Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 84

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

Archive 80

←

Archive 82

→

Infobox football league

In {{Infobox football league}}, there are {{{feeds}}} and {{{promotion}}}. For instance in North Berks Football League feeds = Hellenic League but the article says "The top club in Division One is eligible for promotion to the Hellenic League", which means that {{{feeds}}} and {{{promotion}}} are the same. Is there any difference between the meaning of the two fields?--Quest for Truth (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"Promotion" suggests that teams move up to another division in the same league, whereas "Feeds" implies a move from one league to another. For example, a team gets promoted from the Conference North to the Conference Premier, but the Conference feeds into the Football League (with teams from the Conference Premier being promoted to Football League Two). – Pee Jay 10:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Help requested with fixing Template:Fb ss3 player

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Help requested with fixing Template:Fb ss3 player, which concerns some templates used for squad lists. The creator is having difficulties, but I am also having difficulty understanding exactly what is required. Comments there are welcome, as are adjustments to the actual templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

National team infoboxes

I propose we delete the "biggest win" and "biggest defeat" entries from the standard national team templates for two reasons. First, these details seem like the sort of unimportant trivia that are discouraged from inclusion in the infobox. See Help:Infobox: "Infobox templates should not be used for details that are too trivial to include in the article body." Second, the national team infoboxes are quite long. For example, the wiki pages for the national teams of England and the USA have infoboxes that take up 1 1/2 pages on my computer screen. This is contrary to the guidance from Help:Infobox states that infoboxes should be "concise." Thoughts? Barryjjoyce (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe the same applies to the parameters I tried to get removed from Template:Infobox football league season. – Pee Jay 21:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Completely disagree. Why would you not mention the largest win / defeat in the main body of an article? They are by definition historic matches. Why does the physical length of an infobox matter? The article is much longer than one computer screen, should that be shortened to? I don't understand your point here. Your use of England as an example kind of makes a rod for your own back as the biggest win links to a specific article on that match, indicating that it is a very notable event. I appreciate not all matches will be notable enough for their own article, but this does support the notion that biggest win / loss should be notable enough for discussion within the main article. Just because it is not mentioned there does not mean it shouldn't be in the infobox.

You also seem to confuse the meaning of the word "concise" with the word "short". Help:Infobox does not make any comment regarding length, merely that lengthy sections of text or very detailed stats should be in the article body. Completely agree that there is little point filling in every possible data field in an infobox when the article body is only a stub, but the length of the infobox in both the examples you give is only a small % of the length of the total article and would therefore seem concise to me. Fenix down (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

In searching through additional national team pages, it appears that not only do England and the USA have no mention of the biggest win / biggest defeat in the text of the articles, but neither do Germany, Italy, Spain, Brazil, or Mexico. (Fenix claims the England biggest win links to an article on that match; I've looked but not been able to find what he's talking about). None of these seven articles discuss the team's biggest win in the text. I've also looked at the History of _____ national football team pages that exist for some of these teams — England and the USA — and the text of those articles contains no mention of the biggest win/defeat. So it seems pretty clear that the hundreds of editors who have been working on these national team pages over a number of years don't seem to think that the biggest win/defeat is worth mentioning. So if editors don't think it is important enough to include it in the text, why include it in the Infobox then? This seems contrary to the guidance from MOS:INFOBOX that the purpose of the Infobox is "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears."

If there is little-to-no value in including the biggest win / biggest defeat stats in the Infobox, it would be better if these stats were be removed from the national team template. Again, the guidance from MOS:INFOBOX seems clear on this point, advising that the Infobox should "present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." MOS:INFOBOX also states that the less information the Infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose of allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Barryjjoyce (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am making the change proposed in this section and removing the biggest win & biggest defeat from the national team infobox template, per the reasons discussed above. Only one editor initially voted against, but that editor has not been heard from in days, and per WP:CONSENSUS "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions." Furthermore, the reasons for the opposition were not persuasive in that he admitted he didn't understand the proposed change and the reasons given, relied on incorrect facts to support his argument, and seemed unaware of the established policy described in MOS:INFOBOX regarding the purpose of the infobox and the reasons they should be concise. Barryjjoyce (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Barryjjoyce:, please don't be so hasty, this very brief discussion can hardly be called a 'consensus' to make such a major change - two for (including you) and one against? @Fenix down: you might want to comment further please. Giant Snowman 18:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I will honor your request and hold off on making the change while we see if others weigh in. I had wanted to bring this discussion to a close before it becomes archived and disappears from the main talk page, but I'm happy to wait further to give others an opportunity to weigh in.

I had originally opened this discussion on January 10 (16 days ago) on the the "national teams" talk page. After hearing no opposition, I started the discussion here to the main Footy page, because I was hesitant to change the infobox template without discussion, and wanted others to weigh in. Also, yesterday I posted a note on the talk page for the Infobox national football team template — letting folks know of the proposed change and directing them to the discussion on this page. If there is another place where you want to leave a note to let interested people know of this discussion, please go ahead. Barryjjoyce (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Barryjjoyce:, @GiantSnowman: - I meant biggest defeat, the WL is in the infobox, it is a notable match with its own article. It would appear to me that it is preferable that link to this notable article be given in the infobox as you seemed to have missed the comment in the main body of the England article which says In the return match in Budapest, Hungary won 7–1. This still stands as England's worst ever defeat. After the game, a bewildered Syd Owen said, "it was like playing men from outer space" about that very match. The US biggest win is also actually mentioned in the history fork.

Also Barry, there is nowhere near consensus in this discussion. I would suggest that the fact that there has only been two responses in the last week suggests that there is no real desire one way or the other. Not sure what you mean by your comments about MOS:INFOBOX, would suggest the WP:INFOBOXUSE is the most relevant point here and unless consensus can be achieved with regards to their removal then there is no harm in them staying. Fenix down (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Fenix down: It might help if we quickly review the relevant Wiki policies re Infoboxes and make sure we agree on what the Wiki policies are that guide this discussion:

An infobox should be "concise". (HELP:Infobox). The policy reason behind this guidance is: "The less information [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." (MOS:INFOBOX)

The following guidance on what should be included in infoboxes and what should be excluded is instructive:
(1) Infoboxes should include: "key facts in the article". (MOS:INFOBOX)
(2) Infoboxes should not include: "A common problem is including material in the infobox which is trivial and would not otherwise be included in the article body" and that "Infobox templates should not be used for details that are too trivial to include in the article body" (HELP:Infobox)

With these criteria in mind, I've looked through 10 national team infoboxes — 4 from Europe (England, Germany, Italy, Spain), 3 from the Americas (USA, Mexico, Brazil) and 3 from Africa (Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria). None of those 10 articles include text that describe that team's biggest win. One of those 10 articles (England, as you rightly pointed out, my mistake) includes text that describes the team's biggest win. So of the 20 biggest win/loss entries in the infoboxes across the 10 pages, only one such match is described in the text. I don't plan to look through the infoboxes of all 209 FIFA member nations, but so far it looks like the overwhelming number of articles do not discuss the biggest win/loss. These facts alone mean that these biggest win/loss entries do not meet the criteria of what should be included (see point #1 above), and fall squarely within the description of what should not be included (see point #2 above).
Responding specifically to two of Fenix's arguments above. First, Fenix repeatedly asserts that these biggest win / biggest loss matches are notable. Neither of the relevant Wiki policies at MOS:INFOBOX and HELP:Infobox mention the word "notable" in describing what should be included or excluded in an infobox. Every official match a major national team plays is notable in that it receives coverage in reliable sources, so if we used the notability test to decide what is in or out of the infobox, it would be a test without any meaningful limits.
Second, Fenix points to a History of US Soccer article — that links to the US national team page — that describes the US's 8-0 win over the Barbados. The relevant Wiki policies don't say that an infobox summarizes information that appears in any article that links to that article, and for good reason, because that standard would be so broad so as to justify including just about anything in the infobox. Furthermore, the History of US Soccer page does not mention that the Barbados match was the largest ever victory (I suppose the editors of that page didn't think it worth mentioning); that page mentions the Barbados match only in the context of it being a World Cup qualifier in a section where every single US opponent in qualifying is mentioned, and where the entire article describes probably 100 other matches, so the fact that the Barbados match is one of many, many matches mentioned is not persuasive. Finally, the Barbados match illustrates the uselessness of the "biggest win" statistic — a lopsided score in a match against an opponent ranked #166 in the world was not exactly a key moment in US Soccer history that belongs in an infobox. You won't find the Barbados match listed in the list of greatest wins in U.S. Soccer history as compiled by Sports Illustrated or Bleacher Report or the Guardian. And although many of the 100+ readers who left comments on these articles suggested other matches that should have made the list, none of them mentioned the Barbados match. Barryjjoyce (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Understand yuor points Barry, but WP:INFOBOXUSE is the key issue here, consensus is required. I don't see consensus, nor do I see any real desire for a significant debate on the matter. We are essentially talking about a maximum of two stats in the infobox. The addition or removal of which is neither going to significantly enhance or reduce the reader's understanding of the subject matter, so am concerned that you are making a mountain out of a molehill in your attempt to pursuade others of your point of view. I would ask at this stage for you to step back and try to objectively assess whether the presence of these stats has ever impeded your ability to enjoy an article or reduced the usefulness of an article overall and whether this is beginning to become more an argument about rigourously enforcing a general guideline rather than being about providing material improvements to a series of articles. Fenix down (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Fenix down: I think we're both asking the right questions as to whether the presence or absence of the biggest win / biggest defeat entries make the infoboxes better or worse. As I mentioned earlier, the benefits of these entries are close to zero, as these biggest win/losses add minimal if any value to the infoboxes. Their downside is that they add clutter to an already lengthy infobox; these two entries for wins/losses take up at least 6 lines of text — more for Spain and some other countries.

On the other hand, despite the lengthy discussion, I don't know that you have put forth persuasive arguments, rooted in Wiki policies, articulating the value in keeping these win/loss entries. Pointing out a small number of instances where an article does discuss the biggest win/loss in the article carries little weight, and the notability standard you were using earlier doesn't seem right for this particular subject. Is there another reason you haven't mentioned already as to why you think the biggest win/loss entries add much value to the infoboxes? Barryjjoyce (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really, you seem to be avoiding discussing WP:INFOBOXUSE which is all that really matters, I simply don't see any desire amongst project members for their removal, 6 lines of text in an infobox which is dwarfed by a much longer article of sourced prose is something that I could in no way consider clutter. I don't really think anything more can be added to this of worht other than a no consensus close. Fenix down (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Goal

I would like to ask for the community's opinion on the {{goal}} template. Having seen the rise of templates like {{try}} and {{kick}} in rugby union articles, it has made me question the worth of all of them. To me, they are all pretty redundant; what significance does the ball icon () give to an article? There is no obvious indication that it means a goal was scored, and that purpose is already served within {{Footballbox}} by adding the player's name and the time of the goal to the "goals1" or "goals2" parameter. This leads me to believe that the ball icon is only there to add decoration to the article, which is discouraged per WP:ICONDECORATION. With this in mind, assuming the community comes to a consensus, it is my intention to have {{goal}} deleted. Opinions? – Pee Jay 00:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

From my perspective, the ball icon does provide an obvious indication of a goal being scored.

Nonetheless, that may just be that (by this point) my brain has subconsciously created this meaning after seeing the icon for so long.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Would your understanding of articles be diminished if the ball icon wasn't there? – Pee Jay 01:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Since many many many articles list yellow cards, red cards, goals and so on in the footballboxes there is no way to see what has happened at that time without the icon. Seeing a name and a time readers will wonder what happened at the time. And this goal template are also used in other footballboxes that lists many things. To me they should definately stay. QED237 (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Good question. QED's response matches what I had in mind. Although some articles do not have yellow/red card records, many of them currently do at this time. Without the goal icon, this would make it hard to distinguish records.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That's another thing that has always perplexed me. Why do people list cards and (dear god, no!) substitutes in the {{footballbox}}? They're not goals, and the parameters are clearly called "goals1" and "goals2". Cards don't even have a direct effect on the scoreline. – Pee Jay 01:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Red cards have an impact on the game but yellow are lesser. If a box shows people were sent off before the goals were scored, then it may lead to a better understanding of the flow of the match without having to read the prose to find the specific game. EddieV2003 (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A normal football box template should not use anything other than goals. These big lineups, those can use cards. -Koppapa (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Red cards, or rather players sent off, tend to be listed in the statistical sections of match results in most media (in the UK at least) which is presumably why they get included here as well. As for the goal template - it also standardises the display of goal information (if used properly) easily formatting multiple goals by the same player, adding in the goal time, and properly including and linking notes on own goals and penalties. Simply deleting it will remove all that information from articles where it has been used. If the consensus is that the icon is not required surely it would be better to simply remove that element from the template rather than deleting the template outright? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, just deleting the icon would work for me. If red cards must be listed, they are the anomaly and should be indicated as such with the use of {{sent off}}; that is an intuitive icon as a player is actually shown a red card when being dismissed from play – there is nothing intuitive about using a ball to indicate a goal. However, if we simply remove the icon from {{goal}}, what does that leave us with? A template whose only function is to reduce the size of the text, put a comma between each number and add a link to Own goal or Penalty kick where appropriate? That can be done easily with simple wikicode, there's no need for a template in that instance. – Pee Jay 12:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's bloody useful, along with {{pengoal}}; esp. with the minute of play. I don't think typing simple wikitext in this instance is easier or quicker. It is a useful template along with the notes and I don't see a problem with listing cards like I have done in previous season articles. If anything, the footballbox template parameter should be renamed. Jared Preston (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The icons are ambiguous and are not paired with explanatory text. A simple solution would be to add headers with "Goals" above the scorer's list. The use of yellow and red cards is also problematic given they were not used for the majority of the game's history and records of cautions are not always available. Hack (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If the community believes that it is appropriate to add bookings to the "footballbox" template, then headings for "Goals" and "Cards" would be a good idea; otherwise, headings aren't really needed, and neither is the ball icon. Also, yellow and red cards have not been used for all football history, but their use can at least be retconned; players have (almost) always been given warnings and expulsions from games, so it is easy to apply card icons to that info even if no cards were shown at the time. – Pee Jay 09:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Send-offs are generally pretty well documented historically - 10 v 11 is pretty obvious - but I wonder if cautions have always been recorded or reported. Hack (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point of what I was saying. Yes, bookings and sendings-off are usually documented in official sources (and if not you can probably find them in news reports), but physical cards were not actually used until the 1970 World Cup. Nevertheless, the yellow and red card icons have become indicative of a booking or sending-off and so we can conceivably use a yellow card icon to indicate a booking from the 1960s or earlier. The ball icon, however, is pretty abstract when it comes to indicating that a goal has been scored and should not be used here. – Pee Jay 11:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This looks like an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist, an attempt to role out "what I prefer". The ball symbol, the yellow card symbol, the red card symbol, all help readers understand what happened during the course of a game. They enhance the articles in which they're used, making it easier to determine whether a goal was scored or a player sent off. Listing cards and goals is just fine, if it's good enough for the BBC, it's good enough for Wikipedia. It should be noted that the proposer suggested the use of {{Footballbox}} while simultaneously decrying the use of icons. The former template uses icons such as a ball for "goal". I'm not sure I understand the initial proposal, other than it's wasted enough time already. Or is part of the proposal to remove the ball from the {{Footballbox}} as well? It's unclear. Time to find something useful to do I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The {{footballbox}} does not "use" the icons itself. It does not require the use of sub-templates at all. It simply happens that it has come to use the {{goal}} template, which includes an icon that violates WP:ICONDECORATION. – Pee Jay 18:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

So are you saying use the footballbox template or not? With or without goal/card icons? I think I missed the bit where you explained why these icons aren't useful to readers? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course we should use the footballbox template, that was never in question. The main thrust of my argument was that the goal icons should be removed as they are not intelligible; why exactly does a ball indicate that a goal has been scored? And without the icon, is your understanding of the article at all diminished? As for cards, I'd rather they weren't used in the footballbox, but that's just my preference; either way, whether we include the cards or not, the ball icon for a goal is not necessary. – Pee Jay 19:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well clearly that's nonsense, if we include cards in the match results (and why wouldn't we? most articles summarise discipline) then we'd need to differentiate somehow between goals, yellow and red cards. Even FIFA use goal icons, why shouldn't we? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If icons are used for yellow and red cards (since they make sense – a player is shown a card of those colours), then there's no need to use an icon for a goal. And just because FIFA use a ball icon for a goal doesn't mean we should. It's just as unintelligible for them to use one as it is for us to do so. – Pee Jay 19:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Silly, so our readers are to "assume" that "no icon" means goal? Sure, FIFA don't get everything right, but suddenly your argument has no grounds whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

In your opinion, perhaps, but I believe that is a logical assumption for our readers to make. Anyway, I'd appreciate some other voices on this. – Pee Jay 20:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Gooooooooooal! It's a goal. But the ball icon is better. Our readers understand.

