Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 101

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 99Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102Archive 103→Archive 105

Articles created by Farmnation

Could somebody please help me go through the articles created by Farmnation (talk · contribs). I think a lot of them are non-notable. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, "China Amateur Football League". SLBedit (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Cant see articles like Xianyang Condor being notable, it clearly says "amateur league" and they are completely unsourced. Qed237 (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The China Amateur Football League is the fourth tier of football in China. Amateurs does not mean non-notable (see, for example, the FA Amateur Cup and its noteworthy entrants). Number 57 14:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:FPL only displays Chinese Super League as being notable. SLBedit (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:FPL is only relevant to the notability of players. This is clubs we're talking about. Number 57 15:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Right. So it's Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). SLBedit (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@SLBedit: no. It's up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, and according to it: All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria. MYS77 ✉ 16:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I can not see that the club has played in the Chinese FA Cup and I would not say that the amatuer league is real part of national level and Since 2014 there is optional promotion or relegation between China Amateur Football League and China League Two so they can choose league. I would say clubs in China League Two and up are notable. Qed237 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It's debatable. The China Amateur Football League is a single league covering the entire country. It has regional divisions, but clubs from different divisions play-off against each other for the title. I think it would be extremely harsh to consider clubs playing at level four in the world's most populous country automatically non-notable (and almost certainly a systematic bias issue if this is done without searching for information in Chinese). Number 57 16:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
While I would agree that being an amateur club does not automatically mean a club is not notable the fact that these articles are completely unreferenced violates WP:PROVEIT and WP:GNG. It is up to the creator to prove they are notable and well referenced, and not up to this project to prove they are not. Delete unless the creator is willing to provide sources for the articles and content created. Calistemon (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I gave up on this. SLBedit (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

André Carrillo

Sporting informed that Benfica signed André Carrillo, but he can only play for Benfica in July 2016, meaning that he still is a player of Sporting, so he should stay in the club's article. Right? (same with Franco Cervi) SLBedit (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

yes, per WP:CRYSTAL. GiantSnowman 13:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Pakistani womens footballers.

After spotting List of Pakistan women International footballers‎ now at this AfD, I saw that the creator of that article has created other articles as well and I want to see if they are notable. Syeda Mahpara Shahid and Malika-e-Noor for example has reference to a forum (which is the only ref for the latter). Qed237 (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

International footballers - men or women - are notable, but if there are no reliable sources to verify the claims then it should be deleted. GiantSnowman 18:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Football biography infobox - adding a college section

Please can you come over to: Template_talk:Infobox_football_biography#College_career_header to discuss adding a college section to the infobox. TheBigJagielka (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox national football team

User:BiHVolim is complaining that this infobox is too narrow for nations with long names, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina. As you can see from this version of the page, the flag near the bottom of the infobox spills onto the next line. My suggestion was simply to remove the flags from the infobox (as a first step towards doing the same for all nations). The flags aren't necessary for identification purposes and are simply decorative, so per MOS:FLAG they shouldn't be there anyway. However, because the flags haven't been removed from the infoboxes of all 200+ national football teams (and their youth teams!) yet, BiHVolim has changed the page back, despite originally agreeing to my solution. Since it will affect hundreds of pages, I guess this is an issue that should be discussed here: so, flags or no flags? – PeeJay 09:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This is easily fixed using the {{nowrap}} template, as demonstrated here. Number 57 10:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't know why I didn't think of that. Thanks #57. – PeeJay 10:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
There should be no flags in the infobox. GiantSnowman 10:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there any way we can get a bot to make changes en masse? – PeeJay 10:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:BOTREQUESTS. GiantSnowman 10:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Guys, be aware that other sports WikiProjects use flag icons for Olympic team and other national team membership, and they do not consider such use "purely decorative." I understand that WP:FOOTY uses flag icons for players in ways that are different from other sports, notably including flags in team rosters. That said, there are ample exceptions in MOS:ICON for national teams, national team members, and other athletes in international competition. See, e.g., the infobox @ Dara Torres, which is standard formatting for Olympic swimmers, whose highest athletic achievement is representing their country in international competition. As a symbol of their current or former national team membership, they get one 7-mm flag in their infobox. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to #57 for the fix, looks grand! FYI I never agreed for only Bosnian flags to be removed. I like uniformity across all pages. It does not make sense to modify only Bosnia and Herzegovina and not others of the kind. That would look totally odd. If flags do get voted out, vote them out for all 200. BiHVolim (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I had a suggestion. I wanted to know if we could switch the Major League Soccer teams roster template to the original template where every other football team in the world has. For me its much better for organization, looks more professional, and also it just looks better. Thoughts?

Runners-up in league as an "honour"?

So, Rpo.castro (talk · contribs) has reverted me 3 times in S.C. Braga because he wants to include a second place in Primeira Liga as an "honour". The article already mentions that achievement in the lead and ranking box. Furthermore, the honours section also lists minor honours such as Taça Ribeiro dos Reis and Taça Federação Portuguesa de Futebol; both are unsourced. They should be removed from honours. SLBedit (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@SLBedit: this is not new (case 1, case 2, case 3) and it doesn't have some consensus. MYS77 ✉ 19:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hence the question. Finishing second in Primeira Liga is not an honour. No medals received (like in any league). Nothing. SLBedit (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Remember having a long debate about this before- no, it's not an honour. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Being or not being a honour is a subjective question depends the "taste" of the person. If you have 20 titles, runner-up is not a big thing. If you don't, that its remarkable for that club. WP is not original research. Being runner-up in a national/international official competition is considerer as a honour oustide WP: Yes like: [eurocupshistory.com/club/777/boavista_fc here], here, here, here here or here.

If this runner-up is removed from "honours" its information removed. If stays what could harm? And like the notabilty criterias, you cannot make and article just because some club was runner-up (like you cannot made an article because some guy is spanhish). But if the articles exist, that information can be included. You cannot remove "player X is spanish" just because being spanish is not notable.

This was discussed so much times without consensus. The "defeated" will keep trying to re-open this issue until wins by tiring the opposition?Rpo.castro (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

everything.explained.today is a tertiary source. scbraga.pt and vfc.pt are primary sources. The "defeated" shouldn't add a second place in league as an honour. SLBedit (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
....1 2, Sky Sports Football Yearbook (former Rothamns Football Yearbook). Discussed in late december 2015, Discussing again 1,5 months later? Better open another discussion topic just in case...Rpo.castro (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If reliable sources count runner up as an honour then so should we. GiantSnowman 21:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Problem is that no reliable sources will because IT IS NOT! I remember reading in some articles in players in England receiving runner-up medals in Football League One/Football League Two, but in Spain/Portugal/Italy/France/Germany only the first is an honour, and that's it. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Look links above, or just look into libraries and google. There are plenty sources which considerer (and which don't). Since there is no definition by any organization (FIFA or UEFA) where honours is defined (which per se is a subjective thing), we have to strick to what sources mentionate. I really don't understand where is the discussion. There is any doubt that club A was runner-up? So whats the problem of being listed aas a honours or a major result instead? Its just to make other clube to have a better record? WP is about information, not about "club A is better then B".Rpo.castro (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not want to imply any club was better than another, just gave my opinion. This discussion is probably as old as WP itself, getting really tiresome. However, since I don't edit club articles (only individual players), S.C. Braga or any other club, I won't edit war with anyone. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Luck you, because everyone in WP can face an editor who wants to edit warring. I would like to understand how can you say there is not reliabale sources, when there is...Rpo.castro (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect, those sources may not indicate it is an honour, just that the team finished second in this or that season. Again, like I said, you don't have to worry about me reverting anyone. Cheers --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Vanderlei Luxemburgo: template include size

The Vanderlei Luxemburgo page has a problem in that it includes too many templates and the page is in the hidden Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. That means some of the templates did not work, and any further templates added will cause other templates to not work. It has to be fixed, and the easy way would be to remove several of the "managers" navboxes at the bottom. That would possibly be a good idea because they are an overkill. However, if they are wanted, the navboxes needs to be fixed. For example, {{America Football Club managers}} includes lots of {{Football manager list entry}}, as do the others. That puts a zillion of the "entry" templates in the main article. The navbox might be replaced with a module that would reduce the number of templates down to a small number. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This subject was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 99#Template:Navboxes and Template talk:Navboxes#Limit of templates?. Cheers, MYS77 ✉ 11:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Taking {{America Football Club managers}} as an example, it calls {{Football manager history}} which calls {{Football manager list entry}} and {{Football manager last}}; it finishes by calling {{navbox}}, and that invokes Module:Navbox to do the work. I could provide a module to replace {{Football manager history}} and the templates it calls. {{America Football Club managers}} would use a greatly simplified syntax for the list parameter (no templates would be called). The new module would call the navbox module directly. Is this approach wanted? Something else? If wanted, we would need to mention the proposal somewhere (some of the template talk pages?), and if no problems raised I could slowly work on it. @Frietjes: Do you have an opinion on how these navboxes should work? Is the problem already solved in another area? Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Johnuniq, there is some precedent for creating navbox wrappers in module-space, without going in-and-out of module-space. for example, Module:Team roster navbox (which is really just another version of Module:Navbox with nowrap lists as far as I can tell). I recall include size exceeded issues with {{documentation}} before it was rewritten. and, I imagine that whatever is done could also be done to template:navboxes? so, after providing many tangential topics, I really don't have any examples that exactly match this situation. by the way, it would be great if we could finally merge Module:Navbox with nowrap lists and Module:Navbox with striping into Module:Navbox with these features triggered by an additional parameter. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
another possible option would be to create a 'navboxes top' and 'navboxes bottom', which would avoid passing the entire stack of infoboxes through the navboxes template. Frietjes (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Frietjes for that info which I will digest.
@MYS77: thanks for the links, but would you mind saying what you think should be done now. Due to my lack of familiarity with this project I can't follow the comments. Should I fix the manager navboxes so they appear as currently intended without error? Or, are people here wanting some other solution such as removing the excessive number of navboxes? Johnuniq (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I don't know, honestly. In the other threads, somebody just pointed me a "temporary solution", which is currently used in Dorival Júnior's article. MYS77 ✉ 05:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes, @MYS77: I have written a module and done some testing. Assuming no problems are raised I will finish implementing it, and it should eliminate the template include size problem. More information is at #Template:Football manager history below. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Team Captains succession box: use or no use?

Continuing from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 99#Succession boxes.
Seems like the discussion ended in favor no use. However, I do think that team captains deserve to have a succession box. To be chosen as captain is not a small deal for any footballers. -Bijak riyandi (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • No as has been discussed multiple times before. It's not considered a notable position, and changes too frequently. GiantSnowman 13:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No – As per GiantSnowman and earlier discussions. Qed237 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No – As per above. Kante4 (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No - to be honest it is a "small deal" in most cases. The fact that I have several books on the history of my club and not one bothers to list past captains or even mention who was captain in any given season is quite telling -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No per above, and they're largely unsourced. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - As an interested friend of the WP:FOOTY family, I would like to note that none of the other major sports WikiProjects sanction navboxes for team captains. While these positions may have had more substance to them in the early 1900s, with the rise of professional managers and coaches in the 20th Century team captain became a relatively meaningless, almost honorary position on sports teams in most of the English-speaking world. In 2016, the position does not rise to the level of a notweworthy honor that merits a navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No – As per consensus.--EchetusXe 16:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No - per previous consensus. I will note (in response to Dirtlawyer1), however, that there is at least one sport where the position of Captain is not merely honorary; in ice hockey, only the Captain (or an Alternate Captain if the Captain is not on the ice) may address rules interpretations with the officials. As there is no captain succession box in a sport where the position actually means something, how can we justify it in a sport where the position means almost nothing? — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I've found a sport which does use them - cricket! Still, though, no.Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

D.C HILL C.F

Hey guys, came across D.C HILL C.F in my gnoming capacity. Not sure if it's notable or not, but it is currently unsourced. (I had to remove a poor blog reference.) It's also unclear to me if "under-16" means that it's a kids' league, (probably not notable) or if that's some special football lingo. Thanks for looking at it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Article PRODded and template at TFD. GiantSnowman 12:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Football manager history

Per the template include size discussion above, some articles exceed the template include size because they use many club manager navboxes, and each navbox uses many subtemplates. I have converted three navboxes to use the new syntax of the sandbox template. Assuming no problems are raised, I intend to convert more navboxes and the main template. Please have a look at the sandbox link above for documentation. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, good work! Number 57 17:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have converted 16 of the navboxes to use the new system (a list is temporarily here). While doing that I noticed that different styles are used for the note which appears at the bottom of some of them. Examples:

The issue is very minor, but if there are any opinions on what the note should be, I will make the navboxes consistent when I edit more. Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think (c) = caretaker manager looks the best and has the relevant info. GiantSnowman 12:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, I agree that looks best and will standardize on it when doing more editing. What about (i) interim — is that different from caretaker? Some navboxes like {{Fluminense Football Club managers}} use "(a.i.)". I won't try to change that because those who maintain them clearly like it, but I'm curious if it is another way of saying "temporary" (t?) or "caretaker". Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: A caretaker manager is usually someone from inside the club who holds the fort until someone else is appointed. An interim manager is usually appointed from outside the club until a permanent replacement is found (e.g. Guus Hiddink at Chelsea). Number 57 20:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess you are happy with (c) = caretaker manager? If I'm editing lots of the navboxes I may as well improve consistency, so which of the following should be used for interim?
  1. (i) interim
  2. (i) = interim manager
Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Tracking category for template errors

As mentioned above, I'm planning to replace {{Football manager history}} with something that uses a module. A module can check its parameters to detect errors. I haven't put in much checking, but for example, it could reject invalid years such as "from 1970 to 1968". The module does check that a year is given and will show an error if it is invalid. When working on {{convert}} it was decided that a discreet error message should be displayed, but I've found that editors often miss such messages. Therefore, the navbox module won't show anything except a big error message if there is a problem. A hidden tracking category should be added to help locate such errors (like Category:Convert invalid options).

I found the following hidden tracking categories but they don't seem suitable for reporting a template error.

I propose using Category:Football template errors for a generic title in case other templates for this wikiproject want to track errors. Any thoughts on that name? Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I have created the above category page and redirected its talk page to here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

identifying a club registered as another club

This seems to me in the "you've got to be kidding me!" category, but here goes. In 2015–16 Primera División de Fútbol Profesional season, between Apertura and Clausura seasons, Juventud Independiente sold it's spot to Segunda División (and former Primera División) side C.D. Luis Ángel Firpo. The issue is that for whatever reason, Firpo was forced to register as Juventud, so all official league records (and sites such as Soccerway) indicate Juventud, but it's actually Firpo (players, stadium, colors, etc.). Juventud is actually sitting out the Clausura season, supposedly having not registered in time for Segunda Division's Clausura.

