they correct them, but they are not correct 100% of the time. Jogurney (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, AP, AFP, Reuters may have mistake. But I just hate someone replaced the club announcement with transfermarkt.de. For Italian, i'm tring to fix the collapse of channel4 and trying to find a source in La Gazzetta dello Sport, in although non-one know the black hand behind the transfer in Italy. Matthew_hk t c 18:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And i hate someone use the club succession in transfermarkt.de as bible and cite it for transfer fees and year he left. Matthew_hk t c 18:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources free of error don't exist, we're only human. You can only try to reduce the number of errors you make by using as many sources as possible. Books can be good sources as well, only a tiny fraction of the total amount of information is available online, certainly when it's not very recent information. Cattivi (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a matter of human mistake. It is the editor copy and paste transfermarkt.de, footballdatabase and zerozero but did not wish to find a reliable source to inline citation. (transfer news etc.) Or find a transfer news or rumor from a community site/ fans site and did not verify the truthfulness of the source. Matthew_hk t c 10:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The squad list of transfermarkt.de of often wrong, their news may be backup by reliable source, but the squad list may not. Just copying the database cannot qualified to the criteria of verified with a reliable source. Just likes zerozero listed José Espinal in Albania but i find a soucre to prove him at Nuova Albano. Matthew_hk t c 10:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

European Champions Cup/UEFA Champions League Winning Squads

Hello everybody, if you need all the informations about UEFA Champions League winning players and coaches from 1955/56 to 2008/09, please you consult this excellent RSSSF page [[6]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.211.134.109 (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

John Terry / Vanessa Perroncel

The prod I added to Vanessa Perroncel has been removed. This article should be watched for BLP violations. JACO PLANE • 2010-01-30 12:10

Her IMDB entry shows her claim to fame to be as a 'Candalabra holder' in the Phantom of the Opera in 2004!! Streches notability a bit based on her film career?--Egghead06 (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Old Trafford TFA

Hi guys. Just so you know, I've nominated Old Trafford to be today's featured article for 19 February (the 100th anniversary of the first match played at the ground). To support or oppose this nomination, please visit WP:TFAR#February 19. – Pee Jay 19:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Lebanese footballers

Is Lebanese League qualified for a notable/fully-pro league? Lebanese clubs have two seats at AFC Cup and those player played at AFC Cup seems notable. But how about Hussein Naeem, Donald Miniter? I can't find a source to expand it nor cite it for notability. Matthew_hk t c 04:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they're notable. But if they are, perhaps ask WP:LEB for help with sourcing? WFCforLife (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo again

If I reread the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 37#Kosovo, the consensus appears to be that football players can't be listed with the Kosovar flag as long as Kosovo is not a FIFA or UEFA member. What about football managers? The reason I'm asking this is PFC Lokomotiv Plovdiv, whose manager is Naci Şensoy. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus on Kosovo, which meant that we maintained the status quo. "The status quo" meaning that articles stayed (or should have stayed) the way they were before any disputes started. In answer to your question about managers, they shouldn't have a flag in the infobox regardless of nationality. Check out Arsenal F.C. or Seattle Sounders FC for examples. It was discussed here and at the Sounders' FAC a few months back. WFCforLife (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, if the previous discussion ended in anything, it was a stalemate. Regarding your answer: if we shouldn't use flags in infoboxes, that still leaves us with Former managers sections, such as KF Prishtina#Famous coaches. I'm not fond of Matthew's proposal to use the UN flag. These players and managers are definitely not citizens of the United Nations, and they couldn't possibly represent the United Nations national football team. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Without wishing to go over old ground, Prishtina are a great example of why we can't have a black-and-white rule on the matter. As a starting point, I don't see why managers there would follow a different rule to players. I've removed the footnote in the players section; it simply doesn't make sense here. WFCforLife (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Use the UN flag. seems some of the Kosovar either have Albanian nationality or German or Swiss, but few of them registered as Serbian passport holder. Similar case likes Northern Cyprus, the Turks have Turkey nationality too. Matthew_hk t c 04:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Naci Şensoy holds Turkish, Kujtim Shala holds Croatian. so tag them with Turkish and Croatian flag. People with only one nationality -Kosovo (or Kosovo, Serbia) tag with UN flag. Just like Taiwanese flag with Matthew_hk t c 04:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reading... WFCforLife (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:FLAGBIO. I have absolutely no idea where Matthew_hk got his "UN flag" suggestion, but it's not supported by any consensus anywhere on the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

FDGB-Pokal 1952/53

I'm currently in the process of adding a few more seasons of East Germany's FDGB-Pokal and as I was doing the 1953-54 season, I realized that it was a continuation of the 1952-53 season. The competition in 1953 was abandoned in June due to the Uprising of 1953 in East Germany. Question is: Should I include those matches played in 1952-53 on the 1953-54 page or put them separately on a 1952-53 page that then only includes two qualifying rounds and the first round proper? What do you think? To clarify: The 1953-54 competition started with those teams that had won their matches in the 1952-53 season First round proper. Madcynic (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tough question. I checked a few books on the issue and noticed that those treat it equally different as well. Hardy Grüne's "Vom Kronprinzen bis zur Bundesliga" lists the First round proper results and the Second round proper draw for the 1952-53 season; the 1953-54 season includes a note that the competition has been carried over from the previous season, along with the results from the 1952-53 First round, the redrawn Second round and all remaining results. "Die Geschichte der DDR-Oberliga" by Andreas Baingo and Michael Horn only lists fhe competition finals, but nevertheless has a note that the "Second round proper of the 1953 competition was not played". So there is no real help from that either.

To be honest, my heart says "do two separate articles" while my head says "put it in the 1953-54 article only", so more opinions would really be helpful. Have you tried Wikipedia talk:WikiProject German football yet?

How about creating one article, 1952–54 FDGB-Pokal? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think one article would be confusing as it's not strictly one competition in terms of having been planned thus (unlike the 1961-62 DDR-Oberliga season which lasted 18 months). Also having two different draws for round 2 would be odd. I tend towards the two separate articles solution but have asked over at the German footie group for more input. Madcynic (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK watch

Can a few people add this to their watchlists for the next day or so? It's on the main page at some point today, so could be a target for vandalism. Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How exactly did a page 48 hours old end up on the main page? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you know articles have to either be under 5 days old when nominated or expanded by 5x. It's meant as an incentive to create substantial new articles. Camw (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Al-Nejmeh SC

I've been looking at the article Al-Nejmeh SC, and the more I read it, the more nonsense I find. For instance, the lead of the article has claimed that Pelé and Bebeto have played for the club. There's also an awful lot of pov in the article. Could someone with a better knowledge of Lebanese football have a closer look at the article, to find more nonsense? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

May be yet another hoax of User:Smkaram/TadamonSour19.

P.S see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smkaram to comment and suggest action on admin notice board. Matthew_hk t c 21:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Player XY has been linked with club Z

Is it consensus to add "Player XY has been linked with club Z"? Even if it has a reference I think we should not add rumors to players' articles like this. I have removed them so far if you think otherwise, I will leave this in. --Jaellee (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is confirmation from club Z that they are interested in player XY, it might be worth leaving in. In all other cases, its speculation and should obviously be removed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sir Sputnik. Jaellee, as for the case you mentioned, I have removed the part again simply because the source itself reads "Talk about the rumour by clicking here" at the end of the "article" and thus disqualifies itself as a reliable source. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Any language about how a player is "linked" or a club is "interested" without further qualifying the level and nature of "link" or "interest" should be avoided, because "linked" is so vaguely defined, it's meaningless. Usually, stories about "links" are intentionally vague for the sake of plausible deniability. I think any talk of future transfers should be avoided unless a club confirms official approach by announcing terms of contract with a player or a fee with the current club. --Mosmof (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

With very few exceptions (Cristiano Ronaldo's protracted courtship by Real Madrid for instance) this is trivia, and in most cases (daily tabloid rumours pages during the transfer window) it's rank recentism and fortune telling. The Braafheid article is a prime example of this: half the players in Europe are "linked" to Celtic in a given transfer window. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If the manager or club has publicly talked about wanting the player, it's noteworthy (although I remove such claims indiscriminately unless cited). WFCforLife (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Chris, but not with other's sentiments that "if confirmation from club Z that they are interested in player XY it might be worth leaving in". It's been discussed many times before. Most of the speculation and rumour regarding transfers is fabricated copy by desperate journos trying to sell copy. Yes, Harry Redknapp "likes Rooney, he's a 'triffic player" - doesn't make it notable and doesn't mean he is trying to sign him and doesn't mean his article should suddenly reveal he is "linked" with Spurs. All players are "scouted" "being watched" by multiple clubs - that's what they do...look for new players. Until they sign a contract it is all non-notable madeup speculative rumour and bullshit. The sad thing is that the gullibles continue to fall for it every day. Masal Bugduv taught them nothing. Delete such tripe with a vengeance and stick to the verifiable notable facts. -ClubOranje^T 07:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

ps, and the half not "linked" to Celtic are "linked" to Galatasaray!

Thanks, as the transfer window is closed now (and the player in question was loaned to Celtic) the disput is ended (at the moment). But I will keep a link to this discussion and point it out to editors who insist on adding rumors. --Jaellee (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There may be an aftermath to the discussion I had with the editor who insisted on adding the speculation. He wrote on my talk page: I'm sorry. I didn't understand that the football group weren't adhering to WP:SPECULATION and had their own subset of rules. I'll be sure to let the admins at WP:SPECULATION know that you differ from them and let the two groups address the issue. Thanks for pointing that out. Until this blatant disregard of another group has been resolved, don't involve my personal talk page in the discussion. Thanks you. I don't know if the guys at WP:SPECULATION see this topic the way he does, but I wanted to keep you informed. --Jaellee (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to reinvent the wheel. WP:SPECULATION has already dealt with this topic. The guidelines indicate that if a reliable source can be found, it's admissible, even if the player is simply in negotiations. I tend to agree that speculation is a waste of time and prefer to wait until something has actually transpired. What is written in WP:SPECULATION seems to contradict other policies, WP:CRYSTALBALL for instance, and that isn't good, but the policy is in place and the best course of action is to change the policy or create one yourself.