I personally think there is no better icon to show that a goal has been scored, especially when noted along with the minute... Or should one show the actual goal structure? This one and this one are good, but I like this one the most!!! Jared Preston (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still yet to see any reason why we need any icon whatsoever. – Pee Jay 22:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And we're still yet to see a decent standing argument other than WP:ICONDECORATION, to which this template and its usage I don't think is applicable. It serves its purpose copably well. Jared Preston (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I know this is not the Simple English Wikipedia, but you are expecting too much from the general public by assuming they will realize a number with nothing else beside of it means a goal was scored. How are they to know that the yellow/red card icon was not left out? You need to step away from being somebody with a great knowledge of match reports and look at it from the perspective of the general public who may become educated by Wikipedia as to what is included in a match report. EddieV2003 (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

They will know because the number of entries is the same as the number of goals. Which is not the case for the number of ball symbols if any player has scored 2 or more goals. Kevin McE (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

How do reliable sources handle this? Guardian (no icon) BBC (no icon) ESPN (icon, but not in the summary) In all cases here (admittedly just a small sample), the icon is not used in the main summaries anywhere, only appearing in a "full detailed account", similar to the 2010 World Cup Final article on Wikipedia linked above. FWIW, I think a full detailed account is justifiable for a World Cup final, but not for a club season article, where upwards of 50 matches can be detailed.C 679 19:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Everything that happens in a football match pertains to the ball, or should do. The notion that a ball represents a goal will only make sense if that counter-intuitive convention has been encountered elsewhere. We don't even use it to mean goal: it indicates a goal scorer, and if a player gets 2 or more goals in a match, there is only one ball shown. This proves the redundancy of the symbol in practice: the only meaningful indicator of a goal that we use is the time, and given that we do not indicate the time of anything else, it serves no purpose beyond decoration. Kevin McE (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Brian McClair career stats

Just wanted to bring to attention that the career statistics table at Brian McClair is a jpg... that's obviously not correct practice. Not to mention there's no source. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mateus Caramelo

Hello again - here's another old football draft. Is this a notable player, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering there's one in main space for the player, merge it there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Done! I moved one paragraph which seemed to have new content, and then changed it into a redirect (Mateus Caramelo (football) to preserve the attribution. Please someone who knows about football read the result at Mateus Caramelo and edit as necessary. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

January transfer deadline countdown

Hello, I am starting a list of articles about potential transfers here for everybody to monitor against vandalism, and request semi-protection if it's getting out of hand. JMHamo (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Added two players rumoured to Man United. QED237 (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

One more (Osvaldo) QED237 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Lot of disrutive on Hernanes. QED237 (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Players:

Yevhen Konoplyanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Liverpool F.C.
Toni Kroos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Manchester United F.C.
Arturo Vidal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Manchester United F.C.
Dani Osvaldo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Juventus F.C.
Hernanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Inter F.C.

Matthew Towns

Could someone please halp me with this. I deleted a couple of days ago this article which is an expired PROD. Today, a user (apparently Matt Towns himself) showed on my talk page, User talk:Ymblanter#Matthew Towns ans asked to restore the page since he was with Macclesfield in the English Second League. I am not sure he understands our notability criteria, so I searched. Whereas I certainly do find evidence he (was) signed with Macclesfield I can not understand whether the games he played give notability. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

He never played a game for Macclesfield, as the version of the article he uploaded actually states. His other clubs in England and Wales don't play in professional leagues. Not 100% sure about Malta but I'm sure someone will advise -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Malta's league is only semi-pro, summed up by the fact they only really use one stadium for matches. Giant Snowman 15:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I suggested him to continue here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys but your assumption that because Malta only uses one stadium for their league games and due to this inaccurate information concluding that the Maltese league is a semi pro league is incorrect, I am a full time football player currently with a full time professional contract which is in the second year of 2 with St Andrews (Malta) other clubs played for in Malta algae been Floriana (with whom I played in the Europa League) and Valletta (whom qualified for the champions league qualifying round during my time there) Although I did not play a league game for Macclesfield Town, this does not mean that I was not a full time professional player as I have contracts of employment and this was my full time occupation! I don't see why when references were being pulled together and evidence of all information given in the article uploaded was being provided over time that you deleted this as being I factual when it was being proven! Please reply! And when you can re upload the article to the state it was in so that I can further reference! Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6901 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you were on a full-time contract with Macclesfield is not relevant, because, as has been pointed out, the guideline does not state that a footballer needs to have signed a professional contract, it states that they must have played in a fully professional league i.e. actually played a first-team match. So, unfortunately, you don't pass the bar based on your time there. I don't know enough about Maltese football to answer your other points, so I'll let someone else address those..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And I would also add that according to your former club Valetta, you were an amateur player at Floriana and "not entitled to any financial remuneration". It is recognised that the Maltese league is semi-pro - i.e. not all players are fully professional, and that's why the league does not meet the criteria for player articles. Number 5 7 09:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amber Brooks

Sorry, football fans, I know you must be getting tired of this, but here is another old abandoned soccer article. Is she notable? —Anne Delong (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, she is notable having represented the United States at international level. She has an article at Amber Brooks. Hack (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Drat! Looks like this is a new article and was just created last week. If I had been able to work through the backlog of old drafts just a little faster, I could have saved someone a bit of work remaking the infobox, etc., but now I guess the old article should just be let go - the new one is considerably more developed. Thanks for checking. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Football kits

Not sure if it's juts my browser, but several of the national team football kits are not properly displaying the teams' colors. For example, the Peru national football team kit does not show its red diagonal stripe. Anyone else having this issue?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Internet explorer - Infobox - no stripe. Below in section "Uniforms" - a stripe.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the infobox kit is the problem. I used Google Chrome, and it also has the same issue.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a browser problem. These edits by Frietjes (talk · contribs) broke the display of kits so that only the principal colour shows. I've copied the previous version of {{Infobox national football team}} to {{Infobox national football team/sandbox}} and set up Template:Infobox national football team/testcases; here, you can see that the "Testing sandbox version" column shows the diagonal stripe and other details like the collar and cuffs which the live infobox lacks. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

fixed, the {{football kit}} template barfs if |filetype= is used with a blank value. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Azdren Llullaku

Hi. I just came across a very poorly source article about Azdren Llullaku. The only sources are transfermarkt, which is not considered reliable, and some albanian source I can not read. Is this player even notable? I would appreciate if someone could take a look at it. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Soccerway profile confirms he has played in Liga I (36 appearances to date) so he meets WP:NFOOTBALL; article needs cleaning up. Giant Snowman 19:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I thought so but wasn't sure and the article is in bad shape, with bad sourcing. QED237 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

He also made 12 appearances in Italy's fully-pro Serie C2. I added a Romanian-language reference to the article which gives a decent background on his career. Jogurney (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Joe Kinnear

Could an Admin please hide this edit on Joe Kinnear from view. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Done I applied WP:RD2 to that and the one after. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ashton Gate revisited

Following the closure of moving the stadium article at no consensus, Jmorrison230582 (talk · contribs) has now proposed a move at Talk:Ashton Gate. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 19:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 African Nations Championship

Have you got the list of libyan players? Because Libya wins the tournament and I want to do the template to put in front the country.--FCNantes72 (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you check the CAF website? I did. – Pee Jay 22:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please also add to the squads article. Also every linked report has the 23 players. -Koppapa (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Man Utd loan players debut

Completed request for new articles

Man Utd loaned out players Charni Ekangamene and Sam Byrne both made their professional debuts in Carlisle's away loss to Bristol City on 1 February. Can someone create articles for them please? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I know it's been done already so the point is now moot, but why don't you just create the articles yourself? You have the capability to do so, I assume? And even if not, why request it here? They would have been created in due course. – Pee Jay 20:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

So if its a moot point why are you even replying? I can say the same to you.... Why don't YOU just create the article or send me a private note that its been created???? Also I'll create articles when I feel like it without reporting to you or anyone else. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eishun Yoshida

Dear football experts: Your opinion, once more, please, about this old Afc submission. Is this a notable player? Should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No. He made no appearances for his Bosnian club, and now plays for a fifth-level team in Germany. He has never played at a sufficiently high level to meet notability requirements. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I would delete JMHamo (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis. It's gone! —Anne Delong (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ernesto Amantegui

Hello! One more old football draft - is this one worth keeping? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

He doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't played in a fully-professional league. He is currently a member of a club that plays in a fully-professional league and has been a member of team's match-day squad a number of times. It may be worth postponing the G13 given how close he is to meeting the requirement. Hack (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have postponed. —Anne Delong (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

FC Amkar Perm in European football

What's everybody's opinion on FC Amkar Perm in European football... should it be merged with FC Amkar Perm or deleted? JMHamo (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As that single European campaign already has a section in FC Amkar Perm, a redirect should suffice. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I concur - an ".....in European football" article is definitely not justified for a team that's only ever played two matches in European football (assuming that this is correct and it's not just that the article is incomplete....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, follow the example of Bradford City A.F.C. in European football i.e. a redirect to a section on the club's main page. Giant Snowman 13:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User

This user seems to add same nonsense as the last disrupotors. Some edit look made up and all are unsourced. What do you think? -Koppapa (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Definite sock of FallandSpringOlympics. I will tag it. Could an Admin please intervene? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 13:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

non-FIFA nationality

I removed the flag of Jersey on this article,

"Note: Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality"

Jersey isnt recognised by FIFA, along with a host of other FAs. My question is, is the Jersey flag right for the player section or is it wrong? (My view supports my edit- obviously). Murry1975 (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In the case of Jersey, what else would you put there? I know Soccerbase says he is English, but I wouldn't count Jersey as being part of England (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). And putting a British flag there would just be confusing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The flag was entirely appropriate if they are a Jersey national. The fact that Jersey isn't a FIFA member is irrelevant. Number 5 7 16:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

As per the note on the top of the players list "Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules",Number57, according to FIFA, er, no one is eligibly for Jersey- or Greenland. As this is not clear I would propose a review here, to change the wording, for clarity and consistencey.

"Note: Flags indicate the highest national team represented. Players may hold more than one non-sporting nationality"

Or something of the like. Murry1975 (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

PS not a Jersey international, but born there. Murry1975 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"Flags indicate the highest national team represented, or their primary nationality if they have not represented a national team" perhaps? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes Luke I like that. How about or association of birthplace, or something a bit more, well neutral, think Kosovo/Northern Ireland where people associate with one nationality over another. Murry1975 (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say birthplace; it is perfectly viable to identify as being Northern Irish but to have technically been born in the Republic of Ireland, for example. The other edge of the sword are people born in Catalonia, who could be classified as "Catalans" or "Spaniards", I guess. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No its the fact that in NI you can choose to be British or Irish, and some may see that as a reason to add or remove the flags, also it needs to varifiable, so we need to say its this not that reason, Gerard Doherty Derrys gk, born in NI represented ROI u-19 I think and has being called up by NI- but not capped, is an example of how the situation can be sticky. Murry1975 (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, and Wikipedia has to reflect the person's choice, unless they choose a nationality of which they are not a citizen of, or something like that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly and for those from NI we cant guess what they have choosen if we dont know, legally it can be either- or both. To place one over the other, if someone is born in Belfast, hasnt been capped, we can not presume he is Irish, or Northern Irish, thats why I would prefere the use of association of birth or something that avoids nationality on the issue. Murry1975 (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Jersey is within The Football Association's jurisdiction, and as such players from Jersey should be considered English in football terms. See page 621 of The FA Handbook. Murry1975 made the correct call. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That clears up alot, and a lot less editing, ps TheBigJagielka, I just removed the Jersey flag, I will put in the Georges cross shortly. Murry1975 (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Edgarrincon100

Hi. Could someone please take a look at User:Edgarrincon100 and what he is doing. He started of making some new pages of events far away and keeps making some weird things without explanation. He also seems very familiar to wikipedia even if he has only edited for 3 hours now. I have to sleep and will be off wiki for a while so if anyone could take a look it would be great. Thanks. QED237 (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding a link to this user Edgarrincon100 (talk · contribs). QED237 (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Another sock of FallandSpringOlympics - @GiantSnowman: You blocked FIFAWorldCupFan (talk · contribs) earlier and Edgarrincon100 (talk · contribs) was created to evade the block. Maybe a CheckUser is needed? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

OFC and the CONMEBOL women edits were correct, I readded those. -Koppapa (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 09:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for amendment of WP:FOOTYN regarding season articles

In context of the recent creation of 2014–15 FC Red Bull Salzburg season and the discussion we already had on a similar topic earlier this year, could we agree on some basic criteria when a season article is deemed to be notable, and add these to WP:FOOTYN as there currently is nothing listed for these type of articles? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NSEASONS covers it pretty succinctly, if it is not a "top professional league" - and my interpretation of that is that does not have to mean the highest league, nor a fully professional league listed here for current / historical seasons, whilst WP:CRYSTAL would cover future seasons. The Red Bull Salzburg season will be notable, but at the moment there is nothing to say about it. The squad list is unreliable as it is not guaranteed at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

There is something to say about it. It's around this time of year that transfers for the next season start to happen and Red Bull Salzburg have already started to sign players for next season. It's in there and sourced. I have hid the areas that were with empty tables and might be considered WP:CRYSTAL. The basic criteria I would say is if it can't be sourced, then don't include it. Kingjeff (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on WP:NSEASONS. Guess that one slipped under the radar during my 18-month hiatus, sorry for that. The combination of this and WP:CRYSTAL should indeed be enough. The question for creation of future season articles would then break down to "When is a future season still considered WP:CRYSTAL"?

For league season articles, we usually lift the CRYSTAL curfew when the begin and end dates of the season's fixtures are known AND at least a few teams have mathematically qualified for the season. For cup seasons, usually the begin and end dates and either the draw of at least one round (e.g. 2013–14 FA Cup Qualifying Rounds) or the full list of participants (e.g. 2013–14 DFB-Pokal) are accepted as a base.

It is a little difficult to determine such a set of criteria for club seasons. The first transfers for a season might occur six months or even a year before its actual starting point; while this transfer might be verifiable, general coverage on the subject usually is nonexistent at this point. In other words, there is a dilemma between WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL for club seasons. Would it hence be a suitable compromise if club seasons may be created when the last of the previous season's fixture has been played? Any other/further opinions? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Red Bull Salzburg are guaranteed professional football next season since the second division is a fully professional league. Therefore notability In the 2014–15 FC Red Bull Salzburg season, I have hid the league, cup, and play information sections and the only thing showing is background with the transfer sections. This is an absolutely relevant section at the current time. WP:TOOSOON states "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." This is a statement is one that I agree with in regards to the situation. But the fact is the 2014–15 FC Red Bull Salzburg season article along with all the articles in the previous discussion included sources and they wouldn't have been started if there wasn't any sources. Kingjeff (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

But GNG is the overriding factor. At the moment, there is one transfer that has occurred. No where near significant reliable coverage. Fenix down (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOOTYN needs scrapping completely. The guidelines we follow for players is WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG; for seasons/competitions it is WP:NSEASONS and [WP:GNG]]; for teams it is WP:ORG and WP:GNG etc. etc. Certainly we should have our own guidelines, but they should be based in Wikipedia's wider notability requirements. Giant Snowman 16:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Caribbean Super Leagues

There are at least two articles with a similar theme:

USL Caribbean League - This was a proposed league by United Soccer Leagues in 2010, at one stage they were interested in operating a cross-border league spanning several Caribbean nations. However, it never got off the ground and the three Puerto Rican clubs and one Antiguan club joined USL Pro are now non functioning clubs, the money wasn't available.

Major League Football (2015) - This is another proposed league, however so far, the Caribbean Football Union and CONCACAF have not been consulted the competition. In reality, what has happened is a press release went out from a company in the Caribbean and several newspapers reported it, but very little research has been carried. They do have plans to meet with Caribbean Government officials in the near future.