We have a referenced note of this at the end of the section about promotion & relegation after last season, and what's basically a copy of that at the top of the Clausura season, noting that in that section Juventud really means Firpo, but I'd like some input as to whether that's the best way to do it, or if the entire Clausura section should just reference Firpo, or something else. Thanks!--John, AF4JM (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

From our perspective, I'd suggest that the current explanations in-text are quite clear. I'd be tempted to change the links in the Clausura table and fixture list to Pipelink to Firpo, so that it reads as Juventud Independiente but takes people to the Firpo page. Alternatively, you could just enter it as Firpo, with the note above the table explaining. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Fb team

Hi, can anyone explain to me the purpose of this template: Template:Fb team? I've seen it used as a substitute for pipelinking, like in this edit, but I really see no actual need for such usage. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Zero purpose whatsoever, from what I can see. I think the original argument was "if the team article is moved, we only have to update the one template to keep all the links from other pages accurate", but that makes zero sense when we have redirects to do that job for us. If the change of an article title is that problematic, a bot can do the job instead. The template should be subst'ed and deleted. – PeeJay 10:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Club season article naming

What is the consensus for season articles in clubs that changed name. Is that SLBedit moved 1906–07 Sport Lisboa season and 1907–08 Sport Lisboa season to 1906–07 S.L. Benfica season and 1907–08 S.L. Benfica season with the rationale For consistency across season articles. Also, S.L. Benfica is the subject of the article. The problem is, there were no such thing as SL Benfica until September 1908, when Sport Lisboa merged with Grupo Benfica. It's slightly comparable to Newton Heath F.C. or Woolwich Arsenal F.C., the former names of today Man United and Arsenal, but in this case, Sport Lisboa and Grupo Benfica were 2 different clubs, who played 2 different sports. Both Man United and Arsenal also have their older seasons named after their former name, 1886–87 Newton Heath LYR F.C. season or 1886–87 Royal Arsenal F.C. season, so there must a consensus to only change the season article name, when the club also changes.--Threeohsix (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, articles should definitely be titled with historical accuracy. If the club wasn't called SL Benfica prior to the 1908-09 season, the articles should use the former name(s). – PeeJay 10:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with PeeJay. Articles should be titled according to the club name at the time of the season. Number 57 10:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with PeeJay and N57 - it needs to reflect the historical name of the club. GiantSnowman 13:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree 100% that the name in use at the time should be used -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Dito. Kante4 (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Also agree due to historical accuracy. We don't retro-fit to 1965–66 Premier League for the same a similar reason. C679 20:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
That's actually slightly different, since the Premier League was a brand new league formed by a mass resignation of First Division clubs from the Football League, forcing all Second/Third/Fourth Division teams to be automatically "promoted". It feels like a renaming of divisions, but it wasn't. – PeeJay 10:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I concur. C679 10:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Montsy Piggont

Has anybody heard of "Montsy Piggont", apparently a French third-tier football team. Google only shows four results, all either at the Alieu Darbo page or the reference of the particular statement used at the page itself. It talks about 2–0 win in what was apparently the 2010–11 Coupe de France, but the only 2–0 win for his team was against AC Plouzané, according to our article, although I haven't been able to verify details of that match, either. Any ideas? Thanks, C679 16:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it must be Plouzané. "Monsty Piggont" is part of a direct quote from Darbo in the source, so I assume he just got confused. The match against Plouzané also occured around the time of the game he mentions. Number 57 16:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks 57. I have been taking the article apart and it looks like Alieu Darbo hasn't played in a WP:FPL, is anybody able to source any French league stats for him? C679 20:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
He appears to have one appearance in the Egyptian Premier League (which is an FPL). Do you think this stat is incorrect? Number 57 20:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I can't verify it. Seems to meet GNG regardless, but concerned as article (and even the photo) is all from a WP:SPA. C679 20:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The photo is in this Swedish article from 2013, there is a link to Dinamo Zagrebs website in the picture, so probably copyviolate. The only Darbo games I found stats on, is his four games in the Maltese Premier League. --Fredde (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of FIFA rules required

A player has represented his nation at the U-20 level. He subsequently moves to another country. Sources indicate he may elect to appear for that nation at the senior level. I have an editor who states FIFA will not allow it. Please confirm what the rules actually are at Talk:Gershon Koffie#Gershon Koffie's eligibility for Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

My interpretation of this situation is that FIFA rules indicate that as long as the player did not represent the first country in an official competition prior to gaining citizenship in the second country, then that player may petition FIFA for a change in eligibility. Koffie played for Ghana in a U-20 competition before even becoming a permanent resident in Canada. As best I can tell, Koffie has not yet been granted citizenship; his residency allows for MLS to count him as a Canadian player, but internationally he remains Ghanaian. After he is granted citizenship, he would still have to petition FIFA for a change in his eligibility. While the rules as written preclude that change, FIFA can and has granted exceptions. Until FIFA announces that Koffie is eligible to play for Canada, we have to assume that he is not. To say otherwise is incorrect supposition. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:Commonname

My question is, do we feel the disambiguation convention of F.C. on all football club articles outweighs the policy of WP:Commonname. For instance take Manchester United F.C. If you search for that term you only get 73,300,000 but search for Manchester United you get double at 156,000,000. In this case there is no need for the disambig as there is not likely to be any confusion with Manchester and there are no other articles with the same name.

Ive been advised in the Talk:St. Mirren F.C. move request that for WP:Commonname to overrule the standard disam for all football clubs an RFC is required. Im not sure thats the case, however I am willing to start one to debate further, but would rather see what the opinion of the project is. I agree its a difficult one, but if we have a common name policy it should be used properly and not just when we feel like it. So my question is if no disambig is required why do we insist on there being one.Blethering Scot 23:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Consistency. This is one of the five key WP:NAMINGCRITERIA – some clubs need the F.C. for disambiguation purposes (e.g. Liverpool F.C.), so it's much better to use it for all clubs rather than have a mishmash of different club name formats. Number 57 23:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Yet we are not consistent. Take Kerala Blasters FC, Gauhati Town Club, Bharat FC, Eastern Railway FC for instance all Indian club but the point stands we are one of the lest consistent projects around. I agree that when disambiguation is needed consistency is key between F.C. and FC, even though we aren't. However can we seriously argue as a project that when no disambig is required such as with Manchester United that we are above common name. I dont see how we can.Blethering Scot 17:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Whether deliberate or not, you have chosen an example that is entirely misleading – FC is not part of Gauhati Town Club's name, so is not included in the title for a reason.
The F.C. on the end of Manchester United is not a disambiguation tool, it is part of the club's name. And then it goes back to the consistency argument. Number 57 18:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we are being disingenuous to a tea. There are plenty of clubs who do not have football club as part of their name and we force F.C. after their name. As for Manchester United there common name is clearly simply Manchester United. I will say it again User:Number 57, as a project do we believe we are above the common name policy. You say we need consistency, but clearly we do not have it, so exclude Gauhati Town Club you still have Kerala Blasters FC, Bharat FC, Eastern Railway FC and plenty of others who use football club and we show no consistency on.Blethering Scot 21:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe I've seen any examples of where F.C. is used in a club's article title when it's not part of it's name, certainly not any English clubs. I also don't see any inconsistencies in the Indian examples, because we use the clubs' names in each case. And regards the common name policy, no, I don't believe we're above it. However, you need to understand that common name is not the most important naming policy – consistency is equally important. Number 57 21:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I do understand consistency is key, however there is inconsistency above. Yes FC is official name but we use F.C. for hundreds if not thousands of clubs who are Football Club and don't use F.C. anywhere in their name. So we either use F.C. or FC if football club is in their name. We are not consistent at this time. Common name if proven meets other key points of our naming policy such as recognisability and naturalness. Equally important parts. Im going to start a RFC on the subject of local naming conventions as i feel policies such as common name should not be disregarded at RM simply because a local convention exists. Blethering Scot 21:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • sigh* Consistency is not a "local convention". But if you're insistent on pursuing this agenda, at least please ensure the RfC is done on this projects' page. Number 57 21:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Number 57 No consistency is part of Wikipedias naming policy, as is recognisability and naturalness. F.C. is a local project convention on naming, if I'm wrong tell me now. Im being clearly advised by User:BrownHairedGirl that policy of common name does not overrule this projects local naming convention. If i was to start an RFC it would not be here but at Wikipedia:Article titles as the subject of whether a policy is overridden by local convention is a subject for the whole community as it effect every project.Blethering Scot 22:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
F.C., A.F.C. or whatever is part of clubs' names that we use in order to get consistency in how we name club articles – this is an agreed convention that follows the naming guideline. Many projects have agreed conventions on naming formats, and as long as they are within the bounds of the naming guidelines, that's not a problem. Number 57 22:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Number 57 I agree it is not a problem, but if common name is proven should those local project naming conventions overrule. I don't think they should and I'm advised they do, specifically this projects ones do. Whats your opinion? Blethering Scot 22:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you're confusing things here. The use of F.C. is not a "project naming convention" – it is an agreed application of the naming guideline, specifically WP:Consistency. Common name does not overrule this. Number 57 22:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Why do you feel common name does not overrule this. It is part of Wikipedia:Article titles as much as consistency is. Are we saying that consistency is more important than recognizability and naturalness or what reliable sources call something.Blethering Scot 23:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Because it's one of the five key naming criteria (the top level rules) – none of them overrule another; it simply comes down to a choice of what is preferable when you can't hit all five. In my experience, in topic areas where there are hundreds or thousands of articles, consistency is usually the option that editors go for. For example, look at Category:Railway stations in Suffolk; some of them are town names, and require disambiguation, but others are names that are only used for the station (e.g. Oulton Broad North). However, the railway project has obviously decided that it's better to go for consistent naming in order to avoid the aforementioned mishmash. Number 57 23:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Kerala Blasters FC and Bharat FC are all officially named with the "FC" at the end (not F.C.). Gauhati Town Club is literally Gauhati Town Club. Eastern Railways might have had F.C. but official sources just has them as FC. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
User:ArsenalFan700 not all clubs use F.C. as part of their official name. My team certainly do not, they use FC but we list them F.C.. The project has almost always used F.C. either as a disam tool or to signify football club. You mentioned official sources that marks my point to a tea. We are not consistent either on what official sources use of what the club's common name is. To me it is clear, where common name is clearly proven it should be used unless their is significant need to disam from what they are named after. Blethering Scot 21:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that this Football Project is unusual in having a local convention which clarifies how the policy at WP:AT applies to its topic area. As noted in the policy at WP:MOSAT, there are many such naming conventions, and they can be controversial. In my experience, naming conventions are most successful and most likely to retain broad community support when they don't stray far from the general, Wikipedia-wide conventions.

The football club approach seems to me to have very broad support, because it is simple and minimalist. So simple that I am not sure if it is even codified anywhere, because it doesn't need to be. AFAICS, it amounts to roughly "If a football club's name includes the words 'Football Club', then the wikipedia article's title should always include the initials 'F.C.'. This creates a consistent naming structure, and in the vast majority of cases it creates a unique and stable title which avoids timewasting arguments over ambiguity".

The "Foo F.C." format may not always be the most common name, but it is always a widely used form in reliable sources, and it is only a very minor variation on the most common name. So it meets all of the 5 points set out at: WP:CRITERIA:

  • Recognizability — Most sources use "Foo F.C." (or a variant thereon) when discussing the club in a non-football context
  • Naturalness — the initials are self-evident, and the clubs themselves usually use "Foo F.C." in their own materials
  • Precision — the "F.C." suffix nearly always creates a unique title
  • Conciseness — it adds only 5 characters to the shortest form of the title
  • Consistency — it allows all clubs to use the same format

So I'm not sure what the basis is of Blethering Scot's objection to this convention ... apart from BS's unwillingness to accept that that like most en.wp policies, WP:AT isn't about one single principle. It balances several principles.

I am somewhat bemused to have been dragged into all this. I found 3 Scottish football clubs titled "St. Foo", and quickly nominated them all at WP:RM: St Cuthbert, St Johnstone, and St Mirren. It's a fairly simple issue: the MOS says don't use the dot, common usage in reliable sources doesn't use the dot, the clubs themselves don't use the dots in the text on their own websites (tho some use it on the logo).

But BS is furious about this, and has generated a huge amount of heat over these simple dots. So the third RM remains open as BS's indignation continues. I hope that the RFC is more productive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the most nonsensical debates I have read. Brown haired girl sums it up perfectly, I really don't see why we need an RfC, when there is obviously clear consensus about this issue. If it ain't broke, don't fix it NapHit (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Completely agreed. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl where is your evidence for your edit above that I am furious about this. I am most certainly not and never have been furious. As for I am somewhat bemused to have been dragged into all this. Well you dragged yourself into it.Blethering Scot 00:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Uche brothers

Any Nigerian users out there? I have no idea if Ikechukwu Uche and Kalu Uche's full names are correct, but I do know they have competed in Spain for ages, so I think the BDFUTBOL.com link should have some "weight".

I have redirected people to the aforementioned link in my summaries, receiving in return only reversions without any summary or (the latter happens rarely, mind you) a summary saying "name not correct", yes, quite "helpful". Also, I don't think inserting that link as a ref in box will solve anything, they'll just keep on removing it.

I am turning blue in the face over here, and the next time this happens (unless problem can be addressed pronto) I think I'll leave it be and the names stays how they leave it, they can leave it "Kalu" or "K" or "IU" in the full name field that it won't "wrinkle up my forehead".

Attentively, thanks in advance --84.90.219.128 (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Articles from ESPN FC (Spanish), Terra (Portuguese) and Fox Sports (Spanish) actually confirms Uche's name after a very quick search. MYS77 ✉ 04:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

En dash

Could I please get project consensus on weather we should use – (en dash) or the HTML code in articles. For example, see this diff on 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season. Unfortunately Blethering Scot is displaying OWNership issues again. See his archive here for some background. Most automated page tools will automatically convert the HTML tag and it also reduces the size of the page. Could I please ask for your feedback. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