The case that User:Jaellee is referencing has been misconstrued. The quoted source points to three clubs in discussion with F.C. Baryern. The quote did not indicate that the he was going to all three clubs as User:Jaellee would have you believe was the nature of the quote. Also, I didn't insist on adding the quote, simply in not removing the quote. There is a difference. Wikipedia is permitted to be edited to reflect current events. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess the problems with the above edit are twofolds: even if the cited source didn't give me a 403 error, I don't think the celtictalk.org forum could ever be considered a reliable source. And like I said above, "linked" is a word that's thrown around so casually without any regard for veracity or substance that it's meaningless. I think "Club released a statement saying it had entered into negotiation into player X" is fine. "Player X has been linked with Club Y for a loan move" is horrible. Mosmof (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Edited to add: Also, I don't think the second link you added, the vitalfootball link, meets WP:V, since it's not actually reporting the story, but it's reporting another newspaper that reported the story and doesn't actually verify it. Without reading the original story, there wasn't a way to see who the paper talked to, and at what level of negotiations the two sides were in. Mosmof (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Notable former players

Is the list shown above excessive for a team page? I personally think it is and removed it when I created the main list of Argyle players who are most certainly notable. Yet soon after another user who seems to support Arsenal puts it back. I've looked at other clubs and they don't have a long list of random players on their main page. I think removing it would improve things considerably, atleast make it tider, but if I do then I know it'll be put back again. I left a comment on the talk page which has so far been ignored.

Thoughts? Argyle 4 Life (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with you about the list having to be concise. But, same thing is hapening with many (if not, almost all) club articles. When such a list is started many editors tend to add more and more players to the list, since there is no inclusion criterium. I even found some clubs having more than 200 players in such lists, with the particularity of founding player names included by the players themselfs (suspection, of course, but well based...).

The problem here is much bigger, but as a football lover, one of the first things I fancied most here, were exactly such lists. I also made, in one of my first edits here, an inclusion of Takayuki Suzuki in Red Star Belgrade Notable players list, wich, inmediatelly, gave me an idea of how complex this issue was. After a fellow editor deleted it, I really started thinking about the meaning of "Notable player". Notable to who? The exemple was perfect: Suzuki is a "notable" worldwide player with 55 international caps, being one of the most "exotic" Japanese players ever. But, he didn´t had almost any impact in Red Star, having played only 6 matches in two seasons. So, Suzuki is "notable", just not for that club in particular...

The question here is, how to manage this lists if we still didn´t made any criteriums about them? But fellow friends, please don´t delete them all (as happend with notable players lists in the individual European Leagues pages) because, despite they including sometimes too many players, or excluding some in other cases, they are just beautifull for having a better view about clubs past glories. FkpCascais (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I have always favoured the approach that a player must be notable for the club in question, although I know not everyone agrees. Obviously nobody would doubt that Taribo West is a notable player in football generally, but he played four times for Plymouth, so his contribution to the club's history was completely negligible. Literally hundreds of players have made a more significant impact in the club's history. He's only on there because lots of current fans have heard of him - if there was a former international star who'd made four forgettable appearances for Playmouth at the scrag end of his career in, say, 1926, would he be on the list? I doubt it..... As Plymouth apparently have a clearly defined "hall of fame" type selection (team of the century) I would have thought that listing that, plus a link to the daughter article, would be sufficient. The problem with "here is a list of some notable former players" type sections is that it just becomes a dumping ground for random players that one editor thinks are worth including, usually just based on "gut feel" and usually heavily biased to the last ten years or so..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion on this but I can't find it in the archives. I have slowly grown to hate the list in any article since then. It has not been possible to find consensus on what makes a player notable for the club and if such notability is based on his time at the club or what he has gone on to achieve. We would have to write up a something to help editors determine (which so far hasn't received support from what I have seen) or else it turns into an original research/opinions. WP:RECENTISM is also an outstanding point made by Christhedude. Cptnono (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the most recent discussion was in October 2009 here. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

All players are inherently notable as soon as they take the pitch. Which is why Featured Articles on teams either skip the issue altogether (like at Norwich City F.C.), or include a list of players who've played x matches. The latter can also be criticised at FAC, as it is always going to be subjective and more knowledgable critics will also point out that some footballers have had immensely notable careers with a team, yet not played many matches for them - cf Denis Law at Man City. Best avoided altogether IMHO. --Dweller (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - I can't really see what they add to a club article, and are inherently POV. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Even when a criterion is applied, it isn't always applied fully/correctly. At one time (way back before it was a FA), Gillingham F.C. had a list of notable former players which represented those who had also played for top-flight clubs. It included Steve Bruce but not Dick Edmed. Both are theoretically equally notable, but Bruce has the advantage that more than a tiny handful of fans in the 21st century have heard of him, a classic example of recentism affecting the reliability of such a list...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely a notable players section relies on an external source definiing notability, otherwise you're engaging in original research. These sections can only work as something other than a link to Category:Fooian City F.C. players if there has been something along the lines of a 'Hall Of Fame', or 'Greatest Ever XI' reported somewhere. Dancarney (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's it in a nutshell. Famous / notable player sections should have a clear inclusion criteria and ideally be referenced in that format (i.e. a "list of famous players") in a reliable source. Someone should really write a guideline on this, so that we can link to it from {{famous players}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I would welcome a guideline being produced which has clear inclusion criteria because right now its very POV and is often slanted towards recent history. Again a fine example of that is on the page I provided, It includes Emile Mpenza, famous for what? Being a journeyman European footballer who played for Plymouth 9 times. Yet Jack Leslie, famous for having made more than 400 appearances for the club and was about to play for the English national team before the selectors found out he was a "man of colour", isn't there. The latter player is unquestionably one of the club's best, but is currently overlooked on the "notable players list" because he was playing before the Second World War. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The perfect solution would be a link to "List of all Xian F.C. players" listing all players that have played official matches for the club with the number of caps(goals) and titles won in the club for each player, and leaving to the reader the criterium of who considering notable or not... But, I doubt we´ll have this done for most clubs by 2050... But, there is already an extensive list of players by club in the Category:Lists of footballers by club. I already did one of those lists in wich I included ALL players that have played official matches in the club, but I luckily had an external source (official club site) where the list was already half done. But I disagree with some other lists in the category wich do have some particular inclusion/exclusion criteriums...

I know many editors hate this lists, and they are polemic, making us loose lot of time trying to make criteriums for them, but, as I see, they are interesting for many Wikipedia visitors (confirming by the number of IP edits being done preciselly on them) meaning they do atract many visitors here. Their simple removal would make the articles definitelly more borring...

I´m definitelly in favour of trying to make criteriums, rather then just simply removing them, as the easiest solution. FkpCascais (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, criteria have to be defined by an external source, not Wikipedia editors. If this is not possible then a link to List of Xian F.C. players or Category:Xian F.C. players is what may be included in a "Notable Players" section. Dancarney (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would immodestly refer to the section in the Featured Article Norwich City F.C.#Notable players --Dweller (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Norwich seems to be the exception with its sources and general wikigoodness. What are people's thoughts on a mass purge of such sections for the most part? I assume that is too much effort. Any thoughts on writing up something that says "NO!"? If people use that to remove the sections then it is even better.Cptnono (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Any mass move to remove them is likely to result in the same sort of tantrums that always happen when the word "purge" is involved. I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it's probably worth having a formal RfC first. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There need to be clearly defined criteria. Most sections do not have one, and *could* be challenged as trivia. That said, I would oppose any RfC that even suggested that they should all be removed. The Norwich section may be an exception, but an exception is an example of how it should be. We shouldn't delete them all because too few others are like that. Instead we should use that as a shining example. WFCforLife (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove the ones with no clear criteria and sourcing, keep the ones with criteria and sourcing. Simple. Knepflerle (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple? Wy don´t we discuss first what an inclussion criterium should be? It should be the same for all, so we could get a formula worked here. You just want to delete someones work, as I see many club editors do keep those lists in order (maybe others don´t). I see you already started deleting... FkpCascais (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If a standard criteria is decided on, then these unsourced lists would not meet them - someone would have to go to the sources and find all the players matching the criteria and start the list anew. No-one is currently suggesting removing lists based on sourced and verifiable criteria - even if non-standard. Knepflerle (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But, how can I source them? By the clubs sites (giving the individual clubs the freedom of defining their own criterium), or, what you mean "sourced and verifiable criterium"? If I knew the answer to this questions, I could start working with the lists. FkpCascais (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"If a standard criteria is decided on" those listed may meet them, because the data only needs to be verifiable, not easily verifiable. If criteria is e.g. 100 caps, and the players' article are sourced with 100 caps, it is verifiable.--ClubOranje^T 09:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But the 100 criterium is general? Or, each club editor can decide the criterium that can be verifiable? Some club websites may have such info, but most may not. Some clubs don´t even have websites... Other way may be the clubs caped national team players, but that way, some players may be included with few appearances for the club, but on the other side, some great, important Brazilian, with no caps for Brazil, may be absent. Or, a combination of both criteriums. I just think we need to have the posibilities of criteriums discussed here first. If not, we may start having original criteriums applied to each club that doesn´t have already made such a list somewhere in some website. FkpCascais (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I must say I strongly disagree with mass removals of notable players sections on clubs' articles. So what if there is no reliable criteria on which players to include? I spend much more time reading such articles than I do editing them and sections like those are IMO one of the most useful ones when reading about a club I have hardly heard of before. Would a reader looking up a stub about Neverland FC be better served if a) the article stated that Peter Pan and Tinkerbell were notable players at the club, or b) if no such section existed at all? Also, FkpCascais is right in saying that great many clubs don't have websites, let alone official halls of fame or any other officially approved kinds of notable players lists. The Notable Players section is one of things that would be hard to come by for a reader looking for information than most other sections usually included in club articles - and that is exactly the reason why these SHOULD be included. So what if the inclusion criteria is (and will always remain) unclear? Should we write to FIFA and ask them what was their criteria for players included in "Club legends" sections in their Classic Clubs articles? Does this mean that guys over at WP:Films should delete all "Selected filmography" sections from directors' or actors' articles? How does that serve the reader exactly? And how do you think a reader is supposed to make sense of looking at category:xx football club players instead? One way of dealing with this would be simply telling the reader that the list is arbitrary and to take the list with a grain of salt. Another would be to offer some explanation what (in the editors' opinion) makes every player in the list notable. And I don't see why such lists COULDN'T involve players who have had little impact on the club if they are notable themselves. What's the problem with that? And I can't see why recentism is a problem. Is it better to mention only recently notable things than nothing at all? And don't tell me that it could all be mentioned in the prose because a) I don't see why we should force the reader to go through the whole article only to see if notable player X really played for them in three matches in 1991, and b) you can't expect every club outside the anglophone media interest to have editors willing or able to write such sections if they can simply add a player to the list (which can easily be removed anyway if no reason for inclusion is given). The very idea is just horrible. I'm appalled that you are proposing here a wholesale butchery of sections that people (many of whom go to wikipedia precisely because such information is unavailable to them elsewhere online) have put a lot of time and effort to compile. (I'm sorry for the inflammatory tone but I was shocked this morning to see that user Knepflerle simply woke up one day and decided that Croatian clubs' articles would look better without the notable players sections. Are you seriously telling me that it's ok not to inform a reader of, say Dinamo Zagreb article, that the likes of Prosinečki, Boban, Šuker or Ćorluka or Modrić or Eduardo or Viduka played for them? Even if it's in the form of unreferened and unreliable arbitrarily compiled lists? And if there's a club article without any source whatsoever confirming their date of foundation, club colours or anything else usually mentioned in club articles (and there are hundreds of such articles), we simply tag it as needing references. Why can't we do the same for lists of notable players? I'm shocked that we are having this discussion at all. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your hypocrisy on the matter is shown by the fact you reverted all the removal of unsourced, non-criteria lists by saying they should be tagged unsourced - but yet couldn't even be bothered to tag them yourself, eg [7]. This speaks volumes.