Should these articles be left as they are, removed, or merged? I'm thinking that perhaps, they should be merged into one article describing the attempts to recreate what the short-lived Caribbean Professional Football League once was. TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

One could add text to that article then and redirect. -Koppapa (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with merging. Giant Snowman 16:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Cenk Tosun

Hi. I need help with player Cenk Tosun. There are many IP coming in changing team unsourced for this player. I went to Besiktas homepage were it says something about the player (in turkish which I dont understand). I ran google translate on the article and from what I understand the transfer will take place ahead of 2014/15 season and not know. Anyone who speaks turkish or know something about this that want to take a look at the article that would be great. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

→http://www.fanatik.com.tr/cenk-tosun-dan-5-yillik-imza_3_Detail_33_354245.htm

→http://www.calciomercato.it/news/260534/Mercato-Besiktas-UFFICIALE-ecco-Tosun.html

Now he currently plays for Besiktas.(five years)--Lglukgl (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The fanatik.com.tr page starts off with "Cenk Tosun ile sezon sonundan itibaren 5 yıllık sözleşme imzaladı.", which google translate renders as "Cenk Tosun has signed a contract of 5 years from the end of the season." The Besiktas official website announcement says "önümüzdeki sezondan", which google translate renders as "from next season". It's pretty clear he doesn't currently play for Besiktas, but he will do next season. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Plus, both pieces list the annual salary he will get in each of his 5 seasons: the first is 2014/15 and the 5th and last is 2018/19. Struway2 (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Edmar

Could somebody with knowledge of the Azbuka, or perhaps a Portuguese speaker, determine what Edmar's name is? The article is currently at Edmar Halovskyi de Lacerda, but I haven't seen any English-language sources use the name in that form. Thanks, C 679 13:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Always Learning: can you help out? Thanks, C 679 20:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely don't follow what is being asked of me here, as much as i (really) want to help. His birthname is Edmar de Lacerda Aparecida but, after his marriage to an Ukrainian national, he added "Halovskyi" to his name. --AL (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the article. But are there any Portuguese RS for his "new" (Ukrainian) name? Thanks, C 679 22:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This one is pretty reliable (please see here http://globoesporte.globo.com/platb/europa-via-maranhao/2011/08/09/a-dez-meses-da-eurocopa-ucrania-estreia-um-reforco-brasileiro/), by Globo Esporte, note when it reads "Edmar já tinha direito a requerer a cidadania ucraniana desde 2008, quando completou cinco anos como residente no país. Mas somente tomou a decisão após o casamento com a ucraniana Tatiana e o nascimento do filho Filip, de 1 ano e 9 meses. Ele tornou-se cidadão ucraniano no início do ano e acrescentou o sobrenome da mulher, Golovski, ao seu", which translated is "Edmar was already eligible for Ukrainian citizenship since 2008, when he completed five years of residence in the country. But he only took that decision after marrying Ukrainian Tatiana and birth of son Filip, aged 1 and 9 months. He became an Ukrainian national earlier this year, and added his wife's surname, Golovski, to his own.

Note that "Golovski" may have a different pronunciation here, more Russian than anything, so "Halovskyi" is the Ukrainian form of "Golovski", as for example "Oleksyi" is the Ukrainian form of "Aleksei". Glad to be of service, cheers --AL (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. What an unusual tale. Thanks, C 679 22:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jose Van Rankin

Hi folks! Another old draft - is this a notable player? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

He has played for Pumas UNAM in Liga MX according to Soccerway, so yes. EddieV2003 (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, good! I have postponed deletion. Now, is the referencing good enough to move it to mainspace? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I added a reference for his professional league debut, so I think it's okay for mainspace. It defintely needs improvement though. Jogurney (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's moved. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brendan O'Leary

Dear footballers: Once more I must show my ignorance of sport, and ask your advice. The above old Afc submission is about a "hurler", but there doesn't appear to be a Wikiproject Hurling. I can't tell from the pictures what these guys are doing. Is this covered under another project? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hurling is an Irish sport somewhat akin to field hockey. The relevant project is WP:GAA..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You could try WP:GAA... hopefully you'll get some help there. JMHamo (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:GAA is the place you're looking for. Hope that helps. – Pee Jay 21:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think maybe I'll try WP:GAA. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered trying WP:GAA? ;) Giant Snowman 11:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aman Hadid

Hello football fans - here's another old Afc draft. Is this a notable player? There seems to be lots of news about him, but I can't tell how relevant it is. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hard to tell without sources. If the article is correct he was signed to Gold Coast United for year. If he played any matches for them, the article would meet WP:NSPORT, but of course none of this is currently confirmed by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, the claims are only connected to semi-pro teams in Australian state leagues (not national). Gold Coast United may count, but there is no appearance information, suggesting he didn't play. Checking the club wikipedia page from 2011, he was not listed in the squad. Nothing on Soccerway about this player. Get rid. Thanks, C 679 21:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It's gone. Thanks for the analysis. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitely doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS. He was a squad member at GCU at one point but never made a league appearance. Hack (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Eusébio Colemanball - Doubt

1 - nearly one month after this giant passed away, a fun fact which is in no way disrespectful (i support no club, not even in my country, and i have the utmost respect for his late persona, very friendly, humble and sporting when he played and after): when asked what did he think about the fact Cristiano Ronaldo had equalled him as national team top scorer, he uttered "In my days it was harder to score, i never played against Frankenstein and the lot." What the hey?! R.I.P. kind sir.

2 - i know we are advised to remove the sub-category in players' article (i.e. leave SPORTSPEOPLE FROM BILBAO, remove PEOPLE FROM BILBAO). I suppose thus the categories that contain only "PEOPLE from..." will be removed everywhere and redirected to a specific genre (ARCHITECTS FROM OSLO, ACTORS FROM WASHINGTON, etc), because if it's done solely in sport/football, it will create quite a mess in my opinion.

Happy weekend, cheers --AL (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Somebody from Malta, Hungary, Canada, USA and Australia?

Hi, I need desperately your help for italian wikipedia.

Lucinio Hellul (probably also Raul Lattad and anyway many football pioneers in South Italy) came from Malta.
Ferenc Molnár and Bino Skasa: an italian journalist wrote 40 years ago they were hungarian jews killed by nazists near Budapest.
footballer Rodolfo Blecich and footballer-actor Antonio Marietti died both in Australia, Rodolfo Blecich in Caulfield, Melbourne and Marietti in Hobart, Tasmania..
Ruud Krol: nobody knows something about his months in Vancouver.
Jenő Vinyei died in New Jersey, he was envolved with US soccer around 1960; István Mike Mayer died in Glen Rock and his sons were Steve Mike-Mayer and Nick Mike-Mayer..

I need a lot of miracles, sorry, I need find more informations to enlarge their articles. Thank you for your help. 151.12.11.2 (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Vinyei did play football (soccer) in the United States, and died in Passaic, New Jersey on November 1, 1976. This reports that he played a few American Soccer League and International Soccer League matches in 1960 and 1961. This indicates he played for the Philadelphia-based Ukrainian Nationals in 1962. Jogurney (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

thank you very much! --93.42.108.26 (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ghana national football team

Any and all input is welcome with regard to cleaning up the excessive statistics and original research, in Ghana national football team. Frietjes (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have trimmed 6k (4%) of the article, although there is still sizeable scope for further cleanup. Thanks, C 679 11:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

awesome! you will probably want to monitor it since there has been a history of massive rollbacks and edit warring. Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Franck Queudrue's cap for France B

Franck Queudrue is widely reported in English sources as having a "B" international cap for France, beginning with when he first signed for Middlesbrough in October 2001. However...

when he was called up for France A' for a match against Germany A2 in March 2001, the French FF website did an interview with him hung on its being his first involvement with France at any level;
according to contemporary sources, including French Football365's match report, the German FA's teamsheet, and his club website's daily news, he never got off the bench in that match; and
that was France's last B/A' international until the team was revived in 2007.

What that comes down to is, according to multiple reliable sources, he was an unused sub in the only possible game in which he could have been capped before October 2001. So either there's a massive conspiracy to keep secret the fact that he did come off the bench in the Germany game, or he and the FFF inexplicably forgot some earlier cap that doesn't appear in RSSSF's list of France B/A' results either, or rather more likely, the call-up and seat on the bench was interpreted as a cap when he moved to England and he hasn't gone about trying to dispel the notion (and why should he).

What I'm wondering, really, is

a) does anyone (@Latouffedisco: @Cattivi: ??) have sources that might throw more light on the subject? or if not,

b) are the sources above enough to outweigh the multiple English sources that merely repeat the "fact" of his France B cap? And if not, are we stuck with the simplistic appeal to verifiability not truth: that the BBC et al say something happened, so the fact that it apparently didn't is beside the point? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It could be one journalist mis-interpreting something and then others copying, as we see far too often. Given the strength of the RSSSF/French sources, I would go with them. Giant Snowman 13:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The fr.wiki page has one cap for France espoirs aka U21, gained in 2000, but I can't find any evidence for that either, and again, it'd be inconsistent with the B/A' callup in 2001 being his first at any level. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm he was an unused sub for France A' against Germany A' in 2001. the list and the Report.--Latouffedisco (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Request

Since this here is a 100% encyclopedical request, maybe i'll be lucky enough to merit a few lines in response, or the actual improvement of the article (in case of the latter, then there'll be no need for a reply).

Can anyone with knowledge of Finnish please translate the three refs in said language in Rubén Palazuelos' article? Thank you very much in advance, happy week to the "commission" --AL (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

2013–14 A-League

The above article has a detailed list of results by round, which I believe is regarded as excessive detail? Also, there is an uncited 'Positions by round' section which I recall was agreed by Footy previously to be excessive detail / is OR without a source. Eldumpo (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have noted that the current seasons for the Bundesliga, La Liga and Serie A have positions by round sections, and whilst they include a cite, the references do not appear to support the claims. Eldumpo (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Without sources this section should definately be removed. QED237 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

They are pretty easy to source. -Koppapa (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone else started a parallel discussion at the Australian noticeboard and a post has suggested that full results by round might be OK. Not sure if anyone wants to look there in case it leads to a case of local consensus being different to wider Footy views? What other season articles contain full results by round? I'm aware of Indonesia (which started this query), any others? Eldumpo (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Los Angeles Galaxy → LA Galaxy

Please see Talk:Los Angeles Galaxy#Requested move 10 February 2014 for discussion. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 17:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Israel Zaguri

Once more, here's an old draft that was created in Afc space, but never submitted. The player looks notable; are the references appropriate? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Not needed, we have Yisrael Zaguri.--Egghead06 (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that - Obviously at least one football fan wasn't able to find Mr. Zaguri using the correct spelling of his name. Would it be appropriate to have a redirect from Israel Zaguri to Yisrael Zaguri? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I have done so. Giant Snowman 13:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again - the unneeded draft is gone. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Giovanni Fanello

Hi folks! Another one of those abandoned Afc articles. The Italian version appears to have references of some sort. Is this notable? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, notable. Fanello played and scored for Italy in the 1960 Olympic Games as can be seen here. --Egghead06 (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Hack has postponed deletion, and I have added that reference to the article. Maybe some text can be translated from the French or Italian articles. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

hi, if you need help on italian wikipedia we can help you; Fanello played for my team so I could find something about him.. --93.64.241.68 (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That's great! The English article needs help badly. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

okay, when I'll use the other pc I'll write on your personal page with some informations :).. --93.64.241.68 (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Horrible translation, I know

His first team was Unione Sportiva Pizzo, hometown team: with that team he played some local championships in Calabria. In 1958 Unione Sportiva Catanzaro signed him: with that team he was promoted in Serie B in 1959-1960 season: at 21 years he scored 15 goals and he was top scorer. Nereo Rocco called him in summer 1960 for national olympic team; he debuted against Taiwan on august 26. Italia was #4, Fanello scored once in in 2 games.

(continue) 151.12.11.2 (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a detailed local newspaper article here (page 9) about his life and career (in Italian). Looks like he was a major figure in Serie C and Serie B, and signed with Milan even if he never had an impact there. Jogurney (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

exact.. --217.133.9.55 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jugovic Marjan

Dear football fans: I know, I know, another old football draft about to be deleted...anyone interested in this one? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this the same guy as Marjan Jugović? Murry1975 (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it, so that draft would be bye-bye :) Murry1975 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Oooh, thanks. One more off the list of old drafts. Only 3,500 left - down from 52,000, so you should be hearing less from me soon... —Anne Delong (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Unusual UEFA Euro bids

Can some people please take a look at UEFA Euro 1988 bids, UEFA Euro 1992 bids, UEFA Euro 1996 bids and UEFA Euro 2000 bids? They start of quite correctly and believable, but continue with some very farfetched information (bids from Liechtenstein or the Faroer? A joint bid from Switzerland and Ireland?) I'm tempted to delete them immediately as hoaxes, but perhaps there is some obscure bit of football lore that escapes me that made such... unusual bids possible in the 1990s. Fram (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Created as a joke. -Koppapa (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Another sock of FallandSpringOlympics created these articles : FIFAHalloweenWorldCup (talk · contribs) - @GiantSnowman: You blocked FIFAWorldCupFan (talk · contribs) and Edgarrincon100 (talk · contribs), could you block this one as well. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Articles deleted, sock blocked. Fram (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Players without caps

AsTrencin

Moses Simon
Madu Kingsley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.63.248 (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sent to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Thanks, C 679 06:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Bandy

I have proposed to create a WikiProject for bandy. Please comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Bandy. Andrew S. Knight (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

TFA cleanup request

I thought it would be nice to put Aston Villa F.C. on the main page in March to mark the club's 140th anniversary but I think it needs some attention. Just in the lead, I spot mixtures of plural and singular ("Aston Villa were" / "Aston Villa is" - I can never remember whether the ENGVAR rules say on this!) and I suspect that there are other parts that could do with a brush-up. I looked at History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present) as an alternative but that has some uncited paragraphs. If someone is able to clean one or both articles up, do let me know and I'll run one as TFA ASAP. Thanks, Bencherlite ^Talk 21:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

~~Shit on the Villa~~ Well I'm happy to do clean up work wherever possible, sounds good, thanks B'lite. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, TRM, much appreciated. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Antonio Bujcevski

Dear football experts: I decided all by myself that this is a notable player, and have postponed its deletion. I am reporting it here anyway in case someone wants to add some reliable sources so that it can be moved into the encyclopedia. Feel free to laugh if I am wrong; I can always revert my edit and still nominate the page for deletion. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Why have you decided that he's notable? He fails WP:NFOOTBALL (the Macedonian top division is not fully-professional). Given that the only reference is to an unreliable source, I would disagree that the article is worth keeping. Number 5 7 19:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice try though. Always nice to see keen editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's gone now. I'll leave it to the experts from now on. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Turkey

There is some discussion about the neutrality of this article. Two editors have a different opinion. I find it quite hard to contribute to such a subject. 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal. -Koppapa (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

EAFF tourneys

Do these exist? I can't find anything. 2014 EAFF U-17 East Asian Cup, 2014 EAFF Women's U-17 East Asian Cup. -Koppapa (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Another sock of FallandSpringOlympics. I would delete them. JMHamo (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought that at first but they were created before FSO was blocked... Giant Snowman 20:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Then FallandSpringOlympics is not the Sockmaster. I think a Check User should be requested. There have been so many accounts that I believe are the same user. I'll add Sweden2001 (talk · contribs) and Southafrica43 (talk · contribs) to the list now too. JMHamo (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a list of the suspected socks JMHamo (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It's already been at WP:SPI, but you should ask for a fresh CU to find other accounts. Giant Snowman 12:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Italiano34 as another obvious sock, and have deleted his article creation. Can some of you go over his other contributions and revert when incorrect or dubious? It's better too revert to much than too little in this case, I think. Fram (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Revert these socks on sight, per WP:DENY. Giant Snowman 13:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mladen Veselinović and Mladen Veselinović

Hello again sports fans! The information in this old abandoned Afc submission doesn't match that in the mainspace article. Are these two different men, or does one of the articles contain misinformation? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think they're about the same person; both articles claim 17 appearances for Hajduk Kula. Giant Snowman 13:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Blimey, that's a mess. If they are the same, he's definitely at Plzeň this season (iDnes is a reliable source, Plzeň website lists him on team roster, Napredak website doesn't). I just wonder where the two birthdays, two nationalities, and the statistics of this apparent stunt double playing at Napredak are coming from. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That player (Mladen Veselinović) was with Napredak in the Serbian SuperLiga until this winter. Now he moved to FK Donji Srem (Source from Donji Srem official website). The other player with same name who joined Viktoria Plzen is another guy. See soccerway who got it right: Search ML. FkpCascais (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The Mladen Vesleinovic that joined Viktoria Plzen is not notable yet (soccerway. While our article here Mladen Veselinović is about this one soccerwy. The "stunt double" is definitelly the Plzen one. :) Mistery solved? FkpCascais (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now, let me make sure I have this straight. The existing article is about a notable footballer. The Afc submission is a different fellow who's not yet notable. Should the Afc submission be let go, or postponed for six months on spec? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I would delete the AFC as it is an abandoned draft about a non-notable individual. Giant Snowman 18:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that exactly it Anne. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gordon Glen Watson