JMHamo was advised to take this to WP:AN. This is an editorial judgement as discussed previously at AN. JMHAmmo advised me he was following WP:BRD, he was not as he [this reverted me] after i reverted his initial edit. It was me that was following BRD, not Hamo. Its disappointing that once again he feels the need not to say the full picture. As for ownership issues, HTML is nothing to do with ownership. I've explained this previously very clearly. HTML creates consistency in season articles that are under construction or not complete and prevent inconsistency. There is clear evidence that using plain dashes created confusion as articles under development end up riddled with varying types of dashes, this doesn't happen when HTML is used. Its a different story once they are completed, this is a case of editorial judgement. Note that I will never revert previous season articles, as there is no benefit at that point. Everyone here knows my view that this project is a laughing stock. Blethering Scot 20:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
You see 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season as your article as far as I am concerned. JMHamo (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Being completely uninvolved in this issue to this point, I will say to Blethering Scot that claiming to be the "main editor" of an article does tend to portray an air of article ownership. I will also say that the hyphen, ndash, and mdash ASCII characters all look the same while editing ("hyphen - ; ndash – ; mdash —" appears as hyphen - ; ndash – ; mdash —) due to the fixed-width font used, while the HTML code makes it obvious which is being used when editing. However, individuals unfamiliar with HTML may not understand what they are looking at when editing, while the ASCII characters make it more obvious that it is a dash of some sort. Each method has its benefits over the other, but the most widely used method that I have seen to date is to use the ASCII characters rather than the HTML code. While MOS:DASH states to type – and —, it also says that an editor can use the methods described at Wikipedia:How to make dashes. I believe that JMHamo's original intent was to seek consensus within the project, which I find preferable to taking this to WP:AN, since that should be an avenue of last resort. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I believe that JMHamo's original intent was to seek consensus within the project, which I find preferable to taking this to WP:AN, since that should be an avenue of last resort.. You have that 100% correct Jkudlick. JMHamo (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • ASCII - In response to JMHamo's confirmation of the intent of this section, I will give my support to using the ASCII characters in any association football article. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
JMHamo original intent was to be difficult and run to his friends, consensus here is very limited.. That was his intent & i have little to no respect for User:JMHamo due to previous & continued trolling of me. This project holds no overall weight to a decision as to whether html should or shouldn't be used across the main site. This was discussed at AN previously, where i was clearly advised this was purely an editorial judgement. HTML code allows clear & consistent use across an article. Without it you constantly se Ip editors who are principally inexperienced in editing wikipedia using incorrect dashes. You frequently see - instead of – and frequently interspersed between the two. Most Ip editors dont know there is even a difference and just use the standard dash on there keyboard. Yet when &ndash is in the article they just copy it and low and behold we have consistency. This is only an issue in article under creation. Any person reading our site does not see the difference between using HTML or not, but they see the benefit of it in a clear and consistent approach. It is my belief and most of the community's. I don't see this is as my own article I see it as one I'm making sure is consistent and up to date. That is my principal concern on all current season articles. Once the season is over and updates will no longer be made to individual games, HTMl loses the benefit as the consistency will have already been applied. inexperienced editors do frequently edit these articles and it is clear, they make more consistent edits when using HTML than not.Blethering Scot 23:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (ec) Umm, hang on Jkudlick ... is there any particular reason why football articles should have a different policy on this to other articles?
    It's fine for projects to have MOS variations on matters which specifically relate to that project's topic area, but I don't see any reason for project-specific guidelines on dashes.
    For the record, what's been happening here is that BS has been using html entities for dashes even within links, which I have never seen anywhere else. And on every other type of article I have edited, there is no prob using html entities in text ... nor any objection when such entities are routinely converted to unicode by any number of scripts. Those same scripts can readily convert hyphens to endashes as needed, so there is no practical advantage to retaining the HTML entities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry BrownHairedGirl but lets hang on a second. Firstly I agree WikiProject Football has no right to having a different policy to any other part of this site. MOS:DASH allows use to HTMl as it does, standard characters. This is an editorial decision, you may not like there use in links, yet you say they can be used in standard text. Can you specifically say where it says they can't be used in links. Not using in the links creates as said previously inconsistency. It may be your personal opinion, which seems interesting to me as you are edit warring to force your opinion, yet you are an admin. Yes scripts can convert, but the article will have inconsistent for however long it takes someone who uses the script to come along. An article being inconsistent for even a day frankly isn't acceptable. We have to think about how using two different typed of dash could look to a reader. Very inconsistent is how it would look.Blethering Scot 23:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
BS, wikipedia isn't a set of black-and-white laws. Most of it is conventions established by usage, and where it's written down, there are exceptions.
The use of html entities endashes in filenames breaks many of the normal tools for bypassing redirects. That's why when I saw that my AWB wasn't fixing those redirects, I added a few lines to convert the html entities to unicode -- so that the filenames could be corrected.
And finally, wikipedia is a work-in-progress. It will never be finished. There is always some degree of inconsistency, both within articles and between articles. That's nature of vast multi-user, multinational collaborative project. Learn to live with it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl you recently argued with me that consistency is key, now you argue we should accept it. Your using your own opinion again and again, yet MOS:DASH does not agree with you. I suggest if you feel the code should not be used on Wikipedia because of the issues you say the you should seek to get its inclusion on the site removed. Of course there are exceptions, but not exceptions because you don't like it. You don't like me I get that, but that does not excuse your behaviour. You clearly state above you have no do not disagree with being used in text but dont want in links. Fine I wont use in links. If you now say no to that its clear its an issue with me as you clearly stated there is no prob using html entities in tex.Blethering Scot 00:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You are pushing your POV, please drop the stick as nobody only you agrees. JMHamo (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User:JMHamo I am not POV pushing. [[User talk:BrownHairedGirl clearly asked why is there any particular reason why football articles should have a different policy on this to other articles. This project has no right to its own and must follow MOS:Dash or challenge it. Secondly she clearly stated there is no prob using html entities in text. So actually she does agree with me. User:JMHamo i quite frankly want nothing to do with this project. You and others such as Jkudlick, clearly think this particular project adheres to its own rules and no one elses. Im happy to stay away from here yet u seem to want to keep drawing me back. I suggest that it is you that needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK as it was you that again decided to pick this issue.Blethering Scot 00:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
(ec) BS, please do try harder to be less simplistically black-and-white. Consistency is a goal. It is rarely achieved in one step, or maintained all the time.
Thank you for agreeing to drop the use of html entities in filenames. That is welcome progress.
And yes, of course there is no prob using HTML entities in text. But in ten years of editing, I have never before heard of any problem in converting them to unicode ... let alone of an editor angrily reverting back to the html entities, and angrily denouncing everyone who disagrees. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl. Yet you did argue consistency was key. You can't say it & then argue the opposite. Again you are not assuming good faith and calling me an angry editor. Thats three times now tonight and i can advise you Im most certainly not angry. There is absolutely nothing wrong with HTML you just don't like it., i get that. However not liking something is not a reason to do what you have been doing. Ive argued very clearly why I feel it should be used and stated consistency as the primary reason, i have no issue once the season is over. You will have noticed i did not revert a single edit you made to remove the code on previous seasons. I would of spent another two hours creating content tonight yet you & User:JMHamo thought it was better to spend it here. Blethering Scot 00:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirlSo lets be clear again you have stated And yes, of course there is no prob using HTML entities in text.. If that is the case you will have no issue with it being returned to the article.Blethering Scot 00:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Blethering Scot Just stop or I will ask an uninvolved Admin to look at blocking you for being disruptive. You do not OWN the article. JMHamo (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec) No, BS.
That time you could have spent creating content was wasted on argument because you chose to waste it on argument. Just as with the simple stylistic issue of the dot in "St Mirren", you have chosen to believe that you are being persecuted by malevolent liars, and you have once again gone straight into WP:BATTLEFIELD mode.
You cannot control what other editors do. But you can control how you respond them, and you chose to be angry and shouty. Take responsibility for that decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Where have i suggested I can control what others do. I simply asked the question 'If that is the case you will have no issue with it being returned to the article? Something you haven't answered. I have not called you a malevolent liars. Im starting to feel I am correct about harassment. You keep making these bold statements, without evidence.Blethering Scot 01:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
User:JMHamo. You brought this here for discussion. I am participating in this discussion. At no point in this discussion have i displayed any signs of being angry, shouty or displayed ownership issues. I have clearly stated the issue is about consistency and I have interacted with brown haired girl. She clearly asked why you and this project think WP:Footy should have their own dash policy. She clearly said it was ok in text. I ask you right now to provide evidence that I am owning this article and the issues for me is anything but consistency. I have relaxed a lot over the years & you need to provide evidence that as of this moment this is an ownership issue. It isn't, i would say the same thing for any football season article under development. HTML is better for consistency. You dont like me & I suggest you stop making the issue personal. User:BrownHairedGirl you have repeatedly used terms tonight such as angry, furious shouty etc. Please provide evidence that I have done anything other than discuss. You don't like me either but this is about HTML not your opinion of me. User:JMHamo if you want to take this to AN then feel free, hardly something i didnt suggest right at the begining. However you have provided zero evidence to balk up claims made today, that at this time this is anything but a consistency issue.Blethering Scot 00:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
And User:JMHamo you are not an admin so threatening to get an admin to look at blocking me looks distinctively looks like trying to shut down a discussion. So does using the word Stop Thats all this is a discussion. If you weren't interested in me discussing, then you should of raised here and notified me.Blethering Scot 01:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sick of your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour here. Just look at the length of this thread! It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, you are just disruptive. It's at AN/I now. JMHamo (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I dont know how you can say taking part in a discussion you asked me to take part in is disruptive. Im pleased you have taken this to ANI.Blethering Scot 01:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I'm replying down here since my reply would otherwise get lost up there. MOS:DASH states that "Two forms of dash are used on Wikipedia: en dash (–) and em dash (—). Type them in as – (–) and — (—) or click on them to the right of the "Insert" tab under the edit window; or see How to make dashes." Emphasis original My interpretation of that statement is that there is no single correct way to enter en and em dashes, so my comment was merely stating was my personal preference for consistency throughout association football articles. If I have misunderstood the MOS, then I will apologize and let sleeping dogs lie. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this a contender for WP:LAME discussion of the year already? – and — produce the same as – and —, so there's really no difference. If anything, the plain characters are preferable for WP:ACCESS purposes, and there seems to be a clear preference among most editors to replace the code with the plain characters. – PeeJay 10:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Someone obviously hasn't been involved in the "St." / "St" debates recently! Good times! Fenix down (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Georgia Revolution

I noticed a series of edits and reverts in the Georgia Revolution article pertaining to the club crest, and thought little of it until I read this article. I think the editor who is being reverted is the club President / GM. Please advise. Thank you. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 23:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

He was uploading his club's crest to commons and a bot was removing as copyrighted work. I've added a logo with the non-free use rationale. It should be ok from now on. TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Closure request

Can an uninvolved admin please review and close this - it has been ongoing since December 2015 with no new additions for nearly a month. GiantSnowman 15:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism at Jason McCarthy

The article on Jason McCarthy is being repeatedly amended by a user with a variety of IP addresses. Each edit is basically the same: to alter the number of matches in the infobox to a spurious figure and to split the name of the present club (see the latest edit here). The IP addresses include 213.205.194.171, 86.184.184.246, 31.53.180.157 and 31.105.219.219 and also User:Jeggers2006. Can this article be protected. I am rather fed up with keep correcting it and explaining to the IP why. 78.147.153.237 (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to protect it, but it also means you won't be able to edit it unless you get an account. Number 57 11:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. 78.147.153.237 (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, semi-protected for a month. Number 57 11:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this chap notable?

Said Daftari --Dweller (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:NFOOTY he has played three times for the senior Afghan team. Fenix down (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Or not if NFT is taken ascorrect which says he has never played. Fenix down (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Considering that none of the three profiles indicate that he ever played for Afghanistan, I'd have to come to the same conclusion as Fenix down. The only places that seem to indicate that he did play are not reliable sources, e.g. transfermarkt. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
These articles in the German press suggest he played at least twice for Afghanistan in the 2008 SAFF Championship. Number 57 17:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Given that his supposed goal for Afghanistan is not listed here, I am not convinced he has played internationally, so have prodded. Fenix down (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Number 57: do they say he played or was merely part of the squad? It seems unclear to me. Happy for it to be deprodded though if you think appropriate. Fenix down (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The first one says he went straight into the team and made his international debut, which I think is fairly clear cut. Number 57 18:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
By all means deprod if you want but the fact that they can't even get the tournament he supposedly played in right (Der 25-Jährige gehörte bei der Qualifikation zur Südostasien-Meisterschaft zum Aufgebot des gebeutelten Landes), I am not convinced that Und schaffte er auf Anhieb den Sprung in die erste Elf means he actually played as opposed to got into the first team but not off the bench, particularly when NFT has match stats for everyone else in the team but him for 2008. It could be an error, but the overall sources aren't that convincing to me. Fenix down (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Number 57 and Fenix down: I ran both of those articles through Google Translate, and neither of them state that he actually played in the tournament, only that he was named to the team. NFOOTY is failed, and those two brief pieces about him being named to the Afghan team do not satisfy GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The first one does use the phrase die erste Elf but it is not clear from the article whether this means he was in the starting 11 or part of the first team squad. that is the only source that to me indicates he could have played and the preceding sentence gets the tournament in which he was supposedly involved completely wrong, so not the best in terms of reliability. I tried the wayback machine for the sources listed in the 2008 SAFF Championship article, one was totally dead and the other two made no mention of him specifically. Fenix down (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jkudlick: If you read the first one to the end, can you explain what "international debut" (Länderspiel-Debüt) refers to, if not playing? Number 57 19:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, a quick look at his German article gives plenty more sources noting international appearances: RevierSport (dreifache afghanische Nationalspieler: "three-time Afghanistan player"), RP describe him as an "Afghan international" (afghanische Nationalspieler) and FuPa (drei Einsätze in der afghanischen Nationalmannschaft, "three appearances in the Afghan national team"). Number 57 19:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

<- It's not unheard of for "RS" to cite our errors as facts. Just saying. --Dweller (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Article titles and usage elsewhere

Today I spotted the fact that City of Manchester Stadium was being linked to as Etihad Stadium on a few articles using piping. This has been reverted on 2015–16 UEFA Champions League knockout phase with the claim that there is "problem of consistency". I am fairly sure we had agreed that usage should reflect article titles, but it would be good to get confirmation of this. Cheers, Number 57 22:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, usage should reflect the article title; and no, we should not be using sponsored names anywhere. GiantSnowman 22:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
WHat does the tournament organisers say? We use UEFA match reports for UEFA Champions League and I think our naming should match the sources. If matchreport/source say "Etihad Stadium" then so do we, and the same if they say "City of Manchester Stadium" then we show that. Qed237 (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Sponsored names are mostly temporary and can change several times in a row during time. But COMMONNAME can be tricky cause it can bring us inconsistancy in the stadium articles titles. Certainly some sponsored names stayed for longer time and got to be widely used, while some others ended up having their sponsored name ignored overall. That would create a situation of some stadiums having a sponsored name used as article title, and some having their sponsored name just as redirect, an odd situation which could create problems and which could be best solved by an overall decition, sponsored names yes or no. Then, for particular cases of usage in articles, following what sources say as sugested by Qued237 can also be tricky and drive to inconsistancy. I would favor usage of article titles despite sources using sponsored names along a decition not to use sponsored names as article title. It can also be benefitial on the long run, cause sponsored names can be of one sponsor today and another one tomorow, so if we stay consistant today we will not have the problem of sponsor outdated stadium names in few years time. This may be one of those exexmples where sacrifiying COMMONNAME can be productive. FkpCascais (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Continuos vandalisation of Bulgarian NT article for more than a year now

Bulgaria national football team article has been constantly vandalised by 2 editors who insert Bulgaria-favorable made-up results and competition classifications from the past. Not sure if they are some sort of phantasy football fans highjacking the page here to add the results they obtain in the game or something similar, but they have been incredibly persistent and by edit-warring and reinseerting same stuff they have got to have the article with the phantasy reality for most of the time in the last year or so. I reverted whenever I spot it, but I am surprised there are no other editors correcting it, seems the article has been having very little monitoring and attention, so can I ask editors here plese to see the article history and see what has been going on, so we can mantain the article correct? FkpCascais (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You could go for semi-protection for it, which might lighten the problem? I've added it to my watchlist and I guess if a few others here do that that would also help. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protection wouldnt do it cause the vandals are editing using their accounts:
No one there bothered to report them to ANI yet, and Bulgarian football is not my primary scope so I hoped someone else would do it, but till today in about a year, no one did. Its pure vandalism, removing sourced information and replacing it with unsourced phantasized one that makes Bulgaria having played World Cups that didnt and changing results from defeats to victories for them. I reported it here by now, if more of us revert them on spot maybe they give up. Thanks you. FkpCascais (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I have semi protected it as at least only autoconfirmed users can edit it. It's on my watchlist now and the edits being made are so obvious from their size that they can readily be reverted on sight. I have also indeffed WhiteBoyTroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per WP:DUCK as a probable sock of BulgariaSources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) given the similarity in their editing. Either weay, clearly WP:NOTHERE. Fenix down (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks Fenix. Seems that BulgariaSources already had problems regarding sockpuppeting before WhiteBoyTroy, so we can all patrol the article of Bulgarian NT and spot that change immediatelly. It is quite easy to spot, as soon as the result of the first match in the infobox against Austria is changed from 6-0 defeat to a 2-0 win, it immediatelly means he has edited the article. FkpCascais (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate User names

Fernando Santos (football coach) - Possible page move

I have not edited in this article for 7/8 years, so I cannot remember what title did it bear previously. However, I feel the current one is misleading, because: sure, he's no Pep Guardiola or Franz Beckenbauer or Johan Cruyff (or 50 more, I better not wear that keyboard out) as far as being great on the pitch and on the bench, but the man did amass nearly 200 (TWO HUNDRED, OK, 161) Primeira Liga appearances (please see here http://www.foradejogo.net/player.php?player=195410190001), certainly he's not to be dismissed as a (former) player.

Consulting the current status of the disambiguation page, I see the only sportsperson that comes close to Mr. Santos is Fernando Santos (Brazilian footballer born 1980), the other two are known as "Luis Fernando" and "Castro Santos". Thus, I know it's not possible to move the page to just "Fernando Santos", but were it to be moved, I leave my suggestion, "Fernando Santos (Portuguese footballer)".

I leave it to the attention of the "commission". Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it should be moved to footballer, as is standard for ex-players who later went into management. GiantSnowman 21:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Also agreed to a move to "Fernando Santos (footballer)". MYS77 ✉ 02:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that leaving the article title Fernando Santos just for him wouldnt be a crime at all, with a hatnote Fernando Santos (disambiguation) at top. This is why, among the others listed, the ones more or equally notable as he is are not known as Fernando Santos at all, like cases of Angolan Vice-President Fernando da Piedade Dias dos Santos who is known as Nando and not mentioned anywhere as Fernando Santos, and Portuguese Minister, economist Fernando Teixeira dos Santos, who is either known as Teixeira dos Santos, or by his fullname, never by Fernando Santos. The rest, the two Brazilian footballers, Fernando Santos (Brazilian footballer born 1980) was widely known as Fernando, and Luís Fernando Rodrigues dos Santos as Luis Fernando, while the Spanish coach Fernando Castro Santos has Castro as paternal surname and is widely known as Castro Santos. I think this would be a much better solution than Fernando Santos (footballer) which would I think just create confusion, cause nowadays Fernando Santos is really much more known for his coaching role. My 2 cents. FkpCascais (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Added RMs in both Fernando Santos and Fernando Santos (football coach). MYS77 ✉ 20:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

AfD candidate?

After seeing so many examples this year of articles that dismiss WP:NOTABILITY, the following question: is Xemi notable? Remember, has only played in Segunda División B so far? Played Real Madrid in the Copa del Rey, so what?