In your rush you even started to revert edits like this [8] with your standard edit summary without even checking what they were. This is disruptive.

All these sections tell you is that one editor at some point thought this player was cool and added them to the list. This is not encyclopaedic information. Knepflerle (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't like them because they are very POV. If a player has made a substantial contribution to the club in question, like Sammy Black, or gained great notability in their career, like David Jack, then fair enough I have no problem with that. Its when obscure players are included which annoys me. As along as the lists are well presented and contain players who are considered to be amongst the finest associated with that club then I can accept it. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if there's no source that they are "notable"? Even if it's not clear what "notable" means? How well-presented does something have to be so that we ignore WP:V and WP:NPOV?

There is nothing wrong with lists as seen at Norwich City F.C. and Bayern Munich where it is clear why someone is included and there is a source - these lists should certainly remain - but we've got to draw the line somewhere between these acceptable lists and the unacceptable laundry lists of editors' drive-by personal-POV favourites. Knepflerle (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that this would mean that only a tiny percentage of club articles will ever stand a chance of having such lists? And yeah - whether it's a product of a demented five-year old on an editing spree or not, I as a reader would more often prefer to see the notable players list in a club's article than not. This could probably be resolved by adopting a set of criteria which would allow lists of player who either scored xx goals or appeared in xx games or went on and won the world cup, with room for exceptions as long as they are explained in the article. But I guess it's always easier to simply delete stuff without even bothering to start a discussion on articles' talk pages. This too, my friend, speaks volumes. Timbouctou (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an encyclopaedia. If you want to write (or read) unsourced original research then this is not the project for you.

WP:V: As Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has put it: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. [9].

If there's no sources it doesn't go in, full stop. Not even if the information is interesting, cool or "important" in some editors' POV. No caveats. Knepflerle (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through and done your job of tagging these sections as unsourced original research. If these sections could be "a product of a demented five-year old on an editing spree" as you put it, our readers have the right to know this so they can treat it accordingly. Knepflerle (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort. At least you did something that was product of something resembling a discussion. Jimmy Wales would be proud of you. As for the "no caveats" ramble I find it very cute but it barely hides the fact that everything we do here is a product of a consensus, so nothing is really POV-free, just like wikipedia's notability guidelines on everything from football players to episodes of reality shows. Notability is therefore a very slippery thing to deal with, and that is precisely why we have wiki projects and discussions. Is there a credible source which informed us which leagues are notable? Can you find a reference which says that a player who played a single top level match is notable at all? It always was and still is up to us to determine what makes a player notable within a specific club context - and THEN provide references to prove that it meets the guidelines set, just like we already do for players' articles. So no - it's definitely NOT a case of "I've heard it somewhere". Especially when we are talking about sections which are very important for establishing a certain club's importance, because after the club's location and their silverware, notable players is the third most important factor for a reader to determine whether the club has or has had any importance in the football world. Not only will this make the article less useful for average readers, but it will also discourage all future editors who would otherwise work on articles about clubs who do not have an official hall of fame posted on the internet. Hey, why don't you try deleting the List of people from Southwark or perhaps try debating what really defines a "tourist site" on the List of tourist sites in the City of Westminster talk page? I don't see a reference there, and we both know you like deleting stuff without discussing it first. Knock yourself out man. Timbouctou (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of that is a mere slippery-slope fallacy, with a dash of WP:OTHERSTUFF. There's a difference between verifiable (even if not yet verified) fact and mere opinion. Context-free, source-free and criteria-free laundry lists of some editor's opinion on who is notable is not encyclopaedic article material. Knepflerle (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Put even more simply, you keep talking about the "usefulness" of these lists, but usefulness of information depends on its provenance - verified fact has a lot more "usefulness" than unjustified opinion from an unknown source. The decision was made on this project from the start to exclude original research for this very reason. There's places for that on the internet, but not here in an encyclopaedia. Presenting these lists as anything other than someone's unjustified opinions is misleading to our readers. Knepflerle (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Sorry to be coming in late to this conversation... Like some of the above editors, the lack of verifiability of these sections started out as an annoyance for me. When we were pushing for Seattle Sounders FC to become an WP:FA I had to keep removing these sections as editors tried to add them without sources or criteria. My intention was to begin a process to "rid the world" of these lists after that FA review was complete. I got sidetracked. Anyway, here was my plan of action (which I did start on with this discussion):

Get the verbage in {{famous players}} in a state where I felt it communicated clearly what was wrong with these types of lists.
Add it to the top of all of the lists I could find that were not properly sourced.
Simultaniously with #2 add a section to the talk page explaining what needs to be done to remove the template.
After the template had been visible for say 4 months on a given page without any further edits, remove the template and the list from the article. {{famous players}} already has a date parameter which we can use to track how long it's been on the page without having to trudge through article history.

The time component between notification and deletion would be key to ensure that a bunch of editors were not angered by the mass deletion. As you'll see from in the discussion I linked to above, I'm not happy with the current wording of {{famous players}} and ~~Thumperward~~ Chris Cunningham has reverted my adjustments back to something that basically says establishing consensus on inclusion and exclusion criteria on the talk page is sufficient (which I totally disagree with). That said, WP:V is currently linked to in the template, even though wording doesn't match. I propose that we should really only have one criteria for notable players sections and that is verifiability. Possible sources editors could use to source these lists:

Does the club have a "hall of fame" list?
Does the club have an all time best 11 list?
Does the league have a "hall of fame" that players for a given club appear in?
Does the club recognize an MVP each year?

I'm sure there are tons more variations of these types of "lists of recognition" that an editor could base the section on. Looking through the WP:FA club articles for this project, many of them have a notable players section. Without exception, they're always referenced to something like I mentioned above. Thoughts on my proposal? Good plan of action? Got a better idea? --SkotyWA^T|_C 17:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I think this is a very good idea. Knepflerle (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is support for the above I would propose two small extensions:

Production of a similar template for "notable manager" sections, which are also fairly common and similarly afflicted.
Renaming the verified non-OR "Notable players" sections which are to be kept to something that reflects their inclusion criteria, e.g. "X F.C. Hall of Fame", "Centenary Best XI", "Players of the Year" or whatever. This makes it a lot clearer as to what is and is not acceptable as material and why.

Thoughts on these are also welcome. Knepflerle (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is support, the clubs having those kind of players selections should have used them from the beggining, but, how many clubs in world you think have hall of fames or MVP´s? And the ones they have, how many just have them since recently, by this excluding most historic part of the club? The problem here is about the worlds other 95% of the clubs that simply don´t have the tradition (or size) for having such selections.

I think that the clubs that already have this hall of fame or other official club players lists, they should be used as in the Skotywa proposition. For others, some other criterium must be made. Many medium and small size clubs have a national team former players list, but that would also be uncomplete, since some club may have some very influential, exemple, Brazilian player, that doesn´t have caps for Brazil, thus him being excluded. Maybe some mix of National players and players with more than X caps for the club? FkpCascais (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously, don't leave personal attacks in Croatian [10] about the people you're talking to - calling people selfish and stupid will get you nowhere. Knepflerle (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We should remember that this pertains to a famous plyers section. Nothing here suggests that it is inappropriate to mention, for example, Peter Pan on the Neverland FC article, nor Diego Maradona in the relevant paragraphs of the history section in the Napoli article. Kevin McE (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Kevin. The problem we're trying to solve in this discussion is the sections with lists of players that have no referenced criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Knepflerle's suggestions are good. I wonder if we can reword {{famous players}} slightly so that it applies to both. The renaming of the sections may be a little more difficult as it will likely require some negotiation with the regular editors of a given article. I'm not opposed to someone doing this though.

I'm volunteering to add the template to unreferenced lists and some text to the talk pages. I'll then follow up on my work in 4-5 months with removals where necessary. I'll probably get started on this over the weekend. --SkotyWA^T|_C 02:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if there is a strong local consensus on an article to use the subtitle "Notable players" then we should respect that. In most cases, replacing it with the slightly more precise wording I suggested should be uncontroversial, however. Knepflerle (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing I'd be mindful of is the fact that degrees of notability vary from club to club, depending on their level in the hierarchy, and that it may be difficult to apply the same criteria to both Premier League clubs and, say, Ryman League clubs. Players who are notable to 'smaller clubs' are unlikely to be notable to 'larger clubs'. For example, a player from a Ryman League club signing for a Football League club would make him notable in the eyes of the non-League club, purely because of his signing; he may not be notable at all to the Football League club. --JonBroxton (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

However, having said that, I absolutely agree that criteria need to be determined for these sort of lists. I wrote a blurb for the FP sections on MLS team articles, which mentions that the lists should only include players who have received international caps while playing for the team, made significant contributions to the team in terms of appearances or goals while playing for the team, or who made significant contributions to the sport either before they played for the team or after they left. I agree that these criteria are somewhat inadequate, and need refining, but having them is better than having no criteria at all (which was the case beforehand). The problem arises when clubs don't have an official hall of fame (or equivalent), in which case something like this needs to be written to stop the sections from getting out of hand. --JonBroxton (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes; a sourced list of "players with most appearances" or "players with most career goals" is certainly acceptable and the typ of thing we need to encourage. It's better to keep player lists focused and precise like those two examples, however, rather than have a general "notable players" list however with a mix of criteria. In the mixed list it's less clear why a particular player was notable, and they tend to attract more drive-by opinion editing. Replacing general "notable" lists with sourced, focused lists is the way forward here. Knepflerle (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanx JonBroxton. After all this time, and certain editors willing to go search words around, and deleting other people work, instead of (at least) trying to understand the question here, we did get to the place where major problems are.

P.S.:Knepferle: Please, stop directing by me in a non-civil maner! (who´s not taking me serious here? You?). I am trying to solve a problem here, not loosing time with you. FkpCascais (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You called editors stupid and selfish in this edit - asking you to observe WP:CIVIL is perfectly reasonable. It's some of the rudest behaviour I have had the misfortune encountering on this project. Knepflerle (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I admit my guilt, but I already noteced your ignorance towards my propositions and doesn´t give me much choice of feelings. It´s not the first time this happends. In the "Flags" discussion, I did gave some peculiar exemples, but my touths were clear, but you ignored them, and didn´t even have me in the account (You even counted a person that gave no reason for agreeing/disagreeing and not me, who did my best to explain my position). You had the missfortune of finding oposition from me in your last proposals here in the project, so, you choosed to ignore me (until now). I allready participated in a great number of debates, many of them much more polemic than here, and I never had no problems. Nevermind, I REALLY want to discuss the inclusion criteriums:(I hope you participate, at least give your touth and its reasons).