Oksy, football experts, how about this fellow? The article needs some sources, but if its about a notable player I can postpone deletion in case someone cares to add some. Should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find any sources, let alone anything that shows notability. He certainly hasn't played senior international soccer for NZ as the article claims, see this. Giant Snowman 20:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've found this but that doesn't show any notability. Giant Snowman 20:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I haven't found anything good lately! —Anne Delong (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Come on Anne... get to together! :) --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues

The Bulgarian Second Division (Bulgarian B Professional Football Group) is a fully professional League.→http://www.epfl-europeanleagues.com/profile_bpfl.htm

The Swedish Second Division (Superettan) is a fully professional League.→http://www.epfl-europeanleagues.com/profile_fse.htm

TFF First League is a fully professional League→http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/spor/futbol/23544328.asp →http://www.fanatik.com.tr/tff-ligleri-tescilledi_3_Detail_88_314854.htm --Lglukgl (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the official web site of The Association of European Professional Football Leagues (EPFL) →http://www.epfl-europeanleagues.com/who_we_Are.htm

Please provide some reliable sources. Giant Snowman 20:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The EPFL is not a reliable indicator. The Welsh Premier League was a member at one stage. Number 5 7 20:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Swedish leagues

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Mensah and elsewhere, an issue has arisen about the stature of Superettan, with editors saying it is a fully professional league along with Allsvenskan. There's a clear statement of the position here (and the editor says he's retiring over the issue). Could this be examined? It potentially affects whether a lot of player articles are kept. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The league is not listed at WP:FPL because no evidence has been produced that confirms the Superettan is a fully-professional league. Giant Snowman 19:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The Swedish Second Division (Superettan) is a fully professional League.→http://www.epfl-europeanleagues.com/profile_fse.htm --Lglukgl (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The link says nothing about the league's professional status. Number 5 7 20:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

IFFHS rankings

IFFHS does not publich anymore annually ranking for best 400 clubs of the world. On this link was ranking published on 28 February 2013 (last ranking). In december it was accessible. Now link is dead, and i cant find on their site this ranking. If they will no longer publish top 400, I will not be able to update ranking for my favourite team. Sad. // XXN (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is an archive link for the one you gave. This capture is from 6 November 2013. EddieV2003 (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, the IFFHS article needs over-hauling. I think it might be violating copyright, and it almost certainly fails WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 09:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Mbaye Diagne

I don't understand why Mbaye Diagne (footballer) is a redirect of Lierse S.K..?

Lierse is a Belgian professional football club and Belgian Pro league is a fully professional league.→Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues.

He currently plays for Lierse S.K. on loan from Juventus and he has scored 4 goals in two caps.→http://www.transfermarkt.it/it/mbaye-diagne/profil/spieler_271966.html --Lglukgl (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the redirect. He's made two appearances for Lierse S.K. according to Soccerway. The article needs improving. JMHamo (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It was probably the source. Transfermarkt is not considered a reliable source on wikipedia, therefore we advise against using it as a source. However, you are right that Mbaye has played in an FPL as soccerway proves [1]. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OK I have removed the transfmarkt Source and i have improve →Adama Soumaoro with Soccerway.

Is Goal.com a reliable source?--Lglukgl (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles, I would say yes, however it depends. I use it for Indian football but for say English football it can be very dubious. For stats I would stay away from it as the stats reset every season. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hami Mandirali

Is Hami Mandirali new Trabzonspor Manager?

--95.236.246.209 (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

He is easily the current manager. Whether it is in an interem role or permanent role I cant tell you. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOOTYN

According to WP:FOOTYN, clubs that are in the national league/cup structure are presumed notable. Does this extend to futsal and beach soccer? Hack (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure - so this is a great opportunity to re-write FOOTYN to bring into line with wider Wikipedia guidelines on notability. For players that would be NFOOTBALL and GNG, for clubs that would be ORG and GNG. Giant Snowman 10:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it worth replacing the player section with a link to WP:NFOOTBALL? It seems pointless to have the content duplicated. Hack (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That sounds ideal. We can also do similar for seasons (WP:NSEASONS) and clubs (WP:NORG) etc., with some guidance on what is normally considered notable. Giant Snowman 11:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

For players, how does this sound? - Players are presumed to be notable if they meet the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Hack (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, though I would also state that meeting NFOOTBALL is merely a presumption of notability, and that if they don't meet GNG they may still be deemed non-notable. Plenty of consensus at AFD shows that. Giant Snowman 14:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"In cases where a subject fails or only marginally meets WP:NFOOTBALL, proof is required to show that the subject meets WP:GNG." Hack (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder that passing GNG is also merely a presumption of notability. The lead section of WP:N makes no distinction between the presumption of notability via GNG and that via a subject-specific guideline such as WP:NSPORTS. As it says (highlighting original):

“

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.

”

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Admin needed at Olivier Giroud

Could an admin protect this page. Some Facebook-initiated chicanery is afoot. Hack (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 15:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ugandan players - Kampala City Council FC

Are players that participate in the CAF Champions League presumed to be notable or are we just sticking to international players as per WP:NFOOTY? What sources do you recommend for sourcing material for preparing articles for Ugandan players? League Octopus 14:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC) These are some of the news links for the Champions League game between KCC and El Merreikh:

There is obviously more coverage at the El Merreikh end. League Octopus 17:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Given that the players who played in the Europa League need to have played for a FPL club against another FPL club, I would guess the same applies, rightly or wrongly, here. Most CAF Champions League teams do not, and never have, played in a FPL. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOOTYN states that players are deemed notable if they "have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition." I always understood that to mean that the club they are playing for is professional and not the league. Many African clubs are professional, especially league champions playing in continental competitions. With that said, I would consider KCC FC players that played against El Merreikh as notable. TonyStarks (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sa Kaeo City F.C.

You have Talkback there. Collectively. And I wish you good luck... Peridon (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Turnbull

Dykes (1994) mentions that two of Sandy Turnbull's sons, Alexander and Ronald, were signed as amateurs with Manchester United in 1932. I can't find any further trace of Ronald, but Joyce (2004) lists an Alexander Turnbull as having played in the league for Exeter City in 1938-39. Can anyone confirm for me that Exeter's Alexander Turnbull is indeed Sandy Turnbull's son, or is it just a coincidence that the Exeter player was born near Manchester around the time Sandy Turnbull was playing? – Pee Jay 19:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

On a similar note, does anyone know if Jack Mahon was the son of Jack Mahon? The former was born in Gillingham while the latter was playing for the Gills..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Chilean Football team Notability

I stumbled upon the article Real León for a Chilean football team that participated in Tercera Division B from 2009 to 2011. I found a few betting sites listing that name, but nothing on the official web site of the division. I last year this was batch-nominated for deletion here and the result was keep, but from that discussion I'm not convinced that this one would survive an individual relisting, as it is a defunct team that only lasted 2 years and doesn't apparently have much significant coverage. Please advise what you think should be done with this article - does it have the potential to ever be anything more than a stub? Does it meet notability guidelines? Should it be merged into a list page of some sort? If you think it should be kept, maybe it should have the Wikiproject: Football template on its talk page. Thanks! 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 21:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@0x0077BE:, did the club participate in the national cup? If so it would probably be considered notable. Giant Snowman 13:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea, I can barely find any footprint of them, or any sources to verify the assertions in the article. I highly doubt they won any championships. The few references to them I've found are on this betting site (you'll note that they lost every match) and this club profile, which is almost entirely empty. It seems that they are an amateur team that played for 2 years in Chile and for at least one season lost every match. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Futbol24 is a pretty good livescore site, no betting site. They cover a good amount of leagues and tourneys. Googling "Real León PAC" futbol -futbol24 finds this, a news stating Tercera B teams entered the 2009 cup. -Koppapa (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Team names in North America

There is a tendency for teams in North America to keep "FC". Several teams do it because there are earlier incarnations of the team or an affiliated team that did not carry the "FC" (Seattle Sounders FC, Vancouver Whitecaps FC, Ottawa Fury FC) and so we do not pipe the FC out. Three teams would be reduced to a city name only, Toronto FC, FC Dallas and FC Edmonton. There are number of expansion teams or new teams in the league and the template is displaying the name incorrectly. The discussion at Template talk:North American Soccer League#Names could use some input. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Could we please have a few project member look at the template for style? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I thought we kept it because that is the franchise name... that is why for Indian football club, Bengaluru FC, I kept the FC for all the players, because they are a franchise side. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not always. Some North American clubs like Chicago Fire Soccer Club are listed in the same manner as European teams, without SC. If we're appealing to common name, this (unofficial) guideline could get messy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

František Plánička

I spotted this article as he appears as the #1 appearance maker on List of one-club men. The articles both claim he made 969 league appearances in a 16-year career (1923-1939). However, the Czechoslovak First League only began in 1925, and Slavia Prague only played 276 league games between 1925 and the end of the 1939–40 season. Prior to that Slavia played 27 league matches during 1923 and 1924. Is this a hoax, or has someone combined another 666 cup and friendly appearances into the total (at the rate of 41 a season)? With so few league games played, it would seem rather excessive. The figure is sourced to a missing page on Slavia's website. Number 5 7 23:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't currently have WP:RS concerning this, but the total is not a hoax. However it does include matches outside of the national league. Another Slavia player in this era, Josef Bican, allegedly scored thousands of goals, but many of these came in friendly matches. The situation for him is similar to Plánička, albeit goals and not appearances are under the microscope. Hope this makes it a bit clearer for you. Thanks, C 679 17:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Slavia page is here now, but it clearly mentions it being overall appearances. German wikipedia has him at only 169 appearances, but alas gives no source. There were a number of cup competitions underway at the time that would contribute to the larger figure, as well as friendlies, exhibition games, tours etc. I reckon the club played many more matches than would be played today, however, there seems to be no reliable figure for Plánička's appearances. Madcynic (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The book Český a československý fotbal - lexikon osobností a klubů by Luboš Jeřábek, which only includes games from 1925 onwards, says that he played 196 league matches for Slavia. On this basis he can be removed from the list. C 679 18:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for sorting that out. Number 5 7 21:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Chris Maxwell (footballer)

Hi, I recently formatted the career stats table at Chris Maxwell (footballer) so it meets the layout at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics. However, I have twice been partially reverted by an IP who insists on including clean sheet columns. I have tried explaining to the individual that this is discouraged. Would appreciate if it anyone can help keep an eye on this article, or if anyone could help explaining to the user why they're being reverted. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Took a look at those watermarks on some of the pictures, have sent to commons copyvio team for a closer look! Thanks, C 679 22:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well the clean sheet stats from Fleetwood onwards aren't in the listed source, so should go regardless of formatting etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hi all. During my removal of the Template:Transfermarkt, I have come across a number of now fully-unreferenced biographies.

Your help would be appreciated in finding reliable sources to support any of these. Thanks, C 679 16:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Done with basic referencing, thanks to @Struway2: and @Jmorrison230582: and everyone else for their assistance. Giant Snowman 19:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

someone should check this list and this list. otherwise we are just removing the ones that were using the template (scroll down in the lists to the spieler section). there may be others, e.g., transfermarkt.it, etc. Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, I think @Cloudz679: was already planning to work his way through them... Giant Snowman 16:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hulme Athenaeum

Does the Hulme Athenaeum club warrant an article? It was apparently the oldest football club in the Manchester area (founded November 1863) but it pre-dates the league as it folded in the 1870s. There are not many articles available that mention it:

TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well that's essentially one source, as they are all just re-postings of the same article. Is anything else known about this club? At the moment I don't really see the potential for anything more than a two or three-sentence stub....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You might want to create a Football in Manchester artice, mention the club there, and have it as a redirect. Giant Snowman 12:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Football League Championship Top Transfers

I removed the Top Transfers section before from Football League Championship and it was reverted. I don't think the given sources are adequate and the section should be deleted. Agree? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If the sources aren't up to scratch, it should go. Plus I think this is more the sort of thing that official stats organisations should be recording for clubs to trot out every time they make a big signing, not an encyclopaedia. – Pee Jay 21:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The refs confirm the transfers happened. They do not confirm they were the biggest or anything else within an order of monetary value.--Egghead06 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it has been removed now. Let's hope it won't be re-added again. JMHamo (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

On a vaguely related note, we have an article entitled Football League Championship Top Scorer, and the capitalised title and general tone of the prose make it sound like this is an official award handed out each season? Is it? I'm pretty sure it's not, in which case the list of top scorers already present in the Football League Championship article more than suffices and we don't need a whole separate article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It probably is an official award, but I don't think it is independently notable. Giant Snowman 12:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Kits in tournament articles

Why is this permitted to happen See 1998 FIFA World Cup Group E as an example. Two separate issues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced kits

The kits are generally unreferenced and so like starting positions, etc. they should be avoided. The only argument I've seen for their inclusion is Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. The 1998 FIFA World Cup Group E even saw a "correction" due to incorrect sock colours. No way to confirm that the original or changed kit is correct though so WTF. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The website 'Historical Football Kits' has an ever-increasing history of World Cup kits. Giant Snowman 12:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Although they are not a reliable source, as we saw in this deletion discussion in November 2013. C 679 17:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There was no mention, in that AFD, of HFK being non-RS. The issue was notability of that article, not the reliability of one source. From my experience HFK is extremely well researched. Giant Snowman 18:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

But are there references to it? No. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes they cite sources, although not everywhere. Giant Snowman 19:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And so back to the heading, what if they don't cite sources? Do we tag them with CNs, remove, find sources, (or is that the job of the person adding the kits) or some other option? The example above, 1998 FIFA World Cup Group E, doesn't have sources. And how does one reference a kit? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally I would remove anything unreferenced, others prefer to tag with {{cn}}. If you can find sources, even better. To reference, simply add a ref tag next to the country name in the |title= parameter. Giant Snowman 19:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Then someone other than me needs to do that with the kits from that group, and all the others. They were recently added by an anon and kept in place without refs by an established editor and I do not wish to be accused of edit warring over this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

David Moor, the bloke behind HFK, has had at least one book on football kits published by a mainstream publisher, so I would think his site passes WP:SPS -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

HFK is a tertiary source, from what I have seen Moor essentially uses it to collect information from other places. C 679 22:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Logos on the kits

We don't permit it in league articles, but it does happen there as well, why for national teams? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

What logos? Nike ticks etc. and/or national emblems? No, they should not be used on any clubs or countries or anything in between. Giant Snowman 16:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Adidas stripes, Umbro diamond, Nike swooshes, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The only reason they are in use is because they are the only versions we have. If we had logo-free versions, I think we would implement them, but we don't, and the only people who appear willing to put in the time and effort required to make the kit graphics seem to be hell-bent on including the logos. – Pee Jay 20:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How about intricate design elements? How would this kit be rendered? Hack (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ideally we're not supposed to have "intricate" designs, we just need to show basic design and colour. If an editor was to create a template showing a fancier design, there is no need to add logos of club or sponsor(s). Giant Snowman 12:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elvedin Škrijelj

Hi again. Another old stale Afc submission. Is it a keeper, or should it be let go? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

With 14 appearances in the Serbian Super Liga in 2011-12, the article meets WP:NSPORT and should stay. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Took a look and it's not a keeper at all but a defender! Please move to main space. Thanks, C 679 05:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Would an admin please move it to mainspace, the title looks like it has been salted. Thanks, C 679 10:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for figuring out what the problem is. I tried to accept it using the Afc script, but it just said "done" and didn't leave me an error message. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have left a message for Causa sui, who salted it. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's in mainspace now. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Dominic Adiyiah -

Are we sure that Dominic Adiyiah is a Levski Sofia player?--Lglukgl (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't see any evidence, have reverted to an earlier version. Thanks for bringing this to the attention of the project. C 679 20:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

2015 MLS SuperDraft

The title 2015 MLS SuperDraft is currently salted because it was repeatedly recreated after consensus to delete was established at AfD in February 2013. An editor has recently submitted an Articles for creation draft for the title; however, I had to decline it because it is salted. My question: would this draft about a future MLS SuperDraft be considered acceptable as it stands now? I'm not very knowledgeable about football so guidance would be appreciated. :) If the draft does not fix any of the concerns raised in the AfD, it may be eligible for speedy deletion under section G4. Mz7 (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that all the references are press releases from teams directly involved would suggest there is not sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Thanks, C 679 07:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Please note that the creator has resubmitted the draft without modifying anything, asking "Please have someone familiar with American sports drafts review this page". Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wartime League appearances in infobox

I've just done a bit of an expansion to the article on George Gladwin, during which I've managed to find his Wartime League records. I've included the club-by-club stats in the infobox, but in the "totalcaps" and "totalgoals" parameters I've only totalled his Football League stats. Is this right or should the Wartime League appearances be included too? – Pee Jay 16:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for two reasons - firstly it makes sense to have the 'total' reflect the figures in the infobox. Secondly we don't exclude Southern Football League, Isthmian, Conference etc. etc. if those are available, do we? I don't see why the Wartime League should be any different, even if it is more unusual. Giant Snowman 18:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally agree, although there is the significant difference that wartime appearances are regarded as unofficial, unlike the Isthmian, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel like GS they should be treated like any other and included, unofficial or not.Blethering Scot 23:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

But if ChrisTheDude is right and the Wartime League matches are as official as friendly matches, maybe they shouldn't be included? – Pee Jay 00:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the Wartime League to comment comprehensiely - that article is in need of improvement and sources - but if this was an organised competition, sanctioned by a governing body, then it's more akin to normal league football as opposed to friendlies. Giant Snowman 13:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Bits of info here, here and here..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I would not include wartime matches in statistics, simply because that is the usual practice of the Association of Football Statisticians. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Cup winners in Honours sections

How should cup wins be shown in players' honours sections? For a player who wins the FA Cup this year, should the win be shown as:

FA Cup: 2014

or

FA Cup: 2013–14

As a secondary question, should the year be linked to the 2014 FA Cup Final or 2013–14 FA Cup?