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

He shouldn't be notable enough according to this // Psemmler (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Copa del Rey matches "count" only if both teams are in FPL, according to WP:FOOTYN. Would therefore seem to be a candidate for AfD. Thanks, C679 11:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The answer is yes, so the question is why haven't you AfDed it. Over 100 new footballer articles are currently being added every week, of course they don't all meet guidelines. CSD, PROD and AfD may all be used if you believe notability is not demonstrated. Thanks, C679 20:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

C679, the answer is "yes" to what, please? And I have not AFD'ed article because I do not know how. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

To your initial question. Regarding how, see WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks, C679 21:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Xemi has been prodded. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Eastern Slavic naming customs template

What's the appropriate usage of it? I'm watching a lot of Eastern European players due to nature of my edits/interest. Every once in a while I see a certain user is adding player's full name in Eastern Slavic formatting (Name Paternalname-ovich Surname) in Full name field of infobox and placing the template in question on top of the page, despite the name of the article is still formatted as Name Surname. Are we supposed to add this template to pretty much every Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian person article on wikipedia? --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@BlameRuiner: this may help: Eastern Slavic naming customs. But bear in mind that only applies to those certain countries. FkpCascais (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@BlameRuiner: we have templates according to each culture's naming custom's, I don't see whats wrong with it as long as its applied properly. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

NFT Player Tables: notes about players (INJ, RET, SUS, ...)

This is specifically about national team selections and the 'selectability' of "Recent players". Injured players for example may miss a selection, or if they were already in the selection, they may have to leave it (two different things!). Editors want a way to make this clear, so they put INJ next to the player's name. The underlying meaning is often: "this guy is injured and that is the reason he's not in the Current squad" (although this is not explicit and usually unreferenced). Other notes include RET for recent players that are retired (and will therefore not be selected again), and SUS for recent players that are currently suspended (so they can't currently be selected, but they may be a next time).

The RET note is the easiest one: it is a permanent status directly relating to the player, so a note next to the name seems fitting.

The SUS note is not that bad, although it would be nice to have an indication of when it will expire. I have personally been thinking about replacing it with a template that shows a red card, and if you mouse over it, it will tell you when the suspension occured and for how many games it is active. Something like {{sus|Sent off on 17 Nov 2015; suspended for the game on 21 Nov.}}.

The most difficult one is no doubt the INJ note, because not everyone even agrees about what an INJ-note even means, and some people put the INJ note next to the player, while others put it next to the 'latest call-up'.

An INJ note can mean the following things:

  • currently injured
  • was injured at the time of the most recent selection
  • became injured during their latest call-up

I personally believe the first meaning should not be used, due to WP:RECENT. We shouldn't encourage these notes to pop up and off all the time, so a news item about a player injuring themselves or resuming training after injury, should never in itself be a reason to update an article. But the other two meanings both have something of value, because they relate to actual team selections. The next question then is how to make these two different meanings clear.

This is how the Belgium article currently does it (after a short discussion on my talk page): an INJ-note next to the name to indicate that they did not make the Current squad due to injury at the time of that selection; and a different note (plus reference) next to the Latest call-up if they became injured after they has already been selected (forcing them to withdraw). I believe this way, we have all the information, but I'm still not happy about the INJ-note next to the player because people get confused by it: lots of people think it is a current status (like SUS and RET), while it is not. Goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois is not currently injured, but he did not make what is called "the Current squad" (the one for 13-17 November ...) because he was injured then. He is still Belgium's #1 goalkeeper, so it seems important to somehow convey the information that he's not in the "Recent players" list simply because the trainer didn't want him. Something I've thought about is putting |other=was injured on the {{nat fs r player}} call, making it smaller text in between brackets (which normally nobody ever uses apart for "Captain", but you can).

So anyway. This is of course not something we can enforce through the main templates, but perhaps with smart smaller templates (like red cards for SUS and maybe something else for INJ) we may be able to make these notes more user-friendly for visitors, and then maybe their usage will spread across the articles. As long as we can keep it feasible for editors to keep it up to date, too. Any people have some more ideas or feedback? :) –Sygmoral (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Palestine national football team (Dispute over history of first fixture)

So there's a bit of a brouhaha going on over on the Palestine national football team page. The PFA's FIFA page says the team's first fixtures were in 1934- which is the team that represented Mandatory Palestine. Now I understand that this history is claimed by the Israel Football Association but their page on FIFA only goes back as far as 1948. Shouldn't the information on Palestine's page reflect the information on FIFA's website? Redstriker06 (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It should be the other way around. The information on FIFA's website should reflect correct history. Actually, without joking, I think the info on FIFA's website reflect a programming error between two separate Palestine entities, which were merged to one page.
It might be wise that the warring sides on the debate to refer to other sources. I'll refer to Arab Palestine Sports Federation and the sources linked in that page. Eranrabl (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Being the admin who protected the article in question, it was apparent that the brouhaha was being primarily caused by Redstriker, who has repeatedly tried to insert their POV to the article. The evidence presented above suits their argument, but ignores the main evidence, i.e. the FIFA-recognised association affiliation dates that we usually use to determine successor federations:
I suspect that as Eranrabl states, the database is a programming error as FIFA clearly consider Israel to be the successor team to the Mandatory Palestine one, but as the team was named "Palestine", their records have been mixed up. The Mandatory Palestine team was entirely composed of Jewish players and played what became the Israeli national anthem before matches. There was a separate Arab national team, unrecognised by FIFA, which also played in the late 1940s and applied for FIFA membership (see this account), and it is that one that the modern Palestinian team should be tracing its origins to. Number 57 08:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
This information has been ignored by Redstriker06 at least 3 times at the article's and admin's talk page: In 2014 FIFA published a statistical kit and an "Overview of the Participating Member Associations" (World Cup 2014), that's their data about Israel and Palestine:
  • Palestine (page 9) First entry: 2002
  • Israel (page 53) First entry: 1934
In addition there are notes about both teams(on the same pages):
  • Palestine: "The modern Palestine, an Arab state, has no connection with the Palestine (then a British mandate) delegations that played in the qualifying games for 1934 & 1938 under the name of Hitachduth Eretz Yisraelit Lakadur Regel."
  • Israel: "A Jewish delegation from Palestine (then a British mandate) played at the qualifying games for 1934 & 1938. It was the first Jewish national team, and as such the forerunner of Israel. Was relocated from Asia’s to Europe’s group in 1954." Infantom (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Standard Wikipedia table layout for national football teams

There have been many discussions in the past about the player tables on football articles because they use a non-standard layout. This causes them to violate WP:ACCESS quite badly, and with no good reason because they can perfectly be modeled using the standard Wikipedia table layout.

About a month ago, the most recent discussion concluded after I proposed a final layout, so I now intend to apply the required changes. I only intend to update the national football team templates for now; not yet the club ones, those could follow later.

But I thought I would put up this notice here first, because it's a very visible change of course. I just hope people aren't too afraid of change, because I am convinced that this is a change toward a more consistent design across the encyclopedia! And as I mentioned, it's also better for WP:ACCESS because it will fit better on other readers. Both those that change the design (e.g. dark themes) as well as those that read out loud the content (so that they can understand the content better).

Example:

0#0 Pos. Player Date of birth (age) Caps Goals Club
1 1GK Joe Hart (1987-04-19) 19 April 1987 (age 37) 57 0 England Manchester City
2 2DF Nathaniel Clyne (1991-04-05) 5 April 1991 (age 33) 9 0 England Liverpool
3 2DF Kieran Gibbs (1989-09-26) 26 September 1989 (age 35) 10 0 England Arsenal
5 2DF Gary Cahill (Vice-captain) (1985-12-19) 19 December 1985 (age 38) 40 3 England Chelsea
6 2DF John Stones (1994-05-28) 28 May 1994 (age 30) 7 0 England Everton
4 3MF Eric Dier (1994-01-15) 15 January 1994 (age 30) 2 0 England Tottenham Hotspur
7 3MF Dele Alli (1996-04-11) 11 April 1996 (age 28) 4 1 England Tottenham Hotspur
8 3MF Ross Barkley (1993-12-05) 5 December 1993 (age 30) 19 2 England Everton
9 4FW Harry Kane (1993-07-28) 28 July 1993 (age 31) 8 3 England Tottenham Hotspur
10 4FW Wayne Rooney (Captain) (1985-10-24) 24 October 1985 (age 39) 109 51 England Manchester United

So if you have solid arguments against this change, please voice your concern. In the other case, if you like that this will bring these tables closer to Wikipedia's standards, also let it be heard! –Sygmoral (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I know it's nitpicking but I really don't like how those separators act when you sort table by some column. And also once you sort table there is no way that I can find to return table to original state (besides reloading page). Disabling sorting would be easiest solution although probably no one would like that idea. Nightfall87 (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree that the horizontal dividers are useless after the first sort since they always go to the bottom of the table. The solution to that is either eliminate the horizontal rules or don't make the table sortable. My preference would be to eliminate the rules. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with this, looks good but scrap the dividers. Either way, implement it - the niceties can be sorted out over time . Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
If we remove separators we would need to agree on default sorting of table. Should it remain by position first and number second as it is now or should something other be used (for example caps since numbers are not always available) Nightfall87 (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I would say sort by number first, then position, then alphabetically by last name. That's the way the club lists are done, so why not use that method for national teams? – PeeJay 10:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
<reduce indent> I'd be against using numbers as the default sorting tool for national teams. They're not consistent from squad to squad, and when a new squad is named the numbers aren't usually released at that stage. I'd suggest position then numbers (if available) and then caps. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of whether we go number/position or position/number, I do think that alphabetical order should be used after that. If the primary sort is by position and then you sort by number of caps, that seems a little weird. One would rarely search for "England's most-capped current midfielder" after all. – PeeJay 10:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
There are a few difficulties with this new discussion though: a default sort is something that could go into recommendations, but it can not be enforced from the template. It would need to be manually updated on every NFT page. Also, sorting by last name will require quite a bit of discipline from article editors because they're need to specify for each name how it should be sorted (since default is by the first word, e.g. first name). I'm not saying these are bad suggestions, just that it won't be easy to enforce them :)
About removing the separators: for now, individual articles are explicitly calling them with {{nat fs break}}, so the only way to remove them on all articles is to edit that template to make it blank. But I feel like that's rather counter-intuitive for editors, so I would like to leave them in for now, and then perhaps they can be removed from the articles themselves when we figure out the best format. –Sygmoral (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorting by last name is not difficult; that's what we have {{sortname}} for. I guess it might be difficult to encourage new editors to use the template, but it's worth it. – PeeJay 15:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hm, right, although that template is deprecated (e.g. not recommended to be used anymore). But yeah, people can still use it of course. Perhaps it would be nice if the "recommended way" was worked into the {{nat fs g player}} template I'm about to change though: aside of the name parameter (which would still work of course), I could add firstname, lastname and namelink parameters. Then the sort-by value can be written into the <td> tag (<td data-sort-value="Last, First">), which can't be done with the name parameter. I do wonder how many people will actually use that, but wouldn't mind adding it. –Sygmoral (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Well then, I have executed the changes. One thing I noticed while editing is that these tables were always made to occupy 100% width. I'm not sure whether that's the best way to go, but decided to leave it like that (98% actually, to avoid any margin/padding issues). I also made the separators a little lighter. –Sygmoral (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I might be a little late to the discussion, but I'm having difficulty seeing the separation in the templates with the blue dividers now gone. Is is possible to make the dividers a tad darker or something? In no way am I trying to say the Wikipedia should bend over to my requests but if another user has a similar problem I think that the divider issue should be considered. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I did make those dividers lighter than in the example above, perhaps I overdid that. It's a bit darker again now! –Sygmoral (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This might be a different question, but should there be any "special treatment" to players who have retired from international football, injured players and suspended players? In the article about the Swedish national team, I've handled it like this...
Notes
  • INJ — Injured or recovering from surgery.
  • RET — Retired from international football.
  • SUS — Suspended in next competitive match.
It there a better way of handling it? Should you include it at all? // Mattias321 (talk) -- 17:53, 22 February 2016‎
You read my mind! Precisely this was going to be my next discussion, because it is a bit of a mess: not every article uses these notes in the same way, and people are sometimes confused by it. Assuming you don't mind, I am going to put this into a new section. –Sygmoral (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There is not consensus for that. WP:ACCESS is for tables. The template {{National football squad start}} is not a table. The changes are not accepted. The other same template {{Football squad player}} has not problem about WP:ACCESS. We must restore the previous version of template, under 2 previous discussions (1|2). The wikipedian make new discussions again and again to complete their projects. In the past was given colours in the template with change the default option and violate MOS:COLOUR. --IM-yb (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi IM-yb. I understand you were used to the previous layout, but I promise you: the new one will benefit many more people. Nevertheless, I will take the effort to address your concerns one final time! :)
  • WP:ACCESS is not only for tables (please give it an actual read!). It is about making sure that all content on Wikipedia is accessible (e.g. readable or hearable) to as many people as possible. One of the issues was that these templates had an explicit white background, resulting in light text on white background in some Wiki-readers (if they use a dark theme and therefore a light text-color).
  • These templates are tables, and not just in the technical sense: they literally display data about players in a tabulated format.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "the changes are not accepted", and why you linked another user under the word "not". I assume you mean you do not like the changes.
  • I did not change the {{Football squad player}} templates yet, although I admit that I am planning to this in the future. But I will wait with that for a few months.
  • About the 2 previous discussions you link: the first one is the one you most often refer to, but it only contains your own voice and that of 1 other user, in as little as 2 hours time. Can you honestely claim that that discussion holds the most decision power? The second discussion you link is actually my previous one: it is the one that this discussion here is the continuation of.
  • You're right about that final thing: of course I "create discussions to complete my projects" :) That's because the intention of 'my projects' is to improve things on Wikipedia, according to its standards. Rather than according to what people are used to or would individually like.
I hope this answer some of your questions. I do admit that I am a little bit tired of reacting however, so if you have more concerns, I hope that you can create a new discussion, and then I do wish you all the best to convince the community of your case. –Sygmoral (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't find the point about improvement. I see only a table who replaced the former code of the template. We have not problem about WP:ACCESS, but with that table now we have (that you say). More problems? Yes. Improvement? --IM-yb (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The background colors are the biggest WP:ACCESS issue, that is solved by standardizing the table format. I find Sygmoral's argument obvious and easy to understand. I've never read any objection to standardizing the tables and colors except for liking the colored tables better, which is not a valid argument on Wikipedia.--John, AF4JM (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@John, AF4JM you don't know this discussion Template talk:Infobox basketball biography#Usage of athletic clubs colors?. --IM-yb (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

More possible sockpuppets

I would put money on Joeykai not being a sock of any of the accounts noted above. Fenix down (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced club honours

It seems a lot of (mainly english) clubs have honours hauls unsourced and occasionally have sources that corroborate less or different honours than those listed. As far as I am aware, we can only publish information consistent with sources available and cannot do our own research or add stuff we think a club has won. Thus I am going to clean up the relevant club's hauls to match their achievements with sourcing available Davefelmer (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Do not remove based on your opinion. Prompt for sources to support and / or add the citations yourself as I have demonstrated to you. Koncorde (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
For reference, the absence of information on a single website does not invalidate the historic "honours" of a team. 11vs11.com may be reliable (or not, it has been used in the past) but it is not the sole source of information. By removing the content that you have done you have basically lined yourself up for another round of edit warring. Koncorde (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Typically I tried to find the best and most reliable sourcing. I am not removing anything by opinion but rather just by what the sources that exist state. Do you mean I should reference multiple sources for each or some clubs? Would that be more thorough? Again though, I am not trying to edit war but simply make the encyclopaedia better by adding relevant sources to back up and state information. I'm not saying a club has won 0 other awards than those listed, but surely it is the ones the sources state (through the club, major websites, etc) that have to be taken and used. If some are unsourced or unsited, how do we even know if they are true? It hurts wiki's legitimacy. Davefelmer (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If this is primarily aimed at removing honours from the Liverpool or Manchester United articles (I cannot recall which side you support, but I recall your involvement in the problems at the Liverpool–Man Utd rivalry article), I would strongly advise you not to proceed. Number 57 15:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Dave's been removing honours from a lot of teams, including deleting from the Old Carthusians article the list of times they've won the Arthurian League, the only league they've ever played in, on the grounds that it is a "school event" and that to include it is "ridiculous"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Ridiculous. We don't just remove this material in any case, we ask for sources. These aren't BLPs so the personalised censorship that Davefelmer is indulging in is disruptive and should be strongly discouraged. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I have issued a final warning. Given the complete lack of consensus for his actions here, at best this is disruptive editing and at worst an attempt to goad people into an edit war. Fenix down (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with man utd or liverpool. I have ADDED sources for honours counts that were previously unsourced, and made minor adjustements to the counts to match said sources because some didnt match and appeared to be original research or added for no reason, both of which isnt wiki policy. Davefelmer (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You have added a single source for some of the honours, and removed the other honours that don't match your single source - as previously explained on numerous occasions few sources are so exhaustive as to cover every single competition. In the case of removing historic competitions, particularly those that pre-date the club entering professional leagues or that served as senior regional competitions this is disruptive, needless, contentious and something that you have pushed on prior occasions. Please cease. Koncorde (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