1* - Lists of players that played for national teams.

2* - Lists of players with more them X league caps for the club.

3* - Lists of players with titles won with the club.

4* - Lists of team captains.

5* - Lists that would combine two or more points.

6* - All of them. By this meaning, to give the different club the option of having one or more of this lists included, when well sourced and identified.FkpCascais (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, everybody, give touths and more ideas of eventual inclusion criteriums. FkpCascais (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very late joining in this debate, but I think that including some sort of list of the most significant players in a club's history definitely adds value to a club's article, and as long as the list is properly sourced, his rigid parameters for inclusion and is complete then it should be included.

I think that what those parameters are should be tailored to each individual club, rather than having a blanket rule to cover everyone from Real Madrid to Horden Colliery Welfare. Where a club has an official hall of fame this should clearly be used, but otherwise a criteria designed specifically for the club in question that generates a list of about 15–20 of their most significant players should be used. Each player should have the reason for their inclusion clearly stated next to their name, with an appropriate reference. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 09:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all you´re saying Gasheadsteve. But, having some general guideline for them could prevent some edit warring between two ditors of same club, that would want different criteriums for same list. It´s not that unusual as you all may think. Many times, there is a edit war on if a certain player should or not be included in such list, and without a criterium, we cant really determine who is right. Or, why some player should be included, and other not. Having some general guideline would make it easier to mantein such lists. FkpCascais (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think in most cases we should try and avoid general multi-criterion lists - either we have a criterion and enough data to produce a list for that criterion (i.e. the ten players with most appearances), or we have a few exceptionally notable players - and exceptional cases are best dealt with in the article text itself where context can be given. If all the information we have is that Joe X has the record for most appearances and that Bob Y is the only player to ever score nine goals in a match, then it's better to put that straight in the article body. Knepflerle (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"You even counted a person that gave no reason for agreeing/disagreeing and not me, who did my best to explain my position" - I didn't do any counting or summarising. You're mixing me up with someone else (Kevin McE, I think).

"your ignorance towards my propositions" - apologising for a personal attack by calling someone ignorant isn't a great start.

"I hope you participate" - I'm still participating, as ever.

Now to your six suggestions:

Lists of players that played for national teams - this doesn't always make a player particularly notable for the club involved.
Lists of players with more them X league caps for the club - I'd prefer a lists of the top 10 most appearances for a given club, but this criterion is generally fine.
Lists of players with titles won with the club - listing the entirety of every title winning squad over history is excessive, and will include a lot of squad players who played little part in those successes and weren't otherwise notable.
Lists of team captains. - for most clubs there is at least one of these a year and the list might be excessive for the article. If the full list can be sourced it might be worth a separate list article which can then be linked to from the club article.
Lists that would combine two or more points - I can't see the benefit in this. If we combine lists its harder to see why a player is in the list, whereas if the lists are separate it's obvious.

I think it should be noted that if a player is exceptionally notable to a club for a non-standard reason, or for a reason that is unsuitable for a comprehensive list, then they can and and should be mentioned in the article text with an explanation of their notability. It's much easier to explain peoples significance in the article text, as opposed to adding them to the end of an unexplained list, and we should always be aiming for articles in good prose. Knepflerle (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry Knepferle. On the other side, I finally get you involved in discussing the "real" problem here. Great amount of time was lost on debating about clubs that already have such players honours halls or lists. They were never a problem , and if they were, they shouldn´t have been, because for them, there shouldn´t even exist a "Notable players" list, since the club already has an honour awarded players. The editors of those articles, shouldn´t improvise by making their own, but simply transpose those already existing lists in the club article. But, you insistently ignored the fact that those kind of lists only exist in some areas in the world, and the vast majority of the world simply doesn´t have them. By your proposal (and that´s why I finded you selfish!) only those clubs would have those lists, being the others riped-off of them. You started by deleting the Croatian clubs lists but, I´m not Croatian, it doesn´t affect me personally! I just see the point of everyone, thinking that every clubs should have the right to have them, from wherever they are. There are many clubs without even websites, and we have here on WP a good amount of editors that did some great research and made such lists that otherwise are not finded enywhere. It´s hard work, and you just wanted to delete it! About the propositions:

1 - National teams players: It´s often used because for many minor clubs, it´s the only verifiable possibility for list.
2 - I favorize a "more than X caps" list because it could include more players, rather than just a top 10 list and, it doesn´t require a constant update.
3 - Titles: yes, you´re right. I just added it as a posibility.
4 - Captains: Agree with you. Allways separate.

The prose should have them mentioned, of course. But, lists do give you a more direct and simple access to them.Many thanx again Knepferle. FkpCascais (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Come on everybody! Please, don´t give up! What about the 6th proposal(from my old proposal), the one wich would allow each one of those clubs to choose between some of the accepted lists? Would everybody agree? And if you do, wich proposals could be as options?

I´ll try to simplify, my proposal is: To give clubs the choice of having some of the following criteriums included, if properly referenced:

1 - Players that played in National teams.
2 - Players that played more than X league matches.
3 - Players that scored more than X league goals.
4 - Players that won titles with the club.
5 - Players that played more than X seasons with the club.
6 - Players that were team captains.

Some numbers are changed from the previous proposition. Please people, give more possibilities for criteriums.

Would you footy members agree to give to clubs without official notable players lists already existing (as Halls of fame or MVP´s) the possibility of having any list (or lists) of their choice from the ones we decide that can be acceptable, and make them if there is a possiblity of having them sourced. If we do, wich from the given proposals we consider acceptable? FkpCascais (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, only points 2,3 and 5 seem viable. Point 1 shows no notability with the club. If we're looking at notability in a broader sence, this point may be useful. Points 2 and 3 are solid and I agree should be used if these lists are to be maintained. In the case of some clubs, point 4 will include far to many players with others it will be completely irrlevant. Point 5 seems viable but slightly redundant. A player who has played a large number of seasons for a particular club will likely have enough caps or goals to merit inclusion anyways. Point 6 is difficult to source for most clubs, and will also become a very long list. Just my two cents worth. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanx. Keep in mind that in case a club, supose a minor one with no much info available, could opt for the point 1, probably would be a short list, and, my idea is to completely forget the word "notable". We´ll simply call the section as the point of choice. From this exemple: "National teams players", by this telling the reader exactly what the players are, and leaving the polemical word notable out. FkpCascais (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So, can this be considered a solution, at least for now? FkpCascais (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting that deja vu feeling. MickMacNee (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You´re right (I didn´t even saw that page...), but instead of calling those sections "Noted/Notable players", we will be much more precise and call them whatever the editors decide from (Former national team players, Players with more then X caps, Players with more than X goals, List of team captains, Players with National Championship titles, Players with European titles, etc.). FkpCascais (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Donna Powell

Is she notable? She's obviously not managed at a professional level, and while she did get a little bit of media coverage for taking charge of semi-pro Fisher Athletic for one game via what was essentially a competition/publicity stunt, that's just one incident - WP:BLP1E.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say she wasn't notable - doesn't pass ATHLETE and as you say, all the sources are just about this one time, so doesn't agree with BLP1E. If I were you, I'd put it up for deletion. -- Big Dom 18:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Be careful with that one. Maybe my girlfriend is just that into it but I could see some feminists seeing it as important. It might be OK per WP:BIO1E if she played a major role in a major or minor event (first woman to manage a side in England). I can't tell how important it was from the BBC article. It does sound like a PR stunt so probably isn't something too defining in the history of football. It might be appropriate to mention in another article and simply redirect if it was a big deal.Cptnono (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think is notable. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Article duplications

I have just found a number of duplications some of which I have created, I am not sure if your meant to delete or redirect. Could someone please tell me what should be done, thanks. --Add92 (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

These are the articles:

You should decide which is the appropriate title and then merge the content from the "twin", before converting the twin to a redirect. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

2014 Africa Cup of Nations

Some people presumably have read stuff like this blog and thus are jumping the gun in moving the article to 2013 Africa Cup of Nations. Has anybody of you heard from a reliable source that the tournament will indeed be moved 12 months earlier? Most important, is there already an official CAF decision on the matter?

In a somewhat related issue, how do you think about the creation of 2013 Africa Cup of Nations qualification? We do not even have details about the qualification for the 2012 tournament yet... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As the blog post quotes - no decision has been made yet and the earliest it can come would be March. Nanonic (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Youth teams

What is the policy on articles for youth teams of clubs? Blackpool F.C. have a Youth Department and Centre of Excellence. Is it just clubs that have an academy, for instance Cardiff City F.C. Academy, that are notable enough in their own right to have articles, or is it ok to create an article for Blackpool Youth Department?--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed major change to Football squad system

I made a proposal above which has started to take on legs. However as this change is so major I think it's fair to give this this suggestion it's own section which won't be hidden as part 5 of a major discussion. The nature of this change will be as follows . {{Fs player}} and others will be changed so that if a field called ref is not entered the flag will not display. For more see User:Gnevin/sandbox. I've split this up into several sections. If you disagree or agree with this proposal please indicate so here and not confuse the other sections. Please don't WP:Vote Gnevin (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal

What's going on? I'm lost, sorry. --MicroX (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This new squad template has a reference column. If a player does not have a reference then his country flag does not show.--EchetusXe 14:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. If the squad list needs referencing, it should be referenced as a whole, not on a player-by-player basis. I also find it particularly petty that this change has been made just because people can't agree on a player's nationality. – Pee Jay 17:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that individual referencing for each player in the list looks odd/cluttered. Wouldn't one reference for the entire squad list be better/sufficient? Jogurney (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If one reference can be used for the entire squad what is the harm in repeating it for each player? In most cases 1 ref will not be good enough for every player. Plus the use of individual reference puts the onus to comply with WP:V with the editor adding the flag where it should be. Also can we discuss this in the correct section Gnevin (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If someone is having trouble determining the nationality of some guy that played for U-20 N. Ireland but lives in England, discuss the issue on his article. Most players don't have this minor issue; no need to revise an entire practice only because one player played for an under-20 national team.--MicroX (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What? What practice are you talking about? The current practice of some times assigning nationality on a whim? At the end of the day all we are talking about is complying with WP:V Gnevin (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole case was brought up because of Adam Miller's case. I think the nationality reference should be on the player article, not on every club article with a roster. --MicroX (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nationality and other facts should be referenced on both the players page and the squad page . Once again your pushing the responability of WP:V away from the editior adding the flag or contentious information and on to the reader to look for a references Gnevin (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If the concern is that some assignments of nationality (even in the sporting sense) are contentious and should not require the reader to check the linked biography for references, does it make sense to require player by player referencing of nationality in a squad list? In almost every case, the assignment of nationality is uncontroversial (especially for players that have been capped at a senior level), so maybe it is more appropriate to reference controversial assignments of nationality on a player by player basis? That way, a single reference for a roster or squad list will sufficient in most cases, and extra player by player referencing is needed only when the assignment is controversial. Seems better to me than to drastically change the Fs template when the information is not controversial except in rare cases. Jogurney (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding the reference to all of uncontroversial players on a given page can be done in seconds with Copy and paste. Who decides what is controversial and what is not ? The simple fact is flags have constantly proven to be controversial within this project. References will solve 99.99% of these cases with out the need for a major debate all the time Gnevin (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the sporting nationality of a typical player in a squad list is "likely to be challenged". Maybe a few cases, but certainly not many. The single reference used for most club articles' squad lists suffices in almost all cases, why add extra referencing which adds extra bulk to the section without compensating gains in usefulness? Jogurney (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