Of four Featured player articles I have checked John Wark has the full season for all cup wins in his honours section, whereas Bert Trautmann, Gilberto Silva and Thierry Henry (except the Copa del Rey) have just the year in which the Cup Final was played. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. I have no real opinion either way (though perhaps siding slightly with the 2013–14 style). The main thing here is consistency - therefore if we have '2014' we should link to the 'Final' page, and if we have '2013–14' we should link to the 'season' page. Same goes for any/all tournaments played over the course of a season, I suppose. Giant Snowman 19:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say regardless of the link being targeted, the displayed text should be of the season (i.e. 2013–14, not just 2014), except for competitions like the Community Shield, the UEFA Super Cup and the like. After all, you don't win the 2014 FA Cup, you win the 2013–14 FA Cup. – Pee Jay 20:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

First one for me, linking to to the final.--Echetus Xe 22:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Supplementary question

As a supplementary to the above, what is the point of the silly numbers in the Thierry Henry honours section? As there is no-one reading Wikipedia who can't count to 3, they seem pointless and slightly insulting to me. For a club or player who has won the same honour many times, there may be some point, I guess, but IMHO they are totally unnecessary here. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose for someone like Ryan Giggs, who has won the PL 13 times, it's useful. Giant Snowman 22:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you there, but there are so many players with (1) after their sole achievement, which is bl##dy ridiculous. But where to draw the line? I guess that will always be too subjective to agree any guidelines. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree they are pointless at best and silly at worst. I would say at least five of the same honour are needed before numbers are justified.--Echetus Xe 22:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I was going to suggest three, but 5 seems like a nice round number. Once consensus is reached we can update the relevant player MOS. Giant Snowman 12:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd go for 3, personally. After all, three league titles would mean that after the competition name you already have six figures (20xx-xx, 20xx-xx, 20xx-xx) and that does have a tendency to become confusing to people very quickly. Madcynic (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to update the MOS could we update the format as well? FA Cup (x5) would at least indicate more recognisably that it's a cumulative figure. And I'd say it's easy enough to count up to three, if they're going to stay then 5 should be the absolute baseline. Also - this limit should apply to honours on club pages as well. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that five is a suitable minimum - it avoids having to use more than one hand to count on! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

For clubs that have won their league 38 times, then fair enough, but there are very few players with uncountable numbers of wins. If we must have them, then I'd prefer to wait till double figures, but 5 at an absolute minimum. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Struway2 to be honest _ I don't think they server any purpose below double figures. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Supplementary question #2

Is it necessary for the entries in the Honours section to be separately referenced, assuming that they are already mentioned and referenced in the main text? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes - unless a reader reads the entire article, they are not to know it is referenced. Explicitly referencing the honours does no harm and an awful lot of good. Giant Snowman 11:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it necessary for the entries in the senior career section of the infobox to be separately referenced, assuming that they are already mentioned and referenced in the club statistics section? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That's slightly different, as the stats don't really run the risk of being 'lost' in paragraphs of prose. Giant Snowman 12:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio / copy-paste move

Zaquan Adha looks to have been re-created, although I cannot find an on-Wikipedia source. There is of course this external link with identical content, which predates the Wikipedia article. Article author has removed copyvio tags. C 679 19:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The original article is Mohd Zaquan Adha Abdul Radzak, I have reverted the C&P move. Giant Snowman 19:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Cardiff

Category:English football chairmen and investors... isn't Cardiff in Wales? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The club is part of the English football pyramid, so the categorisation is correct even if geographically it is wrong. Fenix down (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think there's an argument to put Cardiff in either category, since they play in the English football pyramid, but they are registered with the Football Association of Wales. – Pee Jay 11:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought Vincent Tan was Malaysian. Or is the category just badly named? Number 5 7 12:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The category is either poorly named, or is being mis-used. The current name of 'English football chairmen and investors' implies football chairmen and investors who are English. The name might need changing to 'English football club chairmen and investors'. Giant Snowman 12:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Even that could be miscontrued as football club chairmen who are English. Perhaps "Chairmen of football clubs in England", or preferably "Chairpersons of football clubs in England" given that not only men can hold the position (e.g. Torquay United's Thea Bristow). Number 5 7 12:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. This should be discussed further at a CFD. Giant Snowman 13:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 23#Category:English football chairmen and investors. Number 5 7 21:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

José Manuel Flores

His full name is "JOSÉ MANUEL FLORES MORENO", his sporting name is "CHICO". "CHICO FLORES" is a name/nickname compound, thus wrong, does not matter that BBC names him like this, yes BBC is 100% reliable, but in this case they got it wrong, his sporting name is NOT "Chico Flores", it's "Chico", period.

I have already composed the article (which by the way has been severely and repeatedly vandalized after his diving, article could not be bothered with one edit except for mine and little else when he played in Spain!), was reverted then re-reverted, i give up it stays "Chico Flores" in intro, but you have been briefed.

Attentively --AL (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME - if the most sources use 'Chico Flores', then that is what we use. I don't particularly like it, as we end up with articles called Inter Milan, but them's the rules. Giant Snowman 21:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean the article should be moved? The Almightey Drill (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll support any changes that result in Inter Milan being moved back to F.C. Internazionale Milano. – Pee Jay 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aaron Jones (Footballer)

Another old Afc submission (there sure are a lot of these football players). Is this one notable? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne, thanks for bringing this to our attention. The player in question seems only to have played in the New Zealand league which is not fully professional, so there is not sufficient notability. Thanks, C 679 07:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the submission is gone now. Thanks for your analysis. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Notability of players competing in the League Of Ireland

I would like to ask if there is any particular reason why players competing in the League Of Ireland (LOI) should not be notable enough to have their own pages?

The LOI is not a fully-professional league and likely never will be, yet many players have wiki pages that are tolerated, while others are deleted, despite having good sources.

I would like to help improve the League Of Ireland information on Wikipedia, but it is incredibly disheartening when content is deleted on the basis of it not meeting notability criteria. I'm not just talking about recently. I racked up a large amount of edits on an old account I had a number of years ago that I have lost access to.

Ireland has two senior divisions. I am of the opinion that excluding players who compete in them is incredibly arbitrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOI Statistics (talk • contribs) 23:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

How would you suggest we define notability for footballers then? If we simply go on media coverage, we'll end up with articles on nobodies like these kids. If we limit ourselves to players in fully professional leagues, however, we ensure that all the players are notable for being full-time, professional footballers. – Pee Jay 00:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Too Late!.--Egghead06 (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I give up! – Pee Jay 01:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Pike article was created in December 2007 by our good friend GiantSnowman and edited by various high profile members of this forum, including (dare I say it), one PeeJay2K3! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate Pike for deletion, I am confident he would met GNG (hence why I created it). Giant Snowman 13:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem lies in the notability guideline for footballers equating a person being likely to have received enough "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to pass the general notability guideline, with playing in a fully professional league. Although that was originally intended to provide a bright-line yes-or-no criterion to ensure, as PeeJay says above, that people satisfying it were being written about because they'd achieved something as footballers, it's become increasingly messy for several reasons:

the difficulty of sourcing the concept of "fully professional";
the failure to recognise that there are leagues which either aren't fully pro or aren't provably fully pro, but whose players have massive media coverage;
in contrast, the acceptance of certain leagues (the Scottish second tier and the Finnish league, for two) as honorary fully-pro even though they're not;
and, unfortunately, the general problem of availability of online sources in a language we can read.

And no, I don't know what the solution is, either. In the past, people have suggested taking a random set of players from any given league and seeing if GNG-satisfying coverage can generally be found. But that's a lot of work, it'd be difficult to gain agreement for anything unless the relevant sources were online and in a language a trusted editor can read, it sounds like original research (although no more so than the fully professional league concept), and it'd have to be agreed to outside the football project as well as in it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as being arbitrary at all, all the players inherently fail NFOOTY as they do not play in an FPL, unless they have competed at a senior international level. GNG is the only guideline that needs to be satisfied. In my view that requires a number of substantial interviews with the player or articles specifically and in most instances exclusively about the player. Instead, what we see in many of the AfDs recently are links to routine match reports and very brief articles that tend to mention a player rather than discuss him in depth. I personally, use this article as a benchmark for such players. Not saying everyone has to get an OBE, but it is a prime example of a player who has had so much more than a normal career in football without playing in an FPL or playing internationally. Fenix down (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Not every player has to play to be notable, they can meet GNG and be considered notable that way. See, for example Sonny Pike (already mentioned) as well as Lauri Dalla Valle (again created my me, clearly met GNG before he made his pro debut). These, however, are rare examples, and in the vast majority of cases most players are not considered notable until they play in a fully-professional league, or at international level. WP:NFOOTBALL may not be perfect, but I have yet to see a better suggestion despite the numerous times this issue has been raised. Giant Snowman 13:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Question: LOI players with Europa League or Champions League appearances, do you agree this provides them with some degree of notability and should not be deleted? JMHamo (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that playing in the Champions League proper is a strong indicator of notability, but that's about it. Same goes for any country - Ireland or Andorra or San Marino. Giant Snowman 13:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The irony of one of the biggest vandals ever on wiki GiantSnowman creating a page on a player who never played and then lecturing on players who have is lost on nobody.

Double squad template

Move {{LdB FC Malmö squad}} to {{FC Rosengård squad}} (and delete this template) to keep the history. --Fredde (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You need WP:TFD. Giant Snowman 12:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well those templates have not much history anyway. I'd just just tag the first for speedy deletion as housekeeping. -Koppapa (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Done, deleted. The two articles that were using it now have {{FC Rosengård squad}} in its place. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sheffield Wednesday 2012/13 season article(s)

Surely 2012–13 Sheffield Wednesday F.C. season and 2012–13 Sheffield Wednesday F.C. season review need to be merged? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitely, and almost certainly massively trimmed too, the season review is a massive wall of text (all reffed to a single primary source). Not sure I particularly like the "rumours" table in the season article either. Fenix down (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say the latter should be deleted, it adds nothing at all to the former. I suggest you AFD it. Giant Snowman 18:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of the text from 2012–13 Sheffield Wednesday F.C. season review should be included on 2012–13 Sheffield Wednesday F.C. season as it doesn't have any text describing the progression of the season. As it stands 2012–13 Sheffield Wednesday F.C. season is just a statistical overview of the season.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The season review was part of the main 2012/13 page, which was 300kB until someone hived off the prose. It'd be good if someone tactful (which lets me out) had a helpful word with the regular editor of the Sheff Wed seasons about the difference between an encyclopedia article and a fanblog. We don't want to drive them away, their enthusiasm is great, but the current season page is heading in the same direction, and 2011/12 is also fairly extreme and almost entirely unsourced. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That "rumours" table is absolutely ludicrous! "Danny Batth won't be re-signing for Sheffield Wednesday.", gosh, I'm glad we know that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, someone might want to give him a pointer about overlinking. In the season article, Sheffield Wednesday is wikilinked over 150 times! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The rumours section is no more... => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of WP:NSEASONS

WP:NSEASONS is being used as a justification for the deletion of league season articles. Are we all in agreement that NSEASONS covers "sports team seasons" not "league seasons". The word "league" is not even mentioned in the Individual Seasons paragraphs with the exception of " individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues". League Octopus 12:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It applies to leagues as much as it does to teams; the wording just needs changing slightly. Giant Snowman 13:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say that it applies to leagues please? League Octopus 13:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE and AFD precedent. Giant Snowman 13:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Common sense exactly, if you can't have a season article on a team because they are not competing in a top professional league. why would you need a load of stats forming a season article for the league itself. Also NSEASONS is not being used to justify deletion on its own. The most important point, which is within NSEASONS as well, is that such articles should not be stat dumps. If an article provides a summary of the season with a significant amount of reliable sourced prose from multiple sources, then the NSEASONS point is moot, since the sourced prose will indicate GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The deletion process is fundamentally flawed when you are using NSEASONS as a main reason for deletion when clearly NSEASONS does not make any reference to "league seasons". The more you try to counter this issue the more the project loses credibility. It is bemusing that an experienced administrator is using as his justification that "the wording just needs changing slightly" when NSEASONS makes no reference whatsoever to "league seasons". League Octopus 14:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What does NSEASONS hinge upon? GNG. That applies to club seasons and league seasons and everything else. If you cannot show it meets GNG, you cannot show notability. Giant Snowman 18:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Say 2012–13 Welsh Premier League (women), notable? Or most other women's league season articles, Category:2012–13 domestic women's association football leagues. Surely the team's seasons are not notable though. -Koppapa (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that Welsh one is, mostly due to the team that withdrew from the division. If they're a top-flight division in a country with a fairly major women's game, then I would say they should be considered notable (they'll likely meet GNG if this is the case). The W-League one is definitely notable (that league gets a lot of coverage), for example. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

To underline the point re the W-League, both the men's and women's national leagues in Australia have one match televised each week on free-to-air TV and usually the W-League outrates the A-League. Hack (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Tulsa Roughnecks redux, and hundreds of incoming links may need attention

Tulsa's new USL Pro minor league team will be called the Roughnecks, in homage to the 1978-1983 NASL team that won the last Soccer Bowl in 1983.[2] This is all well and good for the team and for Tulsa, but it leads to some confusion here at Wikipedia. An editor has moved the existing article about the NASL team to Tulsa Roughnecks (1978–1984) and has converted the title Tulsa Roughnecks into a redirect page that leads to Tulsa Roughnecks FC, about the new team. Unfortunately, this leaves hundreds of wikilinks from other articles now pointing to the article for the new minor league team instead of the old NASL team. (Just to confuse things further, there was a third team, in the minor league United Soccer Leagues that also used this name during the 1990s. See Tulsa Roughnecks (disambiguation).)