One source for a trophy haul is better than the 0 that are currently listed and is enough to start with, and then if further sources are found for other competitions not listed, then those can be added to. At the moment, nothing is sourced and competitions are added seemingly out of original research which is against wiki policy. Successes must be sourced, how do we know they are even true without them? It undermines the whole project, which I am trying to make better. I found the best sources available to match the club honours, then removed any comps not in the source, because wikipedia is only about sources, not our own research or knowledge. How is it preferable to leave everything blatantly against policy, unsourced and potentially fictious? Davefelmer (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it would be helpful to add a [citation needed] tag, initially, and wait to see if sources can be found. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
That would be much more preferable, I don't see anything particularly controversial in any of the content that has been removed, it's not like there are claims of clubs being multiple champions league winners or anything. Fenix down (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not about controversy, it's about the fact that nothing is sourced which is against wiki policy and the only honours I remove are those that don't coincide with the sources available. How about we add citation requests and if in one month nothing is found, then I bring in the best sourcing available and adjust the honours to match? Davefelmer (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

How about you find the source to support what currently exists and try to be inclusive rather than destructive? Also, no, the competitions are not original research - they are often largely referenced by documents (be it newspapers, books, websites) however they just haven't been provided as a reference specifically for those sections of the article. If you think something is fictitious then challenge it by requesting a source - or better still actually look for one yourself and work to improve the sourcing without removing content in a disruptive fashion. Koncorde (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I did look through and couldnt find sources to match. what would you recommend now? And I am trying to be inclusive. I only removed honours that didnt match the well-publicised and used sources I found for articles that had no sourcing. Most removed were friendlies and youth compeititions anyway that you could debate in itself dont belong on pro club honours lists. Regardless, yes I will add the citation requests, but again, at the moment there are no sources (I checked) and you cannot take every trophy listed as being probably true. there is no way of proving it currently and unless you are suggesting we have a total free for all on all football club pages complete with assuming everything written is in good faith and reliable even if unsourced, then it can't stay that way. Davefelmer (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As you will see on your talk page, for your edit to Swindon Town, you obviously didn't look very hard as we have sourcing to support the claims either in the competition articles or specific seasons articles for that competition, so you don't even need to go outside of WP. Fenix down (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
(e/c) Dave, the problem is that you are not really putting any effort into confirming what is on the page. For instance, you removed the Southern League titles from several clubs' pages (e.g. Swindon), as well as many county cup titles. In Swindon's case I would have expected you (at the very least) to click through to Wiltshire Premier Shield, where you would have seen that all their wins are sourced. From what I've seen you seem to be using a single source (one website) and if honours aren't listed there, deleting them. IMO, this is verging on disruptive editing. If you insist on sourcing every honour (which is not necessary) then you need to be using a wide range of sources. Number 57 08:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

you can pick and choose a few cases where I happened to be wrong, because I didnt consider linking a wiki page to another wiki page, but that doesn't mean the vast majority ARENT sourced. What about all those clubs where sources do not exist like for Swindon? Davefelmer (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

On every example I looked at you had removed something quite obvious (like Southern League wins). And again, not everything needs to be sourced – only stuff likely to be challenged. Number 57 15:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Marcus Rashford

Could an Admin please semi-protect Marcus Rashford... there's a lot of crap being added. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Done. Number 57 22:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Are the CONCACAF Gold Cup and the CONCACAF Championship the same entity?

The main CONCACAF continental competition for national teams has been the CONCACAF Gold Cup since 1991, and the CONCACAF Championship from 1963 to 1989. The CONCACAF Gold Cup article is every now and then edited to either incorporate information and statistics from the CONCACAF Championship as well, or exclude it and focus only on the events from 1991 onwards. So, for the purposes of counting teams' appearances and titles, listing goalscorers and managers, and presenting any other statistical data, shall we treat the two of them as different incarnations of the same tournament that was simply rebranded in 1991, or as two different and mutually independent tournaments? Note that identical or similar issues apply elsewhere too, e.g. Copa América was once the South American Championship, the UEFA Champions League was once the European Cup, and the UEFA Europa League was once the UEFA Cup. All these are different from the situation with the Premier League and the Football League First Division, where the old league, even if it yielded its position as the top-level league to the new league, continued to exist alongside it. --Theurgist (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Most sources credit Mexico with their seventh win this year. Haven't found one mentioning previous titles. -Koppapa (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Since CONCACAF themselves seem to consider the Gold Cup as a new tournament rather than a rebranding [1], I think we should leave the two articles separated and remove any pre-1991 stats from the Gold Cup articles. Luxic (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. On a related note, the Copa América Centenario will be considered as an (extraordinary) edition of Copa América, right? --Theurgist (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Turkish Süper Lig website

The external links-section on Süper Lig mentions "sportotosuperlig.org" as the official website. Is this correct? — 37 (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Former players sections

A lot of English non-league clubs have "former players" sections with the inclusion criteria as follows:

1. Players that have played/managed in the Football League or any foreign equivalent to this level (i.e. fully professional league).
2. Players with full international caps.
3. Players that hold a club record.

With the exception of the last point, this basically duplicates the criteria for players to have a WP article, so is there any reason why the sections shouldn't simply be replaced with links to Category:Example F.C. players, as any players who meet the above criteria (with the exception of the last one, which I suspect is barely used anyway) will most likely be listed there anyway? Apart from anything else, the sections have been very poorly populated - the one on Stourbridge F.C. only includes one player, however Category:Stourbridge F.C. players contains 80 articles! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest not. It is preferable that the most notable players are discussed in sourced prose in the history section of the club article. I would caveat this by saying that it depends on the length of the list. If it is unwieldy I would remove those who do not fulfill criterion 3 (or all if it is unclear which criteria the players fulfill), if it is only a handful of players and is quite unobtrusive then I would let it stay simply to avoid any arguments. Fenix down (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't quite follow - are you saying that notable players should be mentioned in the prose and a "former players" section not exist? I'd be happy with that. But if we are going to have a section that purports to include those players who meet criteria 1/2 then it surely should include all of them? To do otherwise gives a false impression that the club has far fewer such players than it actually does. And listing them all is merely duplicating the category...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear Chris. What I meant was that essentially I agree with you criteria 1 and 2 that you mentioned are in my view better served with a category link and that the most notable of players fulfilling those criteria should be discussed in the history section of the club. Having said that though some clubs, particularly I notice English non-league clubs, may only have produced a handful of players who have gone on to FPL or international status. If the list is not visually intrusive then I don't see that it does any harm for it to stay. In the instance you note above, I would say that section should be removed. To populate it fully would make it unwieldy and in its current form it is either woefully incomplete or, with reference to criterion 3 above, unsourced. Fenix down (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A new idea

Hi, I've recently been planing on a series of articles that will include all CLUB career goals on famous footballers (examples are: List of club goals scored by Lionel Messi), retired ones will be a good topic because the active ones will have to be updated each match or so... So anyone who supports my idea, just let me know at my talk page. I'm really looking forward to make articles like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSoccerBoy (talk • contribs)

I don't think this would be a good idea. Really top strikers with a career of a decent length can easily score well over 200 club goals. Ferenc Puskás scored over 600. Messi (your example) is closing on 500 and, given that he's only 28, he could easily get well past 600. The lists would just be insanely long statistical overloads -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, it would actually be quite hard to find sources for every specific goal scored by players from previous decades. I wouldn't have a clue how to go about sourcing every individual goal scored by Gary Lineker, for example, let alone a player from many decades ago like Arthur Rowley.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree, I think it is a sourcing nightmare. Additionally, scoring at club level simply isn't notable, so I am not sure how notable many of these lists would be and, as noted above, those that might be notable would be so lengthy as to be unwieldy. Inclusion criteria would be a nightmare too, you only have too look at cases like Romario to see how much nonsense even players generate around the goals they claim to score. Fenix down (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
A noble idea and I agree with TheSoccerBoy's motivation, but per above reasoning it would be a souring nightmare and would probably violate WP:NOTSTATBOOK. International goals tend to be more notable and in my opinion should be kept though. Happy editing Inter&anthro (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Joe Riley

Hi, recently Joe Riley made his debut for Manchester United and since there already was a "Joe Riley (footballer)" I created Joe Riley (footballer, born 1996) and then also moved "Joe Riley (footballer)" to Joe Riley (footballer, born 1991) to separate the two players (and none of them seemed like primary). My question now is what we should do with the redirect Joe Riley (footballer)? Should we leave it as redirect to one of the footballers or should we somehow change the articles that links to it and then remove the redirect or redirect to disambiguation page Joe Riley instead? Qed237 (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It should redirect to Joe Riley, where both players should be listed. Any links pointing to it should be changed to point to the correct player -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Both player are listed at Joe Riley. Is there a fast way to change the links to point to the correct player or does it have to be done manually? Qed237 (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
That sounds like a dangerous edit, unless indeed you can edit all articles with old links... I would just leave it as it is now: Joe Riley (footballer) redirects to the article it originally hosted, and that's fine. Nobody should arrive on that link looking for the younger player anyway, they'll find him on the general DAB page and he is clearly mentioned at the "See also" of the older player. Better leave it this way than risk turning old working links into a DAB link, I'd say! –Sygmoral (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
There's only about 12 articles that link to Joe Riley (footballer), so changing the links would hardly be an arduous task......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Partially disambiguated page names, I believe that Joe Riley (footballer) should redirect to Joe Riley, as partial disambiguations like this shouldn't be used. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Redundant futsal "teams" / "clubs" category messes

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 27#Redundant "futsal teams" category mess.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Our good friend the Albanian hoaxer

If it quacks like a duck...

We have had a prolific hoaxer who edits pages on well-known players, making up that they have Albanian origins. Even though he has now switched to Turkish origin, his modus operandi of putting a reference to a book that never existed is still there. This user's other contributions relate to Albania so I would be amazed if it weren't him. '''tAD''' (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I've created and tagged the user's talk page with a warning. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the edit on Alex Teixeira looks pretty suspicious to say the least, but all the other of this user's edits have been constructive and per WP:ROPE we should just give the editor more time. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The Almightey Drill & Jkudlick Never mind this edit has me convinced that the editor could possibly be another sockpuppet of Biar122. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
As well as this IP address looks suspicious too. I'm not an administrator though and don't want to hastily accuse users of being sockpuppets Inter&anthro (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Christian Obiozor and Chinonso Christian Obiozor. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I've merged and redirected Christian Obiozor to Chinonso Christian Obiozor. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Stub or Start class?

Hello all, would you class Marcus Rashford as stub or start from the way it appears presently? See history for background. Just curious on what the opinion of others here is on stub -v- start. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

How much information need there be in a player article before it ceases to be a stub? For example: are Joe Riley (footballer, born 1996) or Marcus Rashford stubs? There is no stub template on the articles themselves, but they were rated "stub class" on their talk pages. I changed them to "start class" but was quickly reverted. Any opinions? 92.26.170.136 (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
p.s. I have just seen the above query, so perhaps they should be linked together. 92.26.170.136 (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Merged now JMHamo (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I would say these two cases are borderline, but for those of you who want to do some assessing, there are currently over 10,000 unassessed football-related articles. C679 09:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Usually a stub ceases to be a stub when there are 1,500 characters (excluding references, wiki mark-up, infoboxes etc.) GiantSnowman 10:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Arnold Hunter

Arnold Hunter has been nominated for deletion. Anyone who wants to weigh in their opinion in the discussion can do so here. Tvx1 23:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

MfD assistance for football articles

Hello, I have uncovered a lot of what look like footballer articles in userspace, with duplicates in article space, most of them are linked at User:Huligan0/List of players FCB. I am unsure how to go about listing at MfD, but if anybody could advise if CSD is applicable, or if not, set a discussion, it would be appreciated. Thanks, C679 00:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

FIFA presidential election articles need urgent work

Mainly the 2016 FIFA Extraordinary Congress and Gianni Infantino. Both are awaiting major improvement before being able to feature on the main page via the In the news section, where I've nominated the two already. Please lend a hand if you can! SounderBruce 04:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Migrant workers clubs

I want to create a parent category for the migrant worker football clubs in Germany, as a sub-category of Category:Football clubs in Germany. Clubs Lupo Martini Wolfsburg (Italian), SV Türkgücü-Ataspor München & Türkiyemspor Berlin (Turkish) or FC Enikon Augsburg (Croatian) are all based on foreign migrant workers, to name the most notable ones. What should such a category be called? Category:Migrant worker football clubs in Germany? Ideas would be welcome. Regards, Calistemon (talk) 03:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, is this category notable enough? I don't think so. MYS77 ✉ 04:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability doesn't mention categories as such. Do you know of any guideline or policy on it? As to the above situation, migrant football clubs in Germany, unlike any other country I'm aware of (except Australia, where all "soccer" clubs once upon a time seem to have been based on migrants), has a huge number of migrant worker clubs in the league system and some of them, like SD Croatia Berlin, Türkiyemspor Berlin and Türk Gücü München, have played as high up as the third division, right below the 2. Bundesliga. So, if a notability criteria for categories does exist I think you would find its met. Calistemon (talk) 04:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there should be a category, which would be in the Category:Diaspora sports clubs tree. Number 57 13:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that, just what I was looking for. Calistemon (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Hill ... and his chin

Resolved
 – Doesn't seem to be notable --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no mention in our article of children chin rubbing and saying variants of "Ooh, Jimmy Hill". As I posted on the article talk some time ago, this pre-internet meme is mentioned in RS. Do you think it's totally inappropriate to include it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Um what exactly are you trying to include? The source you provided on the talk page doesn't mention this at all except for a small insert. My opinion doesn't matter much but the fact of children's chin rubbing hardly seem notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion matters, definitely. That's why I've posted here. I'm surprised I can't turn up much more. Perhaps it's not notable. Anyone got a biog of Hill? Does it mention it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm struggling to find any RS that mention this other than the one linked above, and even in that one the mention is very cursory. Personally I don't think it's significant enough for inclusion (BTW, when I was at junior school in the early 80s, we used to do the action but didn't refer to Jimmy Hill, we used to say "chinny reck-ON" (sic)) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, that's enough. Thanks all. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ulisses FC

Hi, Could someone please help me explain the Ulisses FC situation in 2015–16 Armenian Premier League?

I do not speak armenian or Russia so having hard time to understand some sources.

What I have seen is that their matches are listed as CANC (cancelled) at Soccerway so I went to the other source for {{2015–16 Armenian Premier League table}} (ffa.am (Football Federation of Armenia) which has given Ulisses FC a 3–0 loss in todays match. The only article I can find on that page is in armenian here (did not find any in English and did not try Russian) and I used google translate which was not easy to understand but sounds like their license was revoked, but why?

Trying to use google resulted in this claiming they dropped out due to cash shortage, while this suggests matchfixing which is also what I think the article I found in Armenian is talking about.

Could anyone help find some info? Or perhaps someone speaks Russian or Armenian and can translate? Qed237 (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got some help. Looks like license was revoked due to both financial and non-financial shortcomings. It will now be interesting to see what UEFA does when Armenia does not have 8 teams for their first division. Qed237 (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly notable player?