From the readers point of view they do gain usefulness. They gain the knowledge that some one hasn't just stuck a ref on the bottom of squad template as a Jack of all trades ref. The user gains the ability to check the reference for each player as they so wish and the also know the editor the checked the reference supplied and it is still valid and apt for every player . Gnevin (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ps perfect example Chelsea_F.C.#Players reference says nothing about nationality or position or number but [11] says it all Gnevin (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Defining a sporting/football nationality of a player is anything but controversial, except for a mere handful of cases - mostly emerging from UK, I'd say, because there's obviously no Scottish, Welsh, English or Northern Irish citizenship, but just UK's. In cases like these (and only in such cases), a reference (if required) that can be just included directly next to the player's name. But, again, only if required. As Jogurney explains above, adding extra bulk to such a complex section makes just little sense, so I oppose the proposal. --Angelo (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

<- This is a bad idea. (Especially where debatable...) Establish and reference the player's nationality in the article and use it in templates without references. --Dweller (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur; the reference section in fs squad is totally unnecessary. The current system has worked fine for years, and I see no reason to change it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

None of the initial issues are addressed by this proposal. A single flag, although the reason for it can be justified and referenced, is too blunt a tool to describe the ethnic and personal identities of many people, and can be misleading. A player's national identity, in the majority of cases, is of little or no relevance to his role in the team, and can give a false impression (Mamady Sidibé has a French EU passport, and so although his nationality by birth and representative play is accurately described as Malian, he presents no work permit issues when playing for Stoke City). The Manual of Style is being flouted, and information irrelevant to team identity and selection is being posted in preference to matters that are relevant, such as age and contract length. Kevin McE (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it a bad idea ? How difficult can it be to copy and paste a reference from 1 page to a other. Once again people here just want to ignore WP:V because it doesn't suit them. How you can claim a template and its flag which is being discussed pretty much week in week out is working fine is beyond me Gnevin (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a good reason that we don't list Tiger Woods as Dutch, Chinese and Thai in every golf tournament. You claim that the country a player is considered to be eligible for under FIFA rules is of little or no relevance, yet make a big deal about ethnicity, which absolutely certainly isn't. If ethnicity is a big deal (e.g. Croats in a Bosnian team, black players in a country noted for racist fans etc), it should be expanded upon on in the prose.

This is the best proposal on the table. You can argue that it doesn't go far enough, but you can't possibly say this isn't a good thing. WFCforLife (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that this proposal is better than simply adding references to individual sporting nationality choices within a particular roster section that are "likely to be challenged". Instead, it is an extremely blunt approach to something that does not appear to be a widespread problem. In any case, I don't see a concensus for this proposal right now. Jogurney (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If someone is determined to get rid of flags (and many people are), they will challenge any one that they see. Call them point-y Dicks if you must, but they can legitimately hide behind WP:V. There does seem to be considerably opposition to the last part of Gnevin's proposal. But I don't see any opposition to adding the proposed change to {{Fs end}}, and I don't see any reasonable opposition to there being an optional reference parameter. The opposition is to making the reference compulsory if you want the flag. If there is a chance that in future centralised discussion will force us to accept such a proposal, I would rather the optional parameter were already in place. I for one would take up the option. WFCforLife (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What users here are ignoring here is WP:V . Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. While it would be extremely pointy, I or other user could remove every unreferenced flag and not be breaking the rules Gnevin (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

While I suspect that someone going about it in that way on a large scale would get themselves a block for disruptive behavior, Gnevin is right.

My suggestion is that we add the note about FIFA/sporting nationality (which is absolutely required), and add an entirely optional reference parameter, that does not hide flags if unused unless there is consensus that it should do so. There is a significant belief that one reference to a squad page linking to every player satisfies WP:V, something I partially agree with. Suggesting that a user cannot find their player from the squad list is a weak argument that borders on insulting their intelligence. Conversely, if a player's nationality isn't mentioned on his club profile page (example) then additional sourcing is required. In that instance it's not optional. WFCforLife (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It would take a very literal reading of WP:V to conclude that any material which is challenged must be removed without an inline reference. I read WP:V as only requiring inline citations for controversial material (if an editor challenges the United States sporting nationality of Landon Donovan, they are just being disruptive and are deserving of a block). If the roster section of an article has a reference which covers every player and their sporting nationalities, why would it be helpful to reference each individual flag, rather than the section in total? Jogurney (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Because in theory it shows the someone has taken the time to check the players details in the article and then added a reference, rather than the current pratice where by players details are just added and people assume the reference is up todate. It alouds indiviual references for difficult case, the reader the ability to click and check the players reference rather than a jack of all trades reference. Gnevin (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems a bit over the top. I don't see any reason not to add references to the nationality flags where there's some controversy about it. I don't think that requiring a ref for every nationality flag is necessary (although, I don't edit soccer player articles much, so maybe I'm just missing a somewhat regular controversy).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 19:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How the change would happen

If this change is accepted. The change will occur in the following way.

{{Fs player}} and {{Fs start}} will be modified to accept and display a field called reference.
A bot run will post a notification message on every talk page where the FS template system is in use.
After X days a second change will be made to {{Fs player}} at that time any unreferenced flags will no long show . Also a possible change will be made to {{Fs end}} see below.

If you have any suggestions please post them hereGnevin (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

How long to give to add references

It needs to be decided how long we give the user before we make the second change to the FS system . This change will have a major impact on many articles so i'd suggest 30 days at least Gnevin (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If thirty days isn't long enough I don't know what is. 30 days is fine in my book.--EchetusXe 00:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thirty days from the date of notification sounds reasonable to me. The more time the better. To that end there's no harm in making the first change before we've decided on the exact timeframe/ configured the bot. WFCforLife (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification message

How should we word the notification message .I've no opinion on this at the moment Gnevin (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the "ref" field should contain a link to a player bio, team page, or other suitable example which verifies the player's nationality/international team eligibility, and (theoretically) ends the squabble about unsourced nationalities. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Shortcut and summary

How should we word the shortcut and summary .I've no opinion on this at the moment Gnevin (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Change to Fs end

I'd also like to suggest {{Fs end}} should be modified so it displays the following text. Note: Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality. If you've any suggestions please post them here Gnevin (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would put forward the following, which would go into slightly more detail.

Note: Flags indicate national team which the player has represented, as is permitted under FIFA eligibility rules. Otherwise flags indicate place of birth. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.--EchetusXe 00:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because WP:MOSFLAG specifically prohibits using flags to designate place of birth. The flag represents the country they play for internationally, or their confirmed nationality, which can be different from their place of birth. See [[Josh Wicks] for example. He was born in Germany, but is American. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

False. "Flag icons should never be used in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox". It specifically prohibits their use to designate their place of birth in those two areas only. Military bases and embassies are considered to be territory of the nation they pledge allegiance to, not necessarily the country that surrounds it. Thereby voiding your Josh Wicks example.--EchetusXe 01:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe Josh Wicks was a bad example, but the point of the matter is that the flag should NOT represent his place of birth; it should represent his international team affiliation, or his nationality. Under your criteria, if Terry Butcher had never played international football, he would have the flag of Singapore by his name, which is clearly not the case as he just 'happened to be born there', and is in every other way English. Do you see where I'm coming from? --JonBroxton (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep reading ... under Biographical Use - "Never use a flag for birth or death place, since doing so may imply an incorrect citizenship or nationality" and under Use of flags for sportspeople "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or sporting nationality." Camw (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok fine, we use Gnevin's note.--EchetusXe 13:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Flags have always been a thorny issue. In my opinion should be limited to nations players represented. Even then it can be confusing. Take Ladislav Kubala who played internationally for Czechosolvakia, Hungary,Spain, Catalonia and Europe. He was actually born in modern Slovakia. Potentially he could have six flags listed unless limits were imposed. Djln--Djln (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Under the proposed criteria, I don't see why he would have had more than one in a "current squad" template (and that one would have corresponded to the country he was currently associated with). Indeed, he may not have had one at all. WFCforLife (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this change should be made to Fs start instead, so that it goes before the squad list? That would meet the strict interpretation of MOS:FLAG, and is (admittedly ever-so-slightly) more likely to make someone think before they make a contentious edit. WFCforLife (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I express no opinion on the larger proposal (the mandatory ref field, etc.). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fs2 and other issues

I believe that the use of one source that details the nationalities of the whole squad should be used in preference to a whole bunch of references to the same source next to each flag. The option of including a source already exists in {{Fs2}}.
If the squad player has an article, what would be wrong with ensuring that his nationality is properly sourced there? The reference function could be used to clarify redlinked articles and debatable cases.
I raised the issue of playing positions previously (GK, DF, MF and FW). These are far far less self explanatory to the casual reader than a flagicon let alone a flag/country name wikilink/reference. Individual referencing of flagicons looks like overkill when the aforementioned Wikipedia specific position codes are allowed to remain in the template without any references at all.