I myself would be inclined to revert Tulsa Roughnecks back to its former role as the title of the NASL team article, and use Tulsa Roughnecks (disambiguation)(or hatnotes) to direct people to the minor league teams, but I can imagine that others might disagree about which team is now the primary topic. Before laborious steps are taken to deal with this one way or the other, I would like to know if the regulars in this project think that the name change has been handled correctly. I imagine that other similar cases of name reuse must exist in the football world. Opinions are solicited, with thanks in advance. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of those links were generated by three templates and should be resolved automatically. The rest will be simple cleanup. - Dravecky (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: This sort of name re-use (and thus disambiguation) is entirely common for American soccer teams. After finding a bunch of articles (Carlos Alberto Mijangos, Victor Moreland, W-League, 1996 USISL Professional League, 1999 USISL D-3 Pro League, and more) where the link in question was pointing to the wrong article, I had a quiet evening of disambiguation and resolved the issue. (Bonus: it turns out there's a 4th team, a women's pro team, that also used the name for a year in the mid-1990s.) - Dravecky (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Template United F.C. goalkeepers

I noteced this today: Category:Association football goalkeepers by club. Please tell me we are not going to have this type of categories... FkpCascais (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say we should not have these as will create huge numbers of categories, and player positions may change. Eldumpo (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no desire to see such categories either. As has been said, player positions change and I can see large numbers of journeymen footballers who have played, say both defence and midfield roles having some ten to fifteen categories added. I am not sure how this aids the reader. Maybe it is better to CfD this now and establish the beginnings of a wider consensus? Fenix down (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not. To CFD we go... Giant Snowman 13:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Friendship Trophy

A bit obscure this, but Wikipedia's article on the Friendship Trophy, contested between Norwich City and Sunderland whenever they are in the same division, implies it's awarded on each of the two occasions they play each other. Currently it says "Norwich are the current holders of the trophy, having beaten Sunderland 2–1 at Carrow Road on 2 December 2012". This is obviously out-of-date but what I really want to know is - is it contested twice a season, as Wikipedia implies, or is it a two-legged contest, as Jonathan Wilson of the Guardian says here [3]? --93.152.14.46 (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Is that notable anyway? -Koppapa (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember it ever being mentioned by either Norwich or the local press in Norfolk. I'd AfD it.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friendship Trophy. Giant Snowman 18:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've always understood it to be as our text implies, one-off. There is logic in support of this, because the original instance and at least one subsequent occasion was a cup game. Where did you get the "whenever they are in the same division" bit from? --Dweller (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Lots of Dinamo´s

How about merging this two articles: Dynamo FC and List of former-communist-countries Dynamo football clubs? I mean, everything on the second one is already found in the first one. FkpCascais (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no references in either article! Eldumpo (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd delete the second. The title doesn't seem neutral. And there is no additional info. The first works fine as a disambiguation page.-Koppapa (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree the 2nd is not needed. Giant Snowman 13:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've PRODed List of former-communist-countries Dynamo football clubs JMHamo (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Puma evoPOWER football boots

Do you think Puma evoPOWER should have its own article or should it be redirected to football boot? JMHamo (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether it redirects to football boot or Puma SE is a matter for discussion, though bear in mind the case of Nike Total 90 Tracer, which was redirected after an AFD but then later deleted after an RFD as non-notable. Deletion might be a better route to go down. Giant Snowman 17:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Atanas Kurdov - Botev plovdiv 2011-12

Are we sure that Kurdov has scored 50 goals in 46 caps between 2010-2012? Soccerway doesn't confirm it.--Lglukgl (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC) →http://it.soccerway.com/players/atanas-kurdov/16387/

Not supported by RS - likely vandalism. Giant Snowman 18:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Figures are genuine. The relevant club season article on bg.wiki was updated week-by-week during the season, and his goals gradually increased to 46 league and 5 cup by the end. Soccerway doesn't cover the Bulgarian third tier, but if you add the 46 goals from 28 games in 2010/11 as per the bg.wiki page to the 4 goals from 18 in 2011/12 per Soccerway, you do get 50 from 46. This page from bulgarian-football.com confirms the number of goals, though not the number of games they came from. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Mikel Arteta

Hi. I need some input to a situation regarding the article Mikel Arteta. An IP want to change source for the player height and he has made 4 reverts (I am at three so I have stopped). He insists of adding espn as a source instead of the currently used Premier League source (info gathered from the clubs). This IP is not very polite and uses words like "retard" if you dont agree. If anyone has something to add it would be highly appreciated. QED237 (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 48 hours for 4 reverts, and I have formally warned you for edit warring. This is a matter for the article talk page, per WP:BRD. Giant Snowman 17:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've posted some sources at the article's talk page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

2014–15 Premier League

Did we not discuss upcoming seasons before? It seems way to early for article like 2014–15 Premier League. QED237 (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL normally applies in cases like this, though as the event is 99.99% likely to happen that probably doesn't apply here. The fact that there are no/minimal reliable sources discussing the season (yet) are more pressing, as is the WP:OR in saying what clubs have qualified for the Champ League. Either way, you might wish to take to AFD, though it is probably a exercise in futility as a) many will be in favour of keeping and b) even if it is deleted, we will be restoring soon enough. Giant Snowman 11:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC).

WP:RECENTISM

I have seen that, on several occasions, the "ON LOAN" sub-sections in club squads have been/are removed per this guideline.

Can someone tell me in a nutshell in what it consists please? I have tried to wikibrowse it, but always come up empty. Thanks in advance --AL (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please could you point out one such removal? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have seen it in a few Spanish clubs i think, just can't remember the names. But the real questions i'd like to see answered were: 1 - What is WP:RECENTISM please and does it relate to this matter (i could be making a mess of the various guidelines); 2 - is it OK to remove the on-loan sub-sections yes or no?

Cheers --AL (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand recentism as referring to the fairly natural tendency to write about what's recently happened, as news reports do, rather than considering historical balance. Like when football club history sections articles end up with more information about the last 5 years than about the first 100, or player pages with one sentence about the first ten years of their career and loads of often trivial stuff about their latest club.

Personally, I don't see recentism applying particularly to the on-loan section of club squads. Players being out on loan is a transient thing, but so is all the content of the "current" squad section. If we're including a current squad/staff section at all, which we do because people do come to football club pages on Wikipedia for live information, then who's out on loan is just as valid a part of that as are squad numbers or nationalities. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Point received! I was indeed making a mess, thanks a million for the input, happy ones --AL (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Honours - Others

1 - User:GiantSnowman has just told me something that (wiki)worries me deeply: he said that he does not think that Keylor Navas should be awarded his Costa Rican Primera División title of 2009/10, where he played TWENTY THREE games, because there is no reliable source saying that a player who plays TWENTY THREE games in a league and his team WINS that competition gets that medal.

Where does that leave us (i want to get this straight before 12 JULY 2014, because we all have to get along and respect each others' work, so i'd better stop adding things that should not be added)? We don't add honours for ANY player that's not Premier League/Scottish Premier League-based? Guys like (rather than the obvious giants like Messi or Casillas or Ibrahimovic) Guti, Eusébio, Papin, have won nothing according to WP? Where do you go about finding said reliable sources? We can find The Guardian articles, or Marca (newspaper) articles or A Bola articles where we can read "X player, who played in W decade, won Y titles for Z club", but we can't forget maybe the writer of that article was based on what he read on WP before the honours were (duly or not) removed, so how do you "measure" that reliability?

Keylor Navas certainly did win the Verano 2010 title with Saprissa (here is a reliable source). Jogurney (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how many games you have to play in to be awarded a medal - 1, 10, 30? There are also a few leagues where there are a limited number of medals to give out, so without any WP:RS to WP:V the information, we cannot simply assume that player X has won honour Y. Giant Snowman 09:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

2 - since we don't encourage sponsorship in football articles (as far as i know), how accurate (and needed!) is the last section in Diego Costa's article? Methinks it is not, but i'm not judge, jury and executioner over here :)

Attentively, happy weekend (BTW, Snowy, i've added more sources in Navas' article, if you see it fit please remove the first tag) --AL (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

In the Navas article there is a referenced sentence that states "He was first-choice in his two final seasons with the club, winning seven major titles including six national championships" yet there is no honours section in the article. This confuses me.--Echetus Xe 20:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Because the honours at the Deportivo Saprissa ballclub show what was won during the given timeframe and he was there during that period, thus he must have won those (and, as NFT.com points out, in most of that spell he played to deserve a medal: 12 games, 20 games, 23 games), i have never heard of a match limit needed to earn a medal outside the United Kingdom. The honours section does not appear because IT WAS REMOVED (as they would say, "Don't look at me" :)).

Happy weekend, thanks for your inputs (but i received no "accurate" answer on how do we define notability) --AL (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Historical places of birth

As far as I am aware there is no definitive, Wikipedia-wide guidelines on this, but as this will affect many, many player articles I am bringing this here to see if we can resolve before I escalate. I am having a difference of opinion with Indif (talk · contribs) at the Mustapha Zitouni article. Zitouni was born in Algiers in 1928. My opinion is that, at that time, the name of the country was French Algeria; the article I have just linked to reflects that fact, and confirms that is the name it held between 1830–1962. Indif is adamant, however, that the article should show 'Algeria', based on some sources he has found. While I would like to resolve the Zitouni case ASAP, this is obviously a wider issue - it affects players born in Colonial Africa, East/West Germany, former Yugoslavia etc. etc. and so I am seeking further input here. Giant Snowman 13:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. If the country was called French Algeria at the time, then the article should reflect that, perhaps with "now Algeria" in parentheses when the country is mentioned in the prose of the article. The same applies to Nemanja Vidić (whose article shows that he was born in "Titovo Užice, SFR Yugoslavia", not "Užice, Serbia") and Carlos Queiroz ("Nampula, Portuguese Mozambique", not "Nampula, Mozambique"). – Pee Jay 14:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

~~I don't think we need "now Algeria" in parentheses, we don't have that on any other articles. Giant Snowman 17:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)~~

Ignore me, mentioning it in parentheses in the prose (I thought you meant infobox!) makes perfect sense. Giant Snowman 18:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The country of birth should be the name of the country at the time of birth. I also agree with PeeJay that saying "(now Fooland)" in the prose is a good idea (I have always done that when writing about Israel politicians born in pre-WWII Europe). I think there is general consensus for using the name of the country at the time of birth and there was a wider discussion some years ago, but as I recall there is one particular editor (focussed on Estonia and in denial that it was ever part of the USSR) who basically filibusters any debate on the subject until people tire of his behaviour and go away. Number 5 7 18:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, articles about players born in colonial Africa have always mentioned the name of the birthplace (even the city name when it has changed over time) at the time of birth rather than the current name. I like the idea of including the current name in parens as well. Jogurney (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that that country was officially given in 1839 the name of Algeria, not French Algeria. If "the country of birth should be the name of the country at the time of birth", than Algeria and only Algeria should be used. The reason why the BBC article cited in Zitouni's article uses the expression "French Algeria" (Zitouni, born in French Algeria, played for...) is that no birth day is given, and adding the "French" word allows to add a chronological precision to the country of birth of Zitouni (the sentence must be read "born in Algeria between 1830 and 1962"); However, the birth date is given both in the article and in the infobox (as well in the cited sources), so there's no need to use the expression "French Algeria". --Indif (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Odd then the article for Algiers states that during this time it was the capital of French Algeria? Would this not imply that from 1830 to 1962 this is the name of the country.--Egghead06 (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually read yesterday the discussion on yout talk-page GS, and you are right. If that user claims "Algeria" should be there, he should then make a RfM for the article French Algeria. FkpCascais (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've just read the French Algeria article, and it suggests that the name "French Algeria" was purely informal, and "French" is only included in the name to signify that it was part of France at the time. If this is true, maybe Zitouni's article should just say "Algeria"? – Pee Jay 00:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

So this edit is no good? I have seen these edits many times in recent days. QED237 (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

In order to avoid WP:CIRCULAR, one must not rely on what Wikipedia says (especially when no source is cited), but on what sources say. So before making any comparison, one must first refer to what sources say about each case. I don't knom about Kosovo, but about Algeria, it's cristal clear that Algeria is the official name of the country since october 14, 1839, and this simple fact explains why the article French Algeria uses only 12 times the expression "French Algeria" and 140 times the name Algeria. --Indif (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Indif, you have contradicted yourself - saying that "one must not rely on what Wikipedia says" but then using the fact that "the article French Algeria uses only 12 times the expression "French Algeria" and 140 times the name Algeria" as justification for your belief. Our article on that country, between 1830 and 1962, is located (rightly or wrongly) at French Algeria, so that is what our related articles should show. If that is incorrect, as you are claiming, then you need to change the name to Algeria (1830–1962) or similar via WP:RM. Until that happens, French Algeria remains on articles. Giant Snowman 09:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I've not contradicted myself. I have only shown the contradiction in considering "French Algeria" as a name: the article itself uses intensively and almost exclusively the correct name, as it must be used in Zitouni's article. Other examples : according to the French government portal, Kader Arif was born in Algiers (Algeria), as well as, according to the French Assembly portal, the deputy Marcel Régis was born in Orléansville (Algeria).

By the way, according to Google books Ngram Viewer, the article French Algeria must be renamed to Colonial Algeria.

--Indif (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you have contradicted yourself; you said "don't reply on Wikipedia's article to back up your argument" before doing exactly that! Suggest a page move to 'Colonial Algeria' then, but we would simply change all references from 'French Algeria' to 'Colonial Algeria'. If you've read this discussion then you see there is no support for your point of view. Please accept it. Giant Snowman 12:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a point of view, but facts relying on reliable sources. These sources say that the country's name is Algeria since 1839, and that's the name that reliable sources such as the French Government sites, FIFA or FFF say, how is it possible that you pretend that another name must be used only because we have an article named French Algeria, which means Algeria under the French rule. So, where are your sources? --Indif (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica good enough for you? Giant Snowman 13:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Having re-read the discussion and reconsidered the debate, I have come to the conclusion that the place of birth should actually simply be "Algiers, France". In 1928 the Algiers region was a French départment, just like Paris or Corsica (it wasn't an overseas department). Number 5 7 13:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced about that argument to be honest, but if that is the consensus perhaos we should use 'Algiers, French Algeria, France' in the same way we use 'Sarajevo, SR Bosnia and Herzegovina, SFR Yugoslavia' etc.? Giant Snowman 13:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What is unconvincing? Algiers was as much a part of France as Marseilles at the time of the birth in question. I can see merit in that approach, but it seems rather long winded (I would not bother putting the Bosnia bit in myself). Number 5 7 13:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think by omitting the part about "French Algeria" would be confusing to readers, who might think that either we'd made a mistake or that Zitouni was born in a town in mainland France called Algiers. I do like the idea of "Algiers, French Algeria, France" though. – Pee Jay 13:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Algeria was divided into three departments (Algiers, Constantine and Oran), but was never a "part of France", according to the historians :

Algiers, France is a definitive non sense. (And by the way, I have access only to the first paragraph of the article in Britannica) --Indif (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with PeeJay that saying 'Algiers, France' implies the mainland. Giant Snowman 13:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to note that during the time of French rule FIFA (whose authority we often use here on Wiki) considered Algeria to be part of France and that all Algerian players who had left France were banned by FIFA. Algeria.com Would suggest the area was still Algeria but it was part of France so was French Algeria.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

More interesting to note is despite all the sources cited, like FIFA, FFF, the French Government, whose authorities are indisputable, and despite WP:V, WP:OR propositions (especially "Algiers, France") are made. I can't believe that. --Indif (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

As long as Wikipedia is concerned, per WP:V, "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". No one has ever showed a single source contradicting the fact that Algeria was named Algeria since 1839 and that's the name widely used by reliable sources. The consensus of the sources must always prevail over any other consensus. The question here is not "which name should we give to Algeria before 1962", but "which name do reliable sources give to Algeria before 1962". It's as simple as that, and until now, there's no source contradicting the ones I gave, only contributors beliefs. --Indif (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources for "French Algeria" - Encyclopedia Britannica, History Today, Comparative Education Review, Occidental College, University of Michigan, Academia.edu etc. etc. I do not know how many times I need to tell you, but if you dispute the use of the name "French Algeria" then you need to propose a new name using WP:RM at Talk:French Algeria. Giant Snowman 10:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Al Yarmouk

This article title currently has over a hundred redlinks from other articles, though most of them are probably coming through from templates. There was an article formerly here which was deleted after PRODding in 2012, with the reason "No assertion of notability per WP:FOOTYN and unreferenced". Judging from the redlinks, it was presumably about a Libyan football club that appears to have played in the Libyan Premier League at one time and was in the Libyan Second Division in 2009/10, since when it looks as if the Libyan football calendar has been seriously disrupted.