I have come across Vasilije Pejović which is written in Bosnian and appears to be an autobiography. However, there is a claim of having played for N.E.C. (football club) which would surely make him notable. Is anyone able to confirm the veracity of this? Cheers AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Could find nothing in Google other than this, which would suggest it is a fake. The usual sites (soccerway, worldfootball, even transfermarkt) show no match. C679 01:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
See also Vasilije Pejovic. C679 01:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The user who created the article, Vaskopejovic5 has a name that's pretty similar to that of the subject of the article, so I wouldn't be surprised if its a hoax or something. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The original version of the article had phone numbers and other contact details for his managers as references, so my guess is that it is a young bloke trying to get a game. The BLP PROD will expire tomorrow so I guess it will be deleted soon. Thanks for your responses. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I have deleted the article. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Appearances

I see an IP has changed the number in the lead of Nigel Clough that read Clough is most notable for his time as a player at Nottingham Forest, where he played over 400 times in two separate spells, to 300. Presumably the change was made to agree with the numbers in the infobox but those are domestic league only while if cups and other are included it is indeed over 400. Adding something like in league, cup and European matches would clarify but combined with in two separate spells is a bit clunky for the lead. Does the project have a view on whether to include cup and other appearances in text? --Cavrdg (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think to include all appearances is perfectly reasonable in a statement like that (I would find it a bit odd to exclude the league apps). Number 57 20:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sergio Reguilón

Is Sergio Reguilón notable? From what I see he plays in Segunda B which is not in WP:FPL (segunda is, but not segunda B), but he might be notable anyway? Qed237 (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? I want to be sure before nominating since the article creator was not very polite against me (revisions even hidden). SO I would appreciate if someone took a look and perhaps even nominated it if they feel it should be deleted. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Qed237: I think non-notable, they fail WP:NFOOTY and doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Also, the article creator looks to have been indefinitely blocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: Yes they where blocked after some "non-friendly" messages if you know what I mean. They where enough to land in an indef block right away. Would you mind nominating it, in case the creator would come back at me as an IP?. Qed237 (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Done, here. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Nicknames in List of Manchester City F.C. managers

In List of Manchester City F.C. managers, does everybody agree that the Nickname column should be deleted? JMHamo (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

OMG yes. Number 57 22:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
100% yes. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
What my right Honorable colleagues have said. GiantSnowman 22:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Remove nicknames. Qed237 (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits by a floating IP at 1964 European Nations' Cup qualifying

An anonymous Albanian editor with a floating IP persistently makes the same unsourced edit to the 1964 European Nations' Cup qualifying page, and either ignores or fails to see a hidden comment I left to invite them to discuss the issue on the talk page. Shall I request page protection, or will some other measures be taken? --Theurgist (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Since this only affects one article, it is better to protect that article instead of blocking an entire range from editing. So i made a request at WP:RFPP. Qed237 (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexis González

Alexis González may benefit from attention of members of this project. --76.14.87.120 (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There's an IP currently vandalising it, which I've reverted. Obviously an article expansion would be good, but that requires someone fluent in Spanish, I guess. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
And he doesn't appear to have an article on either Spanish Wikipedia or Guarani Wikipedia (the 2 languages of Paraguay).
@76.14.87.120: What specifically do you want WikiProject Football to do? Joseph2302 (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@76.14.87.120, @Joseph2302: Minor improvement done. MYS77 ✉ 00:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gareth Bale/GA2

Hi. I am reviewing Gareth Bale, an article of "High" importance for this WikiProject, for GA status. But just now I found that the nominator Cristianho19 has been away since September 2015. The article is very well-written with minor prose issues that I am pointing out in the review. Additional comments are welcome. I request some of the members to fix these issues so that the article does not have to be failed once again. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Listing the matches of knockout stages involving home and away legs

The matches of such stages could be ordered in two ways: (1) first all first legs, then all second legs, and (2) both legs of each fixture together. Have there been discussions and consensus on which method to use? Throughout Wikipedia, (1) seems to be more common, but I personally like (2) better, especially when the matches of the particular stage are too many to fit in the screen. --Theurgist (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that 2 is much clearer - the score of the match is more important info than the order of the fixtures. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I like the second option way more. Kante4 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I also greatly prefer the second option, since I'm more concerned with the outcomes of the pairings than I am in the exact order the matches occurred. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I prefer option 2 also. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I applied option 2 to the 1960 and 1964 UEFA Euro qualifying pages. If we agree that that option is better, we could start applying it elsewhere, both to existing and to upcoming articles.
Note that in option 1, the chronological order only applies within the respective section ("First legs", "Second legs", etc.). In reality, there have been occasions where some second legs actually took place before some first legs of the same stage, and even occasions where matches of a later (more advanced) stage took place before matches of an earlier stage of the same competition. See the Euro 1960 qualifying for some examples. A true chronological order, like the one found at UEFA's website, would list all matches by date, regardless of stage and leg. That would be an ever worse option than option 1. Option 1 is really a stage-wise and leg-wise option. --Theurgist (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Cuauhtémoc Blanco

Although his farewell match was this Saturday, he is still listed on the Liga MX website as an active player. He's also listed on the Club America's website and other sports sites such as ESPN FC, Soccerway and Fox Soccer. Should he be removed from the Club America's Wikipedia page roster section or should he be left on there until the end of the season? GoPurple'nGold24 11:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd leave him there. I'm not sure when the Mexican off-season is exactly, but if reliable sources are still including him in the club's roster, what's the rush to remove him? – PeeJay 13:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Kind of ridiculous he played in the first place but yeah I agree he still listed on the roster of all those pages so he should still be listed. GoPurple'nGold24 01:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Postponed matches

Should we add postponed matches like here or only add matches when played and not the postponed match? Qed237 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If the match has been postponed, I see no problem in changing the date to "TBD" or to the rescheduled date with a note. This would be similar to what was done with the PLE–KSA and MYA–KUW matches at 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

New SKC Kits

Can I get help on doing the new Sporting Kansas City kits? I'm not really sure how to do it, since none of the already made patterns seem to match it. Here's some links for what it looks like. 1, 2, 3, & 4. Elisfkc (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

StuartGriffin93 is an expert on this and may be able to help. Number 57 22:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Number 57. @StuartGriffin93:, do you mind? Elisfkc (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
StuartGriffin93 doesn't seem to be available. @Number 57: any other suggestions? Elisfkc (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Have you tried asking on their talk page? Number 57 08:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Didn't think about that, for some reason. Thanks. Elisfkc (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Diacritics help

Hi all, André Luís Alves Santos features two diacritical marks, but the talk page just one (just on Andre). The references presently at the page show no diacritical marks at all. What is the correct name (and most desirable title of the page?) Thanks, C679 15:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The talk page issue was caused by Footwiks doing a cut & paste move of the article but not moving the talk page (for which they need a good WP:TROUTing). I have done a history merge. Number 57 16:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Request Protection

Would it be a good idea for Evan Dimas to be protected? The history of the article shows a large amount of unsourced content being repeatedly added. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 OFC U-20 Championship

Can anybody find any evidence that that first round of the 2016 OFC U-20 Championship starts tomorrow as the article states? I've looked but haven't been able to find a single source to prove it. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The OFC U-20 schedule is not on either the OFC or the FIFA websites (though neither are exactly stellar at maintaining their websites), and I can't find anything else to verify the dates. This doesn't mean it's not true, just that it's not verified. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Even the Football Federation Samoa website has no details, which is strange given that they are supposedly hosting the first round. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jkudlick: I contacted the OFC, they haven't made any decisions yet. I've removed the incorrect information. TheBigJagielka (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Football biography infobox

It's been a month since I proposed a college section being added to the template. The respondents seem to be in agreement that it should be introduced. Can an admin please make the change? The proposal can be found at Template_talk:Infobox_football_biography#College_career_header TheBigJagielka (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe the quickest way to have someone make the edit you propose, is clicking "Source" at the top of that template, and then clicking "Submit an edit request". The request will then show up in an inbox for template editors, and they will soon review your request and probably execute it. –Sygmoral (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Eyes needed

I came across Shaun Anthony Harris, full of promotional material, puffery, etc. If he is notable for his playing career, the article needs gutting for aforementioned material. If not, possibly AfD. Thanks, C679 21:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cloudz679: Looks like he passes WP:NFOOTY having played for Virginia Beach Mariners in USL First Division, which is listed as a fully professional league. Agree that the article is a mess though. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Although apparently Virginia Beach Mariners were in hiatus in the 2001 season, which is when Shaun Harris claims that he played 15 games for them. Unless someone can find source(s) that he actually played for them, I think he fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
He was an underage coach at Everton, not as is shown, and cited btw, assistant. Murry1975 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I also note that at the time Harris supposedly played, the club was known as the Hampton Roads Mariners and did not change the name to VA Beach until 2003. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

And the PROD I put on Shaun Harris has expired, and it's been deleted. There was no reliable sources that he played in a fully professional league, and the Virginia Beach Mariners didn't compete in 2001 season, which was when he was meant to have made 15 appearances for them. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"Women's" national under-15 football team?

All the red links of potential articles (none of which have been created yet however), for the U-15 teams are set up with the word "women's" included. Shouldn't it be "girl's?" Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The possessive plural would be girls', not girl's. Unsure whether such redlinks are useful though, per WP:REDNOT. Thanks, C679 10:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, are these teams even notable? If not then the article title is irrelevant. GiantSnowman 10:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think U-15 teams are notable. If they aren't, then they shouldn't exist. If they are notable, then redlinks are fine. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I also believe that U-15 teams are not presently notable – there is no FIFA competition for U-15 teams, FIFA and the IOC decided to replace football with futsal at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics, the 2015 CONCACAF Boys' Under-15 Championship was canceled with no reason provided, I see no evidence that CONCACAF has scheduled a future girls' U-15 competition, and CONMEBOL is the only other confederation with a U-15 competition. AFC has boys' and girls' U-16 championships which are used as qualifiers for the U-17 World Cups. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
So if they are notable, would it be girls'? Savvyjack23 (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@Savvyjack23, Cloudz679, GiantSnowman, and Joseph2302: I find no evidence of girls' U-15 competition sanctioned by any confederation; AFC uses U-16 to qualify for the U-17 World Cups, but they call it the AFC U-16 Women's Championship, not the Girls' Championship. At this point, I believe we have to conclude that national U-15 teams are not notable. Regardless, I wrote the code which would generate girls' instead of women's for U-15 teams at User:Jkudlick/sandbox/Fbwu in the event they do become notable and FIFA calls them girls' teams. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The AFC has a U14 girls tourney. Bur articles for teams are not needed. They wouldn't be more than just a results list anyway (as the u17 and u19 articles). -Koppapa (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages for project subpages: do they have value?

I started a discussion back in August about retiring the talk pages for subpages of this WikiProject. The problem with them is that they do not get a lot of traffic, and so good ideas or important issues may get lost in time, while they would much faster get a response right here. People seemed enthiousiastic about the idea, but I did not feel as if I had the authority to actually make the changes, so they never happened. Until today: I just executed it, but an administrator believed I did not have enough community support to do this.

So I want to refresh this discussion now, and make it a little more specific: I would retire all talk pages of subpages, with just a few exceptions: Portal talk:Association football (simply because it's not really a project subpage), Assessment and Fully professional leagues.

Please state whether you support centralizing all talk pages on this one. Also whether you believe more talk pages should be exceptions to this rule, or whether in fact you feel Assessment and Fully professional leagues should also be redirected here. –Sygmoral (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sygmoral, just one question. Would this include talk pages like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Germany task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Italy task force? Calistemon (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
No, task forces are also left alone. To be exact, I just retired most talk pages for the page the are in the general navigation box (top right of this page). –Sygmoral (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

2015–16 Leicester City F.C. season

This project might be interested in the current situation at 2015–16 Leicester City F.C. season. Qed237 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Football DataCo lost the legal right to charge license fees for football fixture lists years ago.--EchetusXe 13:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Quite. They haven't been copyrighted since 2012. Number 57 13:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Even if not copyrighted, should we have fixtures lists? I see people opposing in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 88#Season article fixture lists and in UK matches gets moved around a lot. Qed237 (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a problem at all with leaving the fixtures. Even if the dates get shifted, the remaining opponents stay the same. And that's usually far more important than the date of the fixture. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Quite, and the dates can easily be edited. We have numerous future events on Wikipedia that are subject to potential date changes, but go with the information as correct at the time. Number 57 15:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Now that we have all the facts, I have to agree. No obvious reason why we shouldn't list all fixtures. – PeeJay 15:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Jordan Nicholson

Can an admin move User:EchetusXe/Jordan Nicholson to Jordan Nicholson please? It is protected from article creation.--EchetusXe 15:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've posted a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, because more admins view that page. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@EchetusXe: Done. Number 57 13:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks guys.--EchetusXe 15:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@EchetusXe: can you take a look at the text again, "before a successful though injury" – should that be "thigh injury"? And @Number 57:, shouldn't the page move be done without leaving the redirect? Jared Preston (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jared Preston: Good point, now deleted. Thanks for notifying me! Number 57 15:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jared Preston: I have edited the sentence in question. Please review my work to see if it still has the intended meaning. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Pinging EchetusXe because it was originally malformed. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you made my meaning much more clear. Thanks.--EchetusXe 17:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Much better, super! Jared Preston (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Songkhla United F.C.

The club in this article, Songkhla United F.C., may no longer excist. From 2013 to present day, it`s season-by-season record is the same as Songkhla F.C.. That means that according to Wiki, the 2 clubs currently play in the same league and has done so since 2013, but there`s only been one club playing these years. Songkhla United is the name of the current club, but Songkhla F.C. should, in my view, be renamed on Wiki to Songkhla United, and Songkhla United F.C. should be edited to a club that no longer excist. In 2013 Wuachon United and Songkhla F.C. joined together as Songkla United. Wuachon United was the new name of the club when Songkhla FC bought the lisence/rights from Buriram FC in 2012, and the club was moved from Buriram to Songkhla. Others might have a different view than me, but I can`t see that both articles should continue to be edited the same way, and since they were 2 different clubs once (2009-2012), with different history, they can`t be merged into one article either. SveinFalk (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Kaspars Dubra

Can someone please protect Kaspars Dubra from IP-user editing? (Or suggest any other appropriate action.) There's one persistent editor who keeps adding his full BATE caps to infobox instead of just national league caps. --BlameRuiner (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Number 57 21:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. -BlameRuiner (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Change infobox / Career statistics for goalkeepers?