King of the North East 16:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Re point 1 , I agree if one source can be used , then use it . However I don't understand why the 1 source can't be copied to each player as needed. Using the same source many times is common practice. So can you clarify why less referencing is better than more ? Re point 2, I can't edit Herzegovina add some controversial information and say well the reference is on Foča go look there, that is not how WP:V and WP:RS work or will ever work. The reference should appear beside the controversial information. Re point 3 it's generally very clear where the player's main position is. Where as nationality is highly controversial Gnevin (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

PS can you give me an example of a refer that covers every player in the squad? I've yet to see it Gnevin (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is one of many possible references that would cover every player in a squad. The nationality is no more controversial than playing position in 95%+ of cases. Jogurney (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree nationality is often uncontroversial, however there are far too many controversial flags incidences here ,on talk pages and edit wars. Where as I've never seen a discussion over a players position Gnevin (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This site is very interesting , however is the problem with [12] or Bray_Wanderers_A.F.C.#Current_squad Gnevin (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Other sites have O'Connor as Australian (such as EUFO). I don't think the Guardian's site is the best source for most leagues, except it is unusual for providing English language coverage of leagues like the J. League and Greek Super League. I would hope that the editors who update the rosters on the club articles will pick appropriate sources for the league. It's not a question of lack of references, but the quality of the references. Jogurney (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A side comment: If The Guardian is not reliable for Australian and other teams in the anglophone world and the mainstream of pro association football, why would it be somehow be reliable for other teams and leagues, whether or not the fact that the paper cover them at all is "unusual" for an English-language publication? Unreliable sources don't suddenly become reliable for things we have a hard time finding other sources for. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate place for this discussion, but in my experience, it is highly reliable for match reports and statistics, and less reliable (or unreliable) for nationality and place of birth. There are Greek and Japanese language alternatives which while I struggle to translate them to English, the statistics appear to match. Jogurney (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

With regards to nationality, that is one of the rare areas where a primary source is not only suitable, but preferable. A club is not going to antagonise their own employee by getting that wrong. By contrast, media are generally national organisations. With positions, all I can say is two words: Steve Palmer. WFCforLife (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternative

Four point-plan:

Flags are supposed to refer to sporting nationality, so let's reserve them for precisely that: use them only for players with international caps. This way every flag has a specific, verifiable and uncontroversial interpretation as a true sporting nationality. We can discuss whether this applies to just full caps, full caps + U21, etc.

To indicate other passport/nationality information re quota requirements, use a non-flag character - †, *, ♦, whatever. This then doesn't require any flag identification on the part of the reader, and/or having to know which countries count towards which quotas.

(A more extensive, long term project) Recategorise players according to birthplace and national team representation, rather than unverified and ill-defined "nationality"

Remove categories such as "Xian footballers of Yian ethnic origin" and any categorisation based on surname-related original research.

Knepflerle (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the first point per wikipedia being gamed to systematically remove flags. They either all stay or they all go as far as I'm concerned. If flags are acceptable for other sports they are acceptable for football, and vice versa. You may not like flags, but provided we meet WP:V then as far as I am concerned we are meeting the sporting nationality clause, and policy and guidelines already allow for flags not verified to be challenged or removed.WFCforLife (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Whole-heartedly support the other three points. Might I suggest that they are made seperately elsewhere, so as not to be completely ignored in the face of opposition to your first one? WFCforLife (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you honestly believe with a straight face that my objection to flags can be summed up by WP:IDONTLIKEIT, given all the reasoning I've written previously, I'm truly astonished. I very much doubt anyone else reading this would find that an accurate summary.

As it is, the elephant is still in the room: if you see a flag next to a player's name, who knows if this is referring to their birthplace, citizenship or national representation? The readers don't. Knepflerle (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with all points. About nationality, so if my mother was accidentaly traveling by airplane over Jamaica while giving birth (me :) ) , by your "new law" if I were a Wikipedia deserving article footballer, but not as good to play to my nat.team, I would HAVE to be Jamaican footballer, despite not having anything to do with Jamaica (not counting the endless hours of Bob Marley & other Jamaican products while teenager... and birthplace Jamaica on my passport) and being clearly of other nationallity. Don´t force people to be Xian just because they were born there. So if they are not good or lucky enough to play internationally to the country they want, they have to be forceably in the birthplace nation. So wrong and antiquate! Wy are you guys making so big deal about Xian footballers and Xian footballers of Yian origin? What is "ill" about being born in one country and being ethnically other nationality? Even Hitler (the big defender of Republic of Xian equal 100% Xians) was German from Austria... FkpCascais (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

None of your reply is implied by what I wrote. Knepflerle (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose in part because it'll look absolutely ridiculous even with a placebo symbol. matt91486 (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear

Is it safe to say we have WP:CON for adding the note to about nationality to fs start and the ref field to fs player Gnevin (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of objections can be considered CON, if no one objects I'll be asking for the template to be changed on the 16th Gnevin (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to summarise the above if relation to the refs field ( and at risk of misrepresenting peoples arguments by summarising them)

Pro

Gnevin: Proposer

Partial support

WFCforLife: Yes, but reference parameter to be optional

Con

MicroX: Verification better on player article
Dweller: ditto
Jogurney: One ref sufficient for the squad
PeeJay: ditto
Angelo: reference only where controversy exists, and then by players name
Ohm's Law: Add reference by flag only where controversial
number 57: totally unnecessary
Kevin McE: Does not address breach of MoS and subtleties of nationality

I think it would be dangerous to take lack of a response to a motion to close the debate as lack of objection to the proposal. I think the above clearly that the proposal does not have consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any objection to the clarifying note, but there was significant opposition to the full proposal. WFCforLife (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting adding the auto hide field , I meant adding a optional ref field which was discussed above and the hat note which was discussed above. It's clear to everyone there is little support here for this project of follow WP:V. Anyway is there support for

The hatnote discussed above
The addition of an optional field called ref Gnevin (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow your statement that there is little support in this project for WP:V, but I agree that adding the hatnote and optional reference field to Fs squad won't harm the project. I oppose the wider proposal for the reasons stated above. Jogurney (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with that. As I've said, if the optional parameter is introduced, I would use it on the Watford article. Even if that's an isolated example, I imagine that would be seen as a net gain for the project. And at FAC, if reviewers insisted on it, the option is now there (unless the nominator successfully argues that the one reference provided is sufficient). WFCforLife (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Change has been made Gnevin (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Jasus, wiki is like pushing an elephant up the stairs . User:PeeJay2K3 didn't like how the changes to fs start looked and an admin changed the template back bar the hatnote, as such the ref in fs player is now pointless Gnevin (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Verifying a flag is a good start, but it's still almost useless unless we know what the flag actually signifies. Birthplace? Citizenship? Caps? Do we know which criteria our source used? Will our readers know when we use it?

More often than not, all we have verified is that the player is associated in some unknown fashion with that country. Surely it would be more helpful to our readers to use a flag to mean the same thing, every time? Knepflerle (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course people know that a flag represents a sporting nationality, that is associated with the national (must be a recognised country) affiliation of the person. That can, bust also doesn´t necesarily have to, be his birthplace. It really is the nationality (again, a recognised country) that the player feels like representing (meaning, that he would eventualy chose if he could play for a national team.

In the vast majority of sources, where there are more than one nationality in question, the first one is used if there is only space for one. And, those "sporting nationalities" must be updated too, since they can be changed. Exemple: Aleksandar Todorovski, is a Serbia-born Macedonian footballer. His first nationality until now was Serbian, and Macedonian as second. After speaking with people from the Macedonian Federation, he accepted being called to represent Macedonia National team in the near future, so he changed his "first nationality" to Macedonian. FkpCascais (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're looking at the problem back-to-front - the problem isn't finding a reason to give a player a flag; the problem is knowing what a flag means when you see one.

If I give you a player and a flag, you don't know whether it's telling you where he was born, a country of naturalisation, an inherited citizenship or a representation for a national squad. Neither do our readers. Knepflerle (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And Knepferle, I think you said to my "ridicoulos, born over Jamaica example" that didn´t implied what you wrote. Well, you´re wrong, by my exemle it´s very easy to understand (I even said it) that I completely disagree with:

"Your long term project" players being "recategorised" by birthplace and national team.
Removing categories of "Xian footballers of Yian origin".

I think I was pretty clear by disagreing with at leat this to points, but by the way, all of them. FkpCascais (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And also, KevinMcE, was there any reason wy my vote wasn´t counted? FkpCascais (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(apart from the fact that they are not votes) I was summarising, as I said at the beginning of the summary, the responses about the addition of a references field to the template: your comments were made in response to Knepflerle's counter-proposal. Kevin McE (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your quotation marks makes it appear I said "ridicoulos, born over Jamaica example", when I actually never did or anything remotely similar. It's clear to everyone that you disagree, but you disagree because you think my proposal means something it does not. Knepflerle (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote text

The current hatnote on the squad list template does not seem to fit the bill. It states Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality. The vast majority of players have never played internationally, and so are still eligible to choose more than one nation if their family history/periods of residency/change in borders of nation so permit. FIFA does not prioritise between countries for which a player is eligible: he is equally eligible for any for which he might meet the criteria, and it is OR for wikipedia to do so. Players may hold more than one nationality, and the suggestion that their other nationalities can only be to countries that are not members of FIFA is clearly unreasonable. Kevin McE (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But, of course that a player may have a number of FIFA member nationalities. I just gave an exemple. This may be a strange aproach to the issue, but I´ll try it anyway. Most of mine educational period, as I lived in a number of countries, I studied at "International" schools. There, it was very ussual to have friends from every continent, and there was also a big amount of people of mixed ethnicities. It was quite usual to have a best friend born in Mexico, from a American/Hawaian father and Swiss mother (German-Swiss, to be exact), a Venezuelan-born girlfriend of Argentinian and Japanese origins... But, most of them (I think all, but I don´t have a source to corroborate) did had some "preferable" nationality. With time, with globalisation and increase of demographics movement, more and more cases like these are going to become reality. This issue goes way beyond football only. Are we the first WP project to discuss this? FkpCascais (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If I don't add something soon, the discussion will disappear as 10 days old at the w/end. Nobody has defended the hatnote text from the criticism above (FIFA does not define the nationality of players who have not elected which nation to represent: a player's other nationalities cannot be assumed to be non-FIFA members), ~~so I will remove it from the template until a more suitable text be agreed upon.~~ (later edit:oops, can't do that: hadn't noticed that it is admin only. But something needs to be done: current text is indefensible) Kevin McE (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Then propose a change. You where involved in the discussion before the change was made why didn't you object then . Players may hold more than one nationality, and the suggestion that their other nationalities can only be to countries that are not members of FIFA is clearly unreasonable I'm not sure how or where the hat note suggests this. Gnevin (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "non-FIFA nationality" seems to suggest a nationality that is not recognised by FIFA. The truth is Flags indicate Wikipedia's own invented notion of sporting nationality, which is determined by most recent national representation, or nation of birth for a player who has not appeared internationally, unless it is assumed that place of birth was a temporary displacement of the mother from the country that would be considered to be her, or the father's, homeland. Players may be eligible for selection by, or have previously appeared for, other national sides not listed, and might be keen to disassociate themselves with the nation that is recorded here by virtue of their place of birth but perhaps Flags indicate most recent national representation or, for a player who has not appeared internationally, nationality by birth or naturalisation; players may have other eligibilities would suffice. Kevin McE (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a little wordy don't you think? non-FIFA nationality makes no claims about recognition. I mean nationality as defined by laws of countries etc. Flags indicate national team preference as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality. Gnevin (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry . I just seen your edit summary. I see your not interested in a serious discussion. Gnevin (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The apparently offensive editnote was " far too complex to be dealt with in a simple phrase". I cannot see how that indicates a lack of willingness to discuss. If Gnevin is not willing to address the points I make, then I know who I think is not interested in serious discussion. He may know what he means by his invented phrase of "non-FIFA citizenship", it is not necessarily obvious to all. Kevin McE (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was will willing to discuss this several times above. I gave plenty of notice of the intended change . Did you want a special invite ? Also your reply above was a rant not a helpful suggestion . Why don't you suggest a wording ,do you understand the point we are attempting to make?Gnevin (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