I would like to ask if the team is notable. If it is, then it would be helpful if someone could find enough information to write a short stub. If it is not, there are several other football teams (and other topics) with very similar names whose articles are currently linked to from the Yarmouk disambiguation page, and Al Yarmouk should probably redirect there - and the current redlinks probably need to be removed as links, even if, for completeness or other reasons, the associated text is kept in templates and articles. PWilkinson (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A short stub with a source is now there. Surely one of the more notable teams in Libya with a cup final in 1997. -Koppapa (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football biography changes

This evening I've noticed Infobox looking different and when I checked the Template:Infobox football biography history, I see that there were changes made today, but I am not sure if I can just revert? Could somebody with experience have a look? JMHamo (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea what these changes do but whatever they were not discussed and came with no edit summary.--Egghead06 (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The only change I have noticed is that the teams listed in the senior career section have more space in between them... which personally I don't like. Other than that I don't notice much change. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

As this is a highly visible template, any changes should have been done with consensus. I don't know what other changes were made, but the fact it was, is in my opinion disruptive. JMHamo (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I did message User:Davykamanzi about those edits earlier to say he should have provided an edit summary, but I think we are right to revert until he can work out how to implement his changes without fucking up the template. Furthermore, perhaps the template should be fully protected to prevent edits unsupported by consensus as it is transcluded on thousands of pages. – Pee Jay 22:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Again though, I don't know why I am thinking about this, but what exactly did he change other than the team lengths from what I can see? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think he was trying to make the infobox embeddable, so that you can have more than one type of infobox in an article (e.g. if a player is known both as a footballer and as a rugby player, or something like that). I think the spacing issue was one of the problems he had run into. – Pee Jay 22:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh god! If that was the case then ya, undo them! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely should be fully locked down. Surprised it hasn't been already. JMHamo (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The template has been fully-protected by Mike V (talk · contribs). Giant Snowman 10:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Giorgos Loizou

Hello again - another old Afc submission - thumbs up or down on this one? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Has not made a first-team appearance yet, so not notable and can be deleted. JMHamo (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Gone! —Anne Delong (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo query

Currently the WikiProject rule says that players are eligible for an article if they "Have played FIFA recognised senior international football" Am I right in thinking that if a player with no club appearances plays for the Kosovo national team, he becomes eligible for an article? It is a FIFA recognised international game against Haiti after all. There are a few called up who could make their international debut. TheBigJagielka (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not an official game, though, see this which states "the game will not count as an official international match." Giant Snowman 10:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Waheed91

Could an Admin please look at the odd editing being carried out by Waheed91 (talk · contribs). He seems to be changing Place of Birth and rearranging categories for no apparent reason and generally being disruptive. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Seconded, I have previously reverted this editor after changing birthplaces to redirects after he moves brackets. Dont know why he does this. QED237 (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I just gave them a final warning after they went through the Man City current squad this morning. Given they've done Man Utd, Chelsea and Man City players, I suspect Arsenal might be the next target. If they start again, report them to WP:AIV. There's a distinct competence/WP:IDHT problem. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Last night, I blanket rollbacked a whole bunch of their category changes that were mostly nonsensical (removing valid tags, removing valid cats, adding in some that were on things not mentioned in the article, adding in a template that wasn't supposed to be there), and readded the valid categories that they had added where appropriate. But I will admit that I got fed up after a while and just gave up (it was late at night as well) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI - Waheed91 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for one week for continuing their nonsensical editing after being warned. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Diego Maradona

Is official that Diego Maradona is a new Deportivo Riestra player?

→http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1968392-diego-maradona-reportedly-set-to-come-out-of-retirement-at-age-of-53

→http://www.gazzetta.it/Calcio/Estero/21-02-2014/maradona-deportivo-riestra-argentina-ole-el-porvenir-stinfale-80103896151.shtml--Lglukgl (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The gazzetta report quotes the club president at length saying no, so no. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

But in the page you can see: In August 2013, Maradona joined Argentine Primera D club Deportivo Riestra's staff as "spiritual coach",[12][13][14] and became part of their playing team in February 2014.--Lglukgl (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet sources say no, so the answer is no unless he actually gets onto the pitch. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably a PR-Stunt. Don't think it should be part of the info-box even if he plays a handful of games. -Koppapa (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If he plays league games, and that is verifiable (which you'd expect it to be) then it most certainly should be in the infobox, publicity stunt or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If this is simialr to Bruce Grobbelaar at Glasshoughton Welfare, then that is in the infobox. PR stint or not, we never exclude contracted clubs from the infobox. Giant Snowman 13:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Julian Green article needs some nationality intervention

Another situation where the player was born in one location (the US) to at least one parent of a different nation (Germany). He has played at the junior level for both nations. he is currently playing for Germany although he has trained with the American senior men's team before an upcoming friendly. We have several editors trying to impose "American" into the lede. Could someone please do better job at explaining how nationality works at the article's talk page please? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I should link to it: Julian Green. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal

Someone reached me in my talkpage and notified me of the following:

This "user" keeps removing players from the Spain national football team article, especially the most recently called athletes (all this according to the person that contacted me, i'm just being the messenger, since our fellow user does not speak English all that well, he asked me to report).

He showed me the following IPs: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/95.105.150.59), (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.197.237.174) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.229.46.6), from what i've browsed, the first address shows that the person is somewhat adept at WP procedures, as they have blanked their talkpage after being repeatedly warned; ah, and that address has also been blocked.

Briefing over, attentively --AL (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I went to WP:RPP to get the page protected, and now it is. QED237 (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Source for José Mourinho's managerial record

Hi, I have referenced part of José Mourinho's managerial record, but am struggling to cite his Benfica, União de Leiria and Porto spells. Could anyone direct me to any sources for these? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Always Learning: is your best bet. Giant Snowman 18:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at this one (here http://www.foradejogo.net/manager.php?manager=159&language=2). If you click on the top-left corner, in the stripe that's below "CAREER" and with nothing written on it, it'll change to his player career, which also shows us (don't know if someone has added the cat or not, just saying) he is not a Primeira Liga player, was part of a Rio Ave F.C. roster but did not play, only competed in Segunda Liga as a player.

Additionally, returning to manager stuff, if you click in the Portuguese clubs and go to the given season, there you can click in a field called "CALENDAR", which will also give you the Taça de Portugal and other cup games. Cheers --AL (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the stats accordingly. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"See also" or "Don't see also", that is the question

I've seen this section added to several Slovenian footballers, with the inscription "Slovenian international footballers".

I always thought the SEE ALSO section was for something notable (List of one-club men, list of players with more than 100 caps, list of players with more than 20,000 points and 10,000 rebounds, etc, etc), not for something which is illustrated in a mere category.

Inputs please. Attentively --AL (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot of List of current MLS players in 'see also' sections on US bio articles - why? Giant Snowman 10:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I personally think that they are unnecessary and I tend to delete them. The relevant guidelines are at WP:ALSO, although they are not particularly helpful. They basically say, do as you wish! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's for articles relevant to the topic which (generally) aren't already linked to either in the body of the article or in navboxes etc. You wouldn't include categories, and you'd expect "notable" (for want of a better word) pages like achievement lists to already be linked in the prose. I don't see the point of including List of current MLS players either. But that's not a blanket encouragement to delete on sight... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Renaming of Hull City A.F.C.

Does this merit a separate article? Surely it can be covered in both the main page, history page, and season page? Giant Snowman 20:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not a bad article. -Koppapa (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The quality of the article isn't at issue. To me it seems like a mountain is being made out of a molehill. – Pee Jay 21:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this article is appropriate yet. If we end up with a MK Dons-style case (which, given Tan's actions so far, wouldn't surprise me at all), then such an article may be appropriate, but right now, it isn't. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Article creator here. I started the article because it was occupying undue amount of space, all about events in the last half year or so. While the whole episode is yet to play itself out, I do think the events will be notable, whether or not the renaming goes through. But if it's too WP:NEWS-y, I understand. Mosmof (talk) 00:57, 5 March :::2014 (UTC)

@Mosmof:, as a lot of hard work has gone into this, and could well be potentially notable in the future, would you mind if we userfy it? It'll save us going through an AFD and it means you can continue to work on it in userspace. Giant Snowman 10:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel it merits a separate article. The notable parts could be included in the main article, while th rest discarded. Most of it is superfluous. - 68.51.33.90 (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are userfying then you will need to restore info in the main article to cover this, the history article will need updating as well. Keith D (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I'm happy to userfy/restore the trimmed content. Mosmof (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Football League clubs

I have copied this discussion from my talk page as it needs input from the whole project. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The category says at the top that it is all clubs past and present. But the category consists almost entirely of current clubs, with a few who have recently left (eg Barnet, Aldershot, Hull, Crystal P), missing a few who have just joined/returned (QPR, Reading, Mansfield). If it really is supposed to be all the clubs then it is an appallingly incomplete, missing nearly all the current Premier League clubs, who were all Football League clubs once, and the many many many clubs who have dropped out (eg Luton, Hereford, Glossop to name just a few). Either way there is clearly something very wrong with the category as it is at the minute. In any case, there is a separate Category:Former Football League Clubs for those who have left. Whatever, someone needs to figure out what the category is supposed to be and amend it accordingly, because at present it seems like no-one has any idea what the category is supposed to be and its contents aren't correct under any definition. Oh, and you reverted my edits putting QPR, Reading and Mansfield back into the category, but they obviously should be in it regardless of whether it is current or all time clubs, so maybe in future you should actually look at an edit before you revert it. The- (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all - sorry for incorrectly reverting your edits on QPR, Reading and Mansfield. I just assumed that, because the edit on Southampton was wrong, all your edits at the same time were wrong. Mea culpa. My understanding of the basic structure of categories is that once an article belongs to a category, it stays there permanently. Thus, we don't have a Category:Former Premier League clubs. IMHO, the Category:Former Football League clubs should be deleted and all its contents moved back up to the Category:Football League clubs. The separate Category:Defunct Football League clubs should be retained, as long as it only includes defunct clubs who had once been in The Football League. I am copying this discussion to WT:FOOTY. Best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Category:Former Football League clubs should be deleted, as I also recall there being consensus that such categories should not exist. Number 5 7 07:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is The Football League, so our category should be Category:The Football League clubs. I agree that only one is required, no need for a separate 'former' cat. Giant Snowman 13:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So - should this go to cfD? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Football League clubs is eligible for WP:CFDS, to match the parent article; Category:Former Football League clubs should be taken to WP:CFD. Giant Snowman 17:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources out there that list all FL clubs i.e. past and current members? Eldumpo (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Australian sport naming rules

It struck me that there may be some interest here in the discussions that I am mediating here. Please feel free to add your comments in the section I am about to create there. I am very keen to keep this solution focused and so any remarks about the past misbehaviour or motivation of other editors should be avoided. I only want comments on whether you think it is worth having a further RfC to clarify the implications of this discussion, though there will doubtless be other questions that crop up as we go through the process. Please feel free to chip in if you have any positive thoughts to share. Thank you. --John (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see the RfC I have started at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Thanks. --John (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hector Bellerin

Dear football fans: Here's another of those old abandoned Afc submissions. It was declined for being promotional, but that can be easily fixed if the football experts here declare this player to be notable. What say? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

An article on this guy already exists at Héctor Bellerín. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I guess my search didn't find it because of the accents. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's too bad that whoever wrote the older draft didn't fix up the NPOV problems and resubmit; the article was almost ready. Is there any useful information or sources that should be added to the mainspace article, or should the draft just be deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Héctor Bellerín is a much better article and there's nothing in the AfC submission that will improve it IMO, so I've tagged it for deletion. JMHamo (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! One more off the list... —Anne Delong (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Help needed in getting a link to work

Hi, I am wanting to use this page from the Estonian Football Association official website as a source at Sander Puri. However, when the link is re-opened it comes up with a different player. I've tried fiddling with the parameters in the URL but without any luck. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't replicate your experience Matty. Have you deleted your browser cache and tried again? JMHamo (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried it out in the sandbox, and although I didn't save my test, it did work. Try making your change in the article and then we can have a look. Jared Preston (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ref added to the article. Seems to be working ATM. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

On my screen at least, all the names in this tl have thick black lines/bars through them. Any idea why.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Some sort of technical issue to do with Chrome rendering according to a discussion at Template_talk:Family_tree#Rendering_issue. This appears to be affecting other articles eg Roosevelt_family#Family_tree. Hack (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's fine on Safari. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much all family trees haven't rendered properly in Chrome since some time in January or February. There's apparently some sort of fix (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_124#Kings_of_Wales_family_trees). Hack (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Squad maintenance

Template:Squad maintenance doesn't work. ~~500 squads use this template. --Fredde (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I would ask the village pump for help with this. JMHamo (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed JMHamo (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

commons:File:Captain sports.svg

Can we get a ruling on the use of this icon in football articles? I'm pretty sure there are policies against using icons where a text alternative is available, and since we can just replace that icon with "(c)", that's probably what we should do. The only possible advantage of the icon is that it is slightly more decorative than the text, but since WP:ICONDECORATION forbids icons from being used simply for aesthetic purposes, that's another reason to avoid it. Furthermore, that icon seems to be a repurposing of the copyright symbol, which falls foul of the WP:MOSICON section titled "Do not repurpose icons beyond their legitimate scope". – Pee Jay 14:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Avoid entering textual information as images, and MOS:ACCESS#Images. Remove on sight. If anyone fancies making a start, Sport Club do Recife is just a little icon-ridden... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3, I see you've opened a TfD on this already three days ago, odd that you didn't mention it here... JMHamo (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is odd. You'd think I would have done that. Also, the TfD is about a template that used to include this image, I'm talking here specifically about the use of the image, which is included on well over 500 articles (admittedly not all of them football-related). – Pee Jay 20:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove on sight, per Struway's links. Giant Snowman 12:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

PFA Team of the Year

Has anyone noticed the sheer gross size of this article? Is there any way we could cut it down, or at least split it up into separate articles by division or by periods of time? – Pee Jay 20:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. But i guess the gazillon of Category:PFA team of the year navigational boxes could all go. -Koppapa (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The navboxes are fine, in my opinion, but the article is monstrously big. – Pee Jay 11:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Split it, seperate articles for decades? Murry1975 (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's the 169th biggest article on WP, although it's nowhere near the biggest football article - that "prestigious" honour goes to the horrendous List of Spanish football transfers summer 2013. I agree a split is warranted, and decades is probably the way to go. Doing it by division would be complicated by the multiple changes in division names down the years -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it enough to do it by decade, or should we perhaps consider creating year-by-year articles and devising a new way to summarise the content in a parent article? – Pee Jay 15:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say split by decade. Giant Snowman 12:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've split the main article into five separate articles called PFA Team of the Year (1970s), PFA Team of the Year (1980s), etc. – Pee Jay 13:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:2013–14 X league table‎ or Template:Current X league table

Hi, I am working on the "new" league table templates currently in use in the "english section" which shown full table on main article (for example at 2013–14 Premier League) and the truncated table on club articles like 2013–14 Everton F.C. season. Now the question is how to name the template. Should we have a new template for every season or a current table changing at the end of every season. And should the templates stop existing after the season, storing the content on the pages or should the template always exist (perhaps harder to detect vandalism if few people follow templates but easier to keep it). If anyone has any opinion take your chance and speak up!. QED237 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out this discussion which had a consensus to get rid of the team templates that your table template relies on. EddieV2003 (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is why the {{Fb cl team}} is being replaced with {{Fb cl2 team}} but it does not affect the table. QED237 (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Previous season templates have been deleted because of it's redundancy. Here is a deletion log for the 2012–13 Bundesliga table and here is the deletion log for last season Champions League group stage table template deletion log. Kingjeff (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes they should be replaced and deleted after every season but that does no mean we should not have templates, perhaps it is even easier to have a bot subst and remove instead of doing it manually when a season ends to "restart" current template for next season. QED237 (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Those previous templates only used {{Fb cl2 team}} with appropriate headers, footers, colors, etc. and were easily just copied into the season article. This new template style has extra coding that would not be copied and therefore can be lost if it is deleted and a new one made. If Qed237 were to leave wikipedia, this code may not be reproducible by other users. I have studied the code some more and understand what it is doing, but I do not know the language well enough to recreate it from scratch. By leaving it under the name Template:Current X league table, substituting at the end of the current season, and updating for the next season, this problem would not occur. EddieV2003 (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, the code is a bit complicated but not that hard to reproduce it is just to copy'n'paste. QED237 (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That is true as long as the new one is created before the old one is deleted. Kingjeff suggested in the two afds he linked that the years be dropped and one table just be used. As long as people watch for vandalism, I do not see the need to delete and recreate every season. EddieV2003 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That is very true, perhaps a current table is best as long as we really make sure it is substituted everywhere before starting the new table so that a 14-15 season table does not end up at a 13-14 season article. Should even the current 13-14 seson templates be moved to "current", with the risk of 13-14 then always neing redirected to a current table? QED237 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Substitution shouldn't be hard. There is a "What links here" and would show where the table is linked. Kingjeff (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is and I have tried it on my sandbox, the problem is that a big amount of code not needed when season over is included even if only showing part of the table so a lot could me removed manually (all switches and team that is not interesting). But I guess current X table is best or skipping current and just have "X league table". QED237 (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris Moore

A recent edit at Chris Moore (Welsh footballer) changed the height from 5 feet 11 inches to 6 feet, with no source. The height is incorrectly formatted (it should be just digits). Should the edit be reverted or cleaned up? Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced information about a BLP that has been challenged? Remove per WP:BLP. Giant Snowman 12:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European football club stadiums

Dear football experts: This draft was created some time ago, but never submitted to be added to the encyclopedia. Now its on the G13 stale draft deletion list. Is this a notable topic, or should it be let go? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Bin it, the much superior List of European stadiums by capacity already exists -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again - it's gone.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

FA Cup qualifying round results

I've tried checking the booklist, but I thought I'd ask here just to be sure: does anyone have a copy of "The FA Challenge Cup Complete Results" by Tony Brown? I'm trying to find out the round in which Chesterfield Municipal played against South Normanton Colliery in 1919-20, and any info about Barrow Shipbuilders' involvement in the same season. – Pee Jay 18:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Stuart Basson's wondrous Chesterfield site will give you the Chesterfield Municipal one (click on "All Chesterfield's cup matches", it brings up an Excel spreadsheet).