Hello,

In most cases, the goalkeepers rarely scores goals in football matches. If they do, they're likely to do so in the penalty shootout. However those penalty goals doesn't, and shouldn't count, in either the infobox nor the career statistics section under goals. How many goals a keeper scores is a pretty uninteresting fact, so therefore I want to propose having another version of the infobox and career statistics for goalkeepers, where the goal column is changed to the amount of clean sheets the keepers have had instead of goals. To see 25/25 0's in the goal columns for goalkeeper's career statistics is just a waste of space in my opinion. // Psemmler (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This has come up many times before and has been shot down every time, on the basis that it is impossible to source clean sheets data for anything other than keepers from a small handful of leagues and then only from the last few years, so 99% of keepers would not have this data available anyway. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you're over exaggerate pretty much by 99%, but I see the problem. However shouldn't this be available for career statistics in case you have the numbers for a goalkeeper? I understand that it isn't worthy enough of having a different infobox, but rather some clean sheets numbers in career statistics than a bunch of 0's // Psemmler (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, clean sheet records are not something that is commonly produced for goalkeepers (I certainly have never seen it in any of the various football annuals I own). I'm not really sure it's of much interest either. Number 57 09:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
From what I know, the most common individual stats for a league is: top goalscorer, top assist maker, most clean sheets, most yellow/red cards. I find amount of clean sheets for goalkeepers far more interesting than the amount of goals. // Psemmler (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Psemmler: Many top levels don't have these kinds of stats (i.e. clean sheets and assists), so how will we find some reliable sources to back up these stats when there are none? Some goalkeepers do score a goal in their professional career, José Luis Chilavert and Rogério Ceni are some clear examples of why the table should remain the current way. MYS77 ✉ 12:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixtures Lists in Club Season Articles

Expanding upon the dialog started as a result of the edit war on 2015–16 Leicester City F.C. season regarding fixtures, let's gain consensus whether such lists should be included in club season articles. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Support

  1. I see no reason why fixtures lists should not be included in the article at the beginning of the season. Yes, the dates may change throughout the season, but it's not difficult to edit the article to reflect the change (e.g. 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round has had several matches postponed for various reasons). Also, the issue of copyright was rendered moot in 2012, so there is no fear of WP:COPYVIO. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. No issue with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. My only issue with them was copyright, and apparently the copyright issues ceased to exist years ago. Other football & other sports articles have them, so why should the league articles be any different? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. I don't see a problem. --Jaellee (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Now that the previous rationale (copyright violation) is no longer valid, there is no reason to deny readers useful information. The rationale that they shouldn't be added because fixtures are moved doesn't really make any sense as the article can be edited to amend the date if this happens (other websites quite happily list fixtures as they stand). Also, the below comments by Qed seem like an attempt at selectively bringing previous opponents to the discussion (the editors that supported inclusion in that discussion are not pinged). Number 57 16:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  6. TV scheduling may screw with Premier League scheduling somewhat but if someone has correctly listed the fixtures on a season article than I cannot see the logic in removing them.--EchetusXe 17:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  7. Of course they should be included. The reason with moved games is laughable... Kante4 (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  8. Future fixtures should be included, regardless of potential for them to be changed. While the information is correct, there's not overly an issue. When it's not, it gets changed. For me, it's like arguing the point as to whether a table should be updated, as that can change throughout a season, too. Also, future fixtures have been included in non Premier League articles for as long as I can remember, anyway. - J man708 (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  9. My only argument against them was the copyright one, which I didn't realise was no longer an issue. With that gone I don't see any reason why they should be removed if they're already in the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  10. As long as they are reliably sourced I see no reason why not. It is the responsibility of the editors of the page to ensure that things are kept up to date. Given that season articles are only appropriate for top clubs, it seems unlikely that much would go unnoticed and uncorrected for very long if games were rearranged. Fenix down (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  11. If the fixtures information comes from an official source (association or club website), then definitely it should be included. Matchday changes can be edited and explained by also adding sufficient reference easily. MbahGondrong (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  12. Per everyone above. A list of upcoming fixtures definitely contributes to an article's informativeness and completeness, while the lack of one makes the article imperfect and incomplete. I myself did once or twice open 2015–16 Leicester City F.C. season to check whom and when Leicester still have to play till the end of the season, and I was disappointed not to find that information there. Wikipedia does already have plenty of sourced schedules of upcoming events, sports-related and otherwise. If schedules change, Wikipedia changes too. It's as simple as that. --Theurgist (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  13. I support this. // Psemmler (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  14. Yeah, they provide useful info. -Koppapa (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  15. If they are reliably referenced then they should definitely be includedDingowasher (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Per User:Struway2 and User:Blethering Scot in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 88#Season article fixture lists. I don't see why we should include them, mainly because they get moved around a lot (mainly Premier League) as matches gets postponed due to bad wheater, cup matches and so on. I see no use for them until the match actually has been played. Qed237 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutral/Comment

  1. In the interest of fairness, I am pinging all participants from the most recent discussion who have not already been pinged: @Koppapa, Spudgfsh, CRwikiCA, and Bladeboy1889: — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I would consider this discussion an agreement to include the fixtures. Or? Kante4 (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Most official discussions on Wikipedia should last a week, so I guess we should let this one run until 20 March before (re)adding fixture lists. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Except in the case of WP:SNOW, which this clearly meets. – PeeJay 18:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Also according to WP:BRDC the future fixture list should already be included in the article until this discussion concludes otherwise, so does somebody want to reinstate it immediately? Dingowasher (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Dingowasher: The future fixtures are already there, but they are commented out. Previous consensus was that they should not be included, so the proper course is to keep the future fixtures hidden pending the outcome of this discussion. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I see they have already been uncommented, and it is apparent that WP:SNOW exists. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Notable?

Is Andrew Leach notable per WP:NFOOTY or not? He played in the 1873 FA Cup Final, is that enough to pass WP:NFOOTY? (Sources: [2], [3])

And I can never remember, is Soccerbase a reliable source or not? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say that anyone who played in the FA Cup Final is definitely notable, particulary as the Football League didn't exist then so it was basically the pinnacle of English football. And yes, Soccerbase is a reliable source, although its content on anyone from that era is basically nil -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
PS I have a copy of the book "The Early FA Cup finals and the Southern amateurs" by Keith Worsop, which has a biography of Leach in -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I was trying to connect [4] and [5]- unfortunately I then realised the DoBs don't match.
I'll look for more online sources when I have time. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I have created an article on him, feel free to add anything else you find.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

2018-19 UEFA Europa League

I'm a bit puzzled by this. It can't be right? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not. It's just a copypaste of this season's teams. And it's far WP:TOOSOON for such an article, so I've redirected it. Valenciano (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I have nominated it at RfD for deletion. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 18#2018-19 UEFA Europa League. Qed237 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Help with club badge?

Hi - is anyone willing to help a relative wiki-noob with a bit of image related editing? I've racked up a fair few edits, but none of them to do with uploading images or licensing.

The club badge on Rotherham United F.C.] - [6] is incorrect. It's the pre-2005 rebranding badge, although to the occasional viewer it's not exactly obvious. I'm happy to fix this, but I have absolutely no idea how to do so. Could you point me in the right direction please? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gricehead: You need to get a copy of the new club badge, save it somewhere on your computer as a .png file, then go to the logo page and click on "Upload a new version of this file". Hopefully it's straightforward after that. Cheers, Number 57 11:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 Done I've replaced it with a vector image. TheBigJagielka (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@TheBigJagielka: Thanks! Gricehead (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Are all club badges free to use? // Psemmler (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
No, not at all. They are copyrighted and need a fair use rationale for the articles they are used in -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Module troubles

FIFA has published a new statement on Kuwait matches. Whilst editing {{2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round Group G table}} to cite that FIFA page as a reference, I also tried to combine |note_KUW=, |match_KOR_KUW_note=, |match_KUW_LAO_note=, and |match_MYA_KUW_note= into one single note, with this edit. But the module ended up not as one would want it to be. To see what happened, preview this version of the template. Help please! --Theurgist (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Theurgist: As far as I am aware there is no current possibility to link match notes with team notes. I will have to take a closer look tomorrow unless someone has beaten me to it by then. Qed237 (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Some more investigations shows that "note_id" in row 419 in Module:Sports table has not been set, which might lead to this issue. Or at least I think that is the problem, but as I should be asleep at the moment I can not be sure. Fresh eyes needed, so I will look at an other time. Qed237 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Qed237: There must be such a possibility, because that's exactly what is done at {{UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group I}}, where the same note is applied to |note_ALB=, |note_SRB=, and |match_SRB_ALB_note=.
How does one "set" the "note_id" in row 419 in Module:Sports table? --Theurgist (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Theurgist: Unfortunately I have to be away from computer a few hours now, but I promise it is top priority. I was not aware of the Euro situation that seems to be working. The difference is that in World cup table, the first matchnote comes on the first row when the team note is not yet defined (it is on second row) while in your Euro example the note_ALB has been defined first (read it row by row, that is how information is printed). If we remove the first match note (match_KOR_KUW_note) it is working because for the rest not_KUW is defined. As I said I will look more ASAP. Qed237 (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Theurgist: I have made correction in Module:Sports table/sandbox tested in User:Qed237/sandbox5. Is that okay? I will do some more testing before "going live" so it does not brake anything else. It was as I thought that note_id parameter had not been set so the reference tried to call an old note with unknown note_id and the second and third match notes called the most previous called notes (old note id) which was note in results column. I am bad at explaining so if you want a better explanation just let me know. Qed237 (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually it should not destroy anything and I tested a bit so it has now "gone live". Qed237 (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Qed237: Many thanks, the template works wonderfully now, and your explanation makes sense to me. While testing with the template, I did notice that it sometimes mixed up match notes (|match_KUW_LAO_note=) with result notes (|note_res_2nd=), but I had no idea why.
Are now all potential combinations of notes possible? There are team notes (|note_KUW=), match notes (|match_KUW_LAO_note=), result notes (|note_res_2nd=), which appear in the result column, and head-to-head notes (|hth_KUW=), which appear in the points column. Can any number and any combination of these notes be merged into a single note? --Theurgist (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Theurgist: I dont think they are all possible by looking at the code, but I could be wrong (I did not create module, just helped but have some programming experience). The hth notes are done separately in the submodules (or rather sub to the subs) as all versions of the tables dont have head-to-head. The result notes looks separate as well with different note id but they could probably combined with team notes and match notes with some work in the code (not a quick fix). Qed237 (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, I think that notes indicating point deductions would look better in the points column than in the teams column. Compare the two variants. What do you think? --Theurgist (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Theurgist: I have to agree with that. When the module was created I also argued for the head-to-head notes to be in the position-column or the team-column instead of the points, and then we could have deduction notes in points column. However, that was not the consensus, but a new discussion could always be opened. Qed237 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Some dublicates

Hi! Maybe somebody would like to take a look and merge these bios? I'm pretty sure, they're about the same person. Yes, I know, how to tag articles for merging, but maybe somedy wants to do that without tagging:

They all have the same ID for National Football teams, the same BOD. If you spot pair from this list, that aren't dublicates, then please say. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Honours

Following the discussion from Talk:Andreas Vaikla... Vaikla were part of the IFK Norrköping squad that won Allsvenskan 2015 and Svenska Supercupen (Swedish Community Shield) 2015. Although he didn't play a single game in 2015, but as a second keeper he was featured as a subsitute on the bench on 11 games, since he arrived during mid season. In the only game of Supercupen 2015, he was an uun used substitute for that game aswell. He was part of Norrköping's squad that won both titles, which would be an argument for that he deserves to get an honour title on his Wiki page, but one might also argument that he didn't contribute anything on the pitch. What do we go on? // Psemmler (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

My opinion would be that it would depend if the player received a winners medal. Cup and league competitions tend to differ: The whole bench in a cup final, including unused substitutes, will get winners medals, whilst in a league competition there is usually some appearance criteria that defines whether you get a medal or not. So I guess it probably depends on the rules of the competitions in question. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Per Gricehead, if he got a medal then he gets the honour. However he was, correctly, still a winner of both competitions even if he didn't take part so there would be no harm in his article saying "Vaikla was part of the IFK Norrkoping team that won the Allsvenskan and Supercupen in 2015" without also including the same information under "honours. However, usually where explicit criteria are introduced we err on not noting it as an honour. Koncorde (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good system to base this about given medals, since the criteria, as mentioned, is so different depending on competetion or country. In some league, the clubs are free to give medals to whoever player they want. I want better guidelines. // Psemmler (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
If you were given a medal you get the honour? Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Koncorde (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Flags in managerial stats tables

Hello. We don't put flags in club career stats tables, and haven;t done for many years. So would I be correct in believing that we don't put them in managerial stats tables either? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup. Kante4 (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Seconded. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Repeated addition of Honours against MOS to Rotherham United F.C.

Hi, There is a user and IP repeatedly edit warring to add an inappropriate (according to MOS) honour to Rotherham United F.C.. I have given (what I believe) are appropriate edit summaries on my reverts, and also posted to the Users (but not the IPs) talk pages. I'm at 3RR now (I think), but the material is still being re-added. Can anyone lend a hand? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The user now seems to have stopped trying to claim that finishing third in the old Division Two (at a time when only two got promoted) is an "honour" and is now repeatedly adding "They`ve never played in the top flight but have played in the second tier 28 times in total, making them one of the best to have not." I can't see how 28 failures to win promotion makes them one of the best non-top flight teams ever, but maybe that's just me........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Several IPs changing Inter Milan players' appearances without updating time-stamp

So several IPs have been making changes to a vast majority of Inter Milan players' stats without updating the time-stamp for a few weeks now. It can be seen most recently by These additions for example on Éder's page as well as many others by taking a look at this IPs contributions Every week the IP changes slightly, but the same unchanged time-stamp additions. It wouldn't be as problematic if it was only one player, one time, but this is an ongoing issue on multiple pages. In the first couple weeks when this happened I gave a few warnings on their talk pages about updating the time stamp, but since the IP changes every week, they seem not to listen... Is there any way to stop this kind of vandalism without page protecting all the pages, or is that the only option? (It may seem rather small, but for an ongoing issue on a mass amount of pages can cause much confusion between editors).

Mattythewhite recently undid an edit for example on Samir Handanović, but since this is happening on a large amount of pages every week, it is very time consuming to deal with an issue like this manually. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: If it is a small range of IP's and a possible rangeblock would not stop good editors within that range, a rangeblock could be possible. Qed237 (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@Qed237: Taking WP:RANGE into consideration, should we then request a range block? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@Vaselineeeeeeee: I think you can. If I remember correctly I did that with same situation on greek footballers. Just make sure that you show what edits from the range is disruptive (diffs from different IPs) and explain why you think a rangeblock is required. Qed237 (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@Qed237: Thanks, I've asked at WP:AN for further help. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Bringing back "NFT Player Tables: notes about players (INJ, RET, SUS, ...)"

Hello! On 22 February, Sygmoral started a discussion regarding the 'selectability' of "Recent players" as he/she put it. No one answered and it became archived (see it here). But I think it's a very important topic of discussion and we need a solution. // Mattias321 (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mattias321, thanks for bringing that back up. I guess my post was too long to draw attention! So in short: my main issue is with the INJ notes next to Recent Players because they no doubt violate WP:RECENT on many articles. That's because a lot of them still mean currently injured, which has no place in an encyclopedia. After much consideration, my personal conclusion is that:
  • INJ notes should never mean "currently injured", so let's remove those from all articles.
  • INJ notes should not be put next to the player to avoid confusion about its meaning, but should instead be put next to the most recent selection. In fact, the note should not be "INJ" (which intuitively means "injured"), but something that means "had to leave this selection" or "did not make current selection [due to injury]". I've seen WD (withdrew) in the past on some articles, which clearly means the former. Could be up for debate whether we actually need a note for the latter.
In other words: the INJ note should be removed in favor of a less ambigious note. Thoughts, improvements, ideas? –Sygmoral (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, no problem! I agree with you and I solved it like this in Sweden article. RET for retired players and WD for withdrawn players. If the reason for the withdraw is clear, like injury och personal reason, I might add it. // Mattias321 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Excellent solution, with the {{Tooltip}}. I will use the same on the Belgium article. –Sygmoral (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The only remaining issue is for players who were not even selected at all, due to injury. The reasoning is that readers may want to know that a certain core player is in the "Recent players" list not because they weren't good enough or fell out of favor, but because they were injured at the time of the most recent selection. It is debatable however whether that actually needs a note. I feel like it is interesting information, and it does not violate WP:RECENT more than the whole "Recent players" table does, but the issue is probably with notability and sourcing. I guess a manager would explicitly have to state that a player was not selected due to injury, otherwise it's a bit WP:OR. –Sygmoral (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Sygmoral! It's pretty tricky to use a INJ. It's not always clear if a currently injured player would be part of the squad if the player wasn't injured. For example, Oscar Wendt hasn't been a part of the national team squad even though many fans want him to be that. His competitors on the left-back haven't played so much lately, so it wasn't hard to believe that Wendt would be called up. Unfortunately, Wendt got himself injured some weeks before the selection. How should we handle situations like that? Something like "Add the note if the player was in the two latest squads" or "Add it if the player has 20+ caps".
I think it's hard to rely on managers telling which players who would have been included. For example, how should we handle situations like this: "A player who has never been called up before is injured. The manager says in a press conference that this player would have been included if he wasn't injured"? // Mattias321 (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, you certainly have good points. Perhaps they should be done away with, because they only talk about temporary/recent stuff anyway. They ARE in the "Recent" list after all, so people can assume they may be called up again a next time, especially if they have a considerable amount of caps.
I remember suggesting a few years ago that "Recent players" should perhaps be replaced by "Core players" or something - to give an indication, regardless of the "current situation" (injuries, scheduling conflicts, whatever), or who could reasonably be considered to usually be found in the team. Something that's not limited to only the "most recent selection", because that is such temporary information. It would be based on a bunch of criteria: how often they have been selected in total, how often in just the past year, how long ago their most recent selection was, whether they are retired, ... But it's too difficult to maintain and is probably too much WP:OR anyway. So I suppose I just have to live with the fact that the selection of National Football Teams is volatile information, and the only way we can report it is in a volatile way :) (even though that makes it WP:RECENT!) –Sygmoral (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ted Buckle - vandalism

Could someone have a look at Ted Buckle. This article has got some attention on social media due to an apparent resemblance to Harry Kane. Hack (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It's been semi-protected for two days. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hoax Albanian heritage?