How about changing the second sentence to "Players may hold multiple citizenships." Also, while I don't think that clarification would be controversial, if we're going to make a radical change it would probably be necessary to leave a curtesy note at the bottom of this page. Contributors to this discussion may be completely oblivious to the fact that this is still going on (I know I was). WFCforLife (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The citizenships that a player holds today are not necessarily inclusive of national teams he might represent in the future, and some footballing nationalities are not linked specifically to citizenships. Kevin McE (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We are aware of that the point is we aren't showing passport nationality or every possible nationality the player might hold . We are showing the national team they are/can or have indicated a preference to play for Gnevin (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you are aware of it: I was replying to WFCforLife's suggestion that specifically referred to citizenship. But for players who have not already played internationally, our allocation of a flag is usually an assumption based on birthplace: it is by no means anything defined by FIFA. To paraphrase your last comment, we are showing one of potentially several nationalities that they might play for. It is a tiny proportion of players who have indicated a preference as to which national team they would play for: that would not be a widely verifiable claim. As to your suggestion above that I propose a wording, what did you think the last part of the posting that you claim was showing unwillingness to enter into serious discussion was? Indeed, you responded to it as a proposal: "That's a little wordy don't you think?", without discussing its merits or deficits other than length. I think it is far from ideal, but an improvement on the current phrasing, which is why I suggested it, and asked whether it would suffice. The shortcomings in my own proposal, and the current one, were communicated in the tongue in cheek non-proposal that sought to lay out why the presentation of a single flag is woefully inadequate given the complexity of nationality for many people. Kevin McE (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand where your coming from. I fought the good fight for greater adherence to WP:V but to paraphase the above consensus the link to the club page is reference enough. Now if we are accepting that as the bases for which these flags and selected we just need to word the hatnote in such a way as to reflect that Gnevin (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) Everyone needs to take a rage dump. I like the sound of "Flags indicate most recent national representation or, for a player who has not appeared internationally, nationality by birth or naturalisation. Individuals may hold multiple citizenships, and the flag is not a representation of ethnicity." I think that the citizenry and ethnicity of an athlete is a sticking point for many readers. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Flagcruft#Do_not_use_flags_to_indicate_locations_of_birth_and_death says we shouldn't use the flag for place of birth . See my reply above about club pages.

"Flags indicate most recent national representation or, for a player who has not appeared internationally,expressed nationality . Individuals may hold multiple citizenships."Gnevin (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a less polemic entry into the issue. I fear that "expressed nationality" is not really a verifiable status either: "nationality as generally perceived"? What we are really looking for here (for non-internationals) is essentially a way of expressing "Common sense nationality", something that is generally obvious, but rarely published, while acknowledging than for many, it is not a cut and dried matter. Kevin McE (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the simplest solution here would be not to use flags for non internationals but that won't happen. Hmm. Why isn't expressed nationality not verifiable, surely we can check the club sites such as [13]? Gnevin (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Flags indicate most recent national representation, or for a player who has not appeared internationally, nationality as verified by his current club." WFCforLife (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I see: I hadn't related "expressed" to "expressed on club web site", and most readers won't be aware of this conversation, so are less to blame than me for not making that link, which our hornet friend has sought to make explicit. But even if the premium tv website that is the standard for English league clubs has a field that means the info is usually provided for those clubs, do all clubs that use this template make such data explicit on their own sites? Kevin McE (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

According to this discussion above they all offer nationality info however we could say as verified by a third party would allow us to use the likes of [14] or as verified by a {{{link}}}}' Gnevin (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt the person who made such an assurance checked all 5,500+ articles that the template is used on, many of which will be clubs which have no players with articles and no squad nationality details on the website. Whether saying that the verification is made by some unspecified third person provides any meaningful fulfilment of WP:V is dubious. The nationalities indicated by flags are largely a matter of assumption: their inclusion is questionable by virtue of relevance, Manual of Style, and accuracy of representation of the facts as well as by verifiability. And yet, to many, omitting them is unthinkable. Brave attempts to explain why they are included despite this, which of themselves try to conform to standards that the inclusion of flags do not, will be bound to struggle. Kevin McE (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the person that suggested club websites or reliable third party websites (L'Equipe is probably a good example for French Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 clubs) may provide nationality information for an entire playing squad. As you noted, this is only true for major leagues (the top ones in the countries with the most coverage) and would not apply to most clubs in other national leagues. The national-football-teams website typically lists squad members that are internationals (by sporting nationality) so that may be a good source for the lesser-covered leagues - but only for their internationals. In any case, it will be difficult to source the information for non-internationals in the Panamanian league for example. Jogurney (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Kevin, I have to admit I respected your opinion and viewpoints here many of which I hold myself. However the fact of the matter as you say is that removing these flags is unthinkable to a vast majority here. With that being the accepted norm we need a way to mitigate the inconsistent usage and unclear nature of flags. If your pushing for complete flag removal I suggest you open a new discussion for that, however my half way house was completely blown out of the water.

What if we automatically added a {{unreferenced-section}} or similar when {{{link}}} is blank? Gnevin (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples User:Gnevin/sandbox3 and User:Gnevin/sandbox4 Gnevin (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The principle of your "halfway house" is something I welcome, but the selection of text to do the job is tricky, precisely because it is a defence of the scarcely defensible. Having said that, I might have had a bit of a "senior moment" (at 46!) as I wrote my last comment thinking that you were proposing the words as verified by a third party were to appear precisely like that: d'oh! I realise (hope) you are suggesting that the {{Football squad start}} line be replaced by {{Football squad start|[http://www.gillinghamfootballclub.com/page/ProfilesDetail/0,,10416,00.html]}} (for my club). If there can be an automatic posting of an unsourced template where such a reference is missing (maybe a specific warning for this template, that can give instructions on how to address it), then I think that would be a great solution. Is the triggering of a template by the missing field in a previous template command technically possible? Kevin McE (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See the example in my sandbox , these are working examples. Also you weren't having a senior moment, before I was suggesting , well more thinking out loud about as verified by a third party but that has lead us to this current suggestion as my thinking out loud often does. At the moment you would do {{Football squad start|ref=[http://www.gillinghamfootballclub.com/page/ProfilesDetail/0,,10416,00.html |here]}} but I can change so the ref= isn't required . Also at the moment the warming template is coming from User:Gnevin/sandbox1 feel free to edit or suggest changes if playing with templates isn't your thing Gnevin (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd support something along those lines. WFCforLife (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I'd add to the tag "for information on how to source this template, click here", with "here" linking to the documentation. WFCforLife (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Heroic work in the cause of WP:V there. I would suggest that objections to the warning might be minimized if the template is as gently phrased as possible when first rolled out (This table does not cite any references or sources for nationality shown, which has recently been identified as a frequent shortcoming with the use of the template.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.) The blunter text could go back after a suitable period (30 days?). This would admit that it has been a project wide systemic failing, not remiss editing by those who might take pride in their own team's article.
A couple of minor tweaks to this real step forward: Flags indicate most recent FIFA national representation (add FIFA to prevent those who would flag Catalan, Manx or Kosovan "internationals"), and include final phrase previously mentioned (Individuals may hold other eligibilities: perhaps less necessary than it previously was, as "blame" for oversimplifying nationality issues can be passed onto reference cited, but I'd still prefer to have it). Let's hope that not many references describe players as of two (or more) nationalities, otherwise the limitation of the template re-emerge. Kevin McE (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Haiti charity match

Would it be appropriate to create an article about the charity match for Haiti? Perhaps we could create an article about the annual Match Against Poverty organised by the United Nations Development Programme and include it there? JACO PLANE • 2010-01-23 10:50

Match Against Poverty anyone? Do we have project guidelines regarding the notability of charity games? This annual match seems more notable than the Amsterdam Tournament or Emirates Cup IMHO. JACO PLANE • 2010-01-23 17:53

Stephen Husband

Just want to clarify when this article should be created. 19 year-old Husband signed for Blackpool today from Hearts. He did not make a first team appearance for them, but did play 7 times for Livingston in the SFL Third Division on loan this season, and had previously been on loan at Cowdenbeath in the 2006-07 season (in the SFL Second Division). Should I wait until he makes his Blackpool debut to create an article, or are those appearances for Livington and Cowdenbeath sufficient? I was presuming that an article hadn't been created yet as the SFL 2nd and 3rd Divisions aren't fully pro, if that is the case?--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Only the SPL and Scottish First Division are fully-pro as per this list, so I'd wait until he plays a match in the Championship. -- Big Dom 18:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah ha, I thought so. Thanks for the reply.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone, natch, couldn't wait. - Dudesleeper talk 22:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh....--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not surprised are you? People jumping the gun on Wikipedia is as common as (libel deleted) Argyle 4 Life (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Errr, let's remember that BLP still applies to talk pages, guys. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. You know its the truth though. ;) Argyle 4 Life (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

South Africa copyright issue

File:Soccer City in Johannesburg.jpg

The image File:Soccer City in Johannesburg.jpg has been listed for deletion on Commons, see the discussion here. Apparently the issue is that there is no "Freedom of panorama" in South Africa, so these images cannot be listed under a free license. If this image gets deleted, then presumably every image of stadiums and any images taken inside the stadiums during matches would have to be deleted. This would quite seriously impact our 2010 FIFA World Cup article, which we all would like to be a showcase of our best work and which would hopefully inspire new contributors to help out with football articles. Any copyright wizards on this project that want to have a look at the legality of these images? JACO PLANE • 2010-02-2 17:03

Photos of fans, players or matches, where part of the stadium is in view but unquestionably not the focal point, would be covered by fair use. ~~Sadly this one will need to go though.~~ WFCforLife (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So would images like File:Cape Town Stadium panorama.jpg have to be deleted too? JACO PLANE • 2010-02-3 11:10

I don't know about that one. And to be clear, I'm not claiming to be an expert. I'd say keep the panoramic one; if it were deleted, you could crop the top of it to below the scoreboard, argue that it is depicting the fans and the match (which just happens to be in a stadium you can't photograph the structure of), and I'm pretty confident that the revised version would be allowed to stay. WFCforLife (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Scrap the above, I don't think this is clear enough to justify deletion. WFCforLife (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Milan Jovanović

It would probably be worth restricting anonymous IP editing of Milan Jovanović for a while. I have reverted already edits which now say he is a Liverpool player. Even if he signs a pre-contract deal with Liverpool (and that's still an if) then he will still be contracted to Standard Liege until the end of the season Steve-Ho (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Spacing of endashes in {{footballbox}}