FA website archive still not working, then... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks mate, the Chesterfield link was perfect (shame they can't translate their Excel spreadsheets to a web page though). – Pee Jay 19:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

PeeJay, you can still reference the Excel document, see the Dennis Stokoe article for an example of how to do so... Giant Snowman 19:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

<reduce indent> I grew up in Barrow and have never heard of Barrow Shipbuilders as a team (presuming here that this is Barrow-in-Furness the shipbuilders name would fit). This website identifies Barrow AFC as having competed against Carlisle United, presumably in the qualifying rounds, that year - does that tally with your details? It's a long shot but you might ask at [4] or [5]. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

A quick Google finds them mentioned on the page of Frank McPherson (looking at that page, I guess this is where your interest has come from!), referenced as playing for them in the 1918-19 season. The description (' the works team') suggests that it was what went on to be known as Vickers Sports Club, who later became BAE Barrow and more recently Hawcoat Park Sports. Doubt that their website has any info but if you're very interested you might be able to contact them at http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/hawcoatpark/. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks SNC. Yes, that's the article that piqued my interest; apparently McPherson played in the FA Cup for "Barrow Shipbuilders" before joining Chesterfield, but as you say, I can't find any reference to that club outside of McPherson's biography. Also, I think Barrow AFC's tie against Carlisle came after McPherson's appearance for Chesterfield, so that can't be it. – Pee Jay 11:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

According to [6], Barrow Shipbuilders entered at the Preliminary Round and lost 1-2 to Kells White Star. It was their only FA Cup appearance. 109.173.211.121 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Soccerdatabase.eu

FYI, this site is a copyvio of the defunct 'playerhistory' site and has now been blacklisted from Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 12:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Have the links already on the site been removed, obviously blacklisting will prevent new ones being added. Blethering Scot 13:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe so, and I have been removing any new additions over the last few months. Giant Snowman 13:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Playerhistory was "downgraded" from an "opening soon" banner to a parked domain. Regardless of the legality of soccerdatabase.eu, they have preserved a not inconsiderable amount of player data - too bad there are almost no lineups. 109.173.211.121 (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You'd be better off finding old PH links at the Wayback Machine. Giant Snowman 13:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

PH was dynamically generated, there are hardly any static pages archived, and they do not include the most important info which was available only to subscribers. 109.173.211.121 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

GA nomination

The Major League Soccer article has been nominated for Good Article status, but has not been reviewed yet. Perhaps someone could review the GA nomination? Barryjjoyce (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Barryjjoyce: Im not going to review it but you will need to format the references in the article, lot of bare urls appearing.Blethering Scot 21:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge two articles about same player

Don't know if this is the right place to ask, but as there are two articles (Anel Hadžić (footballer) and Anel Hadžić) about the same player, it would be nice if someone familiar with the routines could merge the two pages. --Wikijens (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd just redirect the footballer article. Nothing to add from that to the other. -Koppapa (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You could but I'm sure someone like @GiantSnowman: would maybe do the honours. I would of thought better to merge the histories.Blethering Scot 21:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You can't merge the article due to parallel histories, better to redirect one. Giant Snowman 21:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for peer review

Hi, I don't know if this is the right place, but today after me and a mate were talking about Alex Rodrigo Dias da Costa, I checked his article and found it to be lacking a few citations, some prose errors and too many pictures. I think compared to earlier it is now C-class, what do you think? The Almightey Drill (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think C-class is a fair assessment of the article in its current state. Following the advice at WP:BCLASS may allow the article to be graded more highly in the future. Thanks, C 679 13:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I think C-class is the limit of my editing "talent" ;) '''tAD''' (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Including "Richest Football Clubs" in Rangers FC's "See Also" Section

The article Forbes' list of the most valuable football clubs is linked in the "See Also" section of the Rangers F.C. article. The last time they appeared on this list was 2009 and their financial position has changed dramatically since then. (Quickly: They have went through administration, and ultimately liquidation, and are now playing in the lower leagues of Scottish Football).

I believe that including this link on the main article isn't accurate, and is the result of a POV edit from people wanting to promote their club (something which football club articles are plagued with. Especially those related to the Old Firm). You can see the discussion on Talk:Rangers F.C., but I still think this page shouldn't be linked, as it's not accurate to suggest Rangers one of the "Richest Football Clubs" any longer.

I am looking for a more NPOV perspective on this. --Connelly90 13:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As they don't appear in the current ranking, or indeed any ranking since 2009, there is no need for the link to be present in the 'See Also' section. Giant Snowman 13:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently there has been another discussion in the past re this, I'm not familiar with or know in the archives where it is so cant comment. However as I've stated on the talk page of the article, this isn't a NPOV issue. The see also doesn't discriminate it does not say they are or ever were, it just says you may be interested in reading this. This isn't an Old Firm issue at all either, nor is liquidation strictly relevant to the debate, its pretty well covered and very neutral on both the main page and at Administration and liquidation of The Rangers Football Club Plc. The see also is still relevant as the tables for previous years are still included at Forbes' list of the most valuable football clubs, if they only included the current ones then of course the see also would be unnecessary and then possibly that would be pov issue.Blethering Scot 18:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no point in adding it to the article. I wouldn't even add it to any club mentioned in the list. -Koppapa (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of to keep it there is for irony.--Echetus Xe 20:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Including "Richest football clubs" in the see also section of a specific team's article strongly implies that the team is one of those rich clubs; Rangers is no longer in this group.

The liquidation is very relevant to this debate as it's regarding the current finances of the team, and whether it's accurate or fair to so include "Richest football clubs" in the see also section any longer.

If you stand by including the link on the basis that the reader "may be interested in reading this"; then on that logic shouldn't we add it to every football-related article, or at least every football club's article? Since it's a subject that everyone interested in those articles "may be interested in".

(NOTE: Previous discussion is here) --Connelly90 10:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to make the point I made at both Old Firm clubs talk pages about this issue: I believe it is a perfectly relevant see also page as both clubs are included in the lists on the page. The compromise made by Connelly90 by adding '25th in 2009' in parenthesis also means there is no confusion as to whether the club is on the current years list. Cheers, VanguardScot 11:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, anyone contributing here may also wish to read the page WP:See Also. Cheers, VanguardScot 11:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I only think it would be relevant to include the link in the "See Also" sections of clubs who appear on the current list. --Connelly90 11:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally the question I would ask is that is there somewhere in the article that mentions at one point they were on the list. It certainly should somewhere in the past finance section. If it does then it would be fair to remove the see also. I'm not sure it adds much in the irony stakes tbh. Blethering Scot 13:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The "Ownership and Finances" section deals almost exclusively with events surrounding their administration/liquidation as well as their current financial position. Only three lines of the section is devoted to their pre-2011 ownership and finances. --Connelly90 14:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If it can be incorporated concisely into the ownership and finances section then it could be removed from the see also section as it then would already have been mentioned. VanguardScot 16:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd only want that in the Rangers article if I were a Celtic fan. It's ridiculous. It's either anachronistic or it's vandalism. Remove it. --Dweller (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You wouldn't want it in if you were a Celtic fan, if you were a Celtic fan you wouldn't really want any mention of your nearest rival being one of the richest clubs in the world even if it was in 2009, its not even really that ironic though i can think of a few things that aren't in the article that really would be. Personally think your more likely to want it in if you're a Rangers fan, as a neutral personally don't see much of an issue. My preference is to add into the main article neutrally with an expansion on prior finance section. Then remove from see also, simply removing from See also doesn't really help the situation.Blethering Scot 17:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's vandalism aimed at putting down Rangers. Personally, I see the inclusion of this link in the "See Also" section as either a rangers-supporting editor wanting their club still connected with being one of the "richest football clubs", or simply something that hasn't been updated since 2009. Either way, it should be removed in my opinion. --Connelly90 07:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Individual international matches

I thought that usually, individual games, even official games between countries, did not get articles. If so, perhaps someone can take a look at Malaysia vs Indonesia (1977 SEA Games), Malaya vs Indonesia (1977 Merdeka Tournament), Malaya vs Indonesia (1977 Pre-World Cup), Malaysia vs Indonesia (1969 Merdeka Tournament), Malaya vs Indonesia (1961 Merdeka Tournament final), Malaya vs Indonesia (1957 Merdeka Tournament) and Malaya v Indonesia (1958). Some of the articles may also be copyright violations wrt to their (short) text part, which seems to be taken straight from a newspaper. @Hakim pandaraya:. Fram (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

They seem like they were created in good faith, but these articles should be deleted in my opinion. If a match which started a "war" in South America doesn't get its own article, then these shouldn't. --Connelly90 15:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

They should all be PROD'ed. JMHamo (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

...with a stick? --Connelly90 15:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Quick review, they all look non-notable. Giant Snowman 19:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Nice to have a working project, there aren't many of those... Fram (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

List of foreign Premier League players

Can this article have images of the most notable inserted into their country's section (Bergkamp, Zola, Henry for example). There is currently no picture on the article, while List of Premier League hat-tricks has images of the most notable players. I know this is probably an issue for this list's talk page, but it's been inactive since 2010 so I thought I'd ask here. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

How does one define "most notable"? Giant Snowman 12:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think in this case it would just be who we have the best pictures of. God knows we're sorely lacking in quality images on Wikipedia. – Pee Jay 14:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Now if only Wiki could get its head around allowing embedding of images rather than downloading them, here are 35 million more to use and the days of poor quality images would be over.--Egghead06 (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

We could also have the ones who've spent the most seasons in the Premier league, so probably Nicolas Anelka, Dennis Bergkamp, Petr Čech and anyone who can be bothered to go through that whole list can find who else. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 15:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Just reading the article there...why do you consider "foreign players" in the English top flight to be someone who is "not eligible to play for the national teams of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland". Surely this should be all non-English players? --Connelly90 17:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with you in questioning ROI, but the others will be excluded due to the political entity that is the United Kingdom. Plus Welsh teams are eligible for the PL as well... Giant Snowman 17:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see the reasoning behind considering the definition as "all non-UK" players, but I can't see any reason to include Irish players, it's a totally different nation and association altogether!

It just seems strange to me to use the whole of the UK for an English league, since "homegrown" players in a league are almost always described as being from the association in question (i.e. I've not known Scottish teams, pundits etc to describe English, Welsh or Northern Irish players as "homegrown"). --Connelly90 18:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Back to original subject, I've put a few players into countries which have enough players to fit an image in. I've gone for players with distinctions: Player of the Year, PL winner, notable top scorer. And I've tried to find images with the player in focus, while still in a form of clothing identifying them to the club at which they distinguished themselves. Any edits and editions will be - well it's Wikipedia, you know you can help edit it! '''tAD''' (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hallam Hope

Dear football experts: Is there anything in this old draft that should be moved to Hallam Hope, or should the whole thing just be deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The AFC is out-of-date, poorly written, unsourced, and contains nothing worth adding to his existing article in mainspace. Get rid -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's gone. Thanks for the checkup. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Youri Raffi Djorkaeff

This draft is being considered for deletion because there's already an article about this player. The draft is more extensive, though. Is there anything that needs to be merged from the draft into the main article? If so, please comment at the deletion discussion above. We could always redirect the page instead of deleting. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Atlético Madrid at GAR

Having discovered that in my humble opinion, the Atlético Madrid article is not as deserving of GA status as it was on its promotion in 2010, I have put it up for GAR, if anybody wants to review it. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Include penalties in result or dont? (i.e. footballbox collapsible)

Hi everyone. There has been a slight disagreement between me and an IP on the result in a cup-match and as I have seen it before I thought it was best to see what footy has to say. The question is how we decide color for a finished match either in fooballbox collapsible or other table. The problem occurs when there are two legs and team X wins first match (example 2-1) and then the opponent team Y wins also by 2-1 and the match goes to penalties were team X wins. On the team Y article shouldn't it be green because they won match (even if they lost penalties?). Then it must also be the same if game is drawn and then someone wins on penalties, then it should be yellow for draw. To me I have always considered result without penalties but what does everyone else think? QED237 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The above example can be seen at 2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season#League Cup and my minor dispute has been on 2013–14 Arsenal F.C. season. QED237 (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The penalty shoot-out is not part of the match, so if a team wins the second leg of a tie but then loses on penalties, the match should still be considered as a win. – Pee Jay 11:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thats just how I feel. The same applies if a match ends with a draw before penalties (when there is only one leg)? QED237 (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. – Pee Jay 12:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The debate only happens because someone has the misconception that a shoot–out determines the winner of the match. But it only determines who advances. As mentioned above, the shoot–out is seperate from the match and only the score prior to the shoot–out determines if it's a win, draw, or loss. Kingjeff (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

sharkscores.com and rsfa.info are good sources for ELs?

Gavrilov Sergey (talk · contribs) has made a series of edits like this one where sharkscores.com and rsfa.info are added to the EL section. sharkscores.com has a link to about us but the JavaScript function doesn't connect to anything so it's not clear who is supplying those results and of they're either accurate or fact-checked. While rsfa.info is copyrighted by Radu I. Siminiceanu and has the same problems of not being clear on where the material is gleaned or if it's fact-checked. Any comments or concerns? I removed the Champions League additions but there were many, many more. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not come across either, but I don't think they are suitable, and that editor looks to be involved with WP:SPAM. Giant Snowman 19:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Siminiceanu is a contributor to RSSSF (a reliable source), but I don't have any information about rsfa.info. Jogurney (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

sharkscores is another frontend for mackolik.com (w/English interface), so refer to that website for copyright terms (it's in Turkish, with no English version). Simiceanu's membership in RSSSF does not automatically make anything he puts on the web reliable (excepting maybe Romania-related stuff if he's shown to be knowledgeable in that area), especially since RSSSF itself is only a loos organization that is, apparently, not managed in any quality-guaranteeing fashion; it just accepts individual contributions without delving into details 46.238.126.143 (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Vinicius de Freitas and Vinicius de Freitas Ribeiro

Can someone delete these pages? Both are redirects (unnecessary, very unknown player). Cheers, MYS 77 ^{talk with me ☺} 03:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

They seem to be valid redirects for a player who meets WP:NFOOTBALL - if you disagree please use WP:RFD. Giant Snowman 12:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Josh Coulson

Once more I have found an old Afc submission that may be worth fixing up. What do you think about this fellow? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't see any indication that he has played for a pro side in a pro league so fails WP:NFOOTBALL and by the look of it, WP:GNG. Both the Cambridge sides play in non fully-pro leagues and have done (in United's case) since just after he started playing. He has played for England C but this is for non league players.--Egghead06 (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, looks to be non-notable. Giant Snowman 12:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for sharing your expertise. Sorry I have to post so often about these old drafts, but I am learning - I have passed over at least a dozen that I decided all by myself were not notable. Now, if you ever need to know the difference between tremolo and vibrato, or how to tune an octave mandolin... —Anne Delong (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Kelantan FA

It seems this Malaysian club, Kelantan FA, has been making some rather amazing signings over the past weeks.......... Don't have the time to go back in the history to work out the correct playing squad, as it seems this has been done by a few ip users. So would someone have a look please? thanks. *Edited to add this: There is also this page: Kelantan F.C. which seems to overlap much of the Kelantan FA page. Plus there is a fair bit of what seems to be dubious content. --♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted Kelantan FA to a version without the novelty signings. The current squad section on the team's website is here, will check it later if no-one gets there first. And have redirected Kelantan F.C. to Kelantan FA. It was one of several copypaste creations by the same editor and as far as I can tell, the only one left unreverted. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The official website link you provided shows players who have been transferred to other clubs i.e. Indra Putra Mahayuddin, so it is not up to date. The 2014 Kelantan FA season article has a squad section with some sources if you wish to start your check there. EddieV2003 (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd just found out that Indra Putra had moved, and was trying the stadiumastro.com site before I read your post. If it's used as a source for the season article appearances, it should be ideal. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Now checked, I think. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)