This edit by user Historylover090 on the Wesley Sneijder article seems suspicious. I took a quick look through the user's contributions and it seems almost identical to Biar122 and that users and he's/her sock's edits. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The user only ever made 4 edits last August, then seemed to have disappeared. The age of the edits makes it (nearly) impossible for a CheckUser to verify they are the same person. I might keep an eye to see if Historylover090 starts editing again, but you're looking at something that occurred over 7 months ago and was reverted by Qed237. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Jkudlick you are certainly right that the amount and time of the user's edits is an issue. There is the possibility it was a sleeper account or just an editor who started editing and abruptly stopped. Is it okay for me to remove the information he/she added to the Wesley Sneijder article? The information claiming Albanian heritage is still up there. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Inter&anthro: I removed the information. It was returned in September by an IP editor with a bogus reference. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 02:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Real Fortuna Foot-ball Club

Hi, I see a {{db-move}} request to move Real Fortuna Football Club to Real Fortuna Foot-ball Club. However, neither title seem to be in line with titling guidelines for football clubs (Real Fortuna FC?). Any thoughts on this? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears as though "Foot-ball Club" is the correct name, per the history page of the successor club:

En 1905, con la entrada de nuevos socios, la sociedad con sede en Bouzas aprobará y presentará el 10 de septiembre sus Estatutos ante el Gobierno Civil siendo aprobados el 11 con el nombre ya de Fortuna Foot-ball Club, constando su primera junta directiva la formada por Roberto Pérez en la presidencia, Francisco Lago en la vicepresidencia, Luciano Vázquez como secretario y Paulino Iglesias en la tesorería, mientras vocales resultan Adolfo Ferrer, Raúl López y Francisco Estévez. (emphasis original)

However, I note that Spanish Wikipedia has a redirect for "Real Fortuna Football Club" to es:Real Club Fortuna de Vigo, but nothing exists for "Real Fortuna Foot-ball Club." — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I guess it should be at Real Fortuna or Real Fortuna F.C., as that's how we normally name club articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: - not every country uses 'F.C.', many use 'FC' - such as Spain. Therefore Real Fortuna FC is the best. GiantSnowman 18:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Should it be FC or CF? Real Madrid use CF, but FC Barcelona use FC- so I'm not sure which is correct for them. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
That's because they are Club de Fútbol and Futbol Club (CF and FC) respectively. GiantSnowman 21:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's against any guidelines or anything to use the title Real Fortuna Foot-ball Club. If you can't find any sources that refer to the club as "Real Fortuna FC", then it would be original research to use that title. – PeeJay 20:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: - I can't see any sources at all? GiantSnowman 21:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Current Squad inclusion

How should inclusion of players who are not listen as first team players by their clubs be handled? As an example, Andreas Skovgaard has started the last two matches for his club, but he is not listen as a first team player by FC Nordsjælland. Should he and other players not listed as first team players be included, using other reputable sources (in this case, I'd use danskfodbold.com, maintained by the official statisticians of the Danish Football Association), or should they be omitted? I'm in favor of including them, as it shows which players are actually playing for the club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.211.208.242 (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems a bit of an odd question, if the player exists, and plays for the team then of course he should be listed. The clubs own website, league statistics sites or similar are all legitimate sources (and may already be at the foot of the page). This is particularly true if a club number is allocated (in which case the primary source is likely your only source). Koncorde (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Use the club's official website, or Soccerway or something. GiantSnowman 20:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree, however I've had a small edit war with a different user about another squad over this exact issue. Since I haven't been able to find anything through the search (a discussion somewhere, but the consensus reached seemed a bit questionable), and no clear guideline, I'd rahter be safe than sorry and bring it up here 2001:878:200:1053:D18:FFF3:A0F7:F729 (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Same guy, different IP
Looking at the reverts with Kahala over at F.C. Copenhagen, the issue is the concept of a "reserve" team vs a first team. Generally speaking there is no difference between the two unless both teams play within the same competition, or actual registration of the player is owned by the reserve team (such as Real Madrid Castilla) would there be a distinction made. To be quite clear - I don't see how F.C. Copenhagen Reserves and Youth Team is particularly notable for instance. So if this discussion is anything like related, then you can take it from me that reserve players on professional contracts with senior teams can be included in "squads" even if they havent made an appearance. Koncorde (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Two new article proposals for former BHA footballers

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone could give me some advice on two former professional footballers, who currently do not have a wikipedia article. The players in question are Draft: Danny Simmonds and Draft:John Westcott (footballer) - both of whom played for Brighton and Hove Albion in the old Division 2 and 3 (corresponding to modern day Leagues One and Two), respectively. I tried creating these two articles but there seems to be lack of clarity on what makes a subject notable. I think that these two players, having played in the leagues mentioned, would meet the criteria (Point 2 of the notability guidelines for Association Football). If that is the case, can these articles be created? I believe I have referenced thoroughly with reliable sources giving proof of their appearances for Brighton and Hove, but would be grateful for any feedback. BoroFan89 (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Both meet WP:NFOOTY so are notable. I will move them back into the mainspace. Number 57 16:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! BoroFan89 (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I note that the user who moved Simmonds' article to the draftspace noted "Article doesn't clearly meet association football notability guidelines. Clarify that he played in a first-tier league and resubmit". This user clearly isn't well versed on the notability guidelines for sportspeople..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

List of biggest wins in association football history

Notable? It seems like recently created List of biggest wins in association football history relies on sources for each line so I am not sure all big wins are even there. Qed237 (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Any list of records that requires sources for each individual line is questionable in my book. The information may be accurate, but the fact that there's no overarching source for the whole thing suggests that the list is incomplete and may never be complete. – PeeJay 14:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Why "professional"? What is the threshold for inclusion? Why not a wiki page for "games with most goals" (likely the same content) etc. Koncorde (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see a huge problem. The creator did put a "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it" tag on the top of the article, so I assume it still isn't complete. List of most expensive association football transfers has references for every line, so again I don't see a huge problem. This editor likes to create articles which he starts incomplete and puts off for other editors. The same can be seen at List of international goals scored by Luigi Riva where he started it but then I finished it. My only complaint would be, if you start an article, you should finish it off to a certain extent. But Wiki is collaborative after all. But hey, that's just my opinion. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
In principle, I, too, think this list is not a bad idea. But even if it stays, there indeed are problems with it. First, it needs criteria for inclusion. FIFA excludes certain matches from its statistics if these matches were contested by Olympic teams, "B" teams, etc, or if a team made too many substitutions or fielded an ineligible player, or if there was evidence of match fixing being involved, or for some other reasons, while other sources do recognize these matches and thus disagree with FIFA. We must decide what source to stick to and if and how to reflect what other sources report. And second, the list as it is now is very incomplete. It even omits Copa América matches (such as Argentina 12–0 Ecuador, 1942) and World Cup qualifiers (such as Maldives 0–17 Iran, 1998 qualification), let alone less important games. I think this should be dealt with, if the article is to stay. --Theurgist (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Like most lists, it needs clear in/out criteria - otherwise people will constantly argue about whether result X should be in it or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
And maybe we should set a threshold higher than 10 goals for the winning margin. At the World Cup qualifications alone, there have so far been over 40 matches where a team won by 10 or more goals. Put in all matches from all other major and minor international tournaments and all international friendlies that meet the 10+ goals criterion, and you get a huge and ever growing list.
Moreover, the article's creator has meanwhile added a separate section of "non-FIFA" matches, which currently only consists of the three notorious losses of the Micronesia U-23 team of last year. Expand that list to make it exhaustive too, and you get a much huger and faster growing article. Not to mention that the article becomes less notable if it includes "non-FIFA" games. I think these should be removed completely.
Besides, the title of the article does not specify clearly that it only deals with international football (and not with club football), so I think it should be renamed.
I'm pinging User:C. Ronaldo Aveiro so he is aware of this discussion. --Theurgist (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I'd like to thank all the editors who've shown their interest in this list of biggest wins. I only want to convey my message to you people that the list is incomplete by a long way and I'd be thankful if anyone amongst you set a consensus regarding the margin of victory and help me complete the list. Thank you. CR7 (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Galway United Merger

I propose that Galway United F.C. (1937–2011) and Galway United F.C. should be merged. If we start a new article every time a club temporarily drops out of a league or changes ownership it would get ridiculous. Clubs own website has a combined history and does not seem to recognize two separate clubs. DjlnDjln (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Support, based on what has been done for the myriad of trading names for Parma and Napoli '''tAD''' (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Support - Pretty logical tbh. - J man708 (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Order of continental qualifiers in infoboxes

Just trying to get others' opinions on this. What is the appropriate way to order continental qualifiers in infoboxes for a particular season? If 4 teams from the Cthulhu Premier League qualify for the Plutonian Champions League each year, and those berths are numbered 1 through 4, is it better to list the qualifiers numerically (Team 1, Team 2, Team 3, Team 4) or chronologically (in the order in which they earned qualification)? If one spot is earned via a season-ending playoff, does that change things?

For instance I edited 2015 Major League Soccer season to reflect the numerical order for that season - Portland Timbers, New York Red Bulls, FC Dallas, Sporting Kansas City, since it was listed numerically for the 2014 season. That was reverted to what I was told is the chronological order - New York, Dallas, SKC, Portland. This isn't actually the chronological order, which is in fact SKC (Sept 30), Dallas (Oct 17), New York (Oct 18), Portland (Dec 6). I see that some other leagues list teams numerically (see 2014–15 Premier League, 2014–15 Bundesliga, and 2014–15 La Liga) but I was told that this is "BS" because no other leagues use a playoff. But Liga MX uses playoffs to crown its champions, and 2014–15 Liga MX lists it numerically too. So which way is better? Bmf 051 (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz, @Oldstone James, @Elisfkc, @Malax5, @GrouchoPython, @Qed237, @Chanheigeorge - Bmf 051 (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I do believe it should change things. In large European leagues there are only two ways to qualify: the in order which they finished in the table and in the national cup. MLS also offers a third way: winning the playoffs. The argument was that the playoff winner should be placed first for some reason. It's BS that they way they do it in MLS "is how it is done in other leagues". Playoff winners were announced last and won last so they should be last. They are not seeded higher (is that what you mean by numerically?) they are all placed in different pots. And http://www.concacaf.com/category/champions-league/teams lists the teams alphabetically. Did I mention that Bmf 051 is a Portland fan? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Surely putting them in the same order they finished in the league table is the only logical option? Number 57 17:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
When I edit the USL standings, I put the teams in alphabetical order instead of display or standings order. I just change the number next to their name to reflect their position on the table.GrouchoPython (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I have not thought about this before, but I would say alphabetically is the way to go. The position (i.e. how they qualified) is not important when listing the teams and neither is when they qualified. It is just a list of teams that qualified, so I would go alphabetically. Qed237 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with alphabetical too. My larger point was that we should (generally) keep it consistent across leagues. I chose to list them as USA 1, USA 2, etc., because that was consistent with what most other league articles seemed to be doing already, not necessarily because I though it was the best way to do it. Alphabetical order would hopefully remove any ambiguity. But whatever way we go with, it should be a broad solution for football leagues in general and not a narrow one that applies to just one league. MLS is not the only league that uses a playoff: many in CONCACAF leagues use it to crown their champions, and many others around the world use it for continental qualification. So I don't buy into Walter's idea that we need to do it differently for MLS because they use a playoff. Bmf 051 (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Alphabetical is logical as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I most certainly am not a Portland fan. Not that it matters, but I support Columbus. So I consider that a personal attack (not really). I think it's pretty clear what I mean by numerically, as most leagues order continental tournament bids in some way, as MLS does (see here). And that ordering has some importance in most leagues, as it did when U.S. teams qualified for different pots in the CCL. But that certainly makes more sense than your chronological (but not really chronological) method. Why not list the U.S. Open Cup champion first if we're doing it chronologically? Why not list Dallas before New York, since they clinched their spot a day before NYRB? Your way is the "BS" way of ordering them if you ask me: an ordering that has no basis in anything. Bmf 051 (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Danny Ward (footballer, born 1990)

Danny Ward was born in 1991, not 1990, apparently. --AK and PK (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Club website says 1990. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Soccerbase and footballdatabase say so --AK and PK (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we'll take the club website over those two sites. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
It looks to me as if Mr Ward's date of birth was once listed as 11 Dec 1991, see the March 2010 version of his Bolton Wanderers profile, but later that year it was corrected, or at least changed, to the 9 Dec 1990 date, as per the August 2010 version of the same page. For what it's worth, birth records for Daniel Carl Ward born in Bradford are consistent with the 1990 date. Stats databases are less likely to keep up with corrections. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Gabi (footballer) - Player position

Time for some footy trivia: User:Josepolivares changed this player's position from defensive midfielder to central midfielder. I believe it should be the former, as this player is definitely not box-to-box, and he scores 99,99999999999% of his goals from long-distance shots/free kicks.

I did not change anything subsequently, only contacted the aforementioned user for some technical discussion, received nothing in reply. Maybe if we discuss it here we can reach some conclusion (or not, maybe the majority thinks the current position is correct and I will abide by it of course).

Attentively --Be Quiet AL (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

In my mind, "midfielder" is enough. Especially when disputed. There are to much editing back and forth about position and if a player is "central" or "defensive" is not really a big difference. The player might even play "defensive" one match and "central" the next match. One could argue "winger" and "midfielder" should be separate, but no need for detail. But that is just my opinion. Qed237 (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I think "central midfielder" is fine, since defensive midfielders are rarely anything but central (one who plays on the wings is usually called a wing-back). If this was a problem regarding left/right/centre, then I would go for just "midfielder", but when it's a distinction between "defensive" and "central", I think just "central" is perfectly acceptable. – PeeJay 20:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
As said, a defensive midfielder is a central midfielder. You can specify what kind of central midfielder he may be, but if disputed I'd go with central midfielder. You don't have to be a box to box player, or take shots inside the box to be in a defensive midfielder position nontheless. // Psemmler (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Change infobox / Career statistics for goalkeepers?

Hello,

In most cases, the goalkeepers rarely scores goals in football matches. If they do, they're likely to do so in the penalty shootout. However those penalty goals doesn't, and shouldn't count, in either the infobox nor the career statistics section under goals. How many goals a keeper scores is a pretty uninteresting fact, so therefore I want to propose having another version of the infobox and career statistics for goalkeepers, where the goal column is changed to the amount of clean sheets the keepers have had instead of goals. To see 25/25 0's in the goal columns for goalkeeper's career statistics is just a waste of space in my opinion. // Psemmler (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This has come up many times before and has been shot down every time, on the basis that it is impossible to source clean sheets data for anything other than keepers from a small handful of leagues and then only from the last few years, so 99% of keepers would not have this data available anyway. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you're over exaggerate pretty much by 99%, but I see the problem. However shouldn't this be available for career statistics in case you have the numbers for a goalkeeper? I understand that it isn't worthy enough of having a different infobox, but rather some clean sheets numbers in career statistics than a bunch of 0's // Psemmler (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, clean sheet records are not something that is commonly produced for goalkeepers (I certainly have never seen it in any of the various football annuals I own). I'm not really sure it's of much interest either. Number 57 09:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
From what I know, the most common individual stats for a league is: top goalscorer, top assist maker, most clean sheets, most yellow/red cards. I find amount of clean sheets for goalkeepers far more interesting than the amount of goals. // Psemmler (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Psemmler: Many top levels don't have these kinds of stats (i.e. clean sheets and assists), so how will we find some reliable sources to back up these stats when there are none? Some goalkeepers do score a goal in their professional career, José Luis Chilavert and Rogério Ceni are some clear examples of why the table should remain the current way. MYS77 ✉ 12:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Look what I just found. Is this okay or? [[7] // Psemmler (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It might be if the clean sheet stats were sourced, but as far as I can see neither of the refs in that section contain any details of clean sheets stats, reinforcing my comments above about the lack of sources for such things........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, Swedish FA is always keeping stats and tables for Clean Sheets. If I have it well sourced for Swedish GKs in our league, would that be okay to add as Career Statistics? // Psemmler (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Not in infoboxes, as this is not a standard statistic, as mentioned by multiple users above. Thanks, C679 06:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Fifa world cup templates

Could someone please protect Template:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round Group G table and related table. A lot of disruption before final round on 29 March (semi until 30th would be lovely). Qed237 (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Template was protected by Ymblanter at 17:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC). — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_101&oldid=1140107047"