As you all should know, the current practice when using {{footballbox}} is to put a space on either side of the endash (–) in the scoreline. However, it has been brought to the attention of Template talk:Footballbox that this practice is contrary to WP:ENDASH and that the spaces should be removed. It is my contention that the template looks better when the spaces are included, and so this is a case where WP:IAR should be enforced. Nevertheless, I would just like to inform this project of the discussion that is taking place at Template talk:Footballbox#WP:ENDASH, so that we can come to a proper decision regarding this stylistic issue. The more people we can get involved, the more likely it will be that we will come to a lasting consensus. – Pee Jay 09:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Looks better" is rarely a good reason to invoke IAR. In this case it isn't necessary, as there's a simple technical solution. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

All Nations Cup

Please check the articles in Category:All Nations Cup. Is this tournament notable? From Google, all I see are some hits to local newspapers. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Many cities have similar events: in terms of level of football, publicity (as far as the article reveals) and organisation it is essentially park football. The links to national football teams are laughable. Articles prodded. Kevin McE (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Prod resulted in deletions of all involved articles. Kevin McE (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

nationalteam8

I was just going over the article for Roman Hubník and realised that under the current infobox template, if a player has played for all his countries youth national teams (U-15 to U-21) and for the senior national team, the latter does not appear in the infobox. I'm not very good with template coding, so could someone change it to include a nationalteam8 parameter. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but it still doesn't work. In spite of whatever it is you did, Roman Hubník's article still doesn't show his caps and goals for the Czech Republic national football team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It does in my browser. Try hitting edit on the article and it should reload properly. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Or purging the page cache. It's definitely working now anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Website football2.co.kr

Hello! The website football2.co.kr was a precious source, because it contained several informations (line-ups, goals, booked, referee etc...) about the past European football competitions. But it seems that it is not accessible anymore :-( Please, do you have a similar link or its addrss in web.archive.org? I think that it was a great source. Thanks for any help, --VAN ZANT (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Try http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.football2.co.kr . Can't read Korean, assuming that's what it is, so can't tell how much of the site has actually been archived. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Struway2, Thanks for your help. Unluckly the site doesn't work well and I think that the majority of the informations which were published cannot be recovered. What a pity: it was an excellent source --VAN ZANT (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried using the Internet Archive links to locate a contact address for the old site owner? It may be possible that the site was backed up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with sources for an article?

I'm going through the articles of Playboy Playmates and trying to source various info. I've run into a bit of a stumbling point in the article for Luci Victoria. She seems to have cause a bit of a stir during the half time of a football match. There were a couple articles referenced which talked about the event but both of those articles are now gone. I'm not at all familiar with where I might find sources for this sort of thing since I don't follow the sport. So, could someone associated with this project help me out? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 23:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Naked girls and football make me happy. See a Google News Archive search drilled down to about the date here. A couple are not related and most are pay-per-view. It looks like there are a handful discussing exactly what you are looking for (make sure to look at page 2). You may or may not be willing to pay for it, but keep in mind that Wikipeida's verifiability guidelines dictate only that the information needs to be available and not the ease of finding it. Basically you might have to go off the free preview, pay for it, or see if it is scanned in at your local library. Good luck and feel free to shoot me a message on my talk page if you need ~~a hand~~(pun not intended!)help with it.Cptnono (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles are also accessible free: The Daily Record: Playboy treat for Killie fans, Scotland on Sunday match report, The Sun:Killie's turn to go bust!, The Sunday Mail: HOP IT, BUNNY!. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all! It seems someone did the work for me and added those sources to the article! Thanks again! Dismas|^(talk) 15:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Luther Blissett

Clearly I have a conflict on interest, so I thought I'd ask here first. Do editors think that Luther Blissett should be moved to Luther Blissett (disambiguation), to make way for the England international and Premier League('s equivalent) top-scorer who inspired the fad? WFCforLife (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say so, the footballer is clearly far more notable IMHO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I moved the DAB, and got the resulting redirect speedily deleted to make way for the footballer. Guess I'd better work on the article itself, it's in a sorry state. WFCforLife (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of Persipura Jayapura

Clear vandalism spotted in this article, please help to revert. Frankie goh (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

UEFA.com

Hi there "teammates",

Just to warn you about the following: UEFA's official site has changed its configuration, thus ALL references (and i suppose hundreds of well-intended users have added thousands in various pages) have crashed out - see for instance what happened at one where i worked extensively yesterday, Maciel Lima Barbosa da Cunha.

Could it be we have been working for nothing? I hope not...

Attentively, VASCO, Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Annoying. It's going to be a matter of changing links to match the new format. For example, the first link you posted changes from http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/news/kind=1/newsid=138644.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=138644.html. It's just a matter of mapping out which links are broken and what the new links need to be. Then we can either try to get a bot to make the change or do it painfully by something semi-automated like AWB. It looks like there are around 12,000 of these links, so it's going to be a big job, especially the mapping, but the mapping needs to be done in close to one go otherwise the broken links will get mixed in with the fixed ones. Camw (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And worryingly, right now it seems all match reports for the European Championship (and U21 Euros) are nowhere to be found. cha ndl er 00:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Found them, they can be accessed by replacing www.uefa.com with en.archive.uefa.com - Example. Same seems to work for the U21s. Camw (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact that works for a couple of news articles I tested as well. That could maybe provide a way forward if we can work out which pages it works for and if the archive site is going to change or not. Camw (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think there was anything wrong with the old format, but c'est la vie. I discovered it the other day when I was trying to reference European Championship players. No obvious links to previous tournaments or players, and the search function seems to be done away with altogether unless I'm blind. It certainly wasn't there the other day. I blame Platini. ;) Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

One good way of fixing this on a large scale whenever an external website moves its pages around is to use a template to produce external links (e.g. the one we use for Soccerway or FCHD) - that way when the website makes a change, we only have to change the meta-template. Perhaps it might be worth someone creating a UEFA template prior to the link fixing? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Every commonly used external site should have a wrapping template for precisely this reason. It is ridiculous how often the sport's various governing bodies flout the cardinal rule that permalinks should never change; you'd think that in the present job market incompetent Web developers would have been weeded out by now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Notibility of seasonal articles for all cups & leagues in England

I've regularly maintained and updated Template:2009–10 in English football, and I've been working on bringing up the format in previous years' templates as well, having currently done so for all templates going back to the 1997–98 template, so answering my current question affects those as well as all previous seasonal templates that may or may not yet exist. To what extent should the English county or regional cups as well as lower-than-Conference leagues/cups receive seasonal articles? I've added all of the 2009–10 league & cup articles that already exist to the 2009–10 template, but I'm not sure how notable each cup/league is or what the best organizational format would be. Seeing as how I'm an American and only really familiar with the top competitions in England, I'd like any clarification or opinion on this subject. Once everything is sorted out then I'd like to adopt an updated standard format for the English seasonal templates so that all of them can be uniformly updated. Thanks. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to say congratulations on making such a massive effort to maintain those templates. But anyway... Personally, I don't think that seasonal articles for competitions like the Manchester Senior Cup should even exist. For the top teams in England, these competitions serve only as extra matches for their reserve teams, and the only notable part of the competition is usually the final, so the really notable info can be included on the competition's main article without the need for any further articles. – Pee Jay 18:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

PeeJay, I once again agree with you completely, there is no way that articles like 2008–09 Manchester Senior Cup and 2009–10 Surrey Senior Cup belong in an encyclopedia. Even a season article for a competition such as the FA Vase would be more noteworthy than these in my opinion because at least it is contested by senior teams. To be honest, I think that even having articles for the Northern Premier League and Isthmian League, etc. is pushing it a bit. Most of this is trivial information taken to the extreme. Maybe these pages wouldn't be so bad if they actually had some context but most of them are just compilations of indiscriminate statistics. The thing is though, pages like these are going to be created until we create some kind of guideline to decide which competitions are notable enough for season articles. For the record, I also fail to see why we need to have articles to list the transfers for every window because in their current states, I can't for the life in me see how they pass the NTEMP guideline. In fact, they seem to just be making a clear mockery of it. -- Big Dom 19:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, PeeJay, I think that I enjoy organizing categories and standardizing articles and templates. (I think that my previous statement says something about myself which I find a little strange, but perhaps I should just get it over with and become a bureaucrat – Grade 37, of course.) If there is sufficient opinion that concurs with those already presented then we can eliminate some of those seasonal articles. Keep the responses coming, please. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The old mantra applies - significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. That can vary from year to year and from competition to competition - attempting to force consistency on the levels covered is a bad idea here. From the point of view of cleaning up existing articles, I'd say that if an article consists of nothing more than a stat dump it should be rolled into a higher-level article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well said Chris. For tournaments that have dramatically risen/fallen in significance, it may actually be desirable to be inconsistent. For example, Southern Football League season 1909–10 might be a worthy article, whereas Southern Football League season 2009–10 is less likely to be. WFCforLife (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, there is a 2009–10 Southern Football League article, although it is in need of some work. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced footballer BLP update

I wanted to thank everyone who has been working hard to clear the backlog, and it's good to see the steady progress we're making. The list of FIFA World Cup players is almost completely cleared (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Sorted by FIFA World Cup finals), so I decided to add players who were in the Euro or Copa América finals. Any ideas on other important tournaments we should focus on (I'm planning to look at Olympics next)? Jogurney (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The obvious choice should be the Africa Cup of Nations, imho even before the Olympics. Referencing those will be tough, I suspect, as the early editions suffer from a lack of coverage from what I can tell. Madcynic (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem is that no one has created a category for CAN players yet, but I'll get started today. I've added Confed Cup players to the list for now. Jogurney (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a great work. It would be easier to add references to most Olympics as there are FIFA and sports reference links.--Latouffedisco (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, excellent work everyone. Goes to show what can happen when a group pull in the same direction. I'll look into getting a few more shifted now.

Argyle 4 Life (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, its blank again now, heh. Is every UEFA European Championship player referenced now? Copa America and Gold Cup? Argyle 4 Life (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Are there refs for all players who've competed in a Euro club final, or the Libertadores? If not, can they also be added.Eldumpo (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's only easy to check when the articles are categorized by tournament. I suspect many of the Copa América players are not categorized yet, and I only finished categorizing the 2010 Africa Cup of Nations players (it will take some time to categorize all of the older tournaments). I did notice that there are categories for Premier League, La Liga and some other leagues, so we could check those for unreferenced players pretty easily. Jogurney (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added the unreferenced BLPs in the Premier League and La Liga player categories. I'll add the same from the other major leagues later. Jogurney (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to pick some low hanging fruit I have made a list of articles that are both Category:Unreferenced BLPs} and Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability, You can find the list here. Rettetast (